Toward the End of the 1960s

Throughout the 1960s, each of the armed services periodically adjusted the size of its warrant officer corps. During the early part of the decade, the Marine Corps nearly eliminated its warrant ranks and at one point had fewer than 2,000 warrant officers on active duty.

The Navy also considered reducing its warrant officer population. In contrast, the Army maintained the largest warrant corps, with more than 14,000 warrant officers, and in 1966 announced plans to increase that number by an additional 4,000. Around the same time, the Army expressed interest in expanding the warrant pay structure to include W-5 and W-6 grades—an idea that would not be realized until nearly 25 years later.
Within the Coast Guard, warrant officers continued to represent approximately 25 percent of the officer corps. However, significant pay inequities persisted between W-1s and the newly established senior enlisted grades of E-8 and E-9. In many cases, senior enlisted members earned more than newly appointed warrant officers and faced no immediate reduction in monthly income or retirement projections.
As a result, many highly qualified enlisted personnel declined warrant appointments. The immediate reduction in monthly pay—and the potential impact on retirement benefits—made promotion financially unattractive, particularly during the years when family and financial responsibilities were greatest.
Recognizing the seriousness of the issue, the Association surveyed members and consulted active-duty personnel to identify solutions. In July 1966, the Association formally appealed to Commandant ADM Willard J. Smith, stating:
“…failure to entice these experienced personnel to accept appointment may result in a lowering of the standards of the warrant corps of the Coast Guard.
“A study by the Association reveals the reason for the lack of interest is the pay differential which now exists between the warrant and the E-8 and E-9 enlisted grades. It is true that over a period of time, about 12 years under the present 2-4-4 time-in-grade policy, a warrant officer’s cumulative gross earnings will overtake the earnings of the E-9 for the same period. When they consider the loss they must suffer in monthly pay, our enlisted men are reluctant to make this monetary sacrifice for promotion at a time when their financial responsibilities are the greatest.”
The Commandant acknowledged the problem and established a personnel board to conduct an in-depth review. He assured the Association that the findings would be shared upon completion of the study.
This exchange underscored the Association’s continued vigilance in protecting the professional standards and long-term viability of the warrant officer corps as the decade drew to a close.