Posted on Mar 3, 2014
Its time to change Time in Service and Time in Grade requirements for PVT through SPC?
33.9K
51
30
3
3
0
I believe we need to remove the ability to enlist as anything other than a Private (PVT/E-1). The only exception would be for enlistees already holding an Associate's degree (PV2/E-2) or Bachelor's degree (PFC/E-3) and maybe a highly sought after language. I also think we should increase the time between automatic promotions between PVT - SPC.<div><br></div><div>I would suggest the following:</div><div>PVT -> PV2: 1 year TIG/TIS (9 mo. TIG/TIS with waiver)</div><div>PV2 -> PFC: 1 year TIG/ 2 years TIS (9 mo. TIG/18 mo. TIS) </div><div>PFC -> SPC: 1 year TIG/ 3 years TIS (9 mo. TIG/27 mo. TIS)</div><div><br></div><div>This would reduce personnel costs and create a lot more responsibility for the Specialists. Rank would have much more meaning and most initial entry soldiers would arrive to their first unit still a Private. It would allow a great deal more growth in experience. Currently in most units the majority of junior soldiers are Private First Classes and Specialists. This creates an environment were the majority of junior soldiers feel they are only one rank below Sergeants and I believe somewhat weakens/cheapens the rank.</div><div><br></div><div>Any thoughts?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div>
Promotions
Time in Service
Junior Enlisted
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
6
6
0
I think the current system works pretty well but if there were to be a change and becoming an E-4 was supposed to be more rigorous I think there should be more use of the corporal rank. And if that is the case then we should probably also bring back the higher specialist ranks. The reason the rank system in the Marine Corps works so well with is that E-3's are often team leaders and are given responsibilities. In the Army this often isn't even the case with E-4's. So I think the issue might have more to do with how responsibility in the Army works more so than what rank someone holds.
(6)
(0)
SSG Genaro Negrete
I couldn't have said it better my self. The army allows, even encourages, junior enlisted soldiers to coast through four pay grades. That's four promotions, four increases in salary. The specialist rank should have been eliminated when they authorized the combat action badge. The modern professional soldier is expected to be both a proficient tactician and a technical expert in their field. By allowing the "sham shield" to exist, we are giving soldiers an excuse to leech off of the military.
(2)
(0)
SSG Jed Fisher
I'm a bit of an expert, having made SPC seven times. The SPC rank needs to go away. I saw plenty of combat arms E-4s with leader tabs and holding E-6 slots in combat arms, wearing SPC rank, and then over at admin, a little 1 yr TIS Soldier wearing CPL rank, in charge of nobody.
(4)
(0)
SSG Genaro Negrete
It grinds my gears that the Army allows SPC's to hold NCO slots and then has no formal way to have that service recognized in an evaluation. The quality of counseling is at the mercy of the particular NCO writing it. Even if it's absolutely immaculate, big Army will never see it. It will never be used to set the soldier apart at levels above the current unit he/she is in. It's a cop-out. I am all for training and mentoring soldiers for responsibilities at the next level, but let's not just toss them to the wolves with no pay or long term career incentive.
(4)
(0)
SGT Leif Lynch
I was a 2 year SPC holding an E-6 slot at BDE.. My counseling statements were a joke and got me nothing in the long run.. I learned to deal with senior NCOs who fell under me but that was about the only thing beneficial to me. Things the army needs to look at since they are the one who promotes without a test of MOS is not every MOS is the same.. If you want to keep soldiers who are good at their job you need to change the standards and not generalize them. Otherwise, you will find more and more of them doing the same thing I did, which is jump over to civil service or contract and make more money and promote faster.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I have to say that when I get a new grad, the last thing they feel is they are just one rank below Sergeants. They are actually terrified. When my PFC's make SPC, it's a pretty big deal and a LOT of responsibility.
I hear what you're saying but I don't think TIG has anything to do with someone respected the rank that they have. I think that the current TIG requirements give plenty of time for growth and development at that level.
(6)
(0)
SSG Robert Burns
I think it's also important to remember how much money that is (or isn't). Do you want to spend 3 years in the Army and just now making E3 pay? That about $2k/month which comes out to be about the equivalent of an $11/hr job. BEFORE taxes. Could your family live off of that?
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Just ask the Marines, a lot of them ETS as only E3s because they could not make NCO rank. (E4)
(1)
(0)
SSG Genaro Negrete
That ability to be selective for their CPL ranks in the Marines may stem from the overall size of their branch. Not that many CPL slots that need filling.
Just to play devil's advocate here, why couldn't the family live off of that? Does BAH and BAS get taken into account? I'll admit the quality of life may not be luxurious, but it is manageable in the short term.
Just to play devil's advocate here, why couldn't the family live off of that? Does BAH and BAS get taken into account? I'll admit the quality of life may not be luxurious, but it is manageable in the short term.
(0)
(0)
5
5
0
I don't think rank is the problem I think more responsibility needs to pushed onto these ranks especially E-4 as this is the last rank before taking on the NCO ranks. I felt that when I was in other NCO's in my unit did a good job of putting some of the leadership role on me. The 'OK SPC what do I do now' scenario was always at play and I had to have my brain in the game. On the other side I would see my friends from other units just being oxygen thieves sitting in a Humvee getting a sun tan.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google