![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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 could agree with oldest use of the grades. -- Born2flie 14:44, 8 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.pdf 92.8.92.194 ( 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)
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)
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... Zue Jay ( talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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?
"All Naval Academy students, men and women, are called midshipmen, which is a rank between chief warrant officer and ensign in the Navy." [3]
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)
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
@ 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, thank you for moving the table; I believe it is good where it is now. CobraDragoon ( talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
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)
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 could agree with oldest use of the grades. -- Born2flie 14:44, 8 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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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.pdf 92.8.92.194 ( 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)
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)
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... Zue Jay ( talk) 02:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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?
"All Naval Academy students, men and women, are called midshipmen, which is a rank between chief warrant officer and ensign in the Navy." [3]
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)
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
@ 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, thank you for moving the table; I believe it is good where it is now. CobraDragoon ( talk) 17:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)