Specialization or Integration? The Critical Choice Facing Army Finance and HR Roles

By LTC Robert “Bobby” Ali, CPT Robert Cook, and CW2 Sierria Kenney

The proposal to merge Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 36B (Financial Management Technician) and MOS 42A (Human Resources Specialist) requires a careful balancing of several competing priorities rather than an outright endorsement or dismissal. A key question is whether combining these roles into a single “Personnel and Pay” career field could break down the administrative silos that currently force Soldiers to navigate separate finance and HR offices, thereby speeding up support and reducing confusion.

Proponents argue that a merger could improve processes and turnaround times by keeping personnel and financial matters in-house, rather than relying on external agencies. Yet, this must be weighed against the necessity of maintaining depth and specialization in budgeting, auditing, personnel policy, and records management. Decision-makers must also consider how such a merger would affect internal controls and auditability under IPPS-A’s integrated system, whether it is possible to merge two distinct AIT pipelines without weakening training quality, and what impact it might have on branch identity and morale given the long-standing traditions of both the Finance Corps and the Adjutant General’s Corps.

The following analysis first makes the case for integration, then examines the arguments for maintaining specialization, and finally situates the debate within current IPPS-A experiments before offering concluding recommendations.

Arguments in Favor of Integration

As we stand at the crossroads of military efficiency and Soldier welfare, advocates for merging the 36B and 42A career fields present a compelling case. The Integrated Personnel and Pay System–Army (IPPS-A) has already begun to show the transformative benefits of consolidating pay and personnel functions. Imagine a system where unit HR sections can initiate pay transactions seamlessly—actions that once required time-consuming visits to the finance office—resulting in faster resolution times.

Senior leaders argue passionately that this integration is poised to “revolutionize how we take care of Soldiers and their families,” eliminating cumbersome paper processes and unifying previously scattered data repositories.

Take, for instance, the success stories emerging from National Guard pilot units, where pay-transaction accuracy has soared to over 99%. These accounts demonstrate how a singular “Personnel & Pay” MOS has reduced errors and improved service responsiveness. The promise of efficiency could also extend to training and resource management. Units equipped with both HR and payroll autonomy can tackle issues swiftly, streamlining operations and reducing unnecessary training redundancy.

A cross-trained Soldier, capable of executing both HR and basic finance duties, can fill gaps left by underutilized finance detachments. This aligns with the Army People Strategy’s vision for multi-skilled, adaptable Soldiers.

Arguments in Favor of Specialization

Despite the promises presented by those advocating integration, it would be unwise to overlook the arguments raised by those who caution against the merger. Central to their concerns is that such a move could undermine the distinct professional expertise cultivated within the 36B and 42A communities.

Those who specialize in MOS 36B undergo sustained practice to master the intricacies of budgeting, accounting, disbursing, and audit operations. Likewise, 42A professionals dedicate themselves to personnel management, including promotions and records maintenance. Merging these distinct roles risks creating generalists who may lack the depth required to handle advanced fiscal management or critical casualty operations at the battalion level.

Maintaining separate finance and HR MOSs also preserves essential checks and balances. A dedicated Finance Corps provides reliable validation of transactions and helps catch discrepancies—even with IPPS-A’s electronic audit trails. Without an increase in personnel, a merger could overload existing resources, strain the system, and compromise service quality.

Significant training challenges also loom. Combining these MOSs would either prolong the training period, delaying deployability, or compress the curriculum, thereby diluting expertise in both disciplines.

Weighing the Integration Experiment

In practical terms, the Army is already experimenting with a model of “trial integration” through IPPS-A and cross-training programs. Routine transactions are being managed by 42A personnel with foundational finance training, while 36B technicians continue their essential budgeting and audit duties.

Preliminary reports from pilot units highlight faster issue resolutions and improved pay-accuracy metrics—suggesting that integration can work without compromising financial oversight. The Finance Corps continues its commitment to accountability through the reacquisition of Defense Finance and Accounting Services (DFAS) pay offices.

The ASI Solution

Instead of fully merging the two MOSs, we should consider implementing Additional Skill Identifiers (ASIs), similar to the Postal F4/F5 model. Proposed ASIs such as Finance Clerk (F6) and Finance Supervisor (F7) would qualify 42A personnel who have received proper training to support finance operations.

This approach acknowledges that not all HR professionals are equipped to handle financial duties and helps preserve the identity and expertise of each MOS. It also clearly distinguishes those who are properly trained—without forcing a full integration that could undermine both communities.

Conclusion

The decision to merge MOS 36B and 42A must strike a delicate balance between the promise of streamlined Soldier support and the imperative to preserve specialized financial and HR expertise.

IPPS-A pilots have shown faster resolution times, near-perfect pay accuracy, and less reliance on external agencies. Yet, maintaining distinct MOS codes safeguards critical checks and balances, avoids overburdening personnel, and protects morale, identity, and professional mastery.

Leaders should continue with trial integration efforts, carefully measuring outcomes such as pay-accuracy rates, training throughput, and Soldier satisfaction before making a full commitment. This should be paired with the adoption of ASIs, enabling trained HR Soldiers to perform finance duties where needed—while safeguarding the core competencies of both fields.

A phased, metrics-driven approach will allow the Army to capitalize on IPPS-A’s technological strengths while ensuring that financial stewardship and human resources support remain second to none in serving Soldiers and their families.

__________________________________

LTC Ali, CPT Cook, and CW2 Kenney serve within the G1 at the 21^st Theater Support Command, headquartered in Kaiserslautern, Germany.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.