Talk:United States Secretary of the Army

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: North America / United States This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  North American military history task force United States military history task force United States Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I'm not sure how to correct this, but as of 28 June 2019, Dr. Mark Esper is still legally the Secretary of the Army, even though he is the Acting Secretary of Defense. Ryan McCarthy is the "Senior Official performing the duties of the Secretary of the Army. He is NOT the "Acting Secretary of the Army." Paratrooper450 (talk) 19:12, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Secertary of the Army falls under the Secretary of Defense, the former directly serves the latter. Thus should we list the Secretary of Defense at the time under "Served under" rather than the President? The military revovles around reporting to your direct superior, even though the President is more widely known and of course the Commander in Chief. Minutiaman 22:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the way it currently is makes sense. From what I can tell, the change of the President often results in the change of Secretary of the Army, especially when there is a change in the political party the President comes from. A change in the Secretary of Defence is less likely to result in a change in the Secretary of the Army and I presume it's more dependent on what the President wants Nil Einne 12:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the arrangemenmt is worse than you describe. Here is the text from DoD Directove 5100.1

"The Military Departments (DoD Directive 5100.1) are the Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force (the Marine Corps is a part of the Department of the Navy). Each Military Department is separately organized under its own Secretary and functions under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense. The Military Departments are responsible for organizing, training, and equipping forces for assignment to Unified Combatant Commands."

According to the Military Departments Manning Chart, the Departmental Secretaries report directly to the Deputy Secretary of Defense, and - through him - to the Secretary of Defense.

SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) (talk) 17:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the chart with the thumbnail pictures in the left column, the picture for Sec. Royall is incorrectly used for Sec. Augustine Tashiro (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding General Sullivan as "acting" Secretary of the Army -- by law a civilian must be appointed to the position. Seems that even an acting Secretary would require civilian status. In this situation, we had Mr. Shannon, the Undersecretary, in the acting position. He gets caught stealing lady's clothing and goes on leave. Wouldn't the Assistant Secretaries of the Army or the Deputy Undersecretaries of the Army get the nod to serve as an Acting Secretary of the Army and Acting Undersecretary of the Army? (With Sullivan, as Chief of Staff, filling the Secretary position, the notion of civilian control of the military gets undermined.)--S. Rich 04:54, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Sullivan did serve as acting Secretary following the arrest of his predecessor for shoplifting. New York Times, Acting Army Secretary, Accused Of Shoplifing, Is Placed on Leave, by Eric Schmitt, August 28, 1993. User talk:Billmckern

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Secretary of the Army. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100607221710/http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r840_10.pdf to http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r840_10.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note "secretaries of the Army" is uncapitalized because "secretaries" is plural, per

Buying their own uniforms and boots out of the little pay they get. 2601:846:C200:38F0:49E1:8647:6305:A8D9 (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]