# Fixes Soldiers Want



## AWP (Nov 13, 2014)

This is per Army Times, but the points are valid. What bothers me, and maybe this is a seperate thread, is the list of "the more humorous, unlikely or outlandish idaes" (yes, the typo is in the article). The bold text are the ones which to be frank, are good ideas in my opinion and not something as a punchline...which says a lot about the thinking of policy makers and mouthpieces like the Army Times.

http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/2014/11/12/top-fixes-soldiers-want-now/18913317/



> Allow beards.
> ■ Return to BDUs and black boots.
> ■* Burn all the PT belts.
> ■ Free PT belts for everybody.*
> ...


 
The Six items taken seriously:

1. Change the tattoo reg.
2. Dump overweight soldiers.
3. Up the standards for training.
4. Stop the drawdown.
5. Empower NCOs.
6. Get rid of toxic leaders.

My favorite quote:
 Being outranked by a deserter is also not cool.

There's so much win and so much fail in that one article it is breathtaking.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 13, 2014)

> An AKO where you don't have to sacrifice your first born to get access...



As a commo guy the AKO one cracks me up.....


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Nov 13, 2014)

Yes! Enterprise/AKO needs to burn in the blackest pits of hell. Screw that system!


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 13, 2014)

The tattoo reg I think is being made to specifically target warfighters.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 13, 2014)

TLDR20 said:


> The tattoo reg I think is being made to specifically target warfighters.


How do you mean?  To encourage them to get out?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 13, 2014)

Yeah


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 13, 2014)

I kinda like allowing beards, neatly trimmed beards....but too many would push it and ruin it for everyone.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 14, 2014)

Can someone explain why soldier's want the Specialist rank removed? In my humble opinion, that many would be throwing away a few hundred dollars a month because the E-4 mafia would shrink. No need to have a Corporal in a E-3 billet. 

The Marine Corps has been ripping off Marines for years by having Lance Corporal's as team leaders, Corporal's as squad leaders, and Sergeant's as Platoon Sergeant's. Perhaps the Army could have a larger force by doing the same.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> Can someone explain why soldier's want the Specialist rank removed? In my humble opinion, that many would be throwing away a few hundred dollars a month because the E-4 mafia would shrink. No need to have a Corporal in a E-3 billet.
> 
> The Marine Corps has been ripping off Marines for years by having Lance Corporal's as team leaders, Corporal's as squad leaders, and Sergeant's as Platoon Sergeant's. Perhaps the Army could have a larger force by doing the same.


 
Because you wouldn't suddenly see E-3's doing those jobs. The Specialist is just a hold over from the 60's and early 70's. In some cases E-4's will find themselves in charge of something, but not an NCO. The Army needs to kill one and stop the "half-assing" it has done with the rank for the last 3 decades. E-4's are junior enlisted or NCO's...the Army needs to pick one.

Comparing the Army and Marines in this case is apples and oranges.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 14, 2014)

SOTGWarrior said:


> Can someone explain why soldier's want the Specialist rank removed? In my humble opinion, that many would be throwing away a few hundred dollars a month because the E-4 mafia would shrink. No need to have a Corporal in a E-3 billet.
> 
> The Marine Corps has been ripping off Marines for years by having Lance Corporal's as team leaders, Corporal's as squad leaders, and Sergeant's as Platoon Sergeant's. Perhaps the Army could have a larger force by doing the same.


I may be coming at this from a different POV, but one of the things I loved about the Corps was that they would put such junior ranks in responsible positions.  It forces them to grow up faster, and quite honestly I think makes for stronger leaders when they get out of the Corps.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Nov 14, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Because you wouldn't suddenly see E-3's doing those jobs. The Specialist is just a hold over from the 60's and early 70's. In some cases E-4's will find themselves in charge of something, but not an NCO. The Army needs to kill one and stop the "half-assing" it has done with the rank for the last 3 decades. E-4's are junior enlisted or NCO's...the Army needs to pick one.
> 
> Comparing the Army and Marines in this case is apples and oranges.


 
I was a SP4 for a long time then a CPL for a short period of time prior to being promoted to SGT and only was a CPL after becoming an actual team leader.  I say if the E-4 is actually in charge of something, then they should be made a CPL until they actually promote to SGT, otherwise you have a bunch of "junior" NCOs running around with zero purpose. 

I recall going through a bunch of tests at MAMC on Lewis as a CPL.  A SSG in the medical branch told me that all E-4s should be corporals as it would prepare them to become NCOs.  I informed him that a CPL is actually an NCO and told him that if you're an NCO and not in charge of anything that you shouldn't be an NCO, you should be a SP4, 5, or 6.  He did not like my idea.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 14, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Because you wouldn't suddenly see E-3's doing those jobs. The Specialist is just a hold over from the 60's and early 70's. In some cases E-4's will find themselves in charge of something, but not an NCO. The Army needs to kill one and stop the "half-assing" it has done with the rank for the last 3 decades. E-4's are junior enlisted or NCO's...the Army needs to pick one.
> 
> Comparing the Army and Marines in this case is apples and oranges.



I guess I see it in both directions.  Granted, my segment of the population and basis for my viewpoint is based off the 75th... but this is how it "rolled" at least pre-9-11 as well as immediately post-9-11

Specialists were Specialists. They were the highest non-NCO position. The only time you'd see a Specialist as a team leader was if they were already promotable, as in boarded etc.

Pre-board, but had shown leadership initiative and skill to the point that pre-board they were assigned a team, they were promoted to Corporal and were slotted in a duty position. The whole Corporal promotion was to give them "teeth" in the gap between "senior enlisted" and "schooled noncom".

MTOE also dictated this, specifically there were 7 E-5 slots within our platoons. Senior gun team leader and 6 Fire team leaders. The other two gun teams had Corporals in charge of them, and Fire teams COULD have Corporals however it was not uber common. If you were shit hot prior to going to school, and there was a gap, you could flat out "skip" Specialist and go straight to Corporal, assuming a gun team or fire team depending.  At that point, you'd do all the usual team leader duties with some chevrons to back it up albeit light one. Board, and then get that 3rd and a pay raise either prior to, or after PLDC depending on overall latitude within the unit overall.

Basically, Corporal actually does serve a purpose as an interim "rank with teeth' to give individuals who are currently filling a duty position above their pay grade, while having to deal with TIS/TIG prior to promotion. Yes, everything can be waived, however "real rank" and the ability to actually promote is often dictated by influences outside of the unit. 

After all, I'd take a Ranger Corporal over.. well, over 3/4 of the SSG's in the regular army. But, that's effectively comparing a piper to a pilatus.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2014)

Does the Navy allow one to enlist as an E-4 if they have a 4-year degree?


----------



## compforce (Nov 14, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Because you wouldn't suddenly see E-3's doing those jobs. The Specialist is just a hold over from the 60's and early 70's. In some cases E-4's will find themselves in charge of something, but not an NCO. The Army needs to kill one and stop the "half-assing" it has done with the rank for the last 3 decades. E-4's are junior enlisted or NCO's...the Army needs to pick one.
> Comparing the Army and Marines in this case is apples and oranges.



I actually think it should go back the other way to SP5, SP6 and SP7.  There are plenty of people that are getting promoted on TIG/TIS that are technically capable in their MOS, but have no business leading others or who deserve the pay raise, but there are no NCO slots available.

They did away with those grades during the drawdown from Vietnam and right after (1973 for SP7, 1985 for the rest), but there are still a few holdovers.  SPC/CPL, MSG/1SG, SGM/CSM where the nonleader/leader distinction is drawn.  It used to be that there was a leadership and non-leadership position at every (current) NCO grade.  It made sense as a way to keep people motivated that wanted to do their job, but just didn't want the leadership responsibility.  When they created the CSM rank, they dropped the SP8 and SP9 ranks because they were redundant, which still makes sense.

Regardless of what the Army thinks, not everyone can be taught to be a leader.  There should be a way to keep technically proficient individuals in the Army even if they can't lead others...or the others won't follow.  Overweight, but a real stud at a CSS job.. Specialist forever.  Incredibly good at individual tactics but can't get anyone to go where you want them?  Specialist.  Cook that can turn out gourmet meals, but doesn't know how to teach the others...Specialist  Did everything perfect, but can't get a slot to an NCOES?...promoted to specialist.  Promoted but can't get to the school in the required timeframe..Specialist.

There's a place for those ranks that would ultimately improve the proficiency and morale of the Army. Even more so in the Reserves and National Guard where it takes someone above you dying to get a slot that makes you eligible for promotion.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2014)

compforce said:


> I actually think it should go back the other way to SP5, SP6 and SP7.  There are plenty of people that are getting promoted on TIG/TIS that are technically capable in their MOS, but have no business leading others or who deserve the pay raise, but there are no NCO slots available.


 
You have valid points.

I'd do away with Spec 4 IF the others weren't returning. I am 100% on board with "not everyone can be a leader" but the Army is unlikely (foolishly) to bring back the Specialist/ Technician ranks. If we're going to adhere to this fallacy where everyone's a leader then we need to commit to that thought process. The main reason Spec 4 won't go away is because we're enlisting guys as E-4's.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Nov 14, 2014)

Freefalling said:


> Does the Navy allow one to enlist as an E-4 if they have a 4-year degree?


No, the highest you can come into boot camp is E3. I had a few buddies in A-school with college degrees.  E3 is based on college credits (54 credits got me E3), Eagle Scout and a few other things I can't recall right now. Some of the more technical ratings with long A & C Schools allow automatic promotion to E4 after graduating A-school and TIS is met. But as for enlisting, E3 is the highest.


----------



## AWP (Nov 14, 2014)

SkrewzLoose said:


> No, the highest you can come into boot camp is E3. I had a few buddies in A-school with college degrees.  E3 is based on college credits (54 credits got me E3), Eagle Scout and a few other things I can't recall right now. Some of the more technical ratings with long A & C Schools allow automatic promotion to E4 after graduating A-school and TIS is met. But as for enlisting, E3 is the highest.


 
That's what I thought, but wanted to be sure. Danke.

Yeah, the Army won't kill Spec 4, not as long as it enlists guys with a 4-year degree as an E-4.


----------



## Viper1 (Nov 14, 2014)

One of the best moments of professional development was when I saw a medic Corporal chew out a medic Specialist for being a lazy, back talking dirtbag.  I love Corporals, and I had two as fire team leaders in my platoon.  

Corporal is an excellent rank for those with leadership potential who need that extra push and challenge to step into the NCO ranks.  Most of my Squad leaders had been Corporals and a couple had the rank removed after doing something stupid, thus being "laterally demoted" back to Specialist.  They said it was a quality leadership lesson for them and loved the fact they wore an increasingly uncommon rank.  I love feisty Corporals.  

We recently promoted a Specialist to Corporal in my company because he is a hard worker and consistently shows leadership qualities amongst his peers.  He's now the guy SFODAs are fighting over for deployment support and they are mentoring him for SFAS in the future.  He's gotten a small taste of NCO duties and responsibilities and continues to excel.  Something happens that I can't explain but I believe the rank forces them to grow up a bit, especially if they know that those two stripes can be ripped off their chest and given to their buddy at a moment's notice.

Did I mention I love Corporals? Especially Corporals who are fire team leaders?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2014)

I want to kick one of my Corporals out of the Army.  He's a dirtbag that thinks he's gods gift.  He's just gone downhill since I've been his PL.  What I think should happen is once someone is made a corporal they need to get an NCOER.  Because then, they'd understand that they're the same.  Some of the Soldiers in my Troop think Corporal's a bitch rank because you end up getting the most shoved on your plate.  The reality is, the junior guy always gets the most stuff to do, but definitely not always the hardest.  Neither of the two corporals I have in my PLT had been boarded when I had arrived.  One is currently promotable, the other is the one I want to crush.  But branch put him in for Airborne School and Alaska. . .doesn't help that the CO thinks he's gods gift.

And as an officer, all of those Joe Snuffy comments via the Army Times can pound sand: BDUs and Black boots?  WTF  How about a new service uniform?  Or maybe issue two sets of the both the new PT an Combat uniforms.  Because when I have to go out and throw down $600 next may for new fatigues 'm not going to be happy.  Oh yeah, that doesn't even count skivvy shirts and the new boots we'll have to buy.  

And they did change the tattoo policy, to make the force more professional.  There's a whole lot of canvas between the Kneck, Elbows, and Knees.  And it no longer stops a soldier from attempting to commission or go warrant.


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Nov 15, 2014)

Does the Army get an annual uniform allowance?
Also, are you asserting that visible tattoos in uniform = unprofessional; or is that just your interpretation of the new regulation?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2014)

That was my interpretation when the Marine Corps made that change back in 2003ish?  Soldiers get a yearly uniform allowance, officers receive a one time uniform allowance when they access to active duty.  But as I tell my Soldiers, you're a professional and must maintain your appearance and your kit year round.  And we all know everyone spends that money on a new TV.

Also, can we get a change in the fabric used in our combat uniform to what the Marine Corps uses.  Which is 50/50 NYCO Twill rather than 50/50 NYCO RIPSTOP?


----------



## compforce (Nov 15, 2014)

> And they did change the tattoo policy, to make the force more professional. There's a whole lot of canvas between the Kneck, Elbows, and Knees. And it no longer stops a soldier from attempting to commission or go warrant.



I understand the reasoning behind the tattoo policy.  What concerns me is that it is just another indicator that focus has been lost.  The Army is NOT a civilian company that has to present a clean image to make sales.  Its mission is NOT to make everyone feel good about each other.  The Army's mission is first to present a deterrence to help prevent war by making the other guy afraid of the consequences  and second to close with and destroy the enemy if they ignore the deterrence.  Everything the military, specifically Army, does should be evaluated on the effect it will have on those two missions before anything else.

Frankly, I don't care if a soldier has tattoos from the soles of their feet to the top of their (shaven) head.  I don't care if they file their teeth into points or have 500 pieces of body jewelry.  I don't care if they wear BDU's, ACU's, DCU's OG107s.  I don't care if they wear Oakley Boots, Vibram boots, Goretex boots or a pair of plate armor boots.  As long as the force as a whole can accomplish the two missions, it's cool with me. 

In what way, specifically, does prohibiting tattoos advance either one of the Army's missions?

The problem today is that we, the USA, have forgotten how to win wars.  We're really good at winning battles, but we've forgotten how you win a war.  You make the other guy lose his will to fight before you lose yours.  The tattoo policy is just another sign that the military has forgotten as well.  The leadership is more interested in a force that "looks professional" than one that wins wars.  The leadership is more interested in the diversity of the force and being sensitive to individual lifestyles than in having a force that is proficient (as opposed to professional). 

Back pre-desert storm we used to talk about the difference between a garrison soldier and a field soldier.  The concensus was that you could be one or the other, but very few were both.  The current direction is to get rid of the field soldiers and have a force composed entirely of garrison soldiers.  Very few battles are fought in garrison.  Who is going to fight the next one?  You need both types.  You need the garrison soldier that can fill out paperwork correctly.  You need the garrison soldier that is all spit and polish for the next parade or ceremony.  You also need that guy that you would never show to the world, but that can be pulled out, dusted off, pointed in a direction and that can go forth and kill the other guy with his weapon, his knife, his hands and even his teeth if necessary.  He's not polished.  He's not elegant.  He doesn't know which fork to use or how to speak publicly.  He has tattoos and broken teeth and cauliflower ears.  He inspires terror just with his appearance.  That one is the warrior...  And if you get rid of him, who will take his place?

For the record, I don't have any tattoos.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 15, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> I want to kick one of my Corporals out of the Army.  He's a dirtbag that thinks he's gods gift.  He's just gone downhill since I've been his PL.  What I think should happen is once someone is made a corporal they need to get an NCOER.



Having never been a corporal, I didn't know that they didn't receive NCOERs.  I've officially learned something today.  Thank you for that.  That being said, take his stripes.  You're his PL, use your authority, such as it is.  If he's a shit smear, then wipe him off.  If he doesn't get NCOER, then bring it home on his monthly DA4856.  Put him back on the sham shield, then when he continues to keep tap dancing on his reproductive organs with razor-bladed golf cleats, let the chapter paperwork be the next step in the escalation of force.  You've got options, and plenty of them, so long as he's actually a shitbag.  You just have to know how to finesse the system and word things properly.


----------



## compforce (Nov 15, 2014)

racing_kitty said:


> Having never been a corporal, I didn't know that they didn't receive NCOERs.  I've officially learned something today.  Thank you for that.  That being said, take his stripes.  You're his PL, use your authority, such as it is.  If he's a shit smear, then wipe him off.  If he doesn't get NCOER, then bring it home on his monthly DA4856.  Put him back on the sham shield, then when he continues to keep tap dancing on his reproductive organs with razor-bladed golf cleats, let the chapter paperwork be the next step in the escalation of force.  You've got options, and plenty of them, so long as he's actually a shitbag.  You just have to know how to finesse the system and word things properly.



Depends.  If he's a DA Corporal (meaning he has actual orders for his Corporal stripes) you can't just take them away.  It would take an Article 15 to do it.


----------



## racing_kitty (Nov 15, 2014)

compforce said:


> Depends.  If he's a DA Corporal (meaning he has actual orders for his Corporal stripes) you can't just take them away.  It would take an Article 15 to do it.



I forgot about DA.  Thanks.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2014)

I think the idea that Soldiers are either field Soldiers or Garrison Soldiers is wrong.  Because if the Soldier is a good Soldier, he can be polite, have his uniform polished up, and then be proficient at his MOS.  And in regards to the Garrison piece...I've done one parade in three years, that was 2-16 CAV CoC when I was at Benning.  Units need to do review parades once a quarter, why you ask?  Well I did them twice weekly in college, but that's not the reason.  The Reason is that the Army has an identity crisis, we're really and I mean really shitty about preserving out history.  Pomp and Circumstance, Drill, cadences and all that unmotivating stuff that folks complain about is part of being in the Martial service.  And yeah, when you wear ACUs all day, the public doesn't see your ankle or forearm.

But the biggest change that needs to occur is the AIT portion for 11 Series and 19 Series needs to be longer and harsher.  Why is Benning sending the FORCE Soldiers who cannot pass the APFT or meet heigh and weight.  

I've never seen a DA Corporal.  In my previous unit, they made people Corporals in Support MOSs and points were insane.  Not necessarily had they been boarded or gone to WLC.


----------



## compforce (Nov 15, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> I think the idea that Soldiers are either field Soldiers or Garrison Soldiers is wrong.  Because if the Soldier is a good Soldier, he can be polite, have his uniform polished up, and then be proficient at his MOS.  And in regards to the Garrison piece...I've done one parade in three years, that was 2-16 CAV CoC when I was at Benning.  Units need to do review parades once a quarter, why you ask?  Well I did them twice weekly in college, but that's not the reason.  The Reason is that the Army has an identity crisis, we're really and I mean really shitty about preserving out history.  Pomp and Circumstance, Drill, cadences and all that unmotivating stuff that folks complain about is part of being in the Martial service.  And yeah, when you wear ACUs all day, the public doesn't see your ankle or forearm.



We may have to disagree on the field vs. garrison thing.  I will tell you that I got to see it back when it was hard  and the current force.  I'd put the people that were warriors back then up against 90% of today's Army.  They got in fights, they got DUIs, they had tattoos and scars.  They also wouldn't make it past E3 with the rules today.  They were the ones that would bring the other guys home. 

I think there has to be two armies.  One is the one you show the world, the other is the one that does the fighting.  Sure there will be *some* who can do both well.  The expectation of everyone doing both has reduced the capability of the force. Leadership has gotten rid of the outliers on both ends and now have an Army that represents the median.  Exceptionalism in the Army has been destroyed.  Now a career in combat arms is no longer, except in some SOF units, about being better at killing the other guy.  It's no longer about being able to teach someone else how to kill the other guy.  It's about fitting in, playing nice and looking good.  If you can't do those, you won't have the chance to kill the other guy.  TTPs have improved, but if you normed the force today against previous forces, the average soldier today would, IMO, be lower in proficiency at the Army mission than the soldier of yesteryear.



ThunderHorse said:


> But the biggest change that needs to occur is the AIT portion for 11 Series and 19 Series needs to be longer and harsher.  Why is Benning sending the FORCE Soldiers who cannot pass the APFT or meet heigh and weight.



Because they have selected out too many potential soldiers with various policies, like the tattoo policy, reducing the recruiting pool and ultimately forcing a lowering of the standards at AIT in order to make their numbers.  I'm with you on 11 and 19 series needing to hold the line on standards. 



ThunderHorse said:


> I've never seen a DA Corporal.  In my previous unit, they made people Corporals in Support MOSs and points were insane.  Not necessarily had they been boarded or gone to WLC.



I've seen three of them.  All of them were 11 series.  The unit would do it when they had a squared away soldier getting ready to PCS and they wanted to force the gaining unit to put the soldier in a leadership role.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 15, 2014)

ThunderHorse said:


> That was my interpretation when the Marine Corps made that change back in 2003ish?  Soldiers get a yearly uniform allowance, officers receive a one time uniform allowance when they access to active duty.  But as I tell my Soldiers, you're a professional and must maintain your appearance and your kit year round.  And we all know everyone spends that money on a new TV.
> 
> Also, can we get a change in the fabric used in our combat uniform to what the Marine Corps uses.  Which is 50/50 NYCO Twill rather than 50/50 NYCO RIPSTOP?



Fuck that twill bullshit. I was HAPPY to never have to wear winter BDU's again once I got to Regiment. Those things are fucking horrible, even in the winter.  I think spending too much time in a vehicle with a heater instead of having to actually move through terrain on foot for extended periods of time has caused clouded judgement to color commentary.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 15, 2014)

I think it can be done.  But the Army would have to be OK with some issues, probably would be alright with barfights, but I don't think the Army will deal with DUIs. Being a garrison and field Soldier, which makes a Good Soldier is a very hard thing to do.  But I understand your point about tattoos, I'm just officering here and saying why the Army did it.

I would go with the same weight as the Desert MCCUU, because there's a massive difference between the Woodlands and Deserts.  That's one of the reasons why the Corps switches in the the Spring/Summer to Deserts.  All I know is the RIPSTOP stains and retains stains way easier than my friends MCCUUs did when we were in the school house. 

And no, I'm not about that winter weight life either.

The other day my 1SG talked smack about the Australians and the British saying we were better.  I honestly wanted to punt him.  I served in a French Battalion for 7 months, they may not have the best equipment, but they train their asses off and it was rough.  Basic Training for a British Infantry Soldier is 26 weeks at Catterick...and if you've ever seen Catterick the terrain is not fun.  And then their Armor/Recce Soldiers go through split training at Moore Barracks and then Camp Bovington.


----------

