Rank respect equivalent... thoughts?

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:17:39 -0400

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jun 12 at 2014 12:23 AM

SGM Matthew Quick — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:23:11 -0400

What's the question?

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Jun 12 at 2014 12:30 AM

SPC Christopher Smith — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 00:30:24 -0400

Respect has nothing to do with rank, ultimately when bullets are coming in and the guy to your left or right was a subordinate you never showed respect to you might be SOL when shit hits the fan.

We try to show respect to each other as people first, if you can't do that, you give them enough respect to remain professional because of there rank.

Response by SFC Scott O. made Jun 12 at 2014 1:00 AM

SFC Scott O. — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 01:00:31 -0400

Saying what I think could be dangerous. Is this a trap.....

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2014 9:09 AM

LT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 09:09:25 -0400

They are correlated but not equivalent. The main reason I say not equivalent is because I have had people who work for me that I have a ton of respect for. Respect should be shown up and down the ranks. Respect is earned by who you are, not the piece of metal on your uniform. Because respect is earned and we hope our advancement process advances the best, senior ranking people have therefore earned a level of respect even if you haven't worked with them enough to feel that respect personally.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 12 at 2014 3:06 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:06:23 -0400

First, I'm not sure the chart portrays the question. Respect versus "equivalency." Right off the bat, showing equivalency between any of the WO/CWO ranks to an officer is wrong in so many ways, I almost choked when I looked at it. An E6 equivalent to an O2 or a CW2...nope. If it's "experience in duty positions," then I might buy it. If it is "respect towards a rank in duty positions," I might buy it. I guess seeing it written out is what bothers me. It's wrong. There are some unwritten rules that shouldn't be written down. Every 2LT in the Army outranks the Command Sergeant Major of the Army and every CW5 in the Army. Bottom line. Those personnel show the 2LT the proper respect, and the 2LT knows better than to challenge their authority based on their position in the organization. That isn't written down, but it's damn sure abided by.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jun 12 at 2014 7:03 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:03:53 -0400

That your chart would not have direct equivalents as they are shown on the chart.

That the chart would be dangerous for everyone involved...especially for an E-5 and CWO-5?

Response by CMSgt Kevin Howell made Jun 13 at 2014 9:10 AM

CMSgt Kevin Howell — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 09:10:53 -0400

Forever we've tried to equate enlisted ranks with officer ranks. If you are enlisted you try to equate your rank to an officer, especially after you earn a degree. Most officers don't care too compare, as the youngest 2Lt outranks every other enlisted grade as we know. The bottom line is the ranks are separated for a reason. There is no equal between Commissioned and Non-Commissioned officers and the UCMJ makes that quite clear. Even when you get into industry, the most employers, not all, will make certain position available to officers vice enlisted. It's not that you can't perform the duties, they just know that there is a distinct difference in level of responsibility between the two. My 2 Cents!

Response by PO1 Ryan Riegel made Jun 13 at 2014 7:43 PM

PO1 Ryan Riegel — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 19:43:24 -0400

I agree there is a distinct difference between officer and enlisted ranks. Both sides normally show each other the respect deserved. From my experience junior commissioned officers, i.e. O-1 thru O-3, fully understand that the senior NCO(s), i.e. E6 and above, are there to help train the junior officer and aid him or her in their career progression to become a more efficient and knowledgeable senior officer. I have on only rare occasions met a junior officer that did not render respect to the senior NCO(s). For the most part officers have great relationships with their senior NCO(s) and cherish the experience and knowledge that their senior NCO(s) bring with them.
Throughout my fifteen years of service it was observation that the senior NCO(s) had more direct experience within their rating or MOS than the officers appointed above them and the NCO(s) had a better understanding of leading the boots on the ground to accomplish the daily tasks; whereas the officers had the bigger picture of the overall long term objectives, rules and regulations than the NCO(s). When I transitioned over to a special warfare unit I discovered it was more about your competency to perform the job than your rank. I filled a normal E6 position; however, I also filled the position of an E7 and an O3 at times if the situation called for it. In today's complex and technologically advanced military more and more enlisted personnel are in possession of Bachelor’s Degrees and some even have Masters Degrees which does narrow the gap between the officer and enlisted ranks, but I feel it overall strengthens our military. There are specific differences between Officer and Enlisted that are specifically spelled out in the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Those differences allow us whether Officer or Enlisted to work together to accomplish our mission as a Team.
I do not think there is any way to effectively compare Officer and Enlisted ranks. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. I feel it’s like comparing apples to oranges in reality. As I have transitioned to a civilian life I see the NCO role as a civilian is best suited for a supervisor or project manager role, whereas the Officer role is better suited to a Program Director or Management Director position. Both roles have key parts to play in a civilian company just like in the military. I see the connection between Program Managers and Management Directors to their Project Managers and Supervisors almost mirror the relationship between an Officer and an NCO. However, it is reasonable to say that after completing your degree and several years of hard work as a civilian you can move in to a position that an officer would be able to transition into straight from the military. I agree with Kevin Howell that are some positions that will only look for Officers to fill them and at the same time there are positions that only want NCO(s) to fill them because of the different training, expertise and experiences we bring with us to the civilian sector.

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 13 at 2014 9:38 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 21:38:27 -0400

I think for experience its a good showing. For respect and Command & Control it is off completely. Obviously any Officer is above Enlisted. However any O1-O3 that tries to go toe to toe with an E-8/E-9 favorbility will be with senior enlisted.... The structure is in place and works efficiently to ensure proper span of control.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Jun 13 at 2014 10:19 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:19:42 -0400

I don't know, but probably pretty close. I know the Skipper always treated me better than any JG and most LTs.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Jun 13 at 2014 10:42 PM

MAJ Jim Woods — Fri, 13 Jun 2014 22:42:01 -0400

SCPO Nemeth,

The biggest problem I see is the imbalance of responsibilities on the chart. Example: When I was a Captain (Infantry), I had the responsibility of 120+ men in combat (Vietnam). A CW-3/4 would be in charge of a tech section, helicopter, and so on but rarely more than 15 personnel. An E-7 would normally be a Platoon Sgt. with 30 max.

While I give you that the CWO-3 and E-7 probably have many years more experience, they still do not have the responsibility for the welfare, equipment, and sustained operations that an Infantry 0-3 has. That being said, I know that there are exceptions to this but based on my experience as an Infantry Officer. This was what I observed, there is no other "Buck Stops Here" environment as a Platoon Leader, Company, or Battalion/Squadron Commander.

I gave the respect to anyone who earned it no matter what the rank. Example: E-4/5's who took over an Infantry Company whose leaders, including NCO's had been KIA or WIA. They multi-tasked like no others and pulled the unit through tough times. They had my respect more than some of the 0-1/2/3's I knew.

Same goes for 0-5 and W-5. LTC Halvorson Commands a Cav Squadron (equal to a Battalion). I am not aware of any W-5 that has that responsibility. I see this table as an indication of time in service, not responsibility. Just Sayin'.

Response by CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 12:39 AM

CWO4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 00:39:05 -0400

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 5:24 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 05:24:06 -0400

I feel that the rank is not the same as it was in the past. 0-1 to 0-3 doesn't matter how you commissioned are equivilent whether you commissioned through ROTC, Direct Commissioned, or went through OCS that is strange to me. Also, it always bothered me that a 0-1 straight out of ROTC automatically out ranks that E-9 with 20 to more years in. That E-9 could potentially have more education now a days than what that 0-1 has, and I know that the E-9 made a choice to be enlisted, but Now it is suggested that E-7 and above have Bachelor Degrees, also some E-4s and above have Degrees, have expirence, and deployments, but, now, some may never be afforded the opportunity to out rank that 0-1 ROTC graduate or 0-2 Direct Commissioned Officer because of a few tattoos? So, now a few Tattoos is what is separating that expirenced E-7, or what ever enlisted rank, that may have the same level of degree, or more, more time in the military, and a deployment expirence, but will never be able to out rank or make as much money as that ROTC graduate. That is strange to me. I think I first noticed how stange it was when before I joined the military I was a young boy, didn't know much, but when my uncle explained to me that he has been in for 20 plus, platoon Sergeant, but his brand new PL out ranks him, as a young civilian I just couldn't understand that, Well I've been in for more than a minute now, and I understood how times were before in regards to enlisted, but times have changed, and the requirments for an enlisted member in regards to education and career progression have changed. Now the schools we attend for leadership, NCOESs, and level of education and expirence we have should mean something, but what incentive does a enlisted member have if no matter how much they move up the latter, that Direct Commissioned Officer, or that ROTC Graduate will always out rank you?

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 8:14 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 08:14:29 -0400

A lot of how ranks are perceived depends on where you're at. O-3s in medical are often the lowest rank around. In most meetings I attend it's 90% O-6s with a 2-star or SES leading it. Walking around with CPT bars at a medical center gets you completely different treatment than in a line unit, where O-3 will generally have 5+ years in service and a company command position.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 10:46 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 10:46:31 -0400

I won't go into who "outranks" who because anyone who has been in the military knows the real and officially recognized answer to that. However, when it comes to the Chain of Command and the NCO Support Channel, there is an authority-level hierarchy.

LTC-GEN who are in Command=Commensurate CSM.
MAJs are usually BN XOs or Staff positions.
SGMs are usually Staff positions.
CPT=1SG.
MSGs are usually Staff positions.
1LTs are usually CO XOs or Adjutants.
2LT=SFC or SSG (Platoon Level Leaders.)

Response by SFC Gary Fox made Jun 14 at 2014 3:31 PM

SFC Gary Fox — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:31:19 -0400

Interesting topic. Reminds me of a discussion I was part of in Afghanistan one time. I was the Detention OPS NCOIC in Bagram. During a meeting to reorganize the Task Force, a 2LT brought up how the MP Corps has 5 missions and all MP companies should train on all. I told him there wasn't enough time, that all training should concentrate on the METL. He adamantly disagreed with me and told me I didn't know what I was talking about because I wasn't an officer.

The TF CDR spoke up. He said this discussion reminded him when he was an OBC instructor at Ft. Leonard Wood. He said he would tell all the 2LTs when they left there, the would be going someplace to be assigned as a PLT LDR. He said he told them he had no idea why they would be a PLT LDR because they didn't have enough experience yet to lead. He recommended when they got to there duty assignment to be in the hip pocket of their PSG as he/she has years of experience. He told them to let their PSG mentor them. He then looked around the table and said, "LT _____ is refusing to learn from SGT Fox who has the experience." He then broke the meeting for lunch. All returned but the LT. I guess he was embarrassed.

So what does this have to do with the discussion? The experience of a SFC exceeds that of a 2d or 1LT and in most cases a CPT.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 14 at 2014 11:34 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:34:40 -0400

Ideally every rank has its place and reason. Then comes the real world where you have to exercise carefully where you throw your rank and where you shut up and collaborate.

That's where experience and wisdom come into play. Bottom line, no matter the rank, ask not what the unit can do for you; ask what you can do for your unit. Over and out

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Jun 14 at 2014 11:47 PM

SSG Robert Burns — Sat, 14 Jun 2014 23:47:16 -0400

I see pay grades not ranks. ;-)

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 15 at 2014 1:20 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Sun, 15 Jun 2014 13:20:34 -0400

I would put some space in there kinda like below.

O-10 ------------
O-9 --------------
O-8 --------------
O-7 - W-5 ------
O-6 - W-4 ------
O-5 --------- E-9
O-4 - W-3 - E-8
O-3 - W-2 - E-7
O-2 --------------
O-1 - W-1 - E-6
--------------- E-5
--------------- E-4
--------------- E-3
--------------- E-2
--------------- E-1

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 16 at 2014 3:49 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 Jun 2014 15:49:23 -0400

I conquer with LTC Halvorson that the chart and the question are not passed off clearly. As enlisted member, I show respect where respect is due without regard to the individual rank or position. Enlisted members, Officers and Warrant Officers come with a different set of experiences, education and opportunities through career progression. I believe that each Corp complements one another. Demands on the on the NCO Corp are greater today and we are expected to perform at a new level. I think it’s time for the U.S. Congress to close the pay gap for the Senior Enlisted with that of the Officers and Warrant Officers.