2 September 2016 MILITARY REVIEW EXCLUSIVE ONLINE

Mandatory Education

A New Paradigm to Improve the 

NCO Corps

Sergeant Timothy D. Couchman, U.S. Army

 All know the Way; few actually walk it. 

 – attributed to Buddhist teaching 

I

mbalance has become the status quo within the 

Army. On one side is bureaucratic rationalization, on the other, individual professionalism. An 

imbalance of bureaucracy over professionalism instantiates a myopic viewpoint whereby routinization of 

bureaucratic processes issues an inhibitory and insensitive element to the development of professionalism 

that serves a necessary counterbalance to the system 

itself.1 Counterarguments may well cite the constant 

mandatory training on various aspects of ethical 

comportment within the Army. What is missing in this 

counterargument is the critical thinking component 

and individual accountability through higher education 

found lacking in the routinization of myriad requisite 

training programs within the Army system. This paper 

does not intend to reduce bureaucratic elements within 

the Army in favor of professionalism. Rather, the 

introduction of mandatory education within the NCO 

Corps can better facilitate an appropriate balance 

between the two extremes. Harmony between bureaucracy and individual professionalism utilizes relative 

Aircraft, shooting stars, and planets are visible from the flight deck of the Navy’s only forward-deployed aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan as 

it transits the Luzon Strait, 1 July 2016. (Photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ryan McFarlane, U.S. Navy) 
MILITARY REVIEW EXCLUSIVE ONLINE September 2016 3

NCO Education

strengths, such as NCO potential, rather than maintaining the status quo of increasingly caustic differences. Achievement of this balance inculcates a renewed 

sense of ethics, modernization, and adaptability within 

the Army culture and NCO ranks.

This paper argues for shifting higher education 

in the United States Army from voluntary choice to 

mandatory requirement for advancement within the 

Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Corps. Doing this 

will enable the Army to meet the dynamic threats of 

the modern world and provide an adaptive, diverse, and 

sustainable force of citizen soldiers. This paper argues 

that mandatory education within the NCO Corps will 

improve the Corps, and by extension, the Army as a 

whole. Mandatory education for the NCO Corps improves professionalism, career stability, moral behavior, 

and national security requirements. Mandatory NCO 

higher education has the potential to create a groundup change to Army culture. 

Analysis

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) 

Independent Task Force Report on education and 

national security evaluated the education outcomes 

United States’ kindergarten to twelfth-grade (K-12) in 

relation to other nations. The CFR report illustrated 

the significance of education relative to national security capabilities. CFR analysis concluded the skill sets 

needed for successful integration in a globalized society 

are lacking for both civilian and military vocations. 

Appropriate skills needed for vocational demands of 

intelligence and military service suffer ability deficits 

throughout a student’s education lifecycle in the U.S.’s 

public school system.2 Independent data also shows 

high percentages of U.S citizens’ lacking the basic skills 

required for military service.3

CFR analysis showed military and intelligence-based language skills notably deficient in the 

current wartime environment.4 This implies an intelligence gap among young U.S. students relative to global 

peers in making the transition from public education 

into military service. Perpetual education weaknesses 

in the American education system eventually affect 

vocations involving national security through limited 

qualified personnel for military service. Specifically, 

key intelligence vocations within national security 

communities suffer chronic issues of sub-standard 

performance and low numbers of personnel despite 

high demand. Education systems thus serve as a clear 

link between national security and military service. 

Education is also an effective gauge of professionalism. Don M. Snider offers a pessimistic yet currently 

realistic outlook for the Army in his discussion of the 

twofold nature of the Army: professional and bureaucratic.5

 The Army is currently undergoing a force reduction that tends to favor a bureaucratic approach to 

plan management and mission execution. Historically, 

the unbalanced bureaucratic tendency of the Army 

over time has cultivated a climate trending towards 

a character-based deficit of professional, moral, and 

trustworthy leaders. Snider includes education within 

the professionalism category.6 Snider’s characterization 

of the professional and bureaucratic dichotomy reveals 

a common link between education, professionalism, 

and jobs of national security. 

Snider also points to low levels of moral character 

and trust among Army leaders, citing recent situations 

of sexual harassment and issues of ethical comportment 

among the ranks.7 Ultimately, Snider predicts the Army 

of 2025 will face significant challenges to generate and 

sustain competent leaders of moral character in an overly bureaucratic system.8

 A relationship between morality 

and education needs to be established to address the 

issues raised by Snider as we consider the value of mandatory education for the 

NCOs Corps.

Fortunately, there is a 

relationship between moral development and higher 

education. Pursuance of 

higher education tends to 

improve moral judgement. 

Patricia M. King and 

Matthew J. Mayhew have 

found significant improvement of moral judgement 

at the collegiate level.9

Social diversity analysis 

and discussion are highly 

effective in improving 

overall moral behavior, 

two essential techniques 

in the collegiate classroom.10 A common thread 

Staff Sgt. Timothy D. 

Couchman,, U.S. Army 

currently works in Belgium 

with the 650th Military 

Intelligence Group. He 

holds a BM from Baylor 

University and is currently pursuing an MA in 

international relations and 

conflict resolution with a 

concerntration in international and transnational security issues. His previous 

assignments include the 

501st Military Intelligence 

Brigade in Busan, South 

Korea and the Institute of 

Surgical Research in San 

Antonio, Texas.
MILITARY REVIEW EXCLUSIVE ONLINE September 2016 4

NCO Education

emerges between the variables of education, national 

security, morality, and current issues within the Army. 

How then, can one apply these associations and observations to improve the NCO Corps? 

Higher education should be mandatory for NCOs. 

I recommend the Army require an associate’s degree 

for advancement from sergeant to staff sergeant. Staff 

Sergeant to Sergeant First Class should require a bachelor’s degree, and a mandatory master’s degree to obtain a 

Master Sergeant’s level of responsibility. In so doing, the 

following benefits and consequence will be observable in 

the Army and NCO Corps.

Cost/Benefit Analysis: Financial

The Army’s financial investment in adopting this 

change is minimal. Current tuition assistance (TA) policy 

and funding will remain in effect and apply to all available personnel. The only significant change is addressing 

any out of pocket expense for education costs beyond the 

limitation of TA (currently at $250 per semester hour and 

$4500 per fiscal year).11 As such, any financial remainder on TA coverage, which would mostly apply for the 

E-7/E-8 group, would deduct from that individual’s Post 

9/11 GI Bill balance. Should the NCO desire to maintain 

the entire balance of his or her Post 9/11 GI Bill, they may 

opt to pay out of pocket at their discretion. Those who 

have transferred education benefits to dependents may 

still have deductions taken under their dependent’s account or assume the financial obligation. A further option, 

if it is determined to be a worthwhile use of resources, is to 

increase TA benefits based on NCO rank and/or have a 

tax-free TA offset allowance at a set rate for all ranks.

Implementation of this change requires a mandatory 

investment of time, which will provide more of a challenge 

than expense. Soldiers, NCOs, and command should have 

a set time, preferably on a training day (for example, dividing Sergeant’s Time Training (STT)) to work on higher education advancement. This privilege is at the discretion of 

command teams and not intended to apply to other facets 

of education, such as correspondence courses or separate 

mandatory unit training requirements. Deployed service 

members should have reasonable time given to support 

this change in their career structure.

Cost Analysis: Benefits

First, the NCO Corps will improve the quality 

of its human capital. A diverse pool of disciplinary 

knowledge among well-educated personnel increases 

the intellectual base of any workforce. For the Army, 

such a workforce can more readily meet highly demanding and technical standards required within sensitive areas of responsibility, notably among intelligence 

fields. Further, NCOs who separate from military service with a strong education background will continue 

to support the nation’s workforce in civilian sectors.

Second, NCOs will have an improved level of moral 

behavior. The NCO Corps will continue to lead by 

example with the benefit of improved moral judgement 

attained through exposure to higher education. This 

scenario mitigates the critique offered by Snider and 

will foster improved morality among the NCO Corps. 

This improved morality will likely spread throughout 

Army culture due to the unique placement of NCOs 

within command chains. The NCOs’ improved moral 

base will expose enlisted soldiers and officers to a dependable example of professional conduct.

Third, a well-educated NCO Corps establishes intellectual resilience among the Army during reductions in force. 

Mandatory education among NCOs ensures a needed 

resource remains in place despite changes in force size and 

structure. This enables competent mission accomplishment without compromising force strength in subsequent 

NCO generations. An added benefit of this process is the 

retention of NCOs willing to meet the education requirement. The status quo perpetuates disinterest in higher 

education in favor of less-substantive career attributes. This 

leads to over-specialization and fragmented promotion 

eligibility rather than a balanced approach to the Army 

profession developed through dedicated higher learning. 

Fourth, higher education will improve critical thinking 

within the NCO Corps. Snider notes the Army currently 

suffers from transactional leadership.12 Transactional leadership is detrimental due to its often-sycophantic contexts 

and reward-based approach that manifests too often in 

today’s Army. Increased development and use of critical 

thinking among NCOs due to mandatory higher education will mitigate transactional leadership’s toxic effect. 

More developed critical thinking skills will result in improvement in leadership quality among the NCO Corps.

Fifth, mandatory education will streamline career 

transition from NCOs to officers. Officer candidates 

require collegiate education. Leadership transition in the 

Army simplifies with the implementation of mandatory 

education for NCOs. Persistent resources of educated 
MILITARY REVIEW EXCLUSIVE ONLINE September 2016 5

NCO Education

personnel will be more readily available for the officer 

ranks. In time, generations of competent leaders with 

improved moral behavior may spread throughout the 

Army, originating from the NCO Corps. 

Sixth, higher education as a common denominator 

will balance the Army for its current and future needs. 

It avoids over-specialization to permit greater tactical, 

operational, and strategic flexibility within the Army. An 

NCO will no longer be able to justify promotion eligibility with extensive military experience alone. Likewise, a 

well-educated NCO can no longer over rely on his or her 

educational background to serve as a distinguishing characteristic for promotion. Thus, both extremes of the NCO 

Corps will have to focus on improving their weaknesses. 

This will not only improve the NCO Corps, but will lead 

to a more adaptable force.

Cost Analysis: Consequences

What follows are potential consequences for the NCO 

Corps if the Army rejects mandatory education. First, the 

status quo will remain in place. Snider’s pessimistic prediction in his critique of Army professionalism has better 

chances of becoming reality. This will result in stagnant 

force progression and leadership development. Negative 

character issues involving moral/ethical behavior and 

beneficial leadership climates will persist. 

Second, failure to adopt the mandatory higher 

education requirement is a possible misuse of resources. 

Education benefits provided to NCOs by the Army are 

available on a voluntary basis. Maximum return on investment with the education benefits provided is only possible 

through a mandatory education requirement. Time, services, and money disappear for the Army if there are not 

enough claims for benefits allowed. In addition, civilian 

earning potential generally increases with respective levels 

of higher education. Today’s higher education mirrors 

concepts of globalization facing state actors today.13

This includes increased demographic and intellectual 

diversity regarding human capital and is simultaneously applicable to the need to avoid over-specialization in 

this specific argument. Additionally, higher education 

Arizon National Guard soldiers from the 158th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade stand in a mass formation 7 December 2014 on the 

field at Arizona State University’s Sun Devil Stadium, Tempe Arizona, during the Arizona National Guard Muster and Community Expo. 

(National Guard photo by Staff Sgt. Brian A. Barbour) 
MILITARY REVIEW EXCLUSIVE ONLINE September 2016 6

NCO Education

incorporates training requisite skill sets beneficial to 

the individual and the state in science, technology, and 

economic fields. Many of these skills directly or via 

related sub-disciplines prove inherently valuable to a 

modern military force. The Army potentially does a 

disservice to the nation by not mandating higher education among its NCOs and future civilian workforce. 

Counterarguments

As previously mentioned, the Army Officer Corps 

requires higher education. Despite this, moral deficiencies 

among the Officer Corps can and do exist. How then, can 

a legitimate claim supporting the improved moral climate 

of the NCO Corps through higher education exist? First, 

mandatory higher education among the NCO Corps 

is not a panacea for moral and ethical recalcitrance. 

Specifically, it is a proposed change that holds a broad 

spectrum of beneficial attributes, one of which may 

ameliorate, to a certain extent, moral comportment in 

junior enlisted ranks. Generally, the status quo regarding 

ethical and moral problems relative to the other assertions 

made in this paper further support the inclusion of higher 

education from a macro perspective. At the very least, 

mandatory higher education among the NCO Corps 

is a proposed step in a better direction. In other words, 

raising the intellectual obligation of the lowest common 

denominator has independent improvement metrics 

eventually influencing Army culture over time.

The second counterargument to this paper’s claims 

regards mandatory higher education’s dynamic range. 

Any proposed change should require the correct 

amount of scrutiny. Having said mandatory education 

is not a universal solution to problems within the NCO 

Corps, how can this change truly modify the Army 

culture to produce its hypothesized results? Alterations 

brought through gradual modification of normative 

values and expectations will illustrate change in a 

group’s environment over time. Two considerations, 

the desire for positive change and its implementation, provide the impetus for such change to manifest 

its appropriateness or need of further modification. 

Regarding the proposed benefits of mandatory higher 

education, its inception among the NCO Corps will 

either validate this paper’s claims or negate it. In either 

context, the status quo by comparison serves less as 

a valid refuge for the unconvinced than as a starting 

point for an improved course of action.

Conclusion

This paper hypothesized mandatory education will 

improve the NCO Corps. Initial evidence presented shows a link between a well-educated workforce, 

national security, and improved moral behavior. Higher 

education forms a symbiotic relationship between positive leadership development and career progression. 

Thus, the Army and the nation are in a unique position 

to place the needs of itself and the individual in the 

same category. Simply required is the courage to embrace positive change that mandatory higher education 

for NCOs can bring. In so doing, the military and the 

nation achieve greater strength and professionalism by 

the backbone of the Army, the NCO Corps.

Notes

1. Finn Bowring, “Comparing Bauman and Arendt: Three Important Differences.” Sociology 45, no. 1 (2011): 57. 

2. Joel I. Klein, Condoleezza Rice, and Julia Levy, “U.S. Education 

Reform and National Security,” Council on Foreign Relations: Independent Task Force Report 68 (2012): xiii, 3-4.

3. William Christeson, Amy Dawson Taggart, and Soren Messner-Zidell, “Ready, Willing and Unable to Serve,” Mission: Readiness

online, accessed 11 June 2016, GAO-http://cdn.missionreadiness.

org/MR-Ready-Willing-Unable.pdf.

4. Department of State, Government Accountability Office, 

Comprehensive Plan Needed to Address Persistent Foreign Language 

Shortfalls, by Jess T. Ford, GAO-09-955, September 2009, http://

www.gao.gov/new.items/d09955.pdf.

5. Don M. Snider, “Professionalism and the Volunteer Military: 

Will Army 2025 be a Military Profession?” Parameters 45(4) (Winter 

2015-2016): 39-40.

6. Ibid., 40.

7. Ibid., 48-50.

8. Ibid., 50-51.

9. Patricia M. King, Patricia and Matthew J. Mayhew, “Moral 

Judgement Development in Higher Education: insights from the Defining Issues Test,” Journal of Moral Education 31, no. 3 (2002): 264.

10. Ibid., 256.

11. Snider, “Professionalism and the Volunteer Military,” 40, 45.

12. Army Regulation 621-5, Army Continuing Education System

(Washington D.C.: Headquarters, Department of the Army, 2006), 30.

13. D. Bruce Johnstone, Madeleine d’Ambrosio, and Paul J. 

Yakoboski, Higher Education in a Global Society (Cheltenham, UK: 

Edward Elgar Publishing, 2010), 201, Ebscohost e-book.