For the U.S. military to excel, it must reevaluate and restructure advancements and promotions within the current ranking system. The current structure is archaic and, like the times, must evolve and adapt to the present. The military preaches for equality and civil rights, but there is a clear inconsistency between the treatment of enlisted and officer personnel, despite rising education levels within the enlisted ranks. Officers with less experience also are given commands far earlier than enlisted personnel, despite years of practical leadership experience.
To even this field, I recommend combining the enlisted boot camp and the Coast Guard Academy into a condensed six-month accelerated academy and a new single ranking structure. While there must a distinct separation between boss and employee in any workforce, that separation should be created by the difference of time in service, leadership, and knowledge, not attending an academy.
Today’s Coast Guard is placing members in leadership positions with no experience. The service academies prepare the officer corps for what to expect in the field, but no amount of studying can truly simulate how to be an effective leader. Experience, combined with maturity, motivation, work ethic, emotional intelligence, and knowledge are the foundation for high-performing leaders. I’ve met countless officers who can fill that leadership role quickly and well, but I’ve also experienced the opposite. College graduates do not earn bachelor’s degrees and become CEOs of companies; they typically work up the ranks or fail multiple times until they land the top spot. Coast Guard officers can be in charge of a cutter just after two years of service, while enlisted members must reach senior ranks and pass an Officer-in-Charge Review Board, which is one of the hardest interview boards in the Coast Guard. Enlisted members could go their whole careers without being in charge of a cutter, even if they are completely competent and better suited for that position.
The current enlisted force has a growing number of members with bachelor’s degrees. According to Military One Source, in 2019, approximately 8.7 percent of enlisted members had bachelor’s degrees or higher, meaning nearly one in ten enlisted members have degrees. Education should be the priority for this new ranking structure, but it does not have to be completed consecutively for four years. Much like C Schools now, members will be encouraged to continue their education, which will benefit both the military and them.
A new central ranking structure could begin by 2025. These next three years can be taken to develop the training programs and necessary logistics to put this idea into a reality. Current leaders in both the enlisted and officer forces would discuss how current members will convert to their prospective new ranks. Higher-performing enlisted and officer members could advance from their current grade based on performance and concurrence by their supervisors and command. Pay grades would be scaled from CG1 (lowest) to CG10 (highest). Annual income would be determined by combining the current enlisted and officer pay scales with a few stipulations. For example, combining the monthly pay of E1 ($1,652) and 10 percent of O1 pay ($338), totaling $1,950. Officers make up roughly 10 percent of the Coast Guard, so that would be the determinate for CG1 pay. CG2 pay would take the combination of E2 pay and 20 percent of 02 pay, and so forth.
After the pay structure was implemented, there would be an advisory meeting in 2030 to reevaluate the effectiveness of the new scale and determine how it could be improved or remain the same. This change in rank structure could also add greater respect to service members. Current ranks with the Coast Guard from E-4 to E-9 could be considered degrading
Part of the difficulty in this transition would be the trial and error for finding the appropriate ratings necessary for the Coast Guard excel. Since the entire Coast Guard would be on the same pay scale, there would still need to be designated rates within these scales to ensure it thrives. CG1 through CG10 would encompass a variety of rates: administration, intelligence, engineer, culinary, law enforcement, search and rescue, pursuit and tactics, marine responder, dispatch, and information systems. Along with these designated rates, it would be highly encouraged for members to stay in their respective locations. This would save the military millions of dollars a year and would create stability within each designated area. If a member wanted to relocate, this would be possible through routing a waiver and the availability of the location the member is requesting. Members would have a higher job satisfaction and have an easier work-life balance.
Advancements would be determined through multiple factors. Generally, there would be a minimum time required in each Coast Guard pay grade, with a waiver process to allow faster promotion for exceptional performers and those with unrivaled work ethics. The current military structure is not effective at advancing those ready to progress to the next pay grade and/or leadership role. In the officer corps, promotions are given through time in service and OERs; however, in the enlisted force, one could be a stellar performer and fulfilling a role of higher pay grades but remain in their current role until they’ve completed their rating performance qualifications and enlisted performance qualifications, as well as the availability of openings in their higher-ranking position. Only once enlisted members have successfully competed in the service wide exam, are they able to take on the next level and advance. This system breeds inefficiency by allowing those in manager and leadership positions to continue to progress with limited resistance through their ability to put in time and maintain, while enlisted members could put years of time and effort, and still not move forward, slowing the trajectory of performers and creating stagnancy.
In the civilian world, if someone is excelling at their job consistently and there is availability for them to be promoted to the next level, promotions happen. But that is generally not the reality in the military. If someone is excelling at his or her job and clearly could perform the job as well in the next pay grade, then advancement should happen.
On the opposite spectrum, there should be an easier process to release underperformers from the military. If you are bad at your job, lack work ethic, and/or are not the ideal member for the position, you should be able to be fired. There is concern for the time and effort and training invested in that member, but it costs the military much if it allows mediocrity or worse. The military holds on to poor working individuals. Those who meet the criteria to be finally separated are released very slowly. The new mindset of this proposed structure would highly reward those who excel and provide little tolerance for laziness. Advancements would be based on the factors of performance, maturity, work ethic, leadership, attitude, emotional intelligence, assisting others, proactivness, and mentorship.
The purpose of this essay is not to degrade the officer core or the current status of the military, but to illuminate the reality of an old system that could use improvements. If each member started his or her military career at the same location, academy, and opportunity, there would an equal playing field for every person. Initially, this transition would be difficult and stressful, but viewing the bigger picture through a different lens it becomes apparent this could and will work.
To improve, one must change, but progression cannot happen by continuing the same process and decisions over and over. The military has overcomplicated so many aspects of its ranking structure that could be relieved through this transition. Create ten ranks that all begin with the same foundation and watch the organization improve.
