Should the Army phase out Specialist Rank?

SFC Casey O'Mally - I said I could see the point of view of those (including the Army at the time) of having specialists who focus only on the job and not necessarily leadership roles. And then yes, I pointed out why that model didn't work with high-ranking specialists (who ultimately ended up becoming first-line supervisors in many of these roles). However, Warrant Officers already exist as technical specialists who such a problem would not apply to because they are--in fact--officers. In no way did I mean for that to be interpreted as "anyone who wants to focus on the technical aspect and not worry about leading should go warrant." As I have stated in multiple posts (including the first paragraph of the post you referenced), Soldiers should inherently be training to be leaders from day one. It is an essential element in a military organization (there is a reason why its used as an acronym in our core values). We can disagree on that, but that is how I feel. So again, *with* the existence of Warrant Officers already present, and the fact that lower enlisted Soldiers should be training to be leaders & trainers in their field regardless of what MOS they are, I do not think it appropriate to have multiple specialist ranks (again, this was also the conclusion the Army came to after studying the problems that came along with having numerous SPC ranks). It was convoluted system of ranks and brought with it many problems, which was ultimately why it was eliminated.

COL William Oseles - I became a SP/6 because I had completed a nine month long AIT AFTER completing the ten week long basic Medical Corpsman course. Those who only completed the basic course were promoted to SSG and yet people have the temerity(balls for you Hard Stripes) to question the "leadership" ability of a much better educated and trained SP/6!! When working in the Intensive Care Unit of a Medical Center there were six SP/6 along with 4 or 5 SP/5s assigned to care for critically ill patients our insignia meant squat to these sick and close to dying patients.

As a Sp5, I held three positions that were called this or that NCO. In the 1960s, whether you were a hard stripe or not was based strictly on your MOS and the unit's TO&E. It had nothing practical to do with a person's leadership ability. If you want this system back, how about restoring the "T" ranks from World War 2? That way, the person gets the respect that goes with the stripes, rather than having to explain to his or her kids that this was "just as good" as being a corporal or sergeant.

The rank of Specialist was created to identify and separate the technicians from the troop leaders. That way techno geeks (no insult intended) could work their magic on the equipment that their intensive training had been focused while the guys that had been to the troop leadership schools and had the stripes could apply what they had been taught to do. Seems like a workable system.

SSG Steve Buero
But doing away with Spc would stop issues like that because you would have to go to the NCO academy to become a corporal if they did away with Spc.

[~1125523:SSG Steve
Oh and 3 min late to PT and getting rank stripped sounds harsh that’s UCMJ level action. A lot of commanders don’t even like to take rank because of what it takes to get your rank and they know the soldier needs that money 99.9% of the time.

I was an SP 5 with a Masters and Education Specialist Degree in Adult Education and Counseling, before distance education, and employed as a case manager in a large state psychiatric hospital. I held MOS 91-B-20 and 91-G-20. I could function in the field but was much better suited to a Hospital Psychiatric ward where I could use my academic skills.

I was a Specialist for the entirety of my 4 year enlistment in the National Guard. I already had a bachelor's degree so started off as a SPC-4 from the start. They tried to push me into OCS or at the very least becoming an NCO, but I have never been comfortable leading others. With the exception of 3 years where I managed an office of 90 employees, I have avoided leadership roles in my civilian career as well, preferring technical and support roles instead. If the old SPC ranks had still been around, I would actually have seriously considered active duty and a career in the service, as I was always more comfortable in uniform than out.

MSG Bennie McGrew
Every soldier is at his core an infantryman and like you said a leader the Spc rank is that a RANK. You are right it would create a slacker versus “do Gooder” world inside the army. Like it’s not already divided enough. The Soldiers today need to remember the Army Core Values and live by them instead of saying I’m not leadership type so I want to get paid but only a bit more so I will take the SPC track and sham my way through 23 years. Hell with that. Either get out after your contract or be a leader from E-1 all the way to retirement

DEPENDS ON THE PERSONS MOS

I say get rid of the rank. As someone commented earlier as a SP5s are often in charge of people. As a SP5 I was put in charge of a 4 man site. The CSM wanted me to be an NCO so they made me a buck Sergeant. When I left that station I reverted back to SP5. In my next 2 assignments I was in charge of a 12 man shop and a 15 man shop respectively. As a SP5. In the second assignment our platoon sergeant unexpectedly left for a compassionate reassignment. My Platoon leader made me the Platoon Sergeant as I had the most time in grade as an E5. Our First Sergeant nixed the idea because I "wasn't an NCO". In my place he made a buck sergeant the PSG. I had more time in grade than he had in the army. Less than a month later I was promoted to E-6 which in my MOS was SSG. So Top made me the PSG again. Is that stupid or what?

Bring back the Tech designations that existed before the specialist designations came about.