Military etiquette question

YourFatAuntSusan

As a current non-member, is it proper to address a serving member by their rank if speaking to them professionally? (not casually)

ie: "Hello, Corporal Smith. My name is John and I'm phoning today regarding etc etc..."

My Google-fu has failed me.

muninn

I have always used Rank - Last Name system of nomenclature when dealing with Army and NG personel in a professional setting, and I have seen others do so as well.

kaliyama

Its' their title, so in my experience, I can't go wrong doing it though usually officers I speak to put me on a first name basis. If you want to direct your google-fu, I would do searches for the protocol departments of each branch. Feel free to call a protocol officer, too.

Richard_Dastardly

For officers, I'd say yes.

As for enlisted... would you be speaking to them in regards to some aspect of their service? If so, then it'd probably be good etiquette to refer to them by their rank. But, honestly, most enlisted people won't really care either way (unless they're al ate up).

i n c u b u s

I work in a government facility that has a lot of active duty members and we are always to adress them by their rank. Hell my dad works with me (waaaaay above me I should say) and even though he's retired people still refer to him as ltc so and so.

mcdermott

Yes, when speaking to a service member professionally it is expected that you refer to them by rank. Some may tell you to refer to them by first name after, but this is the appropriate starting point.

Also if you'll be doing this often you may want to look up the specific rules regarding addressing different ranks as they vary by branch. I don't think anybody would ever get pissed off if you simply go by Rank+Name, but there are some instances where using full rank isn't technically proper...for instance, I think Warrant Officers go by "Mr. Such and Such" rather than "Chief Warrant Officer Such and Such." Or that mid-level sergeants in the Army (SSG, SFC) go simply by "Sergeant Dudeguy" whereas in the Marines you always use full rank.

Richard_Dastardly

mcdermott wrote: »

whereas in the Marines you always use full rank.

I hate that shit. Look, dude, I had a hard enough time memorizing my own service's rank structure. I'm sure as hell not gonna spend my time learning yours as well. Marines. Gah! Am I right?

Op: Are you gonna be dealing with one service in particular, or the whole spectrum of services?

mcdermott

Richard_Dastardly wrote: »

mcdermott wrote: »

whereas in the Marines you always use full rank.

I hate that shit. Look, dude, I had a hard enough time memorizing my own service's rank structure. I'm sure as hell not gonna spend my time learning yours as well. Marines. Gah! Am I right?

Op: Are you gonna be dealing with one service in particular, or the whole spectrum of services?

Man, really the Marines are pretty easy, because they're mostly the same. But Air Force? I was stuck on an Air Base and still never bothered to learn that shit...all funky-ass names and shit was all upside down and shit.

EDIT: Also, I'll just point out that as incubus said it's actually appropriate to refer even to retired service members by rank. Less common, but appropriate.

I'd Fuck Chuck Lidell Up

i pretty much just did it with sgt. and up

calling privates by their rank always seemed weird to me

mcdermott

I'd Fuck Chuck Lidell Up wrote: »

i pretty much just did it with sgt. and up

calling privates by their rank always seemed weird to me

Yeah, sucks for them at the other end as well...they don't need yet another reminder that they're at the bottom of the shit-hill.

Iceman.USAF

It also depends on the service. In the Air Force, we're much less rank conscious. The Army on the other hand is SUPER rank conscious, to the point where I've had people not talk to me because I'm "subordinate" to them. pfft.

Anyways, yes, Warrant Officers go by "Mr." or "Chief" if they're a Chief.

In the AF enlisted ranks, anything below Staff Sgt is "Airman", Staff, Technical, and Master Sergeant are usually just "Sergeant" while Senior Master Sgt and Chief Master Sgt can be called "Senior" or "Chief" respectively (though "senior" is much less common, I usually just say Sergeant).

And yes, various different services having different enlisted names is silly I agree.

Fizban140

It depends on the branch and the person, I hate when people not in the military call me by my rank.

Iceman.USAF

Really? Any particular reason? I think it shows that they care a little more, and took the time to learn what i means at least on the surface. That's just me though.

Fizban140

Well I am an airman so when people in uniform call me that it is either in an office settings out of formality or it is when I am getting yelled at.

Iceman.USAF

Ah...I can see that. I guess I'd just say don't take it the wrong way.
I know what you mean though, some people make a point of saying the rank whenever they're speaking as a way of saying "I'm up here, you're down there." kinda thing. SO stupid.

M.D.

I've had people I had business with use my rank and not use my rank(Sergeant of Marines). Either way, it didn't really bother me.

I think Officers, and maybe Sergeant Majors/Master Gunnery Sergeants, tend to like their rank being used more in official business.

RUNN1NGMAN

At least in the Navy/CG, officers who are Lieutenant Commander and below should be addressed as "Mr." or "Ms." It's kind of condescending to call them by rank.

Glaeal

RUNN1NGMAN wrote: »

At least in the Navy/CG, officers who are Lieutenant Commander and below should be addressed as "Mr." or "Ms." It's kind of condescending to call them by rank.

By other members of the service, once you know them. If you're addressing someone for the first time, it's pretty much always proper to call them Rank Lastname.