It Takes TWOS: It’s Time for Another Total Warrant Officer Study
By CW4 Cody Herr, Military Intelligence
Article published on: February 1st 2026, in the February 2026 Edition of Strength in Knowledge:
The Warrant Officer Journal
Read Time: < 6 mins
This year marks the 40th anniversary of the Total Warrant Officer Study (TWOS)—a 1985 Department of the Army
initiative to redefine the role of Warrant Officers out to 2025. This historic anniversary presents an
opportunity to reevaluate long-held views about what it means to be a Warrant Officer and how we can optimize
the Cohort for the next 40 years.
Introduction
Senior Warrant Officers owe the Chief of Staff of the Army clear-eyed recommendations on Warrant Officer force
structure optimization to support the Army Transformation Initiative (ATI). To accomplish this, we must engage
in difficult conversations, maintain transparency, and let the data inform our recommendations. Simply put, it’s
time for another TWOS.
The thesis of this article is that the Army should conduct another comprehensive, army-wide study to examine the
role, utilization, and professional development of Warrant Officers, informing changes that would enhance combat
readiness. This theme is supported by the results of a 2025 survey of Field Grade Warrant Officers included in
this article. This 2025 survey offers insights into how the Warrant Officer Cohort perceives its identity,
education, and the role of Senior Warrant Officers.
This article proceeds in three parts. First, it describes the outcomes of the 1985 TWOS and contemporaneous
surveys and legislation. Second, it presents the results of a 2025 survey of Field-Grade Warrant Officers from
across the Army. Lastly, it provides recommendations for the future of the Warrant Officer Cohort.
Two of a Kind
Today’s Army is in a transformational period, remarkably similar to the post-Vietnam era in which the original
TWOS was conducted. The 2025 Army Transformation Initiative (ATI) charges the Army to “build a leaner, more
lethal force” in which “every role must sharpen the spear or be cut away.” In this spirit, the Warrant Officer
Cohort owes the Army some homework on how we plan to gain efficiencies. And we can’t afford to get this wrong,
as our conclusions will impact overall Army readiness and the careers of countless future Warrant Officers.
Put Two and Two Together
Exactly forty years ago, in August 1985, the Army finalized the Total Warrant Officer Study (TWOS). The TWOS was
the first and, to date, the only comprehensive analysis of the Warrant Officer program by the Department of the
Army. (Note: Other Army studies on the Warrant Officer Cohort, such as the 2002 Army Training and Leader
Development Panel (ATLDP), were not Army-wide comprehensive studies on the scale of TWOS. The purpose of TWOS
was “to examine the current and future (out to the year 2025) role, utilization, compensation management, and
professional development of the Total Army Warrant Officer and to recommend changes if the effect would enhance
combat readiness.” The output of TWOS was intended to “optimize every aspect of Warrant Officer management and
development” to ensure Warrant Officers continue to “make critical contributions to the defense of our Nation.”
The primary instrument of the TWOS was a mail-in survey, supplemented by supporting workshops, Warrant Officer
steering groups, General Officer advisory groups, and a comprehensive review of systems and programs. The TWOS
analyzed more than 27,000 survey responses from Warrant Officers and O-grade commissioned officers from all
three components, as well as retirees. It involved the individual evaluation of thousands of handwritten
comments. The output was a series of recommendations based on three key questions: (1) What is the definition of
the Warrant Officer? (2) What are Warrant Officers doing now? (3) What should Warrant Officers be doing in the
future?
No Two Ways About it
The TWOS final report recommended numerous changes to Warrant Officer recruitment, training, and retention—many
of which remain in place today. However, the following short paragraphs will focus on three key outcomes of TWOS
and contemporaneous legislation that remain topics of debate within the Cohort.
Warrant Officer Definition
The first TWOS recommendation was a rewrite of the Warrant Officer definition. While acknowledging that “Warrant
Officers have been, and will continue to be, the Army’s technical experts,” the new definition included the word
leadership for the first time. This change likely influenced the Defense Authorization Act of 1986, which
codified Warrant Officers as commissioned officers—a break in the nearly seven-decade tradition of being
“appointed by warrant.” Of note, the TWOS did not recommend this change. Instead, it resulted from a DoD
initiative to align Army Warrant Officer grade plates with those of the maritime services, whose Warrant
Officers were already taking the commissioning oath. The question of Warrant Officers becoming commissioned
officers was an old debate by the time of TWOS. LTC Paul Coroneos argued in 1973, “The closer warrant officers
are associated with their commissioned brethren, the less they will be able to avoid the strictures and problems
of the officer corps and be available for concentration in their unique area of technical specialization.”
Warrant Officers continue to experience this tension, as evidenced by the results of a 2025 survey included in
this article.
CW5 Creation and Extension of Warrant Officer Service
The TWOS recommended the creation of a nominative Master Warrant Officer (MW4) rank that would be senior to all
other CW4s. Further, it advocated for the creation of the rank of Chief Warrant Officer Five (CW5), which was
ultimately realized in 1992. According to TWOS, the CW5 was envisioned as a “true branch technical integrator”
with the “essence of the Warrant Officer role to remain at the warfighting level. TWOS also recommended a new
career plan that provided the opportunity for warrant officers to remain on active duty for 30 years as a
warrant officer or until age 62.
2025 Survey of Field Grade Warrant Officers
The author of this article conducted a survey of sixty Field Grade Warrant Officers (CW3-CW4) across 11 Army
branches and all three components. The average participant age was 44 years, with an average time in service of
24 years. The purpose of the survey was to gather data on how today’s Warrant Officers perceive their identity,
education, and the role of Senior Warrant Officers. The survey consisted of multiple-choice and free-text
questions. The survey questions were largely based on the original 1985 TWOS survey packet. The survey’s results
strongly suggest the Army would benefit from another comprehensive, Army-wide study to examine the role,
utilization, and professional development of Warrant Officers.
Two Cents
The 2025 survey revealed no clear consensus on the question of Warrant Officer identity, specifically regarding
the pros and cons of being “appointed by warrant” versus being a commissioned officer. However, the survey did
identify a clear trend in how respondents view the Army’s utilization of Senior Warrant Officers. For example,
71 percent of total respondents answered “No” to the question: Is the Army getting full value out of the CCWO
position? Similarly, 76 percent answered “Yes” to the question: Should CW5s be subject to selective retention
boards? In aggregate, the results strongly suggest that Field Grade Warrant Officers would welcome the
opportunity to provide significant input to another comprehensive Army-wide study, similar to the TWOS of 1985.
Conclusion
Surveys are powerful tools for change. The TWOS of 1985 and associated legislation drove sweeping changes that
have impacted every Army Warrant Officer over the past 40 years. As the Army Transformation Initiative charges
the Army to “build a leaner, more lethal force” in which “every role must sharpen the spear or be cut away,”
Warrant Officers owe the Army some homework on how we plan to gain efficiencies. To accomplish this, every
Warrant Officer’s voice is critical to the conversation. Warrant Officers deserve a forum in which to capture
their voices and let the data inform our recommendations. In other words, it’s time for another TWOS. But it’s
okay—together we can do this, just as we did in 1985.
Editor’s note: The article is a peer-reviewed student paper from the Warrant Officer Senior Course.
References
Dan Driscoll and Randy George, Letter to the Force: Army Transformation Initiative (ATI) (U.S. Army, 2025),
1.
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1 (Government Printing Office, 1985),
iii, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/ADA172309/.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Combined Arms Center, The Army Training and Leader Development Panel ATLDP
Phase III - Warrant Officer Study Final Report (Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2002).
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1 (Government Printing Office, 1985),
vi, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/ADA172309/.
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1, iii.
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1, xxxv.
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1, xxxv.
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1, xl.
Bill Walton, Commissioning of Army Warrant Officers: When and Why Were Warrant Officers Commissioned? (n.d.),
1.
Paul P. Coroneos, The Warrant Officer in the Volunteer Force, January 5, 1973, 18, https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/html/tr/AD0761429/.
Department of the Army, Total Warrant Officer System (TWOS). Volume 1, xxxvii.
Dan Driscoll and Randy George, Letter to the Force: Army Transformation Initiative (ATI) (U.S. Army, 2025),
1.
Author
CW4 Cody Herr is a senior intelligence analyst with two decades of experience supporting
special operations. He holds a Master of Science in Strategic Intelligence degree from the National
Intelligence University. He is a recipient of the General Douglas MacArthur Leadership Award and the
Military Intelligence Corps Knowlton Award. His writing has appeared in the CIA journal Studies in
Intelligence, the American Intelligence Journal, National Intelligence Press, and Special Warfare Magazine.