Flashback: Return of the in-betweener

“To best optimize itself for Great Power Competition, the Air Force plans to, among other things, bring back warrant officers within the cyber and information technology professions,” said Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David W. Allvin during a presentation Feb. 12, 2024 at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium.[i]  The fulfillment of this announcement remains to be seen; however, it has not been uncommon for Air Force leaders on multiple occasions to change rank insignia, add new pay grades, and eliminate grades. 

Photo Details / Download Hi-Res

In the early transition years of the Air Force, the enlisted rank structure remained the same as the Army Air Forces.  The Army had Private, Private First Class, Corporal, Sergeant, Staff Sergeant, Technical Sergeant, and Master Sergeant.  Airmen retained the same titles to their rank.  Not only was rank insignia the same, but the uniforms were also the same.

Not long after, a distinctive Air Force chevron was being sewn onto Air Force, but not Army, uniforms.  The chevrons sported a blue background with silver chevrons or stripes.  

In 1952, Private became “Basic Airmen,” Private First Class became “Airman Third Class,” Corporal became “Airman Second Class,” and Sergeant became “Airman First Class.”  This change of address or title was significant also in the fact it moved the rank of Sergeant from the noncommissioned officer ranks to the Airman ranks -- a demotion in the eyes of many enlisted personnel. 

As can be seen, enhancing the enlisted corps was not a new concept for Air Force leaders as it was a fluid situation.  Air Force enlisted rank would change many times over the years.  One surprising changed occurred when leaders opted to create new insignia for the three lower grades of the USAF enlisted corps.

Photo Details / Download Hi-Res

The approved stripes were ready for the Air Force uniform, however, due to large quantities of current grade chevrons already in the supply system, the new design was not to be released until existing stocks were depleted.  The Director of Supply and Services estimated the stock of old chevrons would be exhausted by June 1955.  As a result of this report,Vandenberg delayed the announcement of the new design until that time, thus ensuring existing stocks would continue to be purchased.  The idea was that if Airmen knew of the “New Chevron,” they would stop purchasing the old-style chevrons, and uniforms would begin to look “shabby.”[iii]

In mid-1955, the stock was still not depleted, and the announcement was once again delayed.  By 1956, the old chevrons were depleted and the new Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Nathan Twining, when asked about the new design, stated in a short informal memo, “No change is to be made in insignia.”  The transition ended before it started and the “Horizontal” designed chevrons were never to be more than an approved rank insignia, not making it to the uniform, but remains a rich addition to our Air Force uniform heritage.[iv] 

Change was a constant in the late 40s through the 60s, within the USAF and the DoD as a whole.  The enlisted corps throughout the DoD was losing its upper echelon E-6 and E-7 personnel.  Retention issues were elevated to President Dwight Eisenhower and on  May 20, 1958,  Eisenhower took steps to enhance the prestige of the enlisted rank structure across the DoD, calling for the creation of new E-8 and E-9 pay grades.   

Photo Details / Download Hi-Res

The committee went on to consider, “…technological change means a change of weapons in the combat units, change in the techniques in weapons maintenance and use, and change in the level of skill and judgment of the user.  The day has passed when large portions of the military workforce performed relatively unskilled tasks and major measure of their competence was based upon discipline and physical fitness only.”[vi]  The Committee also found (in 1957) the wages received by military personnel could not compete with civilian employment, promotional opportunities were greater in the civilian sector for those in the enlisted force, and benefits found in the military were outweighed by found in the civilian world (except 20 year retirement options).[vii]

During Jan. 1958, legislation based on the findings of the Cordiner Committee were submitted to Congress, and the legislation created a push for more meaningful incentives offered to the DoD Enlisted Corps.  Interestingly, the Cordiner proposals projected a savings of up to $5 billion annually at a cost of only $650 million for the first year with funding coming from the existing budgets within the services.[viii]  At the time these proposed savings did not include the elimination of the WO Program. 

Note:  for cost comparisons, please see the following monthly pay scales for Warrant Officers, E-7, and E-6 (prior to E-8 and E-9) and after E-8 and E-9 introduction:

Table:  Monthly Basic Pay and Allowances, 1955, condensed version.

Table:  Monthly Basic Pay and Allowances, 1959, condensed version.

Note: at 22 years, W-2s and E-9s catch up on pay.

The USAF Warrant Officer Program was a “holdover,” from the Army, specifically a holdover from the Army Air Forces.  Warrant Officers retain their rank based on a warrant and not a commission; the rank insignia of the WO reflects this.   The USAF WO Program consisted of four ranks: Warrant Officer 1, Chief Warrant Officer 2, Chief Warrant Officer 3, and Chief Warrant Officer 4.  All obviously had varying skill levels and pay scales as can be seen in the pay tables above.  The Air Force changed the Army Warrant Officer insignia in color and design late 1947.

In late 1958, as a result of the new “Super Grades,” General Curtis E. Lemay, USAF Vice Chief of Staff, initiated a review of the WO Program.  An Ad Hoc Committee studied the WO Program recommending the discontinuance of procuring WOs and to utilize and reclassify current WOs as company grade commissioned officers for Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSC) authorizations.[1]  Gen. Lemay approved their recommendations in July 1959.  The approval was also economical, using E-8 and E-9s to fill superintendent positions was significantly less expensive than utilizing warrant officers to perform similar duties, the introduction did not Eliminate WOs, just their procurement.[ix]

The Air Force “Super Grades” entered their new responsibilities, “…anchoring their roots in the personnel management system at the superintendent level.  Consequently, the new SMSgt and CMSgt achieved the Cordiner Committee’s vision as they gained increased responsibilities performing duties previously held by warrant officers.”[x]

The time of the AF WO saw them being, “…considered, essentially, a technical specialist acting in a supervisory capacity over a technical activity.”[xi]  Allvin seems to be looking for the same thing by attracting and developing, “…cutting-edge talent, specifically within information technology and cyber fields. The service plans to expand technical tracks for officers and create technical tracks for enlisted, and to also reintroduce the rank of warrant officer within the information technology and cyber fields as a way to maintain technical leadership with those skills.”[xii]

Will the WO program return as just a program with previous rank insignia, or will WOs be considered part of a corps with new insignia?  This remains to be seen but, "…developing that warrant officer track for this narrow career field, we anticipate will drive that talent in and help us to keep that talent. There's something specific about this career field, why it's attractive and it's a nice match for a warrant officer program. The pace of change of the cyber world, the coding world, the software world — it is so rapidly advancing, we need those Airmen to be on the cutting edge and stay on the cutting edge."[xiii]