Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin - Federation of American ...

Myth: A WO1 is interchangeable
with a CW3/4
Another misconception is that since
a WO1 is an expert, he is thus interchangeable
with a CW3 or CW4. This
erroneous belief permeates our Army
culture and stems from the time in the
1960s and 1970s when Army force
structure documents specifi ed all warrant
offi cer requirements as “WO”; that
is, not graded. Up to that point, WO positions
had not been graded because
the methodology had not been developed
to determine the differences between positions
based on skill, experience, authority, and responsibility.
Although this management system provided signifi
cant assignment and utilization fl exibility, it also
permitted the poor distribution, ineffi cient employment
of skills and experience, and did not document
career progression.
Since the 1966 Warrant Offi cer Career Program
Study, thirteen related studies have concluded that
WO position identifi cation should be stated in terms
of grade required in addition to specialty. In 1984, the
Total Warrant Offi cer Study (TWOS) recommended
the grading of WO positions as W1 and W2 to be at
the junior level, and W3 and W4 to be senior level
positions. TWOS refi ned the position grading methodology
and was in fact the fi rst comprehensive grading
effort based on skill, experience, authority, and
responsibility. These fi ndings were later validated by
the Army Development System (ADS) XXI in 2002
and later the Army Training Leadership Development
Panel (ATLDP) in 2004 and further recommended the
assignment of WOs by grade.
The advantages of position grading are that it provides
clear upward progression and utilization of skills
and provides commanders with a positive indication of
experience level. In addition, grading more accurately
refl ects Army requirements, reduces assignment subjectivity
by establishing a degree of experience, and
provides a more equitable distribution of experience.
“Remember the past but look to the future”
In conclusion, a WO is not a WO, is not a WO. WOs
differ in levels of experience (indicated by rank), education,
and specialty. The progression to positions of
greater responsibility commensurate with grade, education,
training, experience, and seniority is as valid
for the WO as it is for the commissioned offi cer. The
assumption that grade is interchangeable in WO positions,
regardless of echelon and the qualifi cations
required, results in misuse and a waste of personnel
resources and the expertise gained as the result of
years of training and experience. It is also detrimental
to the morale of the WO Corps and mitigates incentive
to improve professionally.
July - September 2005 9