Two Female ROK Army NCOs Pass US Army EIB Testing
Here is an interesting article about two ROK female infantry NCOs that were awarded the US Expert Infantryman Badge:
Two women have earned the U.S. Army’s coveted Expert Infantryman Badge — and they’re members of the South Korean army.
Staff Sgts. Kim Min Kyoung and Kwon Min Zy are the first women, Korean or American, to earn the special-skills badge created in 1943.
“There were 21 soldiers from the (South Korean army’s) 21st Infantry Division that competed with them, pushing and pulling each other, helping each other out,” Kwon, 21, said through a translator. [USA Today]
You can read more at the link, but the article is a bit misleading by making it appear these are the first women to pass the EIB test. The US Army has for years allowed women to take the test:
Two Soldiers received special honors Friday during a ceremony at the Hilton Field Softball Complex recognizing those Soldiers who recently completed a week of tasks to earn the Expert Infantryman Badge.
Sgt. 1st Class Scott Wilkie, a drill sergeant with Company E, 3rd Battalion, 34th Infantry Regiment, was the only Soldier who received the “true blue” designation, meaning that he completed all the tasks without making any mistakes. Capt. Michelle Roberts, commander of Company F, 2nd Battalion, 60th Infantry Regiment, was the only female Soldier who passed the test.
Wilkie and Roberts were two of 42 Soldiers who passed from a field of 97 who began the testing.
“This is the first year that (I’ve seen) a (woman) compete in the 27 years I’ve been in the Army,” said Sgt. Maj. Michael Love, the noncommissioned officer in charge of the Expert Infantryman Badge, or EIB, testing. “I think it’s great.”
Roberts, an activated National Guard Soldier, said she believes it is her duty to be trained as well as possible in Soldiering skills, which is why she did not want to pass up the opportunity to go through the test and the two-week training in preparation for the EIB. [Army.mil]
The problem that females that pass the EIB test have is that they are not in an infantry MOS, so they cannot wear the badge, but they receive the training certificate. This is the same for non-infantry MOS males as well. People have complained about this for years that the infantry branch are being badge protectors by not allowing other branches to wear the badge. Since the ROK NCOs are in the infantry branch they get to wear the badge on their uniforms. This seems very unfair to everyone else that has passed the testing that they cannot wear the badge, but foreign military personnel can.
This whole EIB testing gets back to my whole point of view on this that women should not be barred from any MOS or training as long as they meet the same established standards. So did the ROK soldiers meet the same established standards as the US soldiers? According to this comment left on Facebook by an NCO claiming to have graded the testing, they did not:
If this claim is true and the ROK soldiers did not have to meet the same standards as US soldiers than this was nothing more than a PR stunt by 2ID. The statistics may also give some indication that different standards were used. According to the article only 18% of 2ID soldiers passed, but 18 of 21 (85%) of ROK soldiers passed the testing. That is a big difference in percentages though the ROK Army likely sent 21 of their best soldiers. Even if it was their best soldiers should the percentages be that skewed? Anyway I would be interested to hear what others who may have been part of the EIB testing have to say about this issue.
Sounds like a “Lets do something to make the Koreans feel good award.” Agree, I personally would not want my daughter serving in the Grunts, SOF, etc., because it does get nasty & that is the way fighting units should be, but if a female can make it through at the SAME standards, then go for it. But lets face reality, in America, by even letting females attempt it only leads to the lowering of standards. As I posted before, most Males cannot even pass basic Infantry training, let alone SOF qualification, because we are a nation of Wimps, glued to the X-box, confusing that with reality.
You finished there? Well go scratch your cr0tch, grunt, and saunter off into your cave. We get it.. you tough guy, super manly. Thanks for your service, go off and get drunk watching football or something.
All this pissing into their rice bowls smacks of insecurity on several levels; anyway…
If Shawn Dunnuck’s telling the truth then how’d they get the EIB? As part of the grading staff I’d think he’d of said something or you know, graded appropriately. Truth or lie in either case someone has little to no integrity and his initials seem to be SD.
I have no idea how the grading was in this EIB. But I’ve been in units where only two soldiers in the entire brigade passed the EIB test … and units where hundreds of soldiers passed – pretty much anyone who wanted it – got it (I’ll bet that bullet looked great on the commander’s OER!). It’s largely up to the brigade leadership on how tough the grading is going to be.
Guitard, don’t you have some official USFK corruption to advocate somewhere?
Why are you taking time out of your busy schedule filled with your normal excusing, rationalizing, and promoting graft and dishonesty?
Be gone, Frenchy.
Chickenhead that is off topic and the subject has already been discussed and is over with. Guitard made a valid point about EIB grading. It looks like EIB standards are flexible like PT tests.
Many infantry men will tell you the EIB is regarded more highly than the CIB, which any infantry soldier who deploys will get. Generally, it is assumed that the EIB does have a very high standard in order to earn that device. I hope this isn’t something else we are letting slip.
This reminds me of when I went to Jumpmaster School at Ft. Benning. We had several Egyptian Officers in our class that failed miserably, but were still allowed to graduate . Our class was pissed, but then we were told that if they were sent back to Egypt as failures that they would face dire consequences much worse than just their career ending. Of course that wouldn’t happen here in Korea, but it isn’t the first time standards are lowered for foreign military personnel in US Army schools.
@Leon: An EIB is probably more difficult for an Infantryman to get – but I don’t know about it being more highly regarded than a CIB. Speaking as a former Infantryman, I can confidently say that if you have a CIB and others know you were one of the guys who truly was in the thick of it in combat – and not some 11B who deployed to the combat zone but spent the tour working in the rear as a chogey boy in the S4 shop – the CIB will garner a ton more respect than the EIB.
While I know that it’s inevitable that these two badges draw comparisons – I think a lot of that is based on their appearance and the way they are worn on the uniform; i.e., they are worn on the same spot on the uniform and are basically identical except the CIB has the wreath. However, one is awarded for what amounts to a skills competition and the other for being in combat – two completely different things.
I believe AR 670-1 gives the CIB precedence over the EIB for wear on the uniform – and I think the vast majority of Infantryman are just fine with that. Although if you could wear both of them – I’m sure those that have the EIB would gladly wear both.
guitard: I’m only speaking from my experience. I have known several troops who wore their EIB on their uniform even though they had a CIB. Not sure where AR 670-1 stands on the issue. I was under the assumption that if you had both, it was your choice. Perhaps those fine NCO’s were flaunting regulations! 😀
/I suspect it depends on the unit and your PSG, 1SG, and CSM’s preference as well.
I just took a quick look at AR 670-1 (and reconfirmed that it’s still just as mind numbing to read through now as it was 20 years ago). I didn’t find anything about precedence. If you google CIB vs EIB, you’ll find some guys saying the CIB has precedence and other guys saying it’s the soldier’s choice. One guy’s advice was to not worry about AR 670-1 and just match the CSM’s uniform (which is probably very good advice). I’m now leaning toward it being the soldier’s choice – otherwise guys would be getting their asses chewed left and right for wearing the EIB and a combat patch at the same time.
That picture says it all, 2ID CG and CSM with big smiles on their faces, the two females with awkward looks and the ROK Army leaders with a smug, can’t believe this BS look says it all. They know the score. Anyway, how the fuck can they be awarded a badge when we can’t even give KATUSA’s medals without having to go to the State Dept (seriously). USFK (or somebody above my battalion) told us KATUSA’s can’t get medals because the award wouldn’t be in a permanent record.
Also, if Smokes thinks there’s no politics in this, I’ve got something for him to smoke.
Bob: Not only is there politics in this. There is nothing BUT politics in this. I also suspect it was planned out for a while. It didn’t just happen. It wasn’t just a “pleasant surprise.”
Leon: your comments stating that any infantry soldier that deploys receives the CIB is inaccurate. Like most awards, there are some who have it on their chest but did not earn it. Regardless, it is not a blanket award as you appear to suggest. I have heard many compare the CIB and the EIB, which is ridiculous. They have nothing in common other than the ‘infantry’ in the title of the said awards.
Also, to clear things up, if you have both an EIB and a CIB, you do not have a choice in the matter: the CIB takes precedence, and thus you must wear it instead of the EIB. You do, however, have the option to wear no badges.
I never meant to imply the CIB was a “blanket” award. I did know a couple guys who had both and that was the answer they gave my. THEY preferred the EIB. They were their awards (having earned both) so I took their words for it. No doubt some opinions vary.