All Soldiers Will Serve as a Corporal Before Moving to Sergeant

Interesting change...

In Major Promotion Shift, All Soldiers Will Serve as a Corporal Before Moving to Sergeant

Starting July 1, all soldiers with the rank of specialist who complete the Basic Leader Course, or BLC, and are recommended for advancement by a promotion board will be laterally promoted to corporal. BLC is a required Army school to transition troops from the junior ranks to noncommissioned officers.



In general I think this is a good thing, particularly for soldiers who are promotable but can't move up because the points in their MOS are too high. This at least acknowledges their status above the usual E-4 mafia. Of course, it may be annoying to those who are in MOS's that have low points and will be promoted as soon as their eligible; that's just another trip to get your stripes sewn on your dress uniform.

 

Just my opinion, but the Army finally seems to be aligning with how all of the other services deal with junior NCOs. As defined by other services, E4s are all NCOs just not in the army. The artifice is just that. Time for the Army to fall in line.

 

Of course, then there are other issues.

First, outside of Infantry, few units have "slots" for Corporals. I know my Battery Top tried to do this a decade ago, but the Battalion CSM shot it down. There was simply only a small handful of Corporal positions in the actual TO&E.

Plus, this will mean even more paperwork. Unlike a Specialist, a Corporal actually has an NCOER. And I can then see some units actually holding off on holding boards, and not submitting individuals until they are close to the number of points needed for promotion.

I actually do think it is a good idea, but I wonder how will that will actually work in implementation. It would certainly be good for the NCO Corps, as Sergeants are often overworked, and quite literally actually have nobody with actual leadership to put some of the tasks onto.

 

This goes back to the 1950's, when they created the entire "Specialist" track, as a way to try and keep some highly trained individuals in high tech fields of the time. But by the 1980's, the track had derailed a great many because of limitations of promotion (the highest was "Specialist 7"). Literally, to go above that rank, as they were not an actual NCO they had to take a "demotion" back to Sergeant (E-5), then move back up again if they ever wanted to be an E-8 or E-9.

When the Specialist ranks were killed in the mid-1980's, the "Spec-4" was retained, and quickly became a kind of "Super PFC". Essentially people who were to senior to be a PFC, but there were no positions for them to move up to Sergeant. But as they were not an NCO, they actually had no "command authority" of their own.

 

You make a good point that this would require a change to the TO & E of almost every single unit Army wide, however I suspect it could be a simple fix; just have paygrade E-4 for the slots instead of rank, so that a corporal or Specialist could sit in any E-4 slot.

I didn't know that a corporal required an NCOER. Of course, I never dealt with corporals in my career. However it's good experience for E-5 squad or team leaders to have someone to rate.

 

It is going to be a huge increase in the paperwork side though. A lot more time doing those evaluations. And of course for the Army to file and track them all.

At least the way those who are married paid for meals changed a decade or so back. When I first came back in the military in 2007, I was running the register at the chow hall for a few weeks. And at that point, Enlisted paid one price, NCOs a higher price and Officers an even higher price. Ever had to explain to a Corporal that he had to pay more than the Specialist, just because he was an NCO but they made the same amount of money? Thankfully that was gone by 2008.

And TO&E changes are not done quickly, and can have long lasting effects. Underestimate the number of slots needed, and how do you follow this new rule? Overestimate it, and do you promote other Specialists just to fill the slot?

Myself, I have always seen the Army enlisted promotion system as something of a joke. After a decade in the Marines, I never understood why they did not simply follow their system. Where there is no "maximum score", or numbers so high that without things like a college degree you might never get promoted. I have known more than one that had to get special waivers because they could not make Sergeant, but were against their mandatory time in service for their grade.

The Marines solved this decades ago, by having no "maximum score". And everybody gets 2 points for each month time in service, and 5 points per month for time in grade. It will take longer for one without a college degree, but eventually one would pass that score, it will just take them longer. In the Army system, one could never pass it because they get points you could never have.

Plus, the charts really have no place for a "Corporal". Fire Teams are led by Sergeants, Squads by Staff Sergeants, and Platoons by a Sergeant First Class (on paper). Each position a rank higher than that in a TO&E Marine Rifle Platoon.

 

I know how it went for me in the Army but that was in 62-64

First I was a recruit. I actually got drafted.
At Basic the CO pulled out 5 of us and handed us all Sgt. Stripes worn temporarily as black bands.
We were all told that meant we ran the platoon with the supervisor being an actually promoted SGT of higher rank as our platoon leaders, where that in essence turned the SGT above us into the task of an officer. We had no officers to spare to put them in charge of platoons. My company in basic had the Captain and his assistant officer the EX Officer. Truthfully while I recall the Captain I can't recall any EX officer at all.
I was sent to the leadership academy and passed that course.
I did the same thing in Advanced Infantry school.
I learned when in Germany that the CO had promoted me to Corporal but pulled the rank the next day without informing me.
In Germany in HQ company I was promoted first to PFC and then to SP4.

I had no leadership function in Germany but worked for the CO in the First Sgt. office.

I was told by the First SGT that I was going to be promoted to SGT or E-5.

We had a command change and the promotion went to the SP4 working for the COL. I was then short timer status and frankly made a lot of money in the Army at the time so did not care about E-5.

I was the bank for a good many enlisted guys. I made more money than some of the officers made per month.
But as an SGT, I believe the CO would put me into a position of leadership. Since I was not promoted to E5, I was discharged as a SP4.

I guess the leadership academy should have qualified me to be SGT though.

 

I think the real problem with the enlisted promotion system isn't so much the point system, but the "up or out" policy that pushes units to send Specialists to the board who have zero interest in becoming an NCO or who just plan on getting out after their first term. The Peter Principle applies heavily to the Army by pushing unqualified and unmotivated people into leadership positions, where their lackluster performance hurts moral and pushes people out of the service who might otherwise have stayed.

You may be right that the Marines have a better idea with their point system, but the Army seems to have much bigger issues with it's promotion system regardless of how points are determined.

 

I should recall this period of my time in the Army as I served the CO as the Company Clerk.
I am wracking my brain to recall even one Corporal in the infantry HQ I was in.
We had plenty of Sgt. though.

 

Well, the old Specialist system helped solve that problem, as you could become a "Specialist", getting paid more and getting more responsibility in your job, without having to mess with "Command Authority".

But today, the "up and out" is often used to thin the ranks when needed. I saw this first hand in 2012 when I was pushed out. Only 5 years in at that point and a Specialist (Promotable). But not enough points in the Obama troop cuts, and the RIF saw me cut off at the knees (because the 10 years in the Marines counted so I had 15 years in, never mind that there was a 14 year gap between the first 10 and the last 5). But I also can not blame the Army, as for decades now politicians have been using the military as a "whipping post" to cut numbers and budgets to save money. And when they are ordered to cut 10% of their force, they have to use something to trim the numbers.

I have seen a great many (including myself) cut off at 15-18 years of service, just a boot in the ass as we are let go. And this is a cycle that is repeated over and over again. Begging for us to come back in, then a few years later told to get out. There was a time you could do 20 years, and retire as a Sergeant (or even a Private). But with the low numbers mandated today, that is no longer the case. One of the frustrations many of us felt in the last several years is that we are still operating at the low numbers of the Obama Administration. And low numbers over a period of years like this causes real issues in the promotion system. People get to a certain rank, then just stagnate as there is no new position to move up to.

 

That was still early during the era of the Specialist. They were still trying to figure out how it all worked. Later on, you even had Specialist 6 and 7 in Infantry units. The same pay as a Staff Sergeant and Sergeant First Class, but less responsibility.

Today, the Company Orderly is normally the only Corporal in most units. A senior Specialist, who is laterally promoted to a Corporal so they can actually lead the others in the Orderly Room, as well as pass along mandates to the other Platoons.

But in the TO&E, with a Sergeant slotted as a Fire Team Leader, there is really no place for them. This is what I mean by TO&E being critical.

And for those that do not know, that is the "Table of Organization and Equipment". That is the chart for every unit that says what equipment they should have, and what rank somebody needs to be in order to fill a position. At one time (and still in the Marines), a Corporal ran a Fire Team (themselves and 3-4 Privates). A Sergeant ran a Squad (themselves and 2-4 Fire Teams), etc. But in order to make more slots for those higher in rank so they could stay in, it created a mess that I am not sure they could easily fix.

And a unit can deviate from their TO&E to a degree, but it can cause other problems. I was a Corporal filling the slot of the Battalion Maintenance Chief (Staff Sergeant billet). The Colonel loved my work, and resisted getting somebody of the right rank to fill it because I was good at it. Then finally we got a Sergeant, and I became his assistant. A few months later he was a Staff Sergeant, and technically I probably held back his promotion for over a year by holding a position for somebody 2 ranks higher.

I saw the reverse in the Army. I joined a unit as a Specialist, and had a guaranteed Sergeant slot. But I had to go to an MOS school first, and by the time I could (8 months later), it had been filled by somebody else. Then followed over 2 years of a game where the unit would move people around to open a slot, and before they could cut the promotion orders, the Army would send us another Sergeant. At one point we had 4 Sergeants, none of them MOS qualified. Meanwhile, 6 very senior Specialists. All promotable and MOS qualified. But no slot to put us into.

Finally all 6 of us were just promoted out of the unit. Then the section had 4 non-job qualified Sergeants, and 6 Privates that only knew what they had learned in school. I got called back on a few missions to that unit to help them do what I thought of as basic tasks, because none of them had the experience.

 

I'm 82 so understand you guys served after I was discharged in Jan 64.

Still some things are still the same. Such as slow promotions. I spent 2 weeks shy of 2 years on active duty and really as a draftee my thought was get the hell out.
I was blessed to have leadership positions in both basic and AIT. But in Germany being promoted to SGT was not in the cards.

When things go to war, promotions sped up. But I got out before Johnson sent hundreds of thousands to Vietnam.

 

If you are having a draw down, and are trying to reduce troop strength, then "up or out" makes sense. However we're not in a constant draw down, and the Army still needs to fill slots in the E-1 to E-4 grades. It's been having a lot of recruiting issues so up or outting some E-4's who happen to like their jobs and don't want to be NCO's doesn't make sense; particularly in the current climate.

 

It is more than that. In order to maintain ranks for the future, you have to keep some of those so they can move up, and replace those that retire or get out.

But there is a sharp line at about 8 years in. When a lot of people that were considering a career find themselves unable to be promoted. Mostly because the military is in a "draw down state", and not growing. In this, it is like any other organization. Without progression, things stagnate. And we effectively are in a "draw down state", as we have been at the same troop numbers since 2010. And because those back then joined on 4-6 year contracts, they had to cut many who's enlistments were coming to an end because they had to keep those who joined more recently.

I have been watching this for years now. A lot of people were hopeful when Trump won, because they thought he would reverse the previous cuts and let the military grow again. But he kept the same troop numbers, and now we are past that, and it is just stagnant. Made even worse with the more recent changes to the pension system. Now, I actually talk to relatively few who even consider it for a career. After a year or two, they see there is little room for growth.

Which is causing yet another trend I find troubling. More and more, I talk to the newest soldiers in my unit, and discover they are the sons and daughters of vets. And I wonder if in another decade or so it becomes more of a "family organization", where more and more of those in are children and grandchildren of those who have served. I am growing greatly more disturbed by this trend, that the military is becoming a "family organization", and soon most of those in will be children of other veterans. And being a new recruit that did not have a parent that served will be an exception.

Even today, only 41% of the general public had a parent in the military, compared to 52% in the military. And in the general public, only 9% who are not veterans have a child in the military. Compared to 21% of veterans who have had a child in the military. How long before it is an entire socio-economic grouping all to itself?

 

I think we're already at that point. Unless you've had a relative who has joined the military, particularly a parent, the odds of even considering the military are quite low.

 

My dad did not serve, but 2 uncles and both grandparents did (2 during WWII, 2 during Vietnam). And all 4 male cousins in one part of my family served. Yet, none of my younger cousins (6) ever served.

I think the 1980's and early 1990's was the last time that we had a lot join with no prior family connection. We did have a surge for a bit in 2001, but it did not last long. Heck, the Army by 2006 was hard into luring back people like me who had served earlier. Many considered us old "middle aged Cold War vets" to be more stable and reliable than some of the kids trying to join by then.

But I am not kidding when I say I worry about those that serve someday becoming a class into itself. The entire concept of "citizen soldiers" will vanish, if only a relative handful of families in the nation is making up most of those who serve. And the divide between civilian and military will grow even larger. As it is already, I often shake my head in boards like here where it is obvious that quite a few who are throwing their opinions around know absolutely nothing about the military or those that serve.

Imagine that disconnect in another 20 years if this continues.

 

From World War II to the 1970's we had a draft, so although not everyone served a lot of people did. My dad and uncles were drafted and served. But since then military service has become a family business. I served, and my son served, but that's an alien experience to people who've never even had a family member in the military. So in other words, I'm not only agreeing with you, I think we are already there. The disconnect is real and will continue to grow wider as time goes on.

 

Back in my days as a member of the E-4 mafia, we looked on corporals with distain.

 

I had thought that the Officer Corps was riddled with legacy grads from West Point, same with the Naval Academy, but apparently not according to the survey on page two here:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm:978-1-137-51129-4/1.pdf

Many American Generals were part and parcel of the Good Old Boy' system and a 'family business' before now, so it seems more like a reversion back to the old days than a new trend. Two of those most would be familiar with would be Patton and MacArthur. Admiral Halsey was a Captain's son and a descendant of Rufus King. John McCain's father was an Admiral. This stuff helps in getting those appointments to the academies and then commands.

 

McCain's father was a Captain when he entered the Academy. William Halsey's father was a Lieutenant Commander. And Rufus King? Who signed the Constitution over 100 years before? Who cares?

Now Douglas MacArthur is a special case, because his father Arthur MacArthur was awarded the Medal of Honor. In case you did not know this, the children of Medal of Honor winners get automatic appointments to the Service Academy of their choice. That is part of the award, and is given to all who earned it.

And today this is even more so. More than any other time, the number who choose a military career are increasingly the children of those who did the same thing. If this trend continues, most who join the military will be the children of veterans. But instead, why not ask yourself why others who are not connected are not joining. You are barking up the wrong tree here.

 

What tree is that? The American military was a small club at the top, with West Point and VMI grads leading the pack. George Marshal was a VMI grad. Eisenhower got leap frogged into his command in Europe via the lobbying from Patton and others in the 'Good Old Boys Club' who were aware of his abilities, and knew MacArthur's shortcomings. It's a fact of life in many organizations, and not just the military, which is why there are still Morgans at the Morgan banks and Bushes in politics and Rockefellers in the oil business.

It is also not automatically a bad thing, either, it just depends on the competence of those involved. And, the link I posted reflects the sentiments expressed in this thread also applies at the top of the military food chain as well, if you had bothered to read it.


\Who cares about Rufus King? The kind of people who thought a long line of 'Good Family' mattered in American society; there will always be those around, too.

 

OK, first of all you need to understand the difference between the Officers. If one graduates from one of the 3 Academies, they are given "Regular Commissions". They can serve until mandatory retirement, can not be cut due to a RIF, and many other things.

Reserve Officers however get their commission through an ROTC program, or OCS. They can only serve 20 years without a special extension, and may even hold a rank in reserve status that is higher than they would hold on active duty. If they have completed their minimum service they can be RIF'ed, and can also apply to be "Augmented", and given Regular Commissions.

With that in mind, that is the biggest difference right there. As you can see, two very different classifications, depending on where they got their commission. The Academies are designed to make Career Active Officers, ROTC is designed to make Reserve Officers.

"Mac's Shortcomings". Uh-huh. Marshal of the Philippines, former Chief of Staff of the Army. Also top grad at USMA in 1903, with the third highest record of merits at that time. Right.

Then you mention Ike. Son of an Engineer, with no prior service in his family. Graduate of "The Class that stars fell on". In 1915, of the 164 graduates, 59 would achieve the rank of at least 1 star general. First in his class at Command & General Staff College, executive to the Assistant Secretary of War, Senior Aide to General MacArthur when he was Chief of Staff, assistant advisor to Mac in the Philippines, an early part of the US program to develop tanks and their tactics between the wars, and highly respected for his staff and logistical abilities. Often counted as among the best, as well as even at low rank helping seniors reach compromises. And he got his first star after the conclusion of the "Louisiana Maneuvers", the first major wargame of the Army in over a decade, and the last major one before the US entered the war. But yes, "Good old boys club".

How about the fact that when the senior General in Europe "HAP Arnold" had great misgivings on General Chaney, it was decided to replace him with Ike because he was one of the experts in Armored warfare, and their first combat would be Operation Torch, the landing in Africa. This was early in 1942, and he was promoted to 2 star because of that. And commanded a brilliant campaign, even earning the respect of Montgomery. Then commanded the Invasion of Sicily. He was the senior commander in the theater already, so it was only natural when the forces in the theater were expanded, he was placed in command.

You seem to have this strange hatred and lack of understanding of this subject. You seem to be seeing some kind of conspiracy everywhere, and not simply that by that time, he had already proven himself in 2 major campaigns, and had a good relationship with both the British and French commanders.

"Leap Frogged" indeed. He was the senior officer on the scene before the Army even arrived. And his abilities were already known, as well as his relationship with the commanders of the other Allied Powers.

 

lol so you're just picking a fight for no reason again.

As for Ike, he worked with Patton early on right after WW I on our first 'tank Corps', they used truck mock ups at the time. That is why Patton knew him and used his pull to get Ike leap frogged over several others, including some 'good old boys' like MacArthur. The rest of your screed has no bearing on the fact that the military leadership was a small club prior to WW II and politics mattered a lot on who got appointments to the academies and later on key posts, along with the fact that there were few people at the top at the time, which is why he got all that varied experience in the first place. That isn't a 'conspiracy theory', that is just a fact, and it applies to many other areas besides the military, and it always will. You seem to be mad that you got left out of the loop or something.

 

ROFL!

Mac was already the SCAP in the Pacific, and had been in the Philippines since 1935. At the time that Ike was promoted to 1 Star in command of a fairly minor unit, he was already Commander of all US forces on the ground and in the air as a 4 Star General.

Once again, you fail to show any understanding of the men, history, or what their actual positions were. And I find it funny, that all who are suckered into Conspiracy Theories like this will always deny it is a theory at all, and insist it is completely true. No matter what evidence and proof is shoved into their faces.

And yes, out of curiosity I did glance through some of your prior posts. And I will just say that I am done here. I browsed, and few had any relationship to anything "real". Your bias and bigotry in them was obvious, so feel free to have your little fantasy. Which actually has nothing to do with the thread at all, you are simply once again interjecting your fantasies because you can not resist spreading them around.

 

lol all you do is babble mostly gossip, and you don;t even know basic history. that's because you were never actually dong anything important, just another grunt with an opinion who got Riffed twice, from two different services apparently, due to a lack of a real skill set worth keeping. Have a few more beers and regale us with how much you know about low level stuff. I posted a survey of West Pointers who hold a lot of the same views you're sniveling about, but apparently you're not really bright enough to understand what you read, you just like babbling stuff and playing the 'crusty old Grognard' on the innernetz and thinking you're impressing people or something with your detailed 'experiences' as a truck driver who learned how to push a few buttons and now thinks he invented missile systems.