I know virually zip when it comes to military ranking.
In this CNN story, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was demoted to colonel.
How much of a demotion is this? How much money will she lose?
Janis Karpinski was demoted by only one rank. As a Brigadier General, she was an O-7, a colonel is O-6. Her pay loss depends on how many years she was in the service… I doubt it was very significant.
Could she regain her original rank?
Are the ranks in the U.S. Army the same as in the game Stratego?
As a matter of practicality, unless the decision is overturned, she will never regain her Brigadier General rank. When a soldier is demoted, it is more serious the higher rank the soldier is. For instance, a Private First Class (E2) can get demoted to Private (E1) for a seemingly minor offense, and as long as that soldier picks himself or herself up and starts down the right track, the demotion at that level will be meaningless eventually. At the higher ranks, such as non-commissioned officers (E7 and above), and all officers, a demotion basically means you won’t get promoted ever again, although there are probably exceptions. At the flag rank (O7 and up), the officer is already at the premiere executive level, and it’s all over once there is a demotion.
-Tofer
p.s. As for the Stratego ranks, they skip a whole bunch, but the ranks follow the same order except for “scout,” “spy,” “miner,” and “marshall” which don’t exist as ranks in the U.S. (I think Marshall may exists in European armies, but I’m not sure).
Link to US Army ranks and pay grade table Pay grade applies accross the board to all the Armed Forces and to the Public Health Service and NOAA Corps.
Notice the table does not show salaries for O-9s and O-10s – their basic pay is the same as the max pay for an O-8. IIRC, the 3- and 4-star ranks depend on the specific appointment to a post at that level (i.e. you don’t “earn a promotion” to O-9 or O-10, the Prez(on the advice of the CoS) decides he wants you to be one).
Demotion from BGN to COL represents a -$1800 a month hit in basic pay, but losing your stars over something like this is not only a career-killer, but it is also seen as a brand of disgrace – specially so if your general/flag rank was permanent rank, and not an “operational” rank (officers can be given a higher rank for a specific duty assignment, and then returned to their permanent rank once they’re done with it).
The note at the bottom says that
The rank of General of the Army (five-star general), out ranking a regular General (four-star) was created during WWII so that the U.S. would have a rank equivalent to that of Marshall used iin European armies.
According to the link:
I take it her rank wasn’t an “operational” rank.
Marshall, in the french army, isn’t a rank, but an honorific distinction granted in time of war or later for service in time of war (by the way, marshalls are the only french officers that get to be called the equivalent of “sir” : “monsieur”, showing again that it’s more a title than a rank). Actually, I think it’s fairly similar to the US “general of the army/armies”. I wouldn’t know for other european countries.
Weirdly enough, the only other distinction which isn’t a rank is situated at the other end of the military hierarchy (1st class private).
I believe marshall was an actual rank in the soviet army.
On a related note, there was some hoo-hah when the RAF was formed and its rank structure defined, because the top four ranks there (ascending: Air Vice Marshal, Air Marshal, Air Chief Marshal and Marshal Of The RAF) all had “Marshal” in the title, and the Army types were sniffy because this devalued the word “Marshal”, applicable only to the single highest rank in the Army.
No-one will be surprised who knows anything of quaint Brit logic, as in our pre-decimal currency, to learn that although a Major is much higher in rank than a Lieutenant, a Lieutenant-General outranks a Major-General.
“General of the Army” is an actual rank, not just an honorific, and as my link stated, equivalent to the British rank of Field Marshall.
From here:
The original US rank of General of the Army was created during the Civil War and was a four-star rank, held by Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan.
As mentioned before, a five-star General of the Army rank was created during WWII.
“General of the Armies” is a different rank, which has been held only by John Pershing. It technically outranks a five-star general, but Pershing only ever wore four stars.
“General of the Armies of the United States” is a rank posthumously created for George Washingtion in order to make him senior to all subsequent officers.
I stand corrected – indeed the O-9 and O-10 grades, though tied in to appointment to the post, do have a higher scale (though generals’ raises are capped administratively).
Actually, this comes from the historical development of military ranks. As a very simplistic overview, the original military command positions were related to small companies of men, led by a Captain, assisted by a Lieutenant as a junior officer and a Sergeant-Major as the senior “enlisted” man (a sergeant was originally a mounted man-at-arms, essentially a knight without the social standing).
When the need arose for a formal command structure for larger bodies of troops, the logical ranks became (Captain) General, Lieutenant General, and (Sergeant-)Major General.
More importantly, unless Col. Karpinsky is added to the “recommended for promotion” list right now, she must retire from the reserves after completing 28 years of service – this year.
This is not the result of the quaint British mind, but the result of abbreviating the phrase “sergeant-major general” to “major general.” He was the sergeant major of sergeant majors. And the rank below “general” is “lieutenant general” not because of any reference to the rank “lieutenant,” but because he was the general’s lieutenant, meaning assistant or adjutant.
The rank “general” itself is an abbreviation of the phrase “captain-general,” the “head captain” of the army.
Bookkeeper, you beat me to it, and a much more succinct explanation, too.
The Master speaks: Why does a lieutenant general outrank a major general while a major outranks a lieutenant?
I think the bigger issue is that in the Army, there are enlisted, there are officers and there are Generals. Busting a General to Colonel is a lot bigger than busting a Colonel to Major or Captain.
In the corporate world, wouldn’t this be the equivalent of removing someone from their big corner office in the executive wing and putting them in an office overlooking the loading dock?
As many people have said before: the higher the rank, the more significant a “bust” down in grade.
For commissioned officers this sort of thing is almost unheard of, and is certainly a career-killer.
Heck, just not making a promotion on time can be a career-killer for officers. (The following example is drawn from my Air Force experience; other branches may differ but I suspect they are similar): The first two promotions as an officer are fairly automatic (2nd Lt to 1st Lt and then to Capt). If you haven’t screwed the commander’s wife or gotten a DUI, you’ll make Captain (the two guys I know who didn’t make Captain did those two things).
The jump from Captain to Major is the first fairly competitive hurdle, and the promotion rate varies wildly with the manning needs of the service. Even so, if you get passed over for Major you are pretty much done in the Air Force. You might make Major on your second board, but your career has stagnated. The “fast-burners” make Major the first time around or early (when it’s allowed), and continue to “make rank” quickly. There is almost no chance of someone being passed over for Major EVER making full colonel. Brigadier General is out of the question.
The point is: officers are expected to make rank quickly; if you fall behind you are left behind. Getting “busted” down a rank happens so rarely that everyone reads about it in the paper.