With rank structures, form should follow function. However, this concept is not adhered to very well in the armed forces of the United States, where the middle enlisted ranks are commensurate with less experience and responsibility than their international counterparts. This disparity is also apparent between the American services themselves. For example, there are number of instances where a rank exists in several services at different levels.

    This is partly due to the addition of the top two grades in 1958 when services acquired more sergeant ranks rather than more private/airman grades. The surprising lack of co-ordination between the services in the development of their rank structures is another reason. Also a factor is over-promotion due to the intention of increasing people's salaries without necessarily increasing their level of responsibility. The US services should emulate other nations' services in having a pay structure that takes into account different occupational specialties, so that an appropriately high salary isn't accompanied by an inappropriately high rank. Rank should be one of a number of factors in determining an appropriate pay level.

    According to US DOD figures published a couple of years ago, only about 20% of enlisted personnel in the USMC were privates. At that time the US Army had about 30% of enlisted personnel called privates (the Army's highest grade of Private is equal to the USMC's Lance Corporal). Compare that with more than 42% of enlisted personnel in the British Army (we'll use UK figures for comparison as they are typical).

    The number of people of the rank of Sergeant and above as a percentage of enlisted personnel is about 24% in the British Army, 33% in the US Marine Corps and about 45% in the US Army. For Staff Sergeant and above it's 13.2% in the British Army, 18% in the USMC, 27% in the US Army and more than 53% (!) in the US Air Force (even just counting USAF E-6 and above, the figure is still more than 28%).

    The objective of this article is to present a proposal for reforming the US Armed Forces enlisted rank structure along conventional lines (e.g., privates are called privates, not sergeants, so being a sergeant actually means something again) and to create a neater, simpler, more cohesive system (e.g., Staff Sergeant in one service is equal to Staff Sergeant in another) whilst fully considering matters of tradition and making as little alteration as possible to achieve this objective. The result is illustrated in the table below.

    A re-evaluation of grade-billet correlation is inherent in changing the ranks and adopting a salary system that distinguishes appropriately between occupational specialties. For a more reasonable ratio of NCOs to privates, ideally the grades commensurate with the billets of platoon sergeant and squad leader would be lowered by one level. Currently the senior enlisted member of a US Army infantry platoon is typically a sergeant first class (E-7) and squads (each of which consists of around a dozen men) are usually led by staff sergeants (E-6) with two sergeants (E-5) each to assist them. Each squad has a number of corporals and/or specialists (E-4), leaving only about half a dozen privates in the whole platoon. Conventionally (i.e., in non-US services), an infantry platoon has one Sergeant, squad-size groupings are led by corporals with one lance corporal each to assist them, and, apart from the platoon commander, everyone else in the platoon is a private. Consequently, American infantry squads would be led (as they once were) by corporals, with one or two lance corporals (E-4) to assist each one, and the position of platoon sergeant would go back to being an appointment held by someone of the rank of Sergeant (E-6). However, just changing the titles so that platoon sergeants are staff sergeants, squad leaders are sergeants, etc. (which was the Second World War-era arrangement in the US services) is more feasible as it does not involve changing the correlation between grades and billets.

    The implementation of a proposal such as may cause some problems, but such problems would be short-term and greatly outweighed by the long-term benefits, particularly to morale amongst NCOs. Remember, there is no greater justification for calling privates corporals and corporals sergeants than there is for calling lieutenants captains and colonels generals.

    Smooth implementation of this proposal could be achieved by the use of acting rank appointments so a person would not lose the distinctions of his or her current rank. For example, a sergeant would be redesignated a corporal, but could be appointed an acting sergeant, and would therefore continue to wear a sergeant's insignia and enjoy the same privileges.

    Note that a number of aspects in this proposal more closely resemble previous incarnations of American enlisted ranks and insignia than the current version. Please see US Army Insignia Home Page for comparison with historical examples of US military (not just Army) rank insignia.

GRADE (unalt.)	U.S. AIR FORCE		U.S. ARMY		U.S. MARINE CORPS		U.S. NAVY (titles unaltered)
E-9	Chief Technical Sergeant of the Air Force		Sergeant-Major of the Army		Sergeant-Major of the Marine Corps		Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
	Command Chief Technical Sergeant		Sergeant-Major		Sergeant-Major		Fleet/Force/Command Master Chief Petty Officer
	Chief Technical Sergeant		Chief Master Sergeant		Master Gunnery Sergeant		Master Chief Petty Officer
E-8	First Sergeant		First Sergeant		First Sergeant		Senior Chief Petty Officer
	Technical Sergeant		Master Sergeant		Gunnery Sergeant
E-7	Staff Sergeant		Staff Sergeant		Staff Sergeant		Chief Petty Officer
E-6	Sergeant		Sergeant		Sergeant		Petty Officer First Class
E-5	Corporal		Corporal		Corporal		Petty Officer Second Class
E-4	Lance Corporal		Lance Corporal		Lance Corporal		Petty Officer Third Class
E-3	Airman 1st Class		Private 1st Class		Private 1st Class		Seaman (etc.)
E-2	Airman 2nd Class	NONE	Private 2nd Class	NONE	Private 2nd Class	NONE	Seaman (etc.) Apprentice	NONE
E-1	Airman 3rd Class	NONE	Private 3rd Class	NONE	Private 3rd Class	NONE	Seaman (etc.) Recruit	NONE

• In the chart "Seaman (etc.)" means Seaman and its equivalent titles (Fireman, Constructionman and so on).

• When comparing this system with the current one, align the grade numbers, not the rank titles.

• Chart displays insignia insofar as indicating rank is concerned. Other aspects (such as colour and occupational specialty symbols) have been omitted only for the sake of clarity.

• Under this proposal the last of the Army's Specialist ranks (E-4) would be abolished and Lance Corporal reintroduced to replace Corporal, which is moved up to E-5.

• The designation First Sergeant regains its exclusivity as an E-8 position only. It is recommended that the USAF use a different title for its counterparts of other grades to preserve the high status that goes with being a first sergeant.

• Technical Sergeant (the current Air Force rank immediately above Staff Sergeant) and Chief Technical Sergeant are shown for the Air Force. However, Master Sergeant and Chief Master Sergeant could be retained instead (at E-8 and E-9 respectively).

• E-3 rank insignia suggestions are shown here but insignia are not necessary for grades below E-4.

• E-4 and E-5 are junior NCO (JNCO) grades, E-6 and above are senior NCO (SNCO) grades.

• There are several attractive accidental by-products of these changes:
- all the services' rank insignia are aligned (e.g., three chevrons in one service = three chevrons in the others),
- Private grades = Airman grades = Seaman grades,
- NCO rank begins at the same grade for all services,
- the bottom four NCO ranks (Lance Corporal to Staff Sergeant) are identical among the Army, Air Force and Marine Corps,
- the lower E-9 rank is the same as the lower E-8 title with the addition of 'Master' in the naval services and 'Chief' in the other services,
- all First Sergeants are equivalent,
- all Sergeants-Major are equivalent and the title Sergeant-Major is held only by the senior E-9 member in a command (as it should be!)

• The current badge representing the MCPO of the Navy has three stars above the eagle and a larger one below the eagle in the style of Fleet/Force/Command MCPO, but it would better if the stars above the eagle referred to grade only. This would require a different symbol beneath the eagle to distinguish MCPO of the Navy from Fleet/Force/Command MCPO, such as an anchor superimposed on a star, or a similar device (the equivalent devices of the other services have been adapted from the existing ones).

• Command Senior Chief Petty Officer (for commands that are too small to have a Master Chief) could be distinguished like Command MCPO with a star beneath the eagle.

• If the number of grades is insufficient then additional grade(s) of private, seaman and airman should be added (not additional sergeant, petty officer or corporal ranks).

• The position of senior enlisted adviser to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has recently been introduced. To follow the precedent established by the existence of insignia representing the senior enlisted advisers to the service chiefs, the insignia for this appointment could be the same as for other E-9 personnel but with the Joint Staff emblem between the chevrons and the arcs.

HOME