DA PAM 600-3

When we reference DA PAM 600-3 regarding the duties of CW3 and CW4, they both include the common denominator of “leads specialized staff sections”1 whereas for a CW5 it states “performs the primary duties of senior warrant officer advisor”2.
These are uniquely different duty descriptions, which explains why there is not a formal Command Team role for Company, and Battalion Operations Warrant
Officers. Another reason for this distinction, may be found in the Army’s concept of Leadership Levels. For CW3 and CW4s at Company and Battalion levels they are primarily operating at the direct or organizational level, whereas a
Command Chief Warrant Officer can be at the Strategic level3.

Due to this distinction, to become a Command Chief Warrant
Therefore, on paper, a CW5 is prepared to fulfill the DA PAM 600-3 duty of advising the Commander in the formal role as a part of a Command Team. Additionally, that CW5 has already mastered his systems, in contrast to Company and Battalion level Warrant Officers, and the CW5 is able to focus exclusively on Command matters and managing the Warrant Officers under him. In theory, this makes sense within the framework of the formal roles of Warrant Officers, however, on an informal level, CW3s and CW4s are fulfilling many of the roles as member of the Command team when we consider the advice and council that a CW3 or CW4 is expected to give the Commander. Yet, this is very subjective, and in my experience, I have seen some Warrant Officers more embraced as a member of the
Command Team than others.

Thus far, I believe that the informal role in the triad best suits Company and Battalion level
Warrant Officers, as in this role, the Warrant Officer is able to focus on the primary and formal systems he is responsible for. I do not see it as a question of legitimacy as a leader, but one in which we are able to focus on our specialized staff and systems. If the contrary were to become the case, we