Its time to change Time in Service and Time in Grade requirements for PVT through SPC?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:42:23 -0500

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>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Mar 3 at 2014 9:50 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:50:09 -0500

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.

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Mar 3 at 2014 9:58 PM

SSG Zachery Mitchell — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 21:58:25 -0500

I've been saying something similar to this for awhile. I think we should adopt a similar system to what the Marine Corps uses. E1 - E3 is essentially automatic but you, aka THE SOLDIER, would have to work his or her butt of and earn E4. I think we'd have a lot less screw ups if they had to work for the little bit of rank they have instead of it being handed to them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 26 at 2014 4:22 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:22:07 -0400

The same could be said all the way through to E-7 or E-8. We've all seen soldiers who get promoted quickly later struggle because of a lack of TIG to develop and hone their skills as leaders. Experience is vital to produce well-rounded leaders, and sometimes experience takes time. I was fortunate to go through E-1 to E-4 on Active, and my Sergeants piled on the responsibilities, mentored me, and prepared me for success. I've been promoted to E-5 and E-6 in the Guard, and in a lot of ways the extra years in grade have been very beneficial.

Response by SGT James Elphick made Mar 26 at 2014 4:46 PM

SGT James Elphick — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 16:46:56 -0400

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.

Response by SGT Suraj Dave made Mar 26 at 2014 6:10 PM

SGT Suraj Dave — Wed, 26 Mar 2014 18:10:21 -0400

Wow. I made SGT in 3 years. In this system, I would have been a PFC. I am so incredibly happy I joined the Army when I did...

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Oct 14 at 2014 12:57 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 12:57:18 -0400

I'm inclined to go with the "double pay grade" system.

To make E-2, minimum 4 years TIS.
E-3, 6 years TIS.
E-4, 8 years TIS.
E-5, 10 years, E-6 12 years, E-7 14 years, so on and so forth...

We need to ensure that people have the experience necessary to hold the grades they are assigned, or, to paraphrase, "you can't teach what you don't know", and mentorship/instruction/training is one of our primary purposes/duties...

Response by SPC David S. made Oct 14 at 2014 1:23 PM

SPC David S. — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 13:23:54 -0400

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.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 3:34 PM

SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 15:34:04 -0400

TIS doesnt equal effective leadership capabilities. Some people get promoted too fast and become toxic but I think the system we have now is just fine. Its more so on our leaders to get out of the "good ol boy" system and stop recommending "trash" to be future leaders.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 14 at 2014 6:45 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 18:45:45 -0400

This looks like another solution without a problem.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Oct 14 at 2014 7:22 PM

SPC Christopher Smith — Tue, 14 Oct 2014 19:22:41 -0400

This would only work if we increased the pay scale, many of the SPC coming in the door would either Commission or not enter the Service. The pay would not match the personal expense of getting the degree. I don't think the current system cheapens the rank, I believe a cultural attitude of point chasing has cheapened the rank system. All day every day you hear people talking about what classes they need for points, how many hours of online courses they need, if a maxed pt test and marksmanship will help or not. I believe if we changed the promotion system from a point system to a skill test and knowledge system we'd have less issues, and we would be promoting more of the right people.

Response by SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA made Apr 6 at 2015 2:58 AM

SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 02:58:36 -0400

I was a pilot for an allied air force, I had 2 bachelors and close to 20 years of work experience when I enlisted.

My recruiting station CO and NCOIC had me all set to come in as a SPC with endorsements and letters to go Green to Gold or WOCS/Flight School as soon as I was done with AIT.

Somehow, my packet with the transcripts and letters were lost at Reception Bn., so when it was time to in-process for initial rank of entry...I was put in as a PVT/E1.

After finishing basic and AIT, by the time I arrived at my first unit, I was a PV2.

My CO and leadership couldn't believe the combination of qualifications vs. low rank, but regulations are what they are, so instead of early promotions, they put me in positions of responsibility.

As a PFC as I was placed on orders as Unit Armorer (by MTOE an E6 slot)
As a PFC I was recommended to be an Apache 500 hr Phase Inspection Team Leader after I ended working alone on another Apache Phase Inspection with then Phase Team Leader. (Brigade said no but they took notice)
Then as a SPC I was sent to ASIST training to be a gatekeeper. (Everyone else was E6 and above)

I was sent to the Board at 27 mos TIS and 4 mos TIG. Passed it, made points shortly after and here I am.

Moral of the long winded bio?

Sometimes not everyone has to come in as PVT. Life experience sometimes matter a lot more than a rank.

Most of what a new soldier does at its first duty station is mop the floor, clean the latrines, take the CO and 1SG trash, etc. So the suggestion of keeping them in rank longer so they can "learn the ropes" is not necessary or fair from my point of view.
The current system of zones is working fine. Mediocre soldiers will stay in rank longer, good soldiers advance in PZ and exceptional soldiers make it on SZ.

Just my $0.02.

Response by SPC Edward Tapper made Apr 6 at 2015 2:08 PM

SPC Edward Tapper — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 14:08:38 -0400

What are your provisions for, let's say, a prior-service Marine Gunny who, after getting out of the Corps., decides after a year to enlist in the Army? Do you expect that kind of experience to be rewarded by enlisted as an E-1? Were the Time in Service and Time in Grade requirements sufficient for your advancement to SSG / E-6?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2015 8:11 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 06 Apr 2015 20:11:18 -0400

Negative. The TIG/TIS structure still provides a time line for low performing Service Members an undeserved advancement while simultaneously keeping high performing Service Members from advancing. This system is why a majority of good quality Soldiers leave the Army. Promotions should be based on performance. Until the last year or so, Army Officers could pin Captain in 3 years. What's the justification for forcing Enlisted members to wait 3-4+ years for promotion to SGT when an Officer can make CPT in that time...? I've had a Soldier that we pinned E-5 with less than 3 years TIS and didn't recommend a promotion for some with more than 4-6 years TIS. You earn what you work hard for.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2017 2:30 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 22 Jun 2017 14:30:37 -0400

I would have to agree with SPC David Stephenson. Its all very dependent on the unit. While I was in Korea there was a lot of responsibility placed on me. As a E2 I was holding a delta position (E4 Position) only after a few months when I made E3 I was to moved to a hold position (E5 Postion) which made me 2nd in command of the track and my NCO was tasking me to conduct room checks in the morning and after work for my delta who was an E3 along with typing up and closing out monthly counseling. Do to taskings happening a lot of the time my chief was not around so I was attending leaders briefs in the mornings and after work and conducting the day to day work. So I myself accredit my knowledge and drive to the fact I was placed in charge and was look to carry out tasks given to me because I had to and there wasn't a NCO there to lead the way. So I believe more responsibility needs to be place upon lower enlisted not just TIG.