Wilcox BOSS Xe

Archive for the ‘Profession of Arms’ Category

USAF Authorizes Shorts for Maintainers, Ballcaps Coming Back, and More!

Thursday, March 4th, 2021

In a release published this week, the USAF has announced that maintainers will be allowed to wear shorts in lieu of ABU trousers when temperatures exceed 80 deg F.

Nellis AFB Airmen paved the way starting in the summer of 2019, wearing commercially produced shorts for work on the flight line. Now, the change will be force-wide.

According to the upcoming directive, “Authorized areas (for wear) will include the flight line, hangars and dock areas outside of climate-controlled areas. If commanders authorize the wear of the shorts, they will meet specified requirements that will be incorporated in the upcoming change to AFI 36-2903 for standardization and be worn with the coyote brown T-shirt and uniform green or coyote brown socks with uniform boots.”

But the upcoming change that will effect all Airmen is authorization of ball caps. The recent virtual uniform board recommended procurement of a “tactical cap” which will take approximately a year. The delay is because the cap will have to be Made in the USA and the vast majority of caps which units purchased in the past were not Berry compliant. This is an example of those caps which were worn while deployed to CENTAF.

Another welcome change for many, Airmen and Guardians in all specialties will be authorized to wear their functional community’s approved duty identifier patches. The identifier will be a maximum of five letters and maintain a standard spice brown color scheme. Here’s an example:

The Air Force also announced these changes:

Airmen and Guardians will also have more options for sock colors, glasses frames and bags carried in uniform. Service members will be able to wear conservative, solid black, white, navy blue, gray, desert sand, tan, Defense Logistics Agency?issued green or coyote brown socks with their physical training gear. The socks may have small trademark logos. New guidance for eyeglasses and sunglasses will allow more color options for frames to include black, brown, white, navy blue, gray or transparent material, or gold or silver wire. Finally, additional options for bags and bag colors will be authorized. Messenger and lunch bags will be permitted, and the following colors will be approved for all bags to be carried in uniform: black, brown, gray and navy blue. All authorized bags must be without design, unless ABU or OCP pattern.

Members will be also authorized to wear cold weather accessories without wearing authorized outer garments. For example, the fleece cap and/or gloves may be worn without an outer garment. Headphones or Bluetooth devices may be authorized in more environments. Wear or use of an earpiece, any Bluetooth wireless technology or headphones while in uniform, indoors or outdoors, is authorized for official duties or may be authorized as determined by the installation commander, delegable no lower than the squadron commander level.

These changes are set to take effect on 15 March, once the service updates Air Force Instruction 36-2903, Dress and Appearance.

New Annual Rifle Qualification To Make Marines More Lethal

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2021

The Marine Corps began the train-the-trainer course of the new Annual Rifle Qualification, which will fully replace the previous Table 1 and Table 2 qualification course of fire Oct. 1, 2021.

The ARQ was designed to give a more realistic and “train like you fight” environment by emphasizing lethality and positional shooting. Improvements to the Marine Corps rifle training and qualification program have been under development since 2016.

The ARQ will further develop combat scenario shooting skills resulting in a more proficient fighting force. The service-wide entry-level rifle training will remain unaffected for recruits at both Marine Corps Recruit Depots and for officers at The Basic School in order to develop strong fundamentals, confidence and weapon comfortability.

“Dating back to the early 1900’s with only minor changes from its original form, the current annual rifle training qualification has been unchanged,” said CWO4 Anthony L. Viggiani, Marine Gunner, Training and Education Command. “This has been the same qualification that every Marine shoots throughout their entire career, until now. The ARQ enhances proficiency, confidence, and lethality in a dynamic environment using multiple targets, limited exposure targets, moving targets and shooting on the move.”

Marine Corps-wide implementation will take place no later than the beginning of fiscal year 2022, with active-duty forces transitioning by October 1, and Marine Forces Reserve transition in FY22. During the second and third quarters of fiscal year 2021, Weapons Training Battalion at Marine Corps Base Quantico, Virginia, will provide training and assistance on the conduct of ARQ to formal marksmanship training units in order to facilitate the transition to service-wide ARQ implementation.

The ARQ includes a three-day course of fire. Day one includes a “holds day,” with the drill portion conducted first. Days two and three are pre-qualification and qualification, respectively, where the destroy portion is conducted first with engagements starting far to near in order to foster an offensive combat mindset.

The more operational training requires Marines to conduct the course of fire in helmet and body armor but allows the opportunity to use bipods, rest the weapon on their magazine, or rest their weapon on their assault pack as long as time constraints are met. Scoring is measured by lethal effects with destroying targets in the allotted time.

“This enables the individual Marine the opportunity to engage their weapon system from multiple firing positions and find the most efficient way to utilize alternate shooting positions throughout the course of fire,” said Viggiani. “Our operating environment has changed over the years, so we had to make changes to our qualifications on marksmanship.”

Other significant updates include the incorporation of a singular target throughout the course of fire, with exception of a moving target at the 100-yard line, with a requirement to score by hitting “lethality zones” and the introduction of support barricades at the 100 and 200 yards, allowing Marines to shoot from the standing, kneeling, or supported position with stationary and moving targets. This transition from a competition style course of fire to assessing lethal effects on a target is a significant change for the ARQ.

Similar to the Physical Fitness and Combat Fitness Tests, Marines must achieve a minimum standard in each portion of the course of fire to qualify in the overall assessment.

The implementation of the ARQ directly impacts the mission statement, “We must adapt our training in a manner consistent with the threat and anticipated operational challenges,” as stated in the Commandant’s Planning Guidance.

Story by Petty Officer 2nd Class Rachael A Treon, MCB Quantico Communication Directorate

Modern War Institute Polar SOF Essay Contest

Monday, February 22nd, 2021

10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), in cooperation with the Modern War Institute and Project 6633, is pleased to announce an essay contest to generate new ideas and expand the community of interest for special operations in the polar regions.

Defending American strategic interests may require special operations in the polar regions. Whether in competition, crisis, or conflict, the polar regions’ extreme weather, natural resources, and diplomatic divisions present challenges to any operations. If special operations are to succeed in the polar regions, polar state actors must develop the appropriate mixture of force posture, equipping, and readiness. Polar nations will improve their competitiveness in these regions by drawing on history, experimentation, and exercises.

Topic

Essays must answer the following prompt: How can American special operations forces compete with near-peer adversaries in the polar regions?

This topic is broad. We encourage authors to clearly articulate a specific idea or concept in their response.

Eligibility

• Essays will be accepted from any person from any field, and submissions from non-US participants are welcomed.

• Up to two people may co-author an essay entry.

• Participants may submit only one entry to the competition.

• Essays must be original, unpublished, and not subject to publication elsewhere.

Submission Guidelines

• Essays will not exceed 1,000 words.

• Use the standard submission guidelines for the Modern War Institute.

• Email your entry to USASOC.10.SFG.Polarsofcontest.SHDMBX@socom.mil with “Polar SOF Contest” in the subject line. Once submitted, no edits, corrections, or changes are allowed.

• Submission deadline: essays will be accepted until 11:59 PM EDT on May 2, 2021.

Selection Process

Submissions will be reviewed and evaluated by a team from the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne), the Modern War Institute, and Project 6633. Submissions will be assessed based on how well and creatively they address the topic of the contest and provoke further thought and conversation, as well as their suitability for publication by the Modern War Institute (e.g., style, sources, accessibility, etc.). See evaluation questions below:

• Does the essay clearly define a problem and present a solution?

• Does the essay show thoughtful analysis?

• Does the essay inject new provocative thinking or address areas where there needs to be more discussion?

• Does the essay demonstrate a unique approach or improve current initiatives?

• Does the essay take lessons from history and apply them to today’s challenges?

• Does the essay propose a project or concept that could realistically be applied by the 10th Special Forces Group (Airborne) or Army Special Operations?

• Does the essay demonstrate knowledge of relevant existing writing on polar operations and challenges?

• Is the essay logically organized, well written, and persuasive?

The commander of 10th Special Forces Group and Project 6633 co-directors will make the final judgement for the contest.

Winning Submissions

The top three essays will be announced publicly, and will be published by the Modern War Institute.

Depending on the evaluation of the Modern War Institute editorial team, revisions may be required before publication.

By MWI Staff

Image credit: US SOCEUR

The Baldwin Files – Knowing Yourself

Monday, February 15th, 2021

If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
? Sun Tzu, The Art of War

I have used the first sentence of this famous Sun Tzu axiom before. The entire quote provides a more complete framework for a professional soldier to consider. In terms of knowing the enemy, Sun Tzu advocated that a General [leader] focus a great deal of effort on gaining superior intelligence while denying the enemy similar information. That is sound advice for any military leader. However, I am not going to talk about that aspect of the art of war today. Instead, I want to talk about the arguably even more critical “knowing yourself” element of the equation. In many ways, it is the harder of the two to master. Harder, because it first requires a leader to develop and – over time – hone his or her self-awareness and self-reflective skills.

Certainly, throughout a career, a wise leader will routinely seek the perspective and advice of others about his or her performance – formal and informal. That aspect of professional development is also very important. Still, I consider that a follow-on step in the process and will leave it for another time as well. The best start point, in my professional opinion, should always be a brutally honest self-assessment. A thorough and candid appraisal of personal strengths, weaknesses, skills, and idiosyncrasies that must be, likewise, continuously updated as a leader gains better self-perception. I will share some of my personal experiences as examples to illustrate. I admit up front that I was rarely as self-aware as I am now in hindsight. I wish I had known in the beginning what I know now. Unfortunately, that is not how it worked for me; but, perhaps, this article will inspire others to seek to know themselves better – and sooner – than I did. Keep in mind, that regardless of source, an assessment is of little value until it is internally “operationalized” to reinforce the positives and address any negatives.

When I started my journey, I was not completely clueless. I knew early on that I wanted to be good at my job and was ready and willing to work at it. I took advantage of every training opportunity available to me and taught myself as well by intently studying the relevant manuals. At this point, the reader is probably starting to wonder what this has to do with the generic picture of the 463L Pallets above? It is simple. I really like building pallets. I always have. I built my first in Germany in the winter of 1975. Our Infantry Company was rotating to Berlin for MOUT training and I was part of the detail tasked to build and load our accompanying pallets on C130s. It impressed me that a loose pile of footlockers, duffel bags, and other gear could be so quickly organized into a symmetrical air-worthy load. As a Pathfinder, I received formal training on how to build pallets correctly and also taught classes on the subject to other units in the Division. Later, at Fort Lewis and then Schofield Barracks, I ran details building pallets for battalion-sized deployments. Belatedly, at Fort Bragg, I eventually received more training on all things air-movement by completing a Load Planners Course.

No matter how senior I got, if I saw a pallet that needed building, I jumped on it – literally. I did not care to just supervise on the sideline. I enjoyed the constructive process of manhandling hard and soft items like tuff boxes and kit bags, etc., and eventually getting that final stable cube configuration. It was fun for me and, frankly, I never gave it much thought beyond that. That changed in the late fall of 1997. I was nearing the end of my command of Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 3rd SFG. We were getting ready to come back to Fort Bragg from a desert training iteration in an austere satellite facility of Fort Bliss. We had a half dozen empty pallets pre-positioned and were going to build the loads the next day. My Company SGM came to me that evening to confirm that all the teams were ready to go in the morning. He looked at me a little sheepishly and said that the Team Sergeants had asked him to do one thing. That was “keep Major Baldwin at least 50 meters away from the pallets.”

That caught me by surprise. I was not mad about it. We had been together for almost 18 months and they knew me well. I understood that they were just giving me some good-natured ribbing about one of my obvious eccentricities and they expected me to take it with good humor. It was kind of funny. So, the next day, I watched the pallets being built through a window from inside a building. I was missing the fun! That actually bothered me more than I thought it would. It made me think. Why did I like building those pallets so much? I did not find an immediate answer. With my follow-on tour at Leavenworth and then the schoolhouse at Camp Mackall, I did not even see a pallet again until after 9/11. During GWOT I did get to build a few more pallets from time to time. I still liked it, and by then I had done enough introspection to know why.

I got satisfaction from the process of solving what was essentially a life-size puzzle. Taking the individual pieces and fitting them together into a new coherent form. I eventually realized that building the pallets was something of a mental exercise that actually made me a better leader. After all, a lot of leadership involves building plans and making decisions – solving puzzles – without knowing exactly what the final end product will look like. So, in this case, my pallet quirk was indicative of a beneficial positive attribute that served me well over the years. Of course, it was still a little weird. Over time, I also became acutely aware of some of my other personality traits like impatience and temper that were two-edged swords. I came to understand that as long as I kept them under control and channeled that energy towards positive goals, they helped drive me forward and were useful. In that sense, they served me well. Yet, there was always the danger of a counter-productive emotional explosion that I learned to constantly guard against. I was successful more often than not, but it was a perpetual struggle.    

I had a few more epiphanies during other assignments. In 1978-80, I was stationed at Fort Lewis, Washington. It was the time of the infamous post-Vietnam “Hollow Army” – for those that can remember that far back. The 9th Infantry Division at Lewis was the lowest priority of the 18 divisions in the Army at the time. That meant that we had only a fraction of the soldiers and leaders we were authorized on paper. The practical result was that the Rifle Company I was assigned to had only two officers. A First Lieutenant who was the Company Commander, and a 2nd Lieutenant who was the XO. We had only one SFC and he was the First Sergeant. The Weapons Platoon (TOWs and 81mm Mortars) and two of the Rifle Platoons were led by Staff Sergeants. I was a Sergeant, E-5, with just two years in grade when I got there; yet, I was the most senior and experienced sergeant in the company. Therefore, for almost a year, I led the 2nd Platoon. The platoon had one other sergeant and a corporal and, including us NCOs, a grand total of 18-20 men present for duty during my entire tour.

Despite the challenges, that job was a wonderful leadership laboratory for me and an invaluable professional development experience. I learned more about myself and leadership in general during those months than in any other assignment. I was proud of that platoon. We got pretty good at doing more with less. At one point, we were practicing for a company raid on a small MOUT facility. We spent two days on the site practicing various techniques. On the third day, the company issued the raid order. In it, my platoon was tasked to establish a blocking position on the road intersection a couple of hundred meters away from the site. I was livid. I went to the Company Commander and asked for a mission change. I wanted us to be part of the assault element – not on the sideline.

I pointed out that my guys had performed at least as well as the other platoons during the train up. In fact, I thought we had done better. My CO agreed. Then he explained that he had made his decision based on three factors. First, the site only had 6 buildings and was too small for all three platoons to realistically maneuver simultaneously and the intersection needed to be blocked in any case. Second, he had observed that my platoon had done well and he figured that the other two platoons needed the additional training more than we did. Third, just as would be true on a real-world raid, he needed to be on the objective. Therefore, he had to have confidence that the leader responsible for the blocking position would be able to handle any likely contingencies without additional guidance. He said, “that is why I picked you.” I was still not entirely happy, but I could not argue with his logic.

That situation gave me a lot to think about. It was not the first time I recognized that I always had the compulsion to be in the middle of any action. My CO had me pegged. I wanted my team to take the hardest missions that mattered the most. I liked making the tough decisions, appreciated maximum autonomy, and was comfortable with ambiguity. In other words, I was invariably motivated to move to the sound of the proverbial guns – with or without orders. That realization not only gave me insight into what kind of leader I was, it also told me where my career needed to go. That eventually meant seeking a commission and later Special Forces duty. It turned out that I was a pretty good fit for that kind of organization and those specific leadership challenges.

One more. This is a Ranger School story. When I was in Florida, I had a minor dental issue with a filling and they took me to the Eglin AFB dental clinic. No Ranger Cadre stayed with me so I was under no supervision. There were soda and candy machines in the waiting area but any food item that was not issued to us was expressly off-limits. I never approached the machines. More importantly, although I was tired and the whole process took about 3 ½ boring hours, I never slept. My teammates were already out in the swamp patrolling and my only mission was to get myself fixed and rejoin them as quickly as possible. I took my duty to my team seriously. Readers of some of my other articles have probably noted that I am not afraid to dodge, bend, or even break, rules if I think it is vital to achieving mission success. Not all rules are created equal.

However, I do NOT believe in cheating on tests. In formal training venues like Ranger School, the standards are established specifically to test soldiers. If I could not meet those standards honestly – with my integrity intact – I would always know that my Tab was tainted and not entirely legitimate. Even if no one else ever found out. Sneaking a nap or a candy bar would have been entirely self-serving and was not going to help me get a passing grade on a patrol or ultimately to graduation. I also had confidence in myself. I knew I did not need to cheat to meet the demands of the school. And I sure as hell was not going to risk getting dropped over a candy bar! I never shared this story with anyone at the time. There was no need. Maintaining my discipline when nobody was looking was just a small victory for me to appreciate. Given that I was an experienced leader by that time, it would have been out of character for me to do anything less. As a side note, I did get a chance to shower and put on a clean uniform before they took me to the clinic – that was pretty nice.

Those are just a handful of the thousands of data points I collected during my career that gave me the unblinking and penetrating look at myself that I needed to evolve. It was certainly not all flattering. Be prepared for that. Solving the puzzle of who you are – and who you are not – is a continuous job for any leader. It does not happen overnight. Think of the 463L now as a metaphor. The enduring task is to fit all your traits – the good and the problematic – onto one metaphysical pallet in order to put the puzzle together and fully know yourself. Ultimately, building a solid professional structure that will improve with age, travel well, and successfully endure all the trials of leadership. Every good leader has to learn how to thrive and not just survive with whatever talents and liabilities that they are blessed or cursed with. In short, a leader is going to be more successful if he or she gets and keeps their own personal shit reasonable tight first!

Finally, always remember that leaders are just one part of an organization. It is not necessary or possible to do everything on your own. Learn to rely on the rest of the team. Cultivate some mentors and coaches for yourself. Be ready and available to provide the same service for your soldiers. Build your team. Develop your subordinates as you improve yourself. Even as relatively senior leaders, we rarely have the option to choose all of our teammates; but I suggest taking advantage of any opportunities that might present themselves to pick as many as you can. Try hard to get people who are smarter and better than you. For best results, strive to team up with people that complement your strengths and/or compensate for your weaknesses. Make sure at least a couple are honest brokers that will tell you when you are wrong. Usually, your senior NCO is that kind of trusted interlocutor. An Executive Officer, 2IC, or Deputy should be another. Take any personal or professional setbacks in stride. I do not know any successful leader who traveled a perfectly straight line to where they wanted to be. Good luck on your journey!

De Oppresso Liber!

LTC Terry Baldwin, US Army (Ret) served on active duty from 1975-2011 in various Infantry and Special Forces assignments. SSD is blessed to have him as both reader and contributor.

USAF Updates AFI 36-2903 “Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel”

Thursday, February 11th, 2021

In a new release of AFI 36-2903 Dress and Personal Appearance of Air Force Personnel dated 7 Feb 2021, the service formally enters a new era of hair braids for female personnel.

As for items that affect every Airman, you’ll be pleased to know that morale patches are once again authorized for wear on ACUs on Fridays, pending approval by commanders.

Here’s a list of changes of note:

1) updates female hair standards to allow braid and ponytail hairstyles to be worn below the collar and bangs to touch eyebrows;

2) clarifies blues belt wear policy, the command insignia pin policy, coyote brown boot laces policy, and that current subdued version of unit/organizational patches may be worn until the patch color conversion has been completed by the Institute of Heraldry

3) incorporates previously approved policy language allowing higher headquarters units to purchase flight suit name tags for standardization within their units;

4) incorporates previously approved permanent wear of awarded recruiting badges by Airmen with an 8R special duty identifier in their records;

5) incorporates previously approved additional color options with flight attendant uniform;

6) incorporates previously approved updates to Airmen’s hair bulk standard, shaving waivers, clarification of male straight line hair part, nametapes/tags, grooming and appearance standards, removal of the terms “faddish,” “complexion” and combat boot height requirements.

TRADOC’s New “Project Athena” Initiative Promotes Personal, Professional Self-Development

Saturday, February 6th, 2021

Officers attending Basic Officer Leaders Course-B and Captains Career Courses are getting the opportunity to jump-start their self-development with a U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command initiative called “Project Athena.”

Project Athena, named for the Greek goddess of war and signifying wisdom and learning, is a leader development program designed to inform and motivate Soldiers to embrace personal and professional self-development. These assessments are intended to serve Soldiers throughout their career and over the next year will extend to noncommissioned officer, warrant officer and Civilian Education System courses at all levels of professional military education.

Specific assessments vary based on the level of PME. Trained proctors at the Centers of Excellence are currently delivering a series of introductory assessments to BOLC-B students. Assessments tapping into more advanced capabilities are given progressively to CCC and later to other more senior military students in the Command and General Staff Officers’ Course.

Mission Command Center of Excellence Director Brig. Gen. Charles Masaracchia is spearheading the program for TRADOC and the Combined Arms Center. “Leaders need to ask themselves three questions: ‘Am I as good as I want to be, or need to be, to lead Soldiers? Am I willing to honestly answer an assessment about who I am right now? Am I willing to put in the effort to improve?’ If the answer is ‘I’m not as good as I need to be,’ then Athena can help.”

As an example, BOLC-B students execute the following assessments during the program of instruction: Nelson Denny Reading Test, Criterion Online Writing Evaluation Service, Social Awareness and Influence Self-Assessment, Self-Assessment Individual Difference – Inventory (SAID-I), Army Critical Thinking Test, and a Leader 180 (self and peer assessment). In contrast, CCC students conduct a full Leader 360 (includes self, peer and superior assessments), Social Skills Inventory, Individual Adaptability, SAID-I, and the Military and Defense Critical Thinking Test and Inventory.

Staff and faculty are then made available to interpret the results and provide feedback to the individual, upon request. This feedback, a crucial component of the program, will help students gain self-awareness, learn where they need improvement and guide them in the creation of a self-development plan.

Hundreds of learning resources, tied to each assessment and the areas assessed, are available at no cost to the individual. Armed with this information, Soldiers can begin the self-development process immediately and proceed at their own pace.

“Athena takes a comprehensive view of what Soldiers and leaders need to be able to do and the ways they can improve,” said Col. Samuel Saine, director of the Center for the Army Profession and Leadership. “Better self-awareness allows individuals to make better choices about what they do – with tangible feedback, they can quickly take action to address how they lead, communicate, think, and interact with others.”

Athena assessments began in July 2020 and CAPL and the CoEs are continuously reviewing the program’s execution and making adjustments as necessary. All students in the remainder of the CCCs and in CGSOC will begin using Athena assessments in early 2021.

“Leaders that answer their assessments openly and honestly, will benefit the most,” said Saine. “They can continue to evaluate feedback and adjust their personalized programs throughout their careers. The intent is to fuel a lifelong commitment to self-development and improvement. If we’ve accomplished that, we’ve met our goal.”

By Randi Stenson, MCCoE Public Affairs

“Strategic Latency Unleashed”

Friday, February 5th, 2021

Your reading assignment for tonight:
STRATEGIC LATENCY UNLEASHED: THE ROLE OF TECHNOLOGY IN A REVISIONIST GLOBAL ORDER AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES

Get your copy here.

US Space Force Selects Rank Structure, Still No Insignia

Sunday, January 31st, 2021

This will come in handy for those of you working in a joint environment. Late last week, US Space Force issued a memorandum outlining the rank structure for their Guardians with an effective date of 1 February 2021.

E1 Spc1 Specialist 1

E2 Spc2 Specialist 2

E3 Spc3 Specialist 3

E4 Spc4 Specialist 4

E5 Sgt Sergeant

E6 TSgt Technical Sergeant

E7 MSgt Master Sergeant

E8 SMSgt Senior Master Sergeant

E9 CMSgt Chief Master Sergeant

E9 CMSSF Chief Master Sergeant of the Space Force

You may address the junior enlisted specialist ranks as “Specialist.” Alternatively, you may use “Spec” or “Specialist” and the grade, as in “Spec4” like they used to do in the Army.

Sergeants are of course addressed as “Sergeant,” which can be used for TSgt and MSgt as well. TSgt may be also addressed as “Tech Sergeant” or “Technical Sergeant” although a MSgt may be only alternatively addressed as “Master Sergeant.” Interestingly, a SMSgt may be called “Senior” and a CMSgt “Chief.”

This convention is an interesting break in logic for Senior NCOs. Of course, in the late ’50s the Air Force was so enamored with the so-called “super grades” of E8 and E9 that they traded their Warrant Officers in for more of them. In fact, until 1995, Air Force enlisted rank insignia kept the MSgt and below visually distinct by only putting SMSgt and CMSgt stripes above the star. I guess in the mid-90s something finally made them give in and acknowledge MSgts as Senior NCOs. But I digress. I almost let you off by tiptoeing earlier around the fact that you can call a CMSgt just “Chief,” but you can’t call a MSgt just “Master.” Marinate in that one for awhile.

Having said all of that, there’s still no word on what USSF enlisted rank insignia will actually look like aside from this temporary CMSSF insignia.

Although Officer ranks were also mentioned in the memorandum, there is no difference from the Air Force, Army or Marines. Alas, USSF seems to have taken the Air Force’s lead and chosen to forego Warrants.