Unfortunately ArmyReenlistment, your reference just states "In the Army". I already know in the Army who outranks who; 600-20 tells me that.

There should be something that tells me if a senior airman outranks a specialist or if a SFC outranks the Gunny. Is a specialist less of an E-4 than a Marine corporal just because we have corporals higher than specialists? Does an Army captain outrank a Navy lieutenant because captains are always higher than lieutenants?
Really, how do we compare apples to oranges?

If there isn't, then I'm going to have to guess time in grade, time in service, unless otherwise assigned.

thanks Daddy Warcrimes. This was more or less what I was wanting to get at with this discussion. because I know it's a touchy topic when dealing with joint service operations. and in my line of work, everytime I turn around we are working with some other branch of military. It would be nice to know for reference and general military authority...

As it stands to date, I've always treated troops from different services of the same pay grade as equals, and encouraged my soldiers to do the same. But if there is a regulation out there that has specific rules on this, i'd love to see it.

Thanks for the reference, ADA. I've never gotten an NCOER, nor has any other CPL that I've known.

no problem Smittaayy. If you or any other CPL in your unit hasn't gotten an NCOER, then my guess is one of 3 things:
1) the CPL rank was given locally and wasn't submitted to DA(which means if you PCS to another unit, you would go back to being a SPC) or
2) your unit doesn't know that CPLs a required to rated by AR 623-3 and DA PAM 623-3 or
3) they just don't care and are too lazy

all of this is rather off topic and should be in the NCO forum.. but if you are doing a good job, wouldn't you want to be rated for such accomplishments? it's your career. Bring it up to your first line, with references in hand. you can get the PDF versions here:
http://www.army.mil/usapa/epubs/623_Series_Collection_1.html

I had once heard that a CPL could receive an NCOER but it was not required and non-transferable. A brief review of the reg shows this not true.

This means 1 of 2 things:
1. Somebody lied to me
2. This is a change to the reg. (in this case you may not yet be required an NCOER since the change would be less than 1 year old)

I would like to know the paragraphs you are looking at.

I was a Corporal and was also told that NCOER's for Corporals were possible, but not mandatory. I was never told it was non-transferable though.

Here is what I have found just now in AR 623-3 15 May 2006...

quote:

Para 3-2.b. Reports will be submitted for- (3)All NCOs in the grade of SGT through CSM.

This says to me that CPL NCOERs are not mandatory.

quote:

Para 3-5.h. Use of DA Form 2166-8-1 is mandatory for counseling all NCOs, CPL through CSM. The purpose of the DA Form 2166-8-1 is to improve counseling by providing structure and discipline to the process described in DA Pam 623-3, chapter 3.

This says to me that it is mandatory to COUNSEL a CPL using 2166-8-1.

I think the reg is making a distinction between being counseled on a 2166-8-1 (as all NCOs CPL-CSM should) and being rated on a 2166-8 (as all NCOs SGT-CSM should).

Here is what I found in DA Pam 623-3...

quote:

Para 3-1.a. The rater uses DA Form 2166-8-1 to prepare for, conduct, and record results of performance counseling with the rated NCO. Its use is mandatory for counseling all NCOs, CPL through CSM. The purpose of the counseling and support form is to improve performance counseling by providing structure and discipline to the process.

This says to me that the reason a CPL gets counseled on a DA Form 2166-8-1 even though he/she will not get an NCOER is to improve counseling by providing structure and discipline to the process.

Here is perhaps the most enlightening passage...

quote:

Para3-1.b.(3) For corporals, who do not receive a record NCOER, the counseling and support form will be maintained for one year. There is no regulatory requirement to keep the DA Form 2166-8-1 beyond this time. However, in some cases keeping it for possible future support personnel actions may be appropriate.

This tells me that corporals who DO NOT RECEIVE A RECORD NCOER exist, but their counseling and support form (2166-8-1) will be maintained for one year, meaning even though they did not get a record NCOER they were still counseled using this form.

As of now my understanding is that CPLs are not required to receive NCOERs but are required to be counseled on a NCOER Counseling and Support Form.

quote:

Originally posted by ADA-J-cram:

this is taken directly from the study guide, NCOER section.

(DA PAM 623-3 MAY 2006/ 3-1 / PDF 36)
Is the use of the 2166-8-1 mandatory for counseling all NCOs in the ranks of CPL through CSM? YES

(DA PAM 623-3 MAY 2006/ 3-2 / PDF 40)
Who recieves an NCOER?
ALL NCOs

The first answer, although technically correct, applies to corporals being counseled but not rated, as I attempt to outline in my last post.

The second answer is incorrect. Although the study guide says this, if you look in DA Pam 623-3 MAY 2006 Para 3-2 on PDF page 40 does not say any such thing. The answer would be correct if the question was "Who CAN receive an NCOER?". I think my last post shows that not ALL NCOs receive NCOERs.

Excellent work Doshaza!
Obviously my research was not to standard.

thanks for the correction and clarification on that Doshaza.

topic still remains though, any regulation out there that states if Service Members of different military branches out-rank others at the same paygrade, besides TIG/TIS?

First off let me say i don’t know of any Regulations dictating who would be in charge in that circumstance and im not sure if they exists. What you do need to do (and lets be honest) is if a CPL in the marines is tell you something and he or she is not in Your Chain of command or he has not been put in a leadership position over you is giving you orders especially if they are different from the orders given to you by your actual leader tell he or she they need to get with you NCO and get back to you. I have worked with all branches in the Military (i was in a joint Unit in Korea) and everyone will try to bully everyone else. Marines in my experience are really bad about that. Just stand your ground and if you think its wrong treat it like its wrong..

I agree they should just get rid of specialist all together the whole rank is a throwback to the old days were they used to separate Support (specifically Technological support) from Combat MOS's
Hence Tech SGT and Spec 2's. Although separating them again may be the best idea because that would give a little more credit into the skills of the Technological Branches who are increasingly required to be more proficient and trained every year. I mean we get in Radios that make SINGARS look like a calculator everyday and its not going to be getting easier...and with that i Agree Specialist can have a lot of pull in their units they are often the Soldiers the other newer Soldiers go to first with problems because they know they generally wont be yelled at or gotten in trouble. In addition to that some Specialist who have been in their field for so long they can make equipment work with a level that would rival a highly trained civilian component(oh whom seem to be increasingly taking over a lot of jobs in my opinion they shouldn’t).

Anyways those are just my thoughts...but personally i think the whole Army needs an overhaul

How long has it been since we revived an old thread???? That's too long.

quote:

Originally posted by Daddy Warcrimes:
References anyone?

The Army makes very clear who outranks who in the Army. Stands to reason that there should be some sort of publication relating to the precedence of rank between services.

quote:

Originally posted by SGT-CRAM:
topic still remains though, any regulation out there that states if Service Members of different military branches out-rank others at the same paygrade, besides TIG/TIS?

Found it.

quote:

AR 600-20 Para 1-7
"Members of other Services serving with the Army have equal status with Army Soldiers of equivalent grade. (Comparable grades among the Services are shown in table 1-2.)

Now look at Table 1-2. Page 5 in the reg, page 11 in the pdf document. The table clearly puts a Marine Corporal above an Army Specialist.

A corporal is considered an NCO in the Marines, so yes they would outrank a specialist.

quote:

Originally posted by SSGGunbunny:
A corporal is considered an NCO in the Marines, so yes they would outrank a specialist.

A corporal IS an NCO in the Marine Corps; not just considered.

quote:

AR 600-20 Para 1-7
"Members of other Services serving with the Army have equal status with Army Soldiers of equivalent grade. (Comparable grades among the Services are shown in table 1-2.)

I know this is an old post but...

The way I read it is, even though a Marine CPL is an NCO in the Marines, he is still an E-4. It clearly states that equivalent grades have an equal status, making the Marine CPL the same as an Army SPC/CPL, regardless if he is an NCO in the Marines or not.

Now lets look at it this way. The Marine CPL is an NCO, he is in a leadership position, he is used to giving orders, that is his mindset. By telling an Army SPC what to do was him doing what he knows best. It also tells me that the Marine CPL was being proactive and trying to get a mission accomplished and the Army SPC more than likely blew him off because he was a Marine of the same pay grade.

quote:

Originally posted by Go Ordnance:
The way I read it is, even though a Marine CPL is an NCO in the Marines, he is still an E-4. It clearly states that equivalent grades have an equal status, making the Marine CPL the same as an Army SPC/CPL, regardless if he is an NCO in the Marines or not.

I could see it this way if Table 1-2 was non existant. To me there is no argument. It basically shows that an Army SPC has no equivalent. Basically a USMC Lance Corporal is subordinate to an Army SPC, but when he/she is promoted to CPL they "jump" above the SPC instead of pulling up beside them.