A Warrant Officer is not a Warrant Officer is not a Warrant Officer ...

Just as our Army is changing to meet future threats, the Warrant Officer (WO) Corps is changing to meet the requirements of the transforming Army. Many actions and initiatives have been instituted to fix, improve, and ensure the long--term health and relevance of the WO Corps. The Army's transformation demands that our leadership take proactive actions to ensure that the WO cohort remains as a viable portion of our Army.

In almost every briefing regarding the WO program that I attend there are recurring obsolete ideas about what a WO should be. These outdated opinions are nested in the past but unfortunately continue to reappear and must be clarified before effective future change can occur. My intent and purpose of this column is to set the record straight on two of the most pervasive misconceptions regarding WOs. The first is that a Warrant Officer One (WO1) is an expert and the second is that a WO1 is interchangeable with senior WOs.

Myth" The WO1 is an Expert

The philosophy that an individual, upon appointment to WO1, is fully technically competent is not valid. The latest release of the DA Pam 600-3, Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management, dated 14 October 2005, describes a WO1 as an "entry" level officer. Today's WO1s are accessed younger in their careers with an average of two assignments (one being in combat). They are chosen for the WO program, not because they have a vast experience base, but because they possess the ability to learn, the eagerness to tackle challenges, and the potential to contribute to the Army's mission as an officer, leader, and technician.

Of course everyone remembers the way it used to be. Twenty-five years ago the Army accessed WO1s from senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) ranks who had well over 10 years in the service. The expectation was that the more senior the NCO, the more experience that individual would bring to the WO ranks. This WO did not require training because he brought expertise gained from a long career in the NCO ranks. The main problem was that a WO accessed under this system often reached retirement age as a Chief Warrant Officer Two (CW2) or CW3. The Army could only keep a WO under this system for 6 to 8 years of WO service before the officer made the decision to retire. This practice compounded the senior WO shortages that we have today.

In order to obtain more WO service years and to fix the shortage of senior WOs, the Army has started to access WO at the five to eight years in service. Although there are concerns about the lack of technical expertise from this younger accessions, the fact of the matter is that no less than five WO studies have concluded that younger accessions is the logical approach to fixing several of the challenges faced today. The Army has made a conscious decision to invest in the future by accessing WOs earlier and allowing them to grow into CW4s or CW5s before retirement age. So, the new WOls do not have the experience base that a WO1 accessed in the 1980s had--they are not supposed to, they are not experts.

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 specified all warrant officer 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 significant assignment and utilization flexibility, it also permitted the poor distribution, inefficient employment of skills and experience, and did not document career progression.

Since the 1966 Warrant Officer Career Program Study, thirteen related studies have concluded that WO position identification should be stated in terms of grade required in addition to specialty. In 1984, the Total Warrant Officer 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 refined the position grading methodology and was in fact the first comprehensive grading effort based on skill, experience, authority, and responsibility. These findings 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 reflects Army requirements, reduces assignment subjectivity by establishing a degree of experience, and provides a more equitable distribution of experience.

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 officer. The assumption that grade is interchangeable in WO positions, regardless of echelon and the qualifications 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.

"Remember the past but look to the future"

by Chief Warrant Officer Five James J. Prewitt-Diaz U.S. Army Military Intelligence Corps