Talk:Warrant officer (United States)

This article

This article as it was written as a subsection of the Warrant Officer article was a mess, full of redundancies and inaccurate statements obviously made by people who had just enough information about the Warrant Officer rank system in the services to make quirky statements of exceptions as if they were the rule about warrant officers. Most of that has been removed to make place for legitimate statements about background and history of the warrant officer utilization and rank structure within the United States military.

I personally had edited the subsection as a part of the other article before recommending the split and accomplishing the split. Nobody had a problem with it there, where it was also alphabetical; by military service and then by paramilitary service (see diff). So, to come here and suggest it was better written before the move is to ignore that it was already being edited, to what it is now, even before the split in a 4-5 month process, including a major rewrite of the Army section. The lead-in was difficult in and of itself because it had so much redundancy and approach from a Navy-only position as if they were the only service to utilize the rank or as if each service addressed the issue the same. I had to balance all the positions while removing the redundancy and inaccuracy.

It is tiring to find that the article is simply rearranged each day without any additional information or references being added. If editors want to reorganize the page as it has been moved here, it needs to be about where the article is going, and not where the article has been. Where it has been was a discredit to the Corps of quiet professionals, where they've come from, what they've done. I say this, not from my position of serving as a member of that Corps, but as one who has learned the history. So, if you have nothing to bring to the table other than you liked how it was as a subsection of the Warrant Officer article, then I will be here to counter it, because it was going nowhere, getting no attention, and not being treated properly according to the material that is available to make it a better article than it is. --Born2flie 15:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Action will be taken against continued disruption of the article, if necessary. - BillCJ 16:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, if the article was changed right before its indoctrination into a separate article I did not see. Alphabetical order of the services is in my opinion inappropriate; in the article the Army is written in as the most prominent, with the Navy in second. The Air Force should than be third in cooperation with the Armed Services precedence of "Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard".

"Background" as it has been implemented is also inappropriate, as it does not distinguish where it ends and leaves information tied to it that is irrelevant to the "Background" or history behind the services usage. Furthermore, the editor, neglected to have this put in the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps sections behind the same type of information.

You also are removing information that would further educate the reader on technical aspects of attaining a warrant or commission in this way. This information is neither redundant or "unvalued". Nicht Nein! 12:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for that, but given that all your edits were done in one session, there was no way to distinguish between the changes you made. Thanks for putting back your information without changing the outline. We can discuss outline changes here to see if we can come to an agreement. - BillCJ 15:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

When I split out the article, as I previously stated, I removed a lot of redundancy. If it appeared disjointed, and much of the recruiting station kinds of information contained in the article did not contribute to the article as a whole, I took it out. "How to" achieve this type of position should be found on Wikibooks or else an external link to each of the services recruiting page for this type of position. The Background subsection is because there is currently a dearth of history available to make a cohesive history section, although there are clearly adequate resources to produce one. I see many editors who feel that any fact, no matter how disjointed from the presentation, is a noteworthy contribution. However, articles have to have a flow. Now, I don't claim to be perfect at it, but I do know how to make it happen.

As for precedence, it isn't as clearly defined as you seem to allude to.[1] The order you espouse is based on the size of the "armed forces" and excludes the other uniformed services. If the order were to follow with size of WO population, Air Force would be last. How about oldest use of WO? that would begin with the Navy. Alphabetical by DoD and then by the other uniformed forces was how it was established previously in the other article and that was how I maintained it in the transition. Ultimately, when there is a History section, the Air Force section will go away, because their use of WO is history. --Born2flie 15:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I think oldest use of the grades and/or size of force are more appropriate then alpha. Nicht Nein! 12:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I could agree with oldest use of the grades. --Born2flie 14:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Background" is still misleading... It doesn't correctly represent the changes in system from the old "warrants" to the current warrant officer grades of W1 - W5...

I don't believe that the "historical background" should coincide with the rest of the information under "Background". There needs to be a separation. And it should be explained that the original system of warrants is not the way it is used today or has been since the middle of the 20th Century. The early ranks of each service should be talked about in grades W1 and W2. Nicht Nein! 10:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that the historical pieces are not where they need to be, but Background isn't just about history, but also referring to more information, and since the stuff that follows the historical references in both the Navy and the Army Background sections doesn't really fit into the general discussion about the Warrant Officer description and utilization in each of those services that precedes the subsection, they really are more background pieces of information than something that needs to be highlighted as extremely important to the service. When the history pieces are removed to a History section, those pieces will naturally fall in as trailing paragraphs to the primary paragraphs about description and utilization, even though they will still be just more additional background information. But, since they didn't fit a History description, and because there wasn't a substantive enough of history to justify a History subsection for each of the services or at least the two services that have historical information in their sections, making a Background section seemed to be logical enough to keep the primary information as the primary information and discourage editors from placing information haphazardly throughout the article, as seems to be the case if one reviews the history of the other article.

Perhaps this is just my perception. However, I should have enough time in the next week or two to edit a decent enough History section that will allow the removal of the Background subsections. --Born2flie 13:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Summary correction

In a recent revert summary, I wrote: "adding "valued, encyclopedic information"; making wholesale, nonconsensual changes is quite another". I accidently hit the return key before I was finished. I meant to write: "adding "valued, encyclopedic information" is one thing; making wholesale, nonconsensual changes is quite another". Thanks. - BillCJ 04:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Its own article?

Why is it that the United States Warrant Officer rank has its own page but the United Kingdom, Australia and a few others share a page? --Climax-Void ^{Chat or My Contributions}

Because a Warrant Officer in the United States is an Officer, not a senior enlisted as it is in the UK, Australia, and the few others mentioned. --Born2flie 01:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not recognised as such outside of the US. Officers have a commission, warrant officers have a warrant. --Nozzer71 (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it is; see STANAG 2116 (category WO) created specifically for the US Warrant Officer ranks. (As a US Army CW2 serving as a liaison officer/exchange pilot in a German Army helicopter squadron, I was billeted, messed, and treated as a lieutenant.) Also, US Chief Warrant Officers do have a commission. (My commissions as a US Army CWO look exactly the same as my subsequent commissions as an officer in the USMC, excepting, of course, the ranks, dates, and branch of service. I also swore the same oath of office as an officer of the United States for each new commission received upon every promotion.) Lastly, the US WOs warrant is an officer's appointment to federal office authorized by Title 10 of the United States Code of Law vice simply a promotion certificate. CobraDragoon (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Marine WO1

Seems IP editors keep deleting the USMC WO1 rank, but every reference I've found so far, including the Marine .mil websites have nothing about the Marine Corps discontinuing this rank, even though the United States Navy has. In fact, the WO1 image is from a USMC website. Anyone seen something more "current"? --Born2flie 21:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems the last three recent IP edits all originate from a relatively similar geographical position and seem to be focused on editing the Marine Corps Warrant Officer insignia, originally deleting the W-5 insignia and then deleting the W-1 insignia followed by an edit indicating that the W-1 grade will soon be discontinued despite sharing no reference or source to substantiate any of these edits. --Born2flie 03:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Coast Guard

I'm not sure that the following is germaine to an article discussing utilization of the Warrant Officer rank within the Uniformed Services of the United States:

Except during periods when so directed by the President (such as declared war), the Coast Guard does not fall under the Department of Defense, but rather the Department of Homeland Security since March 1, 2003 due to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and under the Department of Transportation prior to that date.

I have clarified the lead-in so that, hopefully, we will not continue to be compelled to explain in any detail that the Uniformed Services and their ranks do not strictly apply solely to the Armed Services, or the relationship of the Uniformed Services to each other. September 11, 2001 and the subsequent move of the USCG from under the DOT to the newly formed DHS in 2003 have nothing to do with how the USCG selects and utilizes its warrants, and neither does the fact of whether they fall under the DoD during times of war. I recommend removal of the statements. --Born2flie 00:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoulder rank error

The shoulder ranks (stripes) shown for Navy and CG W-2 are actually the W-1 stripes; the W-2 stripes are actually those shown as Navy W-1. Can someone correct this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.210.170 (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Commissioning of Army WO1s 2011

Included in the National Defense Authorization Bill for 2011 - HR5136

SEC. 507. AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENT OF WARRANT OFFICERS IN THE GRADE OF W-1 BY COMMISSION AND STANDARDIZATION OF WARRANT OFFICER APPOINTING AUTHORITY.

(a) Regular Officers- (1) AUTHORITY FOR APPOINTMENTS BY COMMISSION IN WARRANT OFFICER W-1 GRADE- The first sentence of section 571(b) of title 10, United States Code, is amended by striking `by the Secretary concerned' and inserting `, except that with respect to an armed force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary concerned may provide by regulation that appointments in that grade in that armed force shall be made by commission'. (2) APPOINTING AUTHORITY- The second sentence of such section is amended by inserting before the period at the end the following: `, and appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W-1 (whether by warrant or commission), shall be made by the President, except that appointments in that grade in the Coast Guard shall be made by the Secretary concerned'. (b) Reserve Officers- Subsection (b) of section 12241 of such title is amended to read as follows: `(b) Appointments in permanent reserve warrant officer grades shall be made in the same manner as is prescribed for regular warrant officer grades by section 571(b) of this title.'. (c) Presidential Functions- Except as otherwise provided by the President by Executive order, the provisions of Executive Order 13384 (10 U.S.C. 531 note) relating to the functions of the President under the second sentence of section 571(b) of title 10, United States Code, shall apply in the same manner to the functions of the President under section 12241(b) of title 10, United States Code.--92.0.216.33 (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an Army only initiative which will commission WO1s into the Regular Army in 2011. They are currently appointed in the USAR as WO1s and commissioned into the Regular Army upon promotion to the rank of CW2.--92.0.216.33 (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is proposed legislation only. The resolution was only referred to the house committee at the end of April and hasn't even been presented to the entire House of Representatives. --Born2flie (talk) 07:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a controversial part of the Bill though or likely to be removed from the final Act. --92.0.216.33 (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL --Born2flie (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The Bill was passed by the House on May 28th and included the Section on WO1 commissioning 92.7.31.39 (talk) 20:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Senate passed the Bill by unanimous consent Sec 502 covers WO1 Commissioning 92.1.152.243 (talk) 19:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

And the government lesson continues as the separate House and Senate bills now go to a joint committee to be streamlined into one bill for the President to sign. Still not a law, still not a fact. --Born2flie (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And a further lesson for those who are unfamiliar: HR6523 House of Representatives approves Bill 17 December by 341 to 48, Senate amended Bill and passed it unanimously 22 December, House agrees to Senate Amendments without objection 22 December 92.1.152.243 (talk) 19:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that would be important information in the discussion. Your previous statements referred to HR5136, and with over 6 months between the updates to the discussion of the House passing a bill and the Senate passing a bill, one could not be expected to conclude that it was the same bill. So, we're at least at the second time around for; still waiting on the President's signature, WO1 commissioning still not a fact. --Born2flie (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

2011 National Defense Authorization Act signed by President 7 January. http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/signed-legislation 92.1.152.243 (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I didn't revert you, but the way you wrote the information in, without a citation for reference, was a trigger to your being reverted. I would expect a document discussing how each service plans to implement this new law to be an appropriate reference. Otherwise, your most recent edit has the earmark of original research, unless that is how it is specifically written into the signed law. --Born2flie (talk) 20:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Pages 15 and 16 in the attached link refer to the change - http://www.penfed.org/usawoa/downloads/WOLD-OVERVIEW-JUN2009.pdf . This is an Army only initiative which will ensure WO1s in the Army will have the same status as all other Warrant and Commissioned Officers. Once the changes to title 10 of the US Code are made, WO1s will be commissioned into the Regular Army rather than warranted into the Army Reserve which is the current procedure 92.1.152.243 (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link is a copy of a powerpoint briefing and less of a document than a product with bullets for discussion/briefing. Without some meaningful notes for the briefing or other memoranda, it requires synthesis to say that the proposed actions from 2009, along with the current NDAA, equate to policy changes in the Army. In my opinion, what is needed is a document that spells it out in black and white: "The Army intends to commission WO1s for this reason." On a personal note, this could be one step closer to transitioning to Limited Duty Officers in the Army, that many in the Army suspect is a goal of some of the leaders, even WO leaders. --Born2flie (talk) 18:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The reasons for commissioning WO1s are set out in the Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) - Warrant Officer Study (2002) which recommended that the Warrant Officer corps should be fully integrated into the wider Officer Corps - see page 6 of the attached report: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/army/atld-panel/wo_report.pdf 92.9.43.173 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The attached gives further background to WO1 Commissioning:

http://www.woaonline.org/sun-city/WO1%20Commissioning.pdf92.8.92.194 (talk) 12:51, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of a Warrant Officer 1 has been changed hereto say that WO1s are commissioned after WOCC. WO1 Commissioning was in the 2011 NDAA, but I haven't seen any communications that it has been implemented. Can someone provide some evidence? 92.8.118.22 (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Text reverted to pre 6 August in relation to commissioning of WO1s, until citation or reference provided Chafford100 (talk) 10:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is probably apropos to this article as well. I am not sure how notable the program is/was, but perhaps an article on Warrant Officer Leader Development or one of the other programs that is purported to be the source of this change would be a better avenue than trying to include it here, where it does not seem to meet the consensus for inclusion. --Born2flie (talk) 00:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

WO1 Commissioning (which will apply to Army WO1s only) has been passed into law as part of NDAA for 2011 and added to the US Code (see link)

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_10_00000571----000-.html

The relevant text in the US Code states:

'Appointments in the grade of regular warrant officer, W–1, shall be made by warrant, except that with respect to an armed force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary concerned may provide by regulation that appointments in that grade in that armed force shall be made by commission. Appointments in regular chief warrant officer grades shall be made by commission by the President, and appointments (whether by warrant or commission) in the grade of regular warrant officer, W–1, shall be made by the President, except that appointments in that grade in the Coast Guard shall be made by the Secretary concerned.'

The question is whether the change has yet been made by Regulations, and if not, when it will be made. The text on Warrants/Commissions in this article will need to be updated once the change has been made. 164.36.38.240 (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Two years after the 2011 NDAA was passed, WO1s are still not being commissioned on appointment. 81.129.4.191 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Command Chief Warrant Officer

I notice there is no mention of State Command Chief Warrant Officers in the article. I think it is a relatively "new" position (created in maybe the last 5-10 yrs) in the U.S. I know the officer who holds the rank must be a CW5. Might be worth a mention in this article. I've got no sources for ya right now, though... ZueJay (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Not notable and only applies to the Army National Guard. If anything, it might belong in that article. But, again, only if it is truly notable and I can't find any reason why it would be. --Born2flie (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Command Chief Warrant Officers also exist in the Army Reserve. They are usually a CW5, but if one is not available, the position falls to the next highest-ranking Warrant Officer in the Command.--Von landstuhl (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Appears to be a duty position rather than a military rank.--TGC55 (talk) 17:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Public Health Service

The following unsigned comment regarding the establishment of Warrant Officers in the USPHS was moved from the mainspace article. --Born2flie (talk)

This has not been authorized by the Public Health Service. Nurse are still requiered to have a BSN at a minimum. For more information call 800–279–1605 and speak directly to their recruiters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.90.105.145 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Chief?

In the Army section it reads "The informal and technically incorrect "Chief" is sometimes used...".

What is incorrect about the title Chief? Is it because the Navy and Air force use the title Chief to refer to NCOs?

I'm just curious what the justification for deeming this term incorrect is.

Brak97 (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)brak

AR 600-20, Army Command Policy,[2] states that the address of Warrant Officers is to be, "Mister (Mrs./Miss/Ms.)". Chief can be confused when used by Soldiers in joint organizations and is traditionally discouraged within the aviation warrant officer community. --Born2flie (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The "confusion" of the joint environment doesn't hold water. Other Service Members can learn that an Army Chief is an officer, not an NCO, just as a Soldier can learn to address a Marine E-7 as "Gunnery Sergeant" versus just "Sergeant".

Army regulations and policies are inconsistent when it comes to Warrant Officers. The regulation you cite, AR 600-20, also lists the first Warrant Officer rank as "Chief Warrant Officer One" in one table. Which doesn't exist. And AR 600-25 Salutes, Honors, and Visits of Courtesy, lumps all Warrant Officers in the lowest category with enlisted Soldiers inactive or retired, when it comes to determining who to display the flag upon their death. Active duty Soldiers are in a category higher, with any "Army Officer active or inactive".

The honorific title Chief is a tradition in the Army (at least among Techs) and is certainly not "incorrect" in our community. I request removal of "technically incorrect" as it presents a negative and opinionated view of the title into what should be an objective article.Brak97 (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)brak97

I have to wonder which community you are speaking of. The warrant officer community, or the technician warrant officer community? I, personally and professionally, find the term "Chief" disrespectful and mildly offensive when it is used to refer to me. The problem most often generated by Soldiers in non-aviation specialties who have previously served with technicians who allowed it as a form of address.

As they taught in WOCS, anytime you pass by a standard not met, you've just created a new standard. I personally feel the same way about a lot of standards that are summarily ignored in the Army. Like those other standards, this policy is quite clear, despite your red herring. Stronger arguments could be made for LT pronounced /eltee/ and Sarge, but they would not be any more acceptable as they are all breakdowns in professional conduct and discipline.

I can offer informal or familiar as more neutral options, either of which will more softly convey that the term is not official but will not grant the term any positive preference that it does not deserve. --Born2flie (talk) 16:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to the Technical community, as I stated in my response. And I am not certain where this "red herring" is that I supposedly gave. You quoted Army regulations, and I pointed out the inconsistencies in that same, and other, regulations. The same argument can be made for "Top" when referring to a First Sergeant. It is a more familiar term, but it is also a show of respect. And, yes, not every First Sergeant likes the term. I don't know how you can find disrespect in the term when none is intended. If Soldiers get a little too familiar, that’s the fault of the senior for letting it happen and he has to make a correction. Personally, I find being addressed as "Mister" to be very unmilitary. Civilians are addressed the same way, so Chief is a title that identifies my place in the rank structure and is decidedly military (two other services use it), and I consider myself privileged to have Soldiers address me as Chief. I think what troubles some warrants about being called Chief is that it’s used in other services to refer to NCOs. That’s the only argument anyone has ever been able to give me, aside from the whole regulation argument (which doesn’t wash, I know aviators bend the rules from time to time.) Bottom line, I’m not looking for you to say you love the title Chief and want to have it monogrammed on all your kit bags. I just wanted to express that it is used in an informal manner. I appreciate you making the change in the article.Brak97 (talk) 11:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)brak97

Mister is used in two other services just fine, and has a longer history and tradition than "Chief". I find it funny that your argument to justify the acceptibility of Chief refers to the use of the regulation as a standard as, "a wash". I find the term disrespectful, because it assumes a level of familiarity that has been allowed by a previous leader, and that is what offends me. So, I'm sharing to demonstrate one example where the use of the term isn't accepted. Hypocrisy is not sufficent justification and neither is selective compliance. --Born2flie (talk) 12:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that Mister is used in the Navy (and I assume the Coast Guard), up to a point. I thought I read many years ago that at a certain rank, it is no longer acceptable to address an officer as "Mister", however. And just because something works in Naval tradition, doesn't mean I think it belongs in the Army. What about superiors that call you Chief? I imagine in the aviation field you don't run into it much, but it happens all the time for Techs. Would you correct them, also? Would you tell them not to call you by your first name or a nickname? It's not just individual warrants "allowing" Soldiers be too "familiar", Chief is thrust upon us by superiors as soon as we pin (which I relish, and against which you rail, I suppose). Naturally, those of us who have no problem with it won't make any corrections. I guess we'll just go on "breaking regulations and being undisciplined" for the rest of our careers.Brak97 (talk) 13:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Immediately after my last thought, I had specifically remembered the history of warrant officers in the United States Army. The first warrant officers were civilians. So, the title you have issue with is actually more in line with the history of the rank in the Army than you seem to realize. The history is further enhanced through the Naval tradition, inherited through the Mine laying service, rather than influenced by it. So, consider that it is more than regulations being disregarded. I have no problem with warrants taking pride in being Warrant Officers, but what we do affects not only ourselves individually, but the group as a whole. It is equally frustrating that a growing amount of officers and warrants in Aviation actually consider the Limited Duty Officer as a more viable option than the continued service of the Warrant Officer rank. We've exceeded the purposes of this discussion for the sake of the article. I'll leave you with the opportunity for the last response, and despite the disagreement, I'm proud to serve with you. --Born2flie (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Then I will say thank you. Thanks for hearing me out and thanks for tweaking the wording a bit. We obviously both feel very strongly about the use of Chief, although in very opposed ways. It's good that we could come to an agreement in the end. Thanks again.Brak97 (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Warrant Officer Candidate (WOC) [Reserve/National Guard only]

In the Reserve Components, Soldiers that have been officially selected by a board to attend Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS) wear the insignia of a Warrant Officer Candidate immediately upon notification of selection. While they retain their enlisted pay-grade until either removal from status or graduation from WOCS, they are treated as junior warrant officers. J.D. Walker (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand the tradition, but it doesn't make them junior warrant officers. The "rank" WOC is a placeholder until the individual completes the training and is appointed as a Warrant Officer. Selection is simply selection and the tradition of affording WOCs treatment as junior warrant officers has not been sufficiently referenced for inclusion as a fact, much less affording the rank equal status with warrant officers who have completed the training and been appointed and/or commissioned in their ranks.

Additionally, "treated as junior warrant officers" is a very vague term. What do you mean? Do you mean they are given positions of responsibility that are commensurate with their future position as a WO1? Do enlisted soldiers salute them and address them as warrant officers? This would be contrary to Army regulations, not supported by it (specifically, the AR 600-20 used to attempt to support the edit). Or are they "prepared" for their future training by conducting tasks selected by current warrant officers? Depending on the type of tasks and training, this may also be contrary to Army regulations.

If you can reliably source the information you keep including, and the information which the IP editor added about three-phase training, I would support an additional subsection for Army National Guard, but I will oppose the continued inclusion of WOC in the ranks section. It simply is not a Warrant Officer rank. --Born2flie (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Air Force Warrant Officer 5

Was there ever such a rank? I don't think so but wanted to make sure before the picture is removed from the article. -OberRanks (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Read the section in question and its source. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 23:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the question is, "Was there ever a rank insignia for the rank?" based on the recent deletion of the image from the article. --Born2flie (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

The single line insignia that has been repeatedly added is speculative. The design that is similar to the old Army CW5 insignia and MW4 insignia is the only rank insignia that has an official AF/DoD source cited. Until the USAF publishes new insignia for CW5, the speculative insignia is incorrect and inappropriate to use in this article. 2601:281:D57E:32A0:DB85:E60A:4FC1:8D (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Army CID Warrant Officer Special Agent

Does anyone think that, under the Army section, someone could add in a short description about the fact that the United States Army Criminal Investigation Command has Warrant Officer Special Agents? L.J. Tibbs (talk) 21:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

CID Special Agent Warrant Officers are Special Agents like NCO Special Agents with responsibilities at the Detachment and higher level that require the rank of Warrant Officer. They fall within the Technical community of warrant officers. I question that there is anything specifically notable about the CID specialty that warrants singling it out from any other warrant officer specialty? Aviation and Special Forces are mentioned briefly because they notably has different requirements or training from the other warrant officer specialties; however, there is purposely not a significant, specific focus on those specialties. --Born2flie (talk) 13:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Check

Please check the accuracy of the Master Warrant Officer being equivalent to a CW5. In addition to this, I think the Air Force has Master Warrant Officers, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.153.170 (talk) 22:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

No discussion of the CW6 rank approved by Congress but never filled?

Midshipman

"All Naval Academy students, men and women, are called midshipmen, which is a rank between chief warrant officer and ensign in the Navy."[3]

• Yes, I have looked at that site, and I have sent an email enquiry to the US Naval Academy requesting clarification and a reference for their assertion.
  • Per US Navy Regulations, Chapter 10 - Precedence, Authority and Command,
  • Section 1. Precedence,
    • 1001. Officers of the Naval Service;
    • 1002. Precedence of Officers;
    • 1003. Relative Rank and Precedence of Officers of Different Services;
  • Section 2. Authority,
    • 1037. Authority of Warrant Officers, et al.; and
  • Section 4. Succession to Command,
    • 1085. Succession to Command by Chief Warrant Officers and Warrant Officers

Midshipmen are nowhere mentioned in the regulations but Warrant Officers definitely are. It would appear rather odd that midshipmen would outrank warrant officers, when Navy Regulations do not even list the rank title of midshipman, much less proscribe any "Precedence, Authority and Command" to incumbents. Obviously, the rank of midshipman exists, but we need to see its authorizing documentation. Curiously, the Army does list midshipman, along with cadet, in Army Regulation 600-20 - Army Command Policy in its Table 1-2 - Comparable Grades among the Services, where it clearly shows both ranks subordinate to Warrant Officer One. CobraDragoon (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm curious about the answer - there's a citation in midshipman that USNA midshipmen are technically officers of the line who are limited by their training status. This is probably a historical tradition that midshipman is an officer rank in the navy but in practice doesn't actually mean anything (as you noted in Chapter 10). Kirk (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, me too. I am still waiting for a response from the academy; I'll give them a few more days before I resend and I might send an inquiry to BUPERS as well. By the way, did you catch the interesting historical comment re midshipman "warrant officers" prior to 1912? I believe that because of the two completely separate service traditions (i.e., military and naval) complicated by the shared, but again separate, heritage of customs and traditions adopted from the British Army and Navy, and further confused by over a century of misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and miscommunications re the meaning of commission, warrant, midshipman, etc., that there are almost as many opinions as participants, and the overwhelming majority are simply wrong. I have seen blog posts on the internet from active duty sailors, many purporting to be petty officers and chief petty officers (but oddly enough, no officers), positing that midshipmen are not even superior in rank to a seaman apprentice, etc. Obviously, midshipmen cannot simultaneously rank below E-2 (as many enlisted sailors apparently believe), between E-9 and W-1/W-2 (as I believe and AR-600-20 affirms), above W-5 but below O-1 (as you and the Naval Academy affirm), and have no rank at all (as seemingly indicated in NR Chapter 10) in the same armed forces and at the same time in history! I would like to pursue this until we receive an authoritative answer supported by verifiable official documentation. Thanks for working with me on this. CobraDragoon (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• OK, I believe the mystery is just about solved. (See my edit to the Midshipman article under Modern usage, United States Navy and Marine Corps.) Per Brackin, William L. (1991). Naval Orientation (NAVEDTRA 12966). United States Navy Naval Education and Training Command. p. 9‑9. Retrieved 13 April 2015: "Naval Academy midshipmen are classified as officers of the line but are officers only in a qualified sense. They rank just below chief warrant officers." This manual was published in 1991, 16 years after the Navy (and Coast Guard) eliminated W-1 in 1975. This manual was written for Navy personnel as evidenced by the information on page 9-8, which specifically refers to Navy grades of rank, but also says, "Naval officers wear the following grade devices; they are similar to the grade devices worn by Army, Air Force and Marine officers." Obviously, the Navy knew that the Army and Marine Corps had W-1s, but they were specifically addressing Navy ranks (note the USCG is not mentioned at all). Public Law in the United States Code, The Uniform Code of Military Justice, and The Manual for Courts Martial, as well as Navy Regulations, Chapter 10, and Army Regulation 600-20 cannot all be wrong. It is matter of perspective and interpretation; in the Navy a midshipman ranks below a W-2, in the Army and Marine Corps they are below W-1, and in the Air Force they rank below O-1. I am amending the Warrant officer (United States) article to reflect this. CobraDragoon (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• My hunch was the Navy treats midshipmen as both officers and cadets, so when they get compared to services that have cadets without any status, they are equivalent to cadets in that service. The bracklin citation is already there - I ce'd your note and moved it to a note with a citation needed. There's still the mystery of why does the Naval Academy have on their webpage that midshipman outranks commissioned chief warrant officer? Curious if they ever write back! Kirk (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Alright, I'm OK with moving the note, but the citation is going to be a problem, since it is an amalgamation of information compiled from the USC, UCMJ, MCM, NR Ch. 10, AR-600-20, and NAVEDTRA 12966. (I'm beginning to believe that this issue may be the most complicated and convoluted piece of esoteric militaria ever encountered.) I'll post again when/if I receive a cogent response from the USNA, BUPERS, or some other authoritative source. CobraDragoon (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

• Update After several months of sporadic communication with the USNA they have deleted all reference to the relative rank of midshipman re chief warrant officer on their website. Here is the final email I received from a Jess Clark (no rank or position given), (I have removed my name and email address for personal security):

Re: Fw: Correcting USNA Viewbook re Midshipman Rank

Wednesday, July 15, 2015 1:03 PM

From: "Jess Clark" <jlclark@usna.edu>

To: xxx@xxx

Cc: "Michael Moriarty" <moriarty@usna.edu>

Mr. XXX,

We chose to take that part out because it causes so much confusion in general. When a midshipman is out in the Fleet for summer training, they certainly receive a certain amount of deference from enlisted folks as officers-in-training, but in reality, they don't hold any actual authority over the enlisted. In a sense, they stand outside that operational chain of command.

Historically, in the age of sail, that wasn't necessarily the case, although I agree with you that midshipmen would not outrank a chief warrant officer.

The only document I could find that specifically addressed the relationship between chief warrant officer and midshipman was the NAVEDTRA you mentioned, which I'm not entirely sure is even still an active instruction. The others, while discussing the relationship between officers/warrant officers/enlisted, seemed to omit any clear and specific reference to where midshipmen fall in the chain of command. I believe that's because midshipman - being officer candidates and not yet commissioned officers - don't hold any operational authority over really anyone. If you found something I missed, I'd appreciate if you'd send me its exact location within the document.

Again, thank you for bringing the mistake to our attention.

V/r,

Jess Clark

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CobraDragoon (talk • contribs) 18:30, 30 July 2015

Text align

@McChizzle and CobraDragoon: this is me clunking your heads together (3 Stooges syle) so that you'll stop edit warring and discuss. - wolf 03:49, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, what is there to "discuss"? I made my reasoning very clear for my edit, yet per McChizzle it is only "my opinion." Well, yes it most certainly is "my opinion" and if "floatright" causes such a ridiculous presentation of information as currently exists in this instance, then perhaps someone could reformat/resize the table so that we don't have a column of words constituting part of a sentence "hanging in space" separated from the remainder of the sentence and paragraph to which it belongs. Besides, the table is misplaced to begin with--the section it is within discusses specifically U.S Army warrant officer ranks, yet the table displays warrant officer grade of rank insignia for all U.S. services (who currently employ warrant officers). How can anyone possible believe the current form is a) appropriate, b) visually appealing, and c) easy to read (if one doesn't notice the "hanging partial sentence" and their eyes naturally flow to the bottom of the table to begin reading)? The paragraph begins in the middle of a sentence--and if one does see the beginning of the sentence it just stops...abruptly... and hangs there waiting... until one scans down and realizes that the sentence/paragraph begins many lines above and just waits... for the reader to catch on.CobraDragoon (talk) 05:51, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming to the talk page, CD. Now let's see what McChizzle has to say. Hopefully you two can work it out. Otherwise, perhaps we'll have to have an informal RfC to determine consensus for the page layout. Cheers - wolf 11:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you, CobraDragoon, are viewing the page on a small screen, like a smartphone, and using the browser view vs the mobile view. That could be part of your display problem. Shrinking the size of the table is a good idea. I agree, it's not in the best place and should be moved to the intro. I just have issue with left justifying due to the Wikipedia practice to right justify graphics and tables for easier reading. Plus, the added dead space that gets created in the way you formatted the table is not helpful. Take a look at the page now and let me know what you think. --McChizzle (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey McC, thanks for joining in. I gotta say, I'm not a fan of having that rank insignia table way up next to the TOC. I think it needs to go back to "Ranks" section. I'm reserving comment on the initial issue for now. Thanks again - wolf 13:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

CobraDragoon is right, that sub-section is only about Army ranks and the table is about all current warrant officer ranks (i.e. it's a little out of place). --McChizzle (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, thank you for moving the table; I believe it is good where it is now.CobraDragoon (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Up next to the TOC? That seems completely out of place. A table of rank insignia should be in the rank section. Now I know you guys couldn't agree on the text alignment, and now you feel that the rank section is too army-centric for a military-wide table (if I have that right), but sticking the table way up out of place simply to avoid those issues and take the easy way out is not a solution. It certainly doesn't improve the article. Perhaps a brief intro should be written for the ranks section that is more generic instead of army-specific, an intro that leads into the table, and then we can place the table there. Thoughts? - wolf 18:37, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

The "Rank" section that exists now is a subsection of the "Army" section. So the table really did not belong there. Your idea, Thewolfchild, is a good one, so go for it! --McChizzle (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed; how about placing the insignia table immediately below the last paragraph of the introduction and above the table of contents?CobraDragoon (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Please tell me you're joking. - wolf 20:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

No, not "joking" at all; please don't tell me you think having the table displaying insignia of all services placed within a section discussing specifically Army warrant officer ranks belongs within that section. I was/am attempting to help come up with a solution that not only makes sense but solves the original problem that brought this discussion into being--I don't know if you are attempting to be "cute" or just sarcastic, but I don't appreciate such an apparent condescending remark.CobraDragoon (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

OK, ok relax. No, it wasn't meant to be condescending. Anyways, it appears we have a solution for now, so I think we're done here. Have a nice day - wolf 12:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)