Titles And Address And So Forth

[ProdigalJim]

I searched previous threads on this topic, but didn't find quite the answer I was looking for.

Consider this hypothetical (which will be real for me in a few weeks):

You go to meet a guy who is retired Army, who left as a Command Sergeant Major.

He sticks out his hand in greeting, and you reach out to shake his hand and you say, "Good Morning, (Blank)."

Is it...Sergeant? Command Sergeant Major? It's probably not "sir," and it sure as heck isn't "Hey, Bill."

What is the respectful first-greeting verbal address?

[Jaison009]

I would shake hands and say "Good morning Sergeant Major".

[arajca]

What is your relationship?

If it a formal meeting, Sergeant Major is correct. If it's an informal meeting, first name may be appropriate.

[Eclipse]

What's wrong with "Bill"?  You said he's retired, right?

[Jaison009]

My boss and several of my volunteers are retired military. We refer to and address my boss and specific volunteers informally as Colonel (though it has nothing to do with his role in our organization) and General out of respect for the work it took to earn those titles. My best friends dad was a CSM and I still call him Sergeant Major. Nothing wrong with Bill if he is okay with it. I have found most people will tell you how they want to be addressed. When in doubt Sir or Mr.   always works.

What's wrong with "Bill"?  You said he's retired, right?

[ProdigalJim]

What is your relationship?

If it a formal meeting, Sergeant Major is correct. If it's an informal meeting, first name may be appropriate.

It's a business thing and I've never met him before; I'll stick with Sgt Major unless and until he says "just call me Bill."

Thanks everyone!

[Eclipse]

That or "Mr. LastName" always works, too.

[RiverAux]

I can't imagine many situations where I would address someone by a military rank in a private business-related context. 

I would if I went to see a speech by a retired officer about military issues and I had a chance to meet them later.  Then there would be some groundwork laid for using that title. 

Now, if its someone that I've developed a relationship with then I might use their former rank every now and again if it seemed appropriate.  But, in everyday conversation I would almost always use their first name. 

Frankly, you just don't always know how the other person feels about their military career and its importance in their current life.  Some value that part of their history very highly and might appreciate the consideration while others might think that what they're doing now is much more important and would prefer to be recognized for that. 

[coudano]

I would shake hands and say "Good morning Sergeant Major".

(ret)

[jimmydeanno]

I used to volunteer with another organization that had a lot of retired military folks associated with it.  One, was a big shot at one of the big defense contractors.  He retired as a Colonel in the Air Force and had been retired for about 10 years.  Because he had moved on and such, the nametags we had at our luncheons had "Mr. XXXX" on them.  After about the third luncheon, he comes out to our luncheon coordinator and says, "You know, I would really appreciate if you would change my nametag to 'Col. XXX, ret.'  I've certainly earned it and would appreciate if you showed me that much respect."

From that day on, I just called him by his first name.

[bosshawk]

Jim: there is some good advice in these posts.  Using an initial greeting of Sgt Major is always correct.  He worked very hard and a very long time to attain that rank and it is a sign of respect to use the rank.  He will let you know if he prefers some other form of address.  The same goes for highranking officers.  I almost always ask people to use my first name, as I happen to be pretty informal in most things.  Anyone addressing me as Colonel as a sign of respect gains my respect and I will ask them to use Paul.  Civilians don't always know the protocol and most military guys take that into consideration.

I have known a large number of Cmd Sgt Majors and I always address them initially by their rank, retired or not.  The NCOs have always held a special place in my heart.  They were all, uniformly, responsible for any success that I may have had in the Army.

[Storm Chaser]

If he's retired from the Army as you stated, you can't go wrong with "Sergeant Major". If he was a retired Air Force SNCO or field grade officer, I can tell you that most don't really care. By the way, in the Air Force it's perfectly fine to call an NCO "sir".

[raivo]

I'd just say "Good morning!", and not say anything rank related.

[RogueLeader]

When I was in the Army, I worked for a Retired Command Sergeant Major.  He was hired as the Brigade Safety Officer.  I always[/] referred to him as Sergeant Major, even though he gave me permission to call him Harold, or Mr. Lockwood.

[UH60guy]

I used to volunteer with another organization that had a lot of retired military folks associated with it.  One, was a big shot at one of the big defense contractors.  He retired as a Colonel in the Air Force and had been retired for about 10 years.  Because he had moved on and such, the nametags we had at our luncheons had "Mr. XXXX" on them.  After about the third luncheon, he comes out to our luncheon coordinator and says, "You know, I would really appreciate if you would change my nametag to 'Col. XXX, ret.'  I've certainly earned it and would appreciate if you showed me that much respect."

From that day on, I just called him by his first name.

Not to mention he may be violating ethics regulations by doing that. I can't seem to find it now but I've seen it in a few places that while Federal Civilian Employees can mention their rank in their signature and stuff (though it's not necessarily encouraged), contractors are often specifically prohibited from doing so. Here's an example from an Army retirement services handbook:

"No reasonable retired officer would invite awkwardness when employed in a military office by insisting on being called by military title, if such title outranks the retired Soldier's active duty supervisor.  The retired Soldier's use of his rightful title in Government employment is guided by his acceptance of his civilian status and loyal conformance to the established channels of command.  Local customs, practices, and conditions of employment are the primary influencing factors."

Where they seem to have gone wrong is assuming most people can be "reasonable"

I'd go with "Mister" if he's not wearing a uniform.

[jimmydeanno]

I used to volunteer with another organization that had a lot of retired military folks associated with it.  One, was a big shot at one of the big defense contractors.  He retired as a Colonel in the Air Force and had been retired for about 10 years.  Because he had moved on and such, the nametags we had at our luncheons had "Mr. XXXX" on them.  After about the third luncheon, he comes out to our luncheon coordinator and says, "You know, I would really appreciate if you would change my nametag to 'Col. XXX, ret.'  I've certainly earned it and would appreciate if you showed me that much respect."

From that day on, I just called him by his first name.

Not to mention he may be violating ethics regulations by doing that. I can't seem to find it now but I've seen it in a few places that while Federal Civilian Employees can mention their rank in their signature and stuff (though it's not necessarily encouraged), contractors are often specifically prohibited from doing so. Here's an example from an Army retirement services handbook:

"No reasonable retired officer would invite awkwardness when employed in a military office by insisting on being called by military title, if such title outranks the retired Soldier's active duty supervisor.  The retired Soldier's use of his rightful title in Government employment is guided by his acceptance of his civilian status and loyal conformance to the established channels of command.  Local customs, practices, and conditions of employment are the primary influencing factors."

Where they seem to have gone wrong is assuming most people can be "reasonable"

I'd go with "Mister" if he's not wearing a uniform.

He worked as an exec at one of the big companies that makes airplanes.  So, he wasn't employed by the Government or a Government contractor.  The company he works for is contracted to build stuff for them.  It is just weird to me that in a country that is historically known for its hatred of aristocracy and titles, that being in a position that is significantly more prestigious than being a Col, and ten years removed that he is still demanding to be revered as a Colonel.  Maybe he hates being considered a "simple civilian."

[Eclipse]

He worked as an exec at one of the big companies that makes airplanes.  So, he wasn't employed by the Government or a Government contractor.  The company he works for is contracted to build stuff for them.  It is just weird to me that in a country that is historically known for its hatred of aristocracy and titles, that being in a position that is significantly more prestigious than being a Col, and ten years removed that he is still demanding to be revered as a Colonel.  Maybe he hates being considered a "simple civilian."

It's an odd phenomenon and one which likely contributes to stolen valor.  I see it in CAP all the time.

People who's real-world accomplishments make the average person's life look like they have been sleeping through it, yet
they are super-excited to make sure you know they are a Lt Col, or "Director of Looking Out The Window", etc., or
who will fight to the death for some meaningless staff job because it "sounds big".

And that's not just CAP people - it's an issue with military personnel I interact with all too often.

[Luis R. Ramos]

Had I been in any of the services, and attained the grade of Colonel, that would be more prestigious to have achieved the positions of CEO or CFO. After all, in a minority business you can call yourself a CEO when there are only 4 or 5 people...

Flyer

[Eclipse]

Had I been in any of the services, and attained the grade of Colonel, that would be more prestigious to have achieved the positions of CEO or CFO. After all, in a minority business you can call yourself a CEO when there are only 4 or 5 people...

I think you can call yourself a CEO in anything that's incorporated, but for someone at the C-Level in a major aviation company, the span of control and
authority likely far exceeds what the average bird would have.

It's understandable when he's talking to DOD peers or clients that "knowing the lingo, etc." helps immensely, but to expect it of subordinates internally, especially
if it isn't done tongue in cheek seems troublesome.

[Al Sayre]

Back to the original question...  It depends how he was introduced to you; as "Bill", SgtMaj Highspeed or Mr. Highspeed. That's what I would use until told otherwise...