U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

i 

53–165 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–89] 

INVESTING IN OUR MILITARY LEADERS: 

THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL MILITARY 

EDUCATION IN OFFICER DEVELOPMENT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 28, 2009 
(II) 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SUZANNE MCKENNA, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

TREY HOWARD, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Tuesday, July 28, 2009, Investing in Our Military Leaders: The Role of 

Professional Military Education in Officer Development ................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Tuesday, July 28, 2009 ............................................................................................ 31 

TUESDAY, JULY 28, 2009 

INVESTING IN OUR MILITARY LEADERS: THE ROLE OF 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION IN OFFICER DEVELOPMENT 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Skelton, Hon. Ike, a Representative from Missouri, Chairman, Committee 

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 2 

Snyder, Hon. Vic, a Representative from Arkansas, Chairman, Oversight 

and Investigations Subcommittee ....................................................................... 1 

Wittman, Hon. Rob, a Representative from Virginia, Ranking Member, Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee ............................................................. 2 

WITNESSES 

Caldwell, Lt. Gen. William B., IV, USA, Commanding General, Combined 

Arms Center, Deputy Commanding General, Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Army .................................................................................................. 5 

Lutterloh, Scott, Director, Total Force Requirements Division, U.S. Navy ........ 9 

Paxton, Lt. Gen. John M., Jr., USMC, Director of Operations, Joint Staff ........ 3 

Sitterly, Daniel R., Director of Force Development, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force .......................................................... 7 

Spiese, Maj. Gen. Melvin G., USMC, Commanding General, Training and 

Education Command, U.S. Marine Corps .......................................................... 10 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Caldwell, Lt. Gen. William B., IV ................................................................... 49 

Lutterloh, Scott ................................................................................................. 84 

Paxton, Lt. Gen. John M., Jr. .......................................................................... 39 

Sitterly, Daniel R. ............................................................................................. 78 

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 35 

Spiese, Maj. Gen. Melvin G. ............................................................................ 96 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 37 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

[There were no Questions submitted during the hearing.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 117 
(1) 

INVESTING IN OUR MILITARY LEADERS: THE ROLE OF 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION IN OFFICER 

DEVELOPMENT 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, Washington, DC, Tuesday, July 28, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:04 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Vic Snyder (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Dr. SNYDER. If you all could please sit on down. 

The hearing will come to order. Welcome to the fifth in a series 

on hearings on ‘‘Officer in Residence Professional Military Education (PME).’’ 

Our hearings, thus far, have examined the mission, curricula and 

rigor, quality of staff, faculty and students and resources of service 

and joint institutions from the pre-commissioning and primary levels through to the intermediate and senior PME levels. 

Today’s hearing will have a broader focus and explore the role of 

professional military education in overall officer development. 

PME’s main purpose is to contribute to the preparation of our military officers as they progress through their careers for leadership 

at the tactical, operational and strategic levels. 

Our ability to systematically produce exceptional leaders is a result of a very complex system of systems, made all the more challenging by the demands of today’s operational environment. 

The general model used for developing our military leaders consists of a combination of professional military education, training, 

and experience, along with mentoring and self-development. The 

process of leader development, of which PME is a major part, is designed to produce an officer corps made of skilled joint war fighters 

who are strategically minded, critical thinkers according to the vision of joint officer development. 

To achieve that goal, the services need policies and systems to 

manage and integrate officers’ assignments, education, and training. It is a complicated task involving several kinds of inputs. I am 

sorry. Leader development strategies, visions, PME policies, and 

assignment policies and processes. 

The services and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff must 

identify the attributes they seek in their respective service and 

joint leaders. They must deliver education and training at the right 
2 

time and at the level appropriate in an officer’s career. And they 

must manage assignments to broaden officers’ experiences and 

apply their knowledge and training. 

The witnesses for this hearing today have varied responsibilities 

and authorities in three areas of PME policy, officer assignment 

policy, and leader development. This is a reflection of the different 

approaches each organization takes in connecting these things. 

I look forward to gaining a better understanding of how well we 

are doing with this challenging and intricate, but critically important task. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Mr. Wittman will be joining us shortly. He asked us to go ahead 

and begin. Mr. Skelton, any comments to begin with? 

STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I compliment you on this 

excellent job that you are doing in the field of professional military 

education and those of us that have been interested in it for a good 

number of years, appreciate your efforts, Dr. Snyder, very, very 

much. 

The whole effort is to educate and identify that golden person 

that may be in a position to make recommendations or make decisions that lead to positive strategic results. I think an interesting 

discussion, I think I may have mentioned this to General Caldwell, 

at one time, that General Peter Pace, not too long before he retired, 

asked me about the graduates of the National War College, how 

many could actually sit down and have an intelligent conversation 

with the late George C. Marshall. And he said three or four. But 

that is not bad. That is really pretty good if you are producing the 

strategic trends. 

Now everyone in the class can understand strategy. But those 

that are actually on the cutting edge and make sound recommendations or solid decisions that lead to whatever the end-state is good 

for a nation, come to pass, those are the golden students that you, 

hopefully, will be educating. And then, of course, identifying them 

and then making sure they have the right follow-on assignments. 

That is your challenge. And I compliment you for your efforts and 

I wish you well in your endeavors. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And we are joined by 

Mr. Wittman. 

So I take back all his apologies for not being here. Go ahead, Mr. 

Wittman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Snyder, 

Chairman Skelton, thank you so much for your leadership on 

bringing these issues to the forefront and members of the panel, 

thank you so much for taking your time out of your busy schedules 

to join us today. 
3 

This afternoon, or this morning, well, actually, this afternoon. 

Time all runs together up here. So time is relative, as they say. 

The subcommittee is conducting its fifth hearing on officer in residence professional military education. And this hearing focuses on 

how the joint PME (JPME) education requirements fit into overall 

leadership development for the military services and how well the 

individual services capitalize on the skills of joint educated officers 

through carefully managed follow-on assignments. 

I note that our witnesses, each well qualified, come from varied 

communities within their services, reflecting the differences in approach and emphasis we have seen throughout this study. And 

since the panel collectively provides the subcommittee senior expertise and perspective on joint officer education policy, education programs, assignments and requirement matters, I welcome your 

views on the overall effectiveness of the joint PME system and how 

well it serves your respective organizations. 

I see no point in making all services adopt the same approach. 

We should ensure that the broad officer education and training system achieves its intended objectives, both to educate officers in 

joint matters and to meet specific military service leader development requirements as well. 

Our testimony to this point is positive, but your frank assessment of any necessary changes is very welcome. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our 

witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wittman, and thanks for all your 

efforts on this topic and others. 

Today, the witnesses are Lieutenant General John Paxton, Director, Operations for the Joint Staff; Lieutenant General William 

Caldwell, IV, Commanding General, Combined Arms Center, Deputy Commanding General of Training and Doctrine Command in 

the U.S. Army; Mr. Dan Sitterly, Director of Force Development; 

Deputy Chief of Staff Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force; Mr. 

Scott Lutterloh; Director of Total Force Training and Education Division of the U.S. Navy and Brigadier General Melvin Spiese, Commanding General, Training and Education Command, U.S. Marine 

Corps. 

Your written statements will be made a part of the record. I am 

going to have John put the light on. When the red light goes off, 

that is the end of five minutes. You all feel free to keep talking if 

you think you have more to tell us. But we want to give you an 

idea of where you are at with time. 

And we will begin with you, General Paxton, and go down the 

row. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. JOHN M. PAXTON, JR., USMC, 

DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, JOINT STAFF 

General PAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Wittman and 

Chairman Skelton. Thank you very much for taking your time to 

be with us, sir, and for all of you who have contributed over the 

years to PME and officer development. 
4 

It is a privilege to be with you today, and I thank you for the 

opportunity to discuss the Chairman’s vision for joint officer development. As I begin, I would just like to be clear about my primary 

role today as the director of operations, I am filling in for the acting director of the Joint Staff. 

U.S. military power, today, is unsurpassed on the land, in the 

sea, and in the air, as well as in space and cyberspace. Our ability 

to integrate diverse capabilities into a joint whole that is greater 

than the sum of the service and agency parts is an undeniable 

North American strategic advantage. 

However, I believe that it is our people who are ultimately our 

greatest strength and our advantage. We repose special trust and 

confidence in their patriotism, valor, fidelity, and abilities. We recognize that these attributes are formed first by their families and 

communities, but they are then honed by purposeful development 

while in our service. Our stewardship of these precious assets is 

both a sacred trust and a solemn responsibility. 

The landmark 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense 

Reorganization Act set the stage for the Department of Defense 

and put it on the path, which leads us to today’s joint force and 

our approach to joint leader development. 

In 2005, Chairman Pace published his vision for joint officer development. This vision subsequently informed the division’s strategic plan for joint officer management as well as JPME. 

Congress saw fit to support the vision in legislation and the transition to our joint qualified officer, our JQO, vice the previous joint 

specialty officer, recognizes the broad application of jointness across 

the Armed Forces. 

Chairman Mullen actively supports this vision and is a staunch 

believer that in order to succeed, the Armed Forces must fundamentally be a learning organization in both word and deed. Inside the context of joint officer development, our approach can best 

be summed up as the right education for the right officer at the 

right time. Very similar to what you said, Chairman Skelton, just 

a moment ago. 

Professional military education, both service and joint, is a critical element in our officer development, and it is the foundation of 

our learning continuum that ensures our Armed Forces are intrinsically learning organizations. Our young officers join and are 

largely trained and developed in their particular service. Over 

time, however, they receive training and education in the joint context. They will gain experience, pursue self-development and over 

the breadth of their careers, become the senior armed—senior leaders of our joint force. 

Our developmental efforts must ensure that those officers are 

properly prepared for their leadership roles at every level of activity and employment. And it is through this that the Armed Forces 

remain capable of defeating both today’s and tomorrow’s threats. 

Our future joint force requires knowledgeable, empowered, innovative, and decisive leaders capable of succeeding in at least a fluid 

and perhaps ultimately a chaotic operating environment with a 

much more comprehensive knowledge of interagency and multi-national cultures and capabilities. 
5 

Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today to discuss 

this vital responsibility for the joint officer development joint professional military education. 

[The prepared statement of General Paxton can be found in the 

Appendix on page 39.] 

Dr. SNYDER. General Caldwell. 

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. WILLIAM B. CALDWELL, IV, USA, 

COMMANDING GENERAL, COMBINED ARMS CENTER, DEPUTY COMMANDING GENERAL, TRAINING AND DOCTRINE 

COMMAND, U.S. ARMY 

General CALDWELL. Chairman Skelton, sir, Chairman Snyder 

and Congressman Wittman, and just I am, obviously, Lieutenant 

General Bill Caldwell, Commanding General of the Combined Arms 

Center and I also serve as the commandant of the Army’s Command and General Staff College. On behalf of General Casey, our 

Army Chief of Staff, and General Marty Dempsey, the commanding 

general of Training and Doctrine Command, we appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about our Army’s professional 

military education. 

As we all know, 20 years ago, the Skelton Report enabled the 

Army to focus its professional military education programs to account for the joint environment. Then, as now, this committee’s 

continued advocacy for our professional military education, their efforts has been vital to our sustained health of our leader development and in fact the very security of our nation. 

We are absolutely committed to the ideals of education in preparing our next generation of leaders. Leaders that we know that 

will operate on a complex future that is marked by an air of uncertainty and persistent conflict, where the importance of leader development and professional military education cannot be overstated. 

Education helps leaders develop skills to quickly comprehend 

new and challenging situations, to rapidly build relationships and 

trust with mission partners and demonstrate competence and confidence in applying the innovative and adaptive solutions required 

to operate in this uncertain world. 

As we look at the future environment and observe the effects of 

the last eight years on our force and the Army, we understand that 

we must continue to change. We are working diligently to adapt 

our institutions and policies to better achieve a balance of professional military education within our leader development and within 

our Army. 

The Army’s PME is progressive in nature. It reflects a thorough 

analysis of education and training to ensure leaders are receiving, 

as everybody has stated already, the right skills at the right time 

throughout their lifelong process of learning. We continually review 

our professional military education to ensure it remains relevant to 

the force through various internal, external, and accreditation 

methods. We are consistently taking a critical view of what is relevant, what must change and what outcomes we expect from educating our leaders. 

Our assessment is that the professional military education system is in fact achieving its objectives. However, we realize we must 
6 

continually adjust to meet the current and the anticipated future 

demands. We recognize today that not everybody is getting their 

PME courses in a timely manner, due to current wartime demands 

and capacity challenges. We are moving forward to meet those 

challenges. 

We also recognize that one component of our Basic Officer Leader 

Course was ineffective and not meeting capacity demand. General 

Dempsey’s decision this year to realign our Basic Officer Leader 

Course streamlines initial entry officer education and will in fact 

reduce the backlog we find of those waiting to attend the course. 

We are also in the process of redesigning our captains’ career 

course to enable it to be a more rapid infusion of lessons learned 

that we are seeing in the field today. 

We have also just finished the expansion of our school for advanced military study programs by over 30 percent to ensure that 

we are meeting the wartime demands that we are experiencing in 

the force. These initiatives, from redesigning our Basic Officer 

Leadership Course, improvements in our current advanced operations course at Command and General Staff College, remain priorities for our Army. 

We are also considering a Department of Army level selection 

board for the year-long intermediate level education resident attendance at Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. 

The Army is clearly focused on improving its professional military education. Initiatives such as our Army Development Strategy, 

our human capital enterprise, emphasis on interagency collaboration and the continued adaptation and changes to each level of professional military education demonstrate that commitment. 

Though we are confident in the approach and measures taken to 

date, we truly need your help in three distinct areas that we think 

will further help enhance our professional military education. 

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about, and address the 

change in laws, taking away the joint duty authorization list credit 

for non-host military faculty at JPME I granting institutions. 

Although our Army is working on an official position regarding 

this topic, as the commandant of the Command and General Staff 

College, I can share with you that we strongly feel this change directly impacts the quality of instruction of our officers attending at 

the intermediate level education. This is all the more relevant, 

given that Command and General Staff College, the equivalent 

PME rates, JPME I accreditation. 

The impact of revising the National Security Defense Authorization Act of 2007 is two-fold. My concern is that this change eliminates a powerful incentive for officers from sister services to view 

this assignment as both developmental and career enhancing, thus 

perhaps narrowing the aperture of highly-qualified officers seeking 

those opportunities to teach at sister service institutions. 

Second, because our sister service faculty positions have dropped 

from joint duty authorization lists, they are a much lower, now, 

priority three. I believe that JPME I positions, and again this is 

me, I believe that JPME I positions should be considered on the 

joint duty authorization list by removing the restrictions found in 

Section 688 of Title 10. 
7 

I would like to caveat that our sister services continue to send 

highly qualified officers to us at the Command and General Staff 

College. In fact, the recent selection of the Air Force and Navy Elements Commanders for command is indicative of that level of quality. 

I would like to also highlight the importance of the interagency 

participation that we are experiencing at the Command and General Staff College and at our Army War College. Increased participation is essential to our educational outcomes for leader development. The interagency exchange and fellows programs provide an 

opportunity for students to improve working relationships and further reinforce operational experiences. 

We will continue to facility one-to-one exchanges to mitigate 

shortfalls experienced by interagency partners when they commit 

personnel to an educational opportunity at our Command and General Staff College. 

And the last item I would like to emphasize, our comprehensive 

soldier fitness initiative our Army has just undertaken. The establishment of this comprehensive soldier fitness initiative recognizes 

the tremendous stress that our soldiers, our family members, and 

our Department of the Army civilian force has faced during these 

last 8 years, and it seeks to educate our soldiers to overcome hardships and adverse events, bounce back and in fact grow stronger 

in the process. 

With your continued assistance, we believe we can provide our 

leaders and our soldiers with that leadership that they need to continue serving in our Army. The evidence that this system is achieving its goals is seen today in the performance of the United States 

Army. 

The Army is performing magnificently in these most demanding 

times. This has not been achieved without mistakes, pain, and the 

loss of many comrades. 

I do want to also extend an invitation to this committee and to 

the both of you to come out and visit us at any time you would like 

at the Command and Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth 

and the Army’s Command and General Staff College or to any of 

our 17 schools and centers throughout the United States Army. An 

open invitation, we would love to host you at any time and share 

with you what we are doing there on our leader development programs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Caldwell can be found in the 

Appendix on page 49.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Great. Thanks, General. Mr. Sitterly. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. SITTERLY, DIRECTOR OF FORCE 

DEVELOPMENT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND 

PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR FORCE 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you. Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, 

Ranking Member Wittman, thank you for this opportunity to discuss officer professional military education as the Air Force Director of Force Development, a position I have held since last week, 

but a job that I have been training for since 1976. 
8 

Over the last 33 years, I have been a student and faculty member at Phase 1, 2 and 3 of Non-Commissioned Officer PME 

(NCOPME), taught at the Community College of the Air Force and 

have attended and instructed as an officer and as a civilian at intermediate and senior PME. 

I mention this because for the first 15 years in the Air Force, I 

watched PME grow firsthand in our young institution. And for the 

past 20 years, since Goldwater-Nichols, and since the Skelton 

Panel, I have watched firsthand PME soar to new heights in the 

Air Force. And it continues to soar today. 

Our secretary and chief of staff have made developing airmen, officers, civilians, and enlisted, at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels, the top priority. In fact, every single PME program has 

undergone a significant review and revamp in the last 3 years. 

The first, our university commander, Major General Fairchild, 

laid down a challenge to develop officers in residence schools that 

look ahead to the next conflict as well as looking backwards to 

study past conflicts. We have accepted that challenge, we have 

added jointness, we have included developmental constructs, and 

today our mission focuses on preparing officers to develop, employ, 

and command air space and cyberspace power in global operations. 

In short, preparing the world’s best officers, leaders, and strategic 

thinkers. 

We recognize in residence PME as essential for development. 

Therefore, we focus efforts through our force management and development council construct and embarked on a new enduring 

framework, institutional competencies to manage human capital 

across the entire enterprise. 

As part of our continuum of development education, we have also 

included a continuum of learning to ensure our airmen receive the 

right education, mapped at the right competencies, at the right 

time, throughout their careers. Key to the process, development 

teams oversee force development, including key aspects of the PME 

process to meet functional and institutional requirements. 

Ultimately, an airman’s record of performance and future potential are critical in determining who is selected to attend PME in 

residence. Military and Air Force civilian students are selected 

through a rigorous and competitive Air Force-wide selection process. 

We also remain focused on the selection of our faculty and our 

senior staff members, the foundation for a successful PME program. A cadre of military members and civilians with varied educational histories and experiences promotes quality and stability in 

PME programs and also enhances the learning. 

School curricula are influenced by faculty, students, and external 

feedback and inputs. Operational experiences provide insight into 

the challenges and opportunities our nation faces. The Air Force remains flexible to ensure our curricula are current and relevant and 

that students are exposed to the very latest Air Force and joint lessons learned. 

The Air Force Learning Committee, another innovation, validates 

requests to change the PME curricula. This committee, composed 

of air staff functionals, major commands and air university representatives, balances requested curricula changes with senior 
9 

leader priorities and policy. This includes relevant topics of immediate interest to the joint war fighting community as well as inputs 

from the military education coordination committee. 

We have made great progress since the 1989 Skelton Panel reforms. We have soared. Yet more can be done to inculcate a truly 

joint culture and to produce strategic thinkers. 

I want to thank this committee, specifically, for the authority in 

the FY 2009 NDAA, to allow us to award Ph.Ds to a select group 

of airmen, who graduate from our premier school of advanced air 

and space studies. Our next strategic thinkers, if you will. Those 

golden persons, Mr. Chairman. 

Your continued support of our initiatives to grow and to develop 

high-quality joint airmen is most appreciated and ensures our ability to continue to fly, fight and win in air, space, and cyberspace. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sitterly can be found in the Appendix on page 78.] 

Dr. SNYDER. I did pronounce your name right, didn’t I? 

‘‘Sitterly?’’ 

Mr. SITTERLY. Yes, doctor, that is correct. 

Dr. SNYDER. All right. How about Mr. Lutterloh? Is that right? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Yes, sir, that is exactly right. 

Dr. SNYDER. Good. Thank you. 

You are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT LUTTERLOH, DIRECTOR, TOTAL 

FORCE REQUIREMENTS DIVISION, U.S. NAVY 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you. 

Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, Representative Wittman, 

distinguished members of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Navy’s approach to 

professional military education and developing Navy and joint leaders. 

My remarks today will focus on three areas, education governance, balancing competing demands, and key successes. 

The Navy has made significant strides in improving access to 

professional military education in the 20 years since Chief of Naval 

Operations Admiral Carlisle Trost appeared before the House Committee on Armed Services Panel on Military Education. We are 

fully committed to professional military education as a key enabler 

to building a resilient, knowledgeable and adaptive force, ready to 

meet the demands of a dynamic, multi-mission, and expeditionary 

environment. 

We have placed significant emphasis on a balanced approach to 

education, which recognizes the foundational importance of operational excellence and the culture of command in fielding a ready 

maritime force. Our education programs are aligned with the 

unique professional requirements of Navy specialties that complement and build upon the broad range of war fighting experiences. 

The Chief of Naval Operations designated the vice-chief as the 

Navy’s education executive agent to lead Navy’s investment in education by enabling unity of effort through coordinated policy, vali-
10 

dated requirements, prioritized resources and standardized processes. 

As the executive agent, the vice-chief chairs the advanced education review board that provides oversight of Navy education policies and programs in support of the national military strategy. 

Our sailors are fully engaged on the ground, in the air, and at 

sea in support of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, and 

around the globe. In the face of many competing demands, we have 

been effective in achieving an appropriate balance that places the 

highest priority on filling operational and joint billets while preserving resident, professional military education opportunities. 

We have achieved a number of key successes over the past 20 

years. We established a full continuum of professional military education that spans the career from pre-commissioning through selection to flag. We expanded resident and non-resident opportunities 

and increased emphasis on the integration of international students in our Naval War College program to build partnerships essential to our nation’s interests and security. 

Our policies, programs, and processes provide us with the flexibility needed to balance relevant education, develop operational excellence, perform as an expeditionary force, and sustain our culture 

of command. All critical to joint national and international interests. 

On behalf of the Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Roughead, 

thank you for your continuing support to assure the Navy’s officer 

corps benefits from a robust program of professional military education. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lutterloh can be found in the 

Appendix on page 84.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Lutterloh. General Spiese. 

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. MELVIN G. SPIESE, USMC, COMMANDING GENERAL, TRAINING AND EDUCATION COMMAND, 

U.S. MARINE CORPS 

General SPIESE. Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, Ranking 

Member Wittman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss professional military education within the Marine Corps. 

The Marine Corps is proud of the programs, students and staff, 

and faculty associated with our PME. Graduates of our institutions 

are more prepared than ever to assume positions of increased responsibility. 

Critical components of PME are students, faculty, and curricula, 

and I am pleased to report that all three of these components are 

extremely strong within the Marine Corps. We have identified deficiencies in facilities and infrastructure and we are working diligently to improve these two areas. 

The Marine Corps PME program is a progressive learning system designed to educate Marines by grade throughout their careers. Participation in this program is an institutional expectation. 

The program consists of resident instruction, distance education, 

professional self-study, and the Marine Corps Professional Reading 

Program. 
11 

Today’s environment is constantly changing, thus requiring leaders to be able to rapidly adapt and solve complex problems at lower 

and lower levels of command and responsibility. 

The Marine Corps PME provides some solutions to the problems, 

but more importantly, it focuses on how to think. Critical thinking 

is more important than ever to the development of our leaders. The 

Marine Corps fully supports the vision of Generals Breckinridge 

and Gray, by embracing the educational goal of developing innovative, critical military thinkers, skilled in both the art and science 

of war. 

Our learning outcomes and programs have been developed and 

vetted that provide progressive educational framework as the material grows more complex, as our students progress through the 

courses of instruction offered at our schoolhouses. That is the Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College and the Marine Corps War College at our university. 

Although this testimony specifically focuses on resident PME, it 

is important to note our progress in delivering quality PME for our 

distance education program as it is the vehicle through which the 

majority of our Marine officers receive their PME. The Marine 

Corps commits significant resources to delivering quality distance 

education through the most modern means available. Our content 

is derived from and parallel to the resident curricula and we have 

used current technology to put all students in a collaborative seminar, whether in person or virtually. 

I believe the effectiveness of our distance education program can 

be measured in that 28 of our non-resident students have been selected to participate in the school of advanced war fighting over the 

last 5 years. This accounts for almost a third of the total Marine 

officers selected for that very competitive program. 

Within the Marine Corps, it is expected that all officers will complete their PME requirements, either through resident or non-resident means. Philosophically, the Corps believes completion of PME 

makes a Marine more competitive for promotion because completion of each block of PME provides the Marine with the requisite 

war fighting skills, mental dexterity, and analytical ability to perform at the assigned level of leadership responsibility. 

Our resident PME students have already proven themselves to 

be among the top performers within their peer group and were selected to attend our service schools because of their demonstrated 

potential for greater service. Upon completion of courses, our PME 

graduates are assigned to the most highly competitive billets in our 

operating forces, higher headquarters staffs, and joint positions. 

If an officer is not PME complete, he or she is not competitive 

for a joint assignment, and we would not nominate that officer to 

a gaining joint commander. 

The Commandant of the Marine Corps emphasizes the importance of PME in his Vision and Strategy 2025, when he states, ‘‘We 

must promote PME as a career-long activity.’’ 

Officers attending PME are busier than ever, but are eager to 

participate, learn, and hone their leadership skills. The amount of 

experience of today’s students is nothing short of amazing; particularly of our young officers. We are able to match the same level of 
12 

experience in our military faculty, where the vast majority are combat veterans. 

At one time there was a line of thought that this high level of 

operational experience might cause students to be resistant to new 

ideas. That has not been the case. Today’s students are very receptive to change, anxious to share their experiences, and eager to 

learn from one another. 

My written testimony contains a detailed explanation of how we 

are measuring effectiveness in utilizing the graduates of our program. We do concur with the Army’s position regarding a change 

to include JPME I, non-host military positions on the Joint Duty 

Assignment List (JDAL). As I stated in my opening paragraph, 

‘‘Critical components of education are students, faculty, and the 

curricula, and I am pleased to report that all are superb.’’ 

Thank you again for this opportunity to speak with you today, 

and I welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Spiese can be found in the 

Appendix on page 96.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, General Spiese. 

Before we go to Mr. Skelton for his questions, I want to take advantage of him being here and talk about the issue you just closed 

with, General Spiese, which is the joint credit, the joint duty assignment list issue. You, I think, four of you, I think, specifically 

talk about it. I think it is a problem for all of you. 

Let me see if I have got this right. The question that we have, 

and we recognize it was a change in the 2007 Defense Bill, if I am 

in the position of General Caldwell, and I have an Army officer 

come to be a faculty member, no one is saying that Army officer 

should get credit to get joint credit, correct? 

But if I have a—— 

General CALDWELL. Correct, sir. Not at my institute. 

Dr. SNYDER. Not at your institution. 

But if, in the spirit of all these visits we have made, you always 

have some folks from the other services. If you had an Air Force 

officer or a Marine or a Navy officer, who has spent a year or two 

on an Army base, immersed in the culture of the Army, currently 

that person doesn’t get joint credit for that assignment. Is that correct? 

General CALDWELL. That is correct. 

Dr. SNYDER. And that was because of the change that was made 

in the 2007 Defense Bill? 

General CALDWELL. That is correct. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. And how does that hurt you in your ability to 

get faculty now? 

I am directing it to you, General Caldwell, but I assume that 

they will stick your hand with a sharp pencil if you say something 

wrong, but—— 

General CALDWELL. Well, I saw the eye contact—— 

Dr. SNYDER. [OFF MIKE] 

General CALDWELL. The challenge we have is, I understand why 

the change was made. Because what had occurred is I had been 

briefed, I was not there. Is that we had taken like our Naval officer 

or officers and had had them work just Naval issues, teach Naval 
13 

subjects. And if that is in fact how they are being utilized, then 

they should not get JDAL credit. And I concur with that. 

However, what we look for is the robustness. We talked about 

that in the 21st century, anything we do will be in a Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, Multinational (JIIM) environment. 

Going interagency, intergovernmental, multinational. 

We in fact tried to build not only the student population to reflect that, but the faculty population too. We have worked very diligently to bring interagency faculty in to teach as part of the Command and General Staff College faculty, recognizing the richness 

that brings to the educational process. 

When we are unable to attract Naval and services and Air Force 

officers to come to Fort Leavenworth because they don’t get the 

joint accreditation, we may not get the most highest potential serving officers to come. 

Throughout their career development process, they are seeking 

out and want to be serving in some joint billets. If in fact, we have 

joint billets on our faculty, and we use them as a regular faculty 

member, not as a Naval officer teaching Naval subjects. They may 

be a subject matter expert there, but they are part of the overall 

faculty developmental process that we have, then in fact we have 

the ability to attract more higher potential serving officers back to 

our institution. 

Dr. SNYDER. It increases your pool of people who are interested, 

with enthusiasm, to get those jobs? 

General CALDWELL. Sir, I can tell you for the Army officers, that 

as we try to reach out and find some to go to both Air University 

and the Naval War College, if we want recent combat deployers 

who have just come out of the fight, they realize that they don’t 

want to stay out too long. They want, within 2 to 3 years, to have 

the opportunity to again serve if we are still engaged in this conflict. And therefore, during that time period, if they can go to a 

joint billet, that is where they would prefer to go. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do any of you have any comment? General Caldwell 

will get an A+ there for his description. If any of you have any 

other comments on that? You are all—I have read your statements, 

you are all in agreement with that. 

Mr. Skelton, for questions? 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask, I will pick on you first, General 

Caldwell, if I may. 

There are two or three majors in your Command and General 

Staff College that you think just might have what it takes to be 

strategic thinkers. How are you going to help guide their career toward that end? 

And then, I wish to ask the same question of anyone that wishes 

to answer about a couple of lieutenant colonels coming out of the 

Senior War College. How are you going to help guide their career, 

if you are? 

And suppose these two majors are—they think right. The—they 

give advice right. You have tested them pretty much in the war 

games and the classroom, et cetera. But their Officer Evaluation 

Reports (OERs) might or might not make them competitive for battalion command. What are you going to do with these two guys? 
14 

General? Are you going to flunk them out and let them go elsewhere? Or what are you going to do with them? 

General CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, that is a great question. And 

in the past, you are exactly right. Our track has been if you did 

not go to command, your probability of making general officer are 

almost—therefore, you could have a much greater influence. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not necessarily saying that they should be 

generals, but at least in 2006, to have the clout to make recommendations, et cetera—— 

These two majors are really pretty good guys. They think well. 

You are really high on them. But they are all right as commanders, 

as company commanders and they probably might or might not 

make the cut, depending on the year, to become battalion commander. What are you going to do with them? 

General CALDWELL. I think our recent track of establishing a 

strategist track within the United States Army is a career field. So 

that we actually have strategists now. 

We saw last year the first one—— 

The CHAIRMAN. At what point do you do that? 

General CALDWELL. Sir, it would be during the time you are a 

field-grade officer. Whether it would be with—you could elect to, 

you could do it slightly before that too, as a senior captain; that 

you would like to opt into that area. And for us, part of our job at 

the Command and General Staff College is to try to help identify 

those who might have immense potential in that area and encourage them to think about following that particular career field. 

So part of our faculty’s responsibility is during that year of 

mentorship with the students of small group dynamics that we 

have, if they identify somebody like that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that career field enticing enough for them to 

someday be an O–6? 

General CALDWELL. It is. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it is. 

The CHAIRMAN. Despite the fact they will never be a battalion 

commander? 

General CALDWELL. That is correct. And last year was the first 

time anyone was selected for general officer too, because we—who 

had not commanded at the brigade command level. And it is because we recognized that there is an invaluable, intangible learning asset there; somebody who has a potential to contribute in a 

way that others may not be able to, with that kind of strategic 

thinking. So that we in fact take and encourage that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think the committee would be very interested 

in your giving a resume of the potential career field along that line. 

General CALDWELL. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. How about the rest of your lieutenant colonels? 

Is it too late to identify them there? What do you do with them? 

General? General Paxton? 

General PAXTON. No, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think it is ever too 

late to identify them. And I think, if we look at the training piece 

and the education piece, but as General Caldwell said, there is also 

a mentorship piece here too. And you get a chance as a leader, and 

particularly as a general officer or a flag officer, to identify people 

who bring unique skill sets and unique value to the service. 
15 

And you can tell at some point, you can’t vote for the institution, 

but you know when someone may not be quite as competitive as 

someone else, perhaps, for a command or perhaps a promotion. 

But we have an obligation to the individual and to the institution 

to groom them appropriately and that is when you get into the 

mentorship aspect, when you can teach them in the den or side bar 

one at a time. You can proffer their name to a commander who 

may need someone in an operations billet or a combatant command 

or a commander’s initiative group, and you have mechanisms 

through the education thing to keep them alive and flourishing 

in—— 

The CHAIRMAN. That person has to know that this isn’t a dead 

end? 

General PAXTON. Oh, absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Am I correct? 

General PAXTON. That is correct, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And how do you do that? How do you do that? 

General PAXTON. I think two ways. Number one is to communicate to the individual and then number two, we have an obligation, not necessarily to our JPME, but to our joint officers’ development to communicate to the institution at large that there is no 

one established track record to guarantee promotion or to guarantee command. That we look at the breadth of an officer’s exposure and experience, and we try and cultivate that and encourage 

them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, you have been on a number of promotion 

boards, I suppose. 

General PAXTON. I have, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that taken into consideration? 

General PAXTON. Absolutely, sir. I mean, obviously there are litmus tests and things that you look for as a baseline at great preponderance. Because failure to do that would be to encourage the 

wrong skills, I think. 

But you also have to look for those idiosyncratic things. Not necessarily that, but something that is out of the mainstream. But 

someone who has contributed to the service, to the war fight and 

needs to be promoted, and you find a place for him or her to land, 

sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. And how about the Air Force, Navy, and Marines? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Mr. Chairman, as you all know, one of the results 

of the Skelton panel, your panel, in 1989 was the stand up of the 

school of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air University. Since 

that school has stood up, we have graduated 18 classes now and 

the culture of that school has been such that combatant commanders are actually requesting graduated students from that 

school because of the strategic thinking abilities. 

The way we get there, and we have a very competitive process 

at the beginning for Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE), 

we identified the students, the top 20 percent of our majors, to go 

into IDE at Air Command and Staff College. 

The top percentage of them are identified either by the school, 

or they are recruited by the Advanced School while they are there. 

And then, they are actually brought over to a post-IDE school fast. 
16 

And what we hope with the legislation that this committee 

passed for us last year, that this Congress passed, is the next step 

will be that we identify those students who will complete the Advanced School, and they will do, what we call, ‘‘ABD, all but dissertation.’’ 

So, they will come to the school, the Advanced School, do the 

rigor of the thinking and the academics, if you will. They will go 

back out to the field for another operational assignment. And then, 

we will bring them back in to do their senior developmental education, and complete a year of their dissertation. 

The culture of the Air Force is such that these folks that have 

completed School of Advanced Air and Space Studies (SAASS) are 

highly sought after for command and post, and go on quite a ways 

in their career. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Chairman Skelton, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this. The Navy has been looking at this issue 

seriously over the course of the last year, since my appointment as 

the division lead for training and education. 

I would say that the most positive movement that we have right 

now, is an initiative originated by the chief naval personnel, by 

Vice Admiral Ferguson, to create an unrestricted line alternative 

career track, in which we can take these hot-running officers that 

may be just a step below some of their peers in terms of operational excellence, and vector them into some of the more strategic 

positions. 

We have not quite ferreted this out yet. But we are on a path 

to do this. 

We believe wholeheartedly that mentorship is a valuable piece of 

this, continued education across their career path is a piece of this, 

and specific assignments, whether that be in the strategy cells in 

the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations (OPNAV) staff in N3/ 

N5, or whether that be as part of the Chief of Naval Operation’s 

(CNO’s) strategic study groups. These positions will help them develop into the strategic thinkers that we need. 

The CHAIRMAN. In answering that question, I don’t want to exclude your first class operational folks from that career path as 

well. Because, chances are they would be very competitive in a 

strategic environment, chances are. 

I am talking about those others that just might not, but on the 

other hand could be very, very helpful in strategic thought. 

General. 

General SPIESE. Mr. Chairman, we believe we do identify our 

strongest officers for selection going into school. Even though not 

all of them subsequently we selected for command. 

And we identified that through a myriad of both quantitative and 

non-quantitative qualities to our performance evaluation system. 

And we do have examples of successful career paths, non-traditional career paths rising to the grade of colonel, not necessarily 

through command. 

So, we identify those, as General Paxton said. We are able to observe those. We get those in the performance evaluations. And we 

continue to bring them along as we identify them in service. 
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Caldwell, I 

will begin with you. 

Just want to get a perspective about the current efforts within 

PME and how students are educated and they are exposed? 

Can you give me an idea about how early you think maybe is too 

early for interagency exposure within PME? 

And then also, the progression of service education and joint education and interagency education, is that the right mix? Is that a 

concept that is current today? Is it a concept that is current today? 

Is it dated? 

And how should we look at, those, joint and interagency student 

participation in the current efforts with PME? Are there things 

that need to be changed there, based on the current set of conditions that we face, both internal and external to our service 

branches? 

General CALDWELL. Sir, that is a great question. And one we 

have been dealing with over time here, because, we do talk about 

education as a life-long learning process. 

So, where do we introduce into and add this mix of experiences 

along the way? 

Our position that we had taken is that, we do in fact need to introduce interagency at a much earlier phase of leader development 

than we have in the past. Traditionally, it has been at about senior 

service college level, and about perhaps, 16 to 20 years of service. 

Our position now is, given that the young lieutenants today operate in Iraq and Afghanistan, will find the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) representative there, will turn and 

find the U.S. agricultural representative and the ag teams, as we 

call them, ‘‘agricultural teams,’’ will in turn find someone from 

trade and commerce or justice. 

We understand now that, we can’t wait that long in an officer’s 

career development and a non-commissioned officer’s career development to do that introduction of that. 

And so, our position is that at the intermediate level of education, the Command and General Staff College level, we do in fact 

use a greater level of interagency participation, than we have done 

in the past. 

Two years ago, when I arrived at Fort Leavenworth, and looked 

at the Command and General Staff College, we only had two from 

the interagency, and they were both from diplomatic security out 

of the Department of State. 

Former military guys who had decided it would be kind of neat 

to come back and go to school with their buddies. I mean I talked 

to both and I understood exactly what they were trying to do. 

Today, as we start this year, we will have up to 30. And we will 

have done the exchange program with the interagency. But we 

would like to grow it, so that there is one in every single classroom 

of our 96 classrooms. 

So we want to expand this much further than even are today, because they are in fact bringing and adding to the educational process, something that we can’t just learn out of textbooks. And so 
18 

that when we are participating in our exercises, in our class room 

discussions, informal, off-duty relationships, it is really a powerful 

tool to facilitate that. 

Last year, I graduated two out of the school for Advanced Military studies from USAID. Today, one of them is serving in the U.S. 

Central Command as the USAID representative there. The other 

one is in Afghanistan serving as the senior coordinator there. 

That kind of experience that they now bring to those locations, 

with their background and training they had in USAID, a year of 

advanced studies at the Command and General Staff College with 

the Department of Defense, now back into operational environment, we will be trying to integrate those two, is just something 

you can’t replicate in any other kind of fashion. 

So, our position is that, and I don’t—it is a little longer than I 

thought. At the Command and General Staff College, we absolutely 

think it is imperative that we have interagency participation and 

involvement. 

And that without that, the idea of having JIIM, joint interagency 

intergovernmental and multinational, is you are missing the ‘‘I’’, a 

huge piece. We have been great at working the joint. We have been 

great at working the multinational. We have a good international 

representation and we are growing it. 

Just Friday, I was with the chief of the Armed Forces for India. 

And he and I, again, talked about taking from three Indian students out of Fort Leavenworth, up to nine here in the next year. 

Because, we recognize the importance of that ally and the need to 

do more exchange with them. 

But the part that we are still challenged in is in the interagency, 

because there is no formal mechanism. It is all relationship building right now, and studying the conditions that it appears to be lucrative for that. But yet, the incentives don’t exist within the other 

agencies for them to want to send people. It is not career enhancing. 

When you talk to my Department of State, Foreign Service officers that just graduated, they will tell you that it is considered a 

neutral kind of event they just went to. 

Yet in fact, in future conflicts, those Foreign Service officers will 

be absolutely invaluable and have an appreciation, understanding 

for what the military, not just the Army, but the military brings, 

because, they have trained for an entire year, and educated for an 

entire year, for that kind of environment. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Paxton. 

General PAXTON. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

I guess I would like to go back to the first part of that. I don’t 

debate at all what General Caldwell said. 

And, I think we all see the merits in the interagency, the intergovernment and the multinational. And there is always a constant 

debate about how much, and how early? 

I would just like to go back to the first part of your question. And 

just to reinforce what we have always believed, and what has been 

part of General Pace’s doctrine and what Chairman Mullen believes is that the foundation of the bedrock for having a good joint 

officer, is to have a service officer, somebody who is skilled and accomplished in the art and the science of war fighting. And has mas-
19 

tered the fundamentals of his tradecraft, or her tradecraft, be it 

soldier, sailor, airmen or Marine. 

And we firmly believe that we have to integrate and instill as 

early as possible, all those intergovernmental, interagency, and 

multinational things. 

But if you—if we don’t want to risk the bedrock foundation which 

is really a solid development of a good officer, who understands war 

fighting. And I just make that point, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, congressman for that question. I agree 

with both of my colleagues. 

I think that because of the nature of the environment that we 

are dealing with today, we are sending younger officers out in 

smaller groups, in very isolated situations. And I think it is important that we at least educate them on the strategic implication of 

their tactical actions. 

And so, we have, at the Air and Space basic course, as part of 

our primary developmental education, gone out of our way to partner with the Army at Camp Shelby and take folks out. And sort 

of give them that flavor at a much earlier age than we did before. 

I also agree that the interagency, intergovernmental part of that 

is important. We have increased our quotas slightly at our war colleges. But, for every position that you give to another person outside of the Air Force, that is one Air Force person that can’t. 

And like General Paxton suggested, we have to have good Air 

Force officers before we can have good joint officers. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Representative Wittman, thank you very much. 

You will be pleased to know that our junior officers returning from 

our ship, from our fleet ship today, are well experienced in many 

of these operations. 

Whether in partnership Africa, or in humanitarian assistance 

missions around the globe, they are experienced in exactly what 

you are talking about, not only interagency, but also non-governmental organizations as well. So, our junior officers are experiencing this first hand. 

We believe, in the Navy, that this has to be integrated across the 

board. I agree with General Paxton wholeheartedly. Operational 

excellence at the service level is foundation to a credible joint commitment. 

As we move through that, War College has already integrated 

international partners. And our post-graduate school has as well. 

So, we think we are moving along in that regard. 

War College has considered interagency and is ready to work 

with military education coordination councils to make these 

changes that will lead us into the future. 

Post-graduate school is considering a partnership in Europe to 

work on some of these non-governmental organizations. So, across 

the board, you see a wave, a movement, that will lead us in this 

direction. 

The last point I would make is that I think that our training and 

our exercises will have to follow suit. And we will have to do this 

to reinforce our education with exercises that integrate inter-
20 

national partners, inter-agencies, and even non-governmental organizations to a large extent. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Spiese. 

General SPIESE. Congressman Wittman, although Expeditionary 

Warfare School is a predominantly service specific school, we do 

present interagency considerations towards the end of the curriculum and the high end exercises, as a reflection of the reality 

of what is happening on the ground. 

It is also a joint school with about one-third of the student population being students from the Air Force, the Army, or international students. 

Clearly though, an intermediate level school, command and staff 

college before the greatest of effort, we have a very broad and expansive, diverse interagency presence. We do have the luxury of 

being located in the Washington area. So, we have access to a lot 

of agencies, and opportunities for the student population that we 

might not otherwise in other locations. 

And so, we certainly understand that. It is fully, integral, into all 

of our curricula, even those where we emphasize the service development of our students. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Caldwell, you were talking about, you 

talked in my office and you talked to Congressman Wittman about, 

your exchange with, and Army officers going to the State Department, or USAID. And you are getting 10 folks back for a year exchange, so you have the students in your class. 

Do you think that is ultimately how these needs are going to be 

met? Or is it going to be that the civilian side has to increase their 

float, so they have enough people to come to the schools? 

Because, they think they benefit greatly. We have talked with 

some of the State Department and IDE people; they think it is a 

tremendous experience for them. 

Isn’t that how this is ultimately going to be solved? 

General CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I think it is. Obviously, we 

are trying to—— 

Dr. SNYDER. You are being creative, you are being creative. 

General CALDWELL [continuing]. So we have tried to find a way 

to incentivize it so they want to come out there by knowing that 

they would get a replacement person a seat. 

I very much appreciate having been to, I don’t know, 15 or 20 

of our departments and agencies in Washington and personally sitting and talking with senior leadership in each of them over the 

last year and a half. 

That their challenges, they don’t have a school account, nor the 

resources to pay for the moves and the relocations associated with 

it, to send their people to our institutions. 

And so, whenever we can incentivize it so that, if they give up 

a person, knowing they have no school account, which means that 

seat does go empty for a year, if we feel it is that important to us 

in the Army, then we will provide an officer as a backfill recognizing we get tremendous value out of that too. 

It is a wonderful interagency experience for that officer, he or she 

serves in that particular agency or department. Now, we have a 
21 

doctor in Health and Human Services (HHS). We have a person 

who is a civil affairs officer in USAID. 

In the Department of State, we have a mixture of combat veterans who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have 

really taken and worked who we also put into these exchange programs, so there is a benefit associated with their skill specialty and 

background too, when we do that. 

But longer term, there really—what would be most beneficial, in 

my personal opinion, is that for the agencies and departments to 

have some kind of overhead, a school account, whatever that is. 

And the funding associated with it, so that they can in fact send 

people on a life-long professional, developmental track which we, in 

the Armed Forces, have found is so beneficial to us. In the future, 

I would think that those in the agencies and departments would 

want to set up and establish for themselves too. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. As I think I talked before, just one of the 

downsides of what we have done for the last some years, decades. 

Really eviscerating in a lot of ways, USAID and State Department 

budget and personnel, and we are paying a price for it now in our 

national security. 

Secretary Gates has probably been the best spokesperson. The 

secretary of defense, he started this a couple, 3 years ago, when 

President Bush was still president. 

That we have to provide financial capability to build up those 

personnel forces and budgets. And this is one of the reasons that 

it doesn’t get a lot of attention. But it is very important. 

General Caldwell, I wanted to ask you also a specific question. 

It is my understanding that the Army is going through an evaluation process about the numbers of people they think they can get 

through the in-residence program. 

Do you have any updates on where that is at? We had a pretty 

robust goal there for a while, is that still the goal? Or is it being 

reevaluated? 

General CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I guess what I should start 

by saying is we said that everybody is going to have an in-residence experience. But, we should have been more clear on it, that 

there are two kinds of in-residence experiences. 

There is the 1-year program, the 10-month program at Fort 

Leavenworth, Kansas at the Command and General Staff College. 

And then there is the four-month in-residence program that is a 

satellite school we have set up. 

We are opening up our fourth one here or fifth one really, very 

shortly at Redstone Arsenal down in Alabama. That will be our 

fifth location. 

But, the key is every major in the United States Army will either 

go to the 10-month in-residence program or the four-month in-residence program with the rest done by distance learning. 

There is a core program, ‘‘c-o-r-e’’, core program that we run at 

both institutions the same. So, the same four months of instruction, 

which we feel are inherently required of every military officer to 

have will be taught to every major still. 

And you will get that by in-residence experience. But then for the 

remainder of the program, obviously there is a much greater richness that is derived out of going to Fort Leavenworth. 
22 

We see about 50 percent of our majors will go through the program at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, which is the 1-year, 10-month 

program. And then the other 50 percent are going to go through 

the satellite programs. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I want to 

expand a little bit on what Chairman Skelton talked about a little 

bit earlier, and look at things external to PME and joint PME. And 

look a little bit about, how do we go about assigning folks after 

PME, or joint PME? 

Are there things that we can do to look at assignments prior to 

PME? 

And what are the best assignments to get the most out of, or to 

get the best return on, our investment after our folks get out of 

PME or joint PME? 

And General Paxton, I will begin with you. To sort of look externally there, about how do we best prepare folks coming in? Are 

there better assignments to prepare them? 

How do we consider assignments afterwards? And how do we 

make sure we get the best return on investment in looking at those 

assignments? 

General PAXTON. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

I think there is a fairly universal agreement that, certainly no 

education is ever wasted. But to maximize the value of the education, to get the best return on investment, an immediate assignment after school where you apply and practice those skills is the 

best thing. 

We have an inherent mismatch, where I think, in any given year, 

you get maybe 2,000 students that will go through the JPME process. And yet, there are 11,000 vacancies that need to be filled on 

the JDAL. 

And so, even if you were to take a five-year model there, you are 

still gong to come up short. And that does not account for the demands of the war, the competing priorities of the command pipeline, or a promotion, or things like that. That just inherently put 

you on a little different track. 

So, the best thing for us is to: a) continue the good work we do 

across the board about selecting and identifying the right folks to 

go to school, and b) trying to assign them as quickly as possible 

after their school to the proper follow-on assignment. 

And then, we are going to have to work through the ‘‘eaches and 

others,’’ almost on a case-by-case basis about how long they stay in 

that assignment, where they go to next. 

So, I think if the guiding precept is to use it, and to use it as 

fast as you can. That usually puts us in the best stead, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

General Caldwell. 

General CALDWELL. Sir, what I would say, you know there is the 

functional training which is to prepare you for some specific kind 

of—particularly job you can do. And there is the educational experiential training that we hope teaches you how to think, not what 

to think. 

And therefore, turns you onto a life-long learning process of 

wanting to continue to always expand your horizons, trying dif-
23 

ferent opportunities to evolve your skill sets. So that when you are 

confronted with something that is never thought of before, it is extremely complex and difficult, and is a real challenge, you have got 

those skill sets inherently built into you, that allows you to process 

and assimilate and add some order out of this chaos. And sort of 

establish what it is we are ultimately trying to answer, or to find 

a solution for. 

And then at that point, take and implement your military playing process and everything else that we have always had in place. 

And has proven very valid over the years, to then follow through 

and execute. 

Currently in the United States Army, I can tell you, sir. We are 

challenged in getting everybody to their professional military education. When you asked how we are selecting that right now, we, 

in fact, are going through a process where we are writing a development strategy, General Dempsey is the lead for the human capital enterprise in the United States Army. 

He is going to come back with some implementing portions of 

that. We have pretty much done the draft already for both the officers and non-commissioned officer, the Army civilian, and the warrant officer piece. That would then help set—put some more 

timelines on certain things that would occur. 

How long would you be in command? When would you have to 

go do a joint type of billet? 

Because we are finding, after these last eight years, and the way 

we have been continuously engaged, that not all of our officers, 

non-commissioned officers, warrant officers have been getting to 

the professional military education that they should be. 

And so by developing this leader strategy, with its implementing 

guidelines, we in fact will add rigor back to the process that we did 

have before 9/11 on a very predictable, established schedule that 

everybody understood. That we have gone away from—if we in fact 

are going to find ourselves in this war for the next 10 to 15, 20 

years, which all of us in the United States Army today agree will 

probably be the norm. 

Then we have to find a method by which we are going to ensure 

that PME is in fact executed to the standard we need to ensure 

that we have the same Army 20 years from now, that we have 

today. And that we don’t mortgage it off. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, congressman. I am very excited by 

what the Air Force started in 2004 with what we called development teams. We have a team of colonels, one stars, and two stars 

that are responsible, by career field, for every officer from lieutenant all the way through colonel. 

Over the last several years, we have watched this mature. So, 

this team gets together. And along with input from the individuals 

through a web-based form, along with input from the senior leader, 

that individual that an officer works for at the base, and the developmental team, they are making vectors to the assignment team on 

where this individual ought to go next. 

So, if the team decides that that person hasn’t had a joint assignment yet, or they need to go to command yet, or they may need 
24 

more experience on the air staff or the Major Command 

(MAJCOM). They go do something different. Then, they have direct 

input into that officer. 

So, the developmental teams are also making inputs into folks 

going to faculty on PME. And they only send their best and their 

brightest. And so, they have insight into those people when they 

go into the assignments, and when they come out of the assignments as well. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Congressman Wittman, thank you very much. 

We believe, in the Navy, that the operational excellence builds considerable flexibility in our officer corps to meet a wide array of requirements in the joint community. 

Obviously, joint experience, prior to education, is going to enhance that. But, I believe that all of our operational rules and our 

critical restricted line rules positioned those officers at JPME 

level—JPME I level, to effectively understand what is going on. 

As we prepare those officers, and Navy’s policy right now is, that 

prior to commander command, all officers must have JPME I completed. 

So, we believe that that positions those commanding officers to 

effectively participate in joint task force operations, joint operations, coalition operations, to a much greater degree than ever before. 

As we followed that experience up with JPME II, and work into 

their careers those joint experiences, I believe we will get considerable pay off. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Spiese. 

General SPIESE. Congressman Wittman, consideration for a intermediate level school, not surprisingly, is predominantly based on 

service-related performance in a younger officer’s career. 

We are very selective in our assignment process. In particular, 

joint assignments. They are competitive in nature. And performance, overall, as well as in school, are a consideration for those assignments. 

We select resident top-level school at about 13 percent. As a consequence of that, we are very selective in our assignments coming 

out of top-level school, ensuring we get a solid return on investment for those graduates. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Sitterly, I have a specific question I want to ask 

you. 

We heard from some Air Force personnel that in order to be competitive for your in-residence—and this is an unfair question to ask 

a guy who has been on the job for 10 days or something. 

But anyway, they told you to come here. So, you are doing the 

best you can with it. 

We have heard from some of the Air Force personnel that in 

order to be competitive, for in-residence PME that it is helpful to 

have done distance learning PME, which seems duplicative. 
25 

I mean, I don’t think that is what distance learning was set up— 

are they wrong? Or what are your thoughts about that? Or am I 

asking a question that you are not up to speed on yet? 

Mr. SITTERLY. No, I would like to comment—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. 

Mr. SITTERLY [continuing]. Chairman Snyder. Thank you for the 

question. 

Through our selection process, we select the top 15 percent as selects from the order of merit on the promotion boards for senior developmental education, and the top 20 percent for intermediate developmental education, so, a very competitive process to be a select. 

The current Air Force policy is that all selects will go to school. 

You have a three-year window to go at the intermediate level, and 

a four-year window to go at the senior level. 

The current policy is that all of the rest of the officers, who are 

eligible, are then considered candidates. Everyone is qualified, if 

you will, to take the distance learning. 

The current Air Force policy is that if you are a select, you will 

go. And that you do not need to take the distance-learning course. 

What we have as a policy is that we expect all of the officers to 

have the next level of PME done by the time they are promoted to 

the next rank. So, that is the current policy. 

Dr. SNYDER. All right, so—well, maybe we will do this as a question for the record, because, we are getting kind of wading around 

the weeds here. 

I wanted to ask, General Spiese? 

You made a comment in your written statement about, and I 

would like you to amplify on. On page 12 and 13, you talk about 

the hiring authority. 

It sounds like you are, needing, a statutory change. Is it a statutory change? Or is it our job or your all job to get it straightened 

out? 

General SPIESE. Mr. Chairman, it is statutory. 

Dr. SNYDER. Explain it to us, please. 

General SPIESE. Currently, Title 10 Hiring Authority requires 

linkages to 10-month academic programs. We run a number of 

other programs out of Marine Corps University that are shorter in 

length, that do not tie back to a 10-month program. 

But, we believe would benefit greatly from the latitude with Title 

10 Hiring Authority. In particular, our enlisted professional military education, and the opportunity to seek Title 10 support for our 

senior staff and NCO professional military education. 

We believe that that could bring something to the table for our 

senior staff non-commissioned officers. 

Dr. SNYDER. Let me see if I got this right. Now, are you talking 

about the hiring authority for faculty? 

General SPIESE. Correct, yes. 

Dr. SNYDER. So, if you have a 10-month course, you have got 

some options there that you all want to hire faculty members for 

10 months. If you have two 5-month courses in a row, even though 

it is the same person on your premises for 10 months, you don’t 

have the same hiring authority. 

General SPIESE. That is how we understand the statute. And 

that is how we have been applying the statute. Correct. 
26 

Dr. SNYDER. Maybe we could try to look in that document, and 

see if can sort that out too. 

Do the rest of you have that issue? Is that an issue that you all 

deal with? 

General Caldwell? Mr. Sitterly? Mr. Lutterloh? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Mr. Chairman, from a Navy perspective, I would 

say that faculty is one of our pre-eminent concerns at the War College. But that said, I have not encountered this issue. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Caldwell, you were about to say something? 

General CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, what I was going to say is; 

I am very much aware what Mel is talking about. Through legal 

interpretation, because we have tied most of our forces to the 10- 

month program, we are able to get a legal opinion and hire the faculty where it has been necessary. 

But his point is well taken. It takes a tremendous amount of 

interconnectivity and work-arounds to—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes, it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing you all 

have to worry about. 

We have to try to get that straightened out. 

General CALDWELL [continuing]. We would welcome the Marine’s—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes, why don’t you all get your legal folks to make 

some suggestions, and to work with the staff? And see if we can’t 

get that straightened out. 

I wanted to ask—I am about out of time. So, I am going to ask 

a general question for each of you. 

If you were to sit down today with the combatant commanders 

that are out there, and you are training these folks and sending 

them to them, do you have a formal mechanism for hearing from 

them about whether they think that educational products, meaning 

your officers coming out of schools, is what they need? 

And number two, what do you think they would say? 

General Paxton. 

General PAXTON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe the 

mechanism which we do have is probably a little bit more informal, 

than it is formal. But there are committees and working groups. 

When we routinely work out—reach out, and this is at the joint 

staff level, to the services and to the combatants to manage their 

input. So, there is not too many initiatives that we undertake, either through JPME or joint officer development. 

We are not actively soliciting the input and the left and right lateral limits, if you will, from both the services and the combatant 

commanders. 

I think universally, I believe that they will tell you that the process is working well, both in terms of development, quality, and assignment. There is always an issue with capacity. There is always 

an issue of how much we can generate how fast. 

And there is always an issue of assignment policy. Who gets 

what? 

And it is exacerbated, as General Caldwell said, given the demands of the war, and trying to cycle people in and out of command, and in and out of both Afghanistan and Iraq. 
27 

And that is part of the reason we reach out to talk to the combatant commands and the services. So, we can look at this from both 

the supply side and the demand side, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Caldwell. 

General CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I have served on the combatant command staff in a senior-level position. And, I will tell you 

what is interesting is each time an officer is nominated by one of 

the services, if it is a field grade officer, major-level, we are looking 

to see if they are a graduate of their staff college. 

It is the first qualification that you inherently look at on that bio, 

whether or not you are going to accept an officer or not. 

And then, if it is a more senior officer, lieutenant colonel promotable, or a colonel/Navy captain, your question is, did they go to 

their senior service college? 

We actually ask that question before we normally even ask 

whether they are joint-qualified. Because, the feeling is, we can, if 

we have to, do on the job training, and teach them the joint qualification requirements they are going to need for that particular 

skill set, and that particular job. Not for all, but at least for that 

one. 

Much more readily than we can from the one-year in-residence 

program they probably experienced while going to the Naval War 

College or the Marine Command and Staff College, or something 

like that. 

But, those are two skill sets I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that 

are readily looked at by everybody on a combatant command staff, 

as we assess an officer that we are looking to bring in to, that have 

been nominated by the joint staff for duty there. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We already know that 

the combatant commanders value our SAASS graduates, because, 

they ask for specific people to come out to their command. 

The other mechanism we use is through the Military Education 

Coordination Committee. And each year, the chairman looks at the 

various special areas for emphasis. 

And so, last year out of nine different areas that were included 

in this, those Special Areas of Emphasis (SAEs), I think about 

eight of them came directly from the combatant commanders back 

to the committee to consider. And the ninth one came from our Air 

War College. And that was space of the contested domain. 

So, it is an opportunity for us to hear from the combatant commanders, things that we want to put into the joint curriculum at 

the school to be emphasized. And, it also allows us then in turn to 

take it to our Air Force learning committee, which we have recently devised to look across the spectrum of education, to see 

where our shortfalls may be, or to see where we need to emphasize. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. You don’t speak, you can last all day. 

Why don’t you go first, and we will go back to Mr. Lutterloh. 

General SPIESE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We do have formal 

mechanisms, of course, for service specific feedback. We do not 

have anything similar related to the combatant commanders or 

joint commanders. 
28 

However, we understand from informal engagement, as General 

Paxton had mentioned, that our graduates are well thought of. And 

we seem to be hitting the mark. 

Obviously, you are responsive to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directives, as it relates to joint requirements inside the 

joint portions of the curriculum. 

Dr. SNYDER. And Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In our view, the 

feedback from the Combatant Commands (COCOMs) has been extremely positive on the value of the War College and the joint professional military education it provides. 

I think the flexibility of the naval officers is coveted out there. 

The one area, I think, that we probably stand to improve is on the 

numbers that we are able to get through that school, and provide 

that foundation of joint operations. 

That said, we have got a number of mechanisms, both informal 

through surveys that are conducted by the War College. And discussions with other flag officers. 

And in particular, our component command that are co-located 

with the COCOMs, our Navy commands, provide us invaluable 

feedback. 

And lastly, both the CNO and the chief naval personnel regularly 

conduct boots on ground discussions with those combatant commanders to get that feedback directly. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All done. 

Dr. SNYDER. I want to ask one final question. As you know, Mr. 

Skelton was involved in this issue, 20 years ago. And did great, 

great work on a panel they had on this topic. And there were some 

fairly big changes made in PME. 

I think for the last 10 years or so, if not a little bit longer, I don’t 

think this committee, and the Congress, has paid as much attention to the issue that probably we ought to have. 

An example might be that issue that we were talking about with 

regard to the joint duty assignment list. That is really the kind of 

thing we probably should have picked up on two or three years ago, 

that was a problem for you. 

And I just don’t think we—I don’t know that we were aware of 

it, or not at least hadn’t given you the opportunity to amplify on 

it. 

Do you think it would be helpful, like we do with the military 

health care, with recruiting retention, and some other topics, to 

have some kind of an annual hearing in the Armed Services Committee on the specific topic of professional military education? 

I don’t except any long answer, but any comments? 

General Paxton. 

General PAXTON. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was going to 

save some of this to the kind of closing remarks, if you care to be 

gracious enough, and afforded us the opportunity. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. 

General PAXTON. But, I think, certainly on behalf of the chairman, and I think most of the services, we truly appreciate the support of the committee and the subcommittee. 
29 

And, we really think that the success that JPME and Joint Officer Development (JOD) is because of this great relationship that 

we have had for the better part of the last 25 years. 

So with that as a backdrop, I think the continued exchange and 

dialogue is nothing but helpful, and our only thought, if you will, 

and certainly not a caveat, is the more that we can just kind of 

generally outline left and right lateral limits, and the more we can 

raise the floor without being unnecessarily prescriptive one way or 

the other, just gives us a lot of latitude. 

Because there are a lot of things that are lagging indicators to 

us, and we certainly couldn’t have predicted, given what happened 

after 9–11, so the pace of PME and the idea of distance learning 

and non-resident education, and composition of the faculties, a lot 

of this is a constantly moving target as you well know, sir. 

But, thank you for the opportunity. And it is a great dialogue. 

And I think we would probably support the continued dialogue. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. Anybody else have any comments? 

General Caldwell. 

General CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I would welcome it. I can tell 

you, if somebody asked me who I worked for, sometimes I work for 

Chairman Skelton. 

It has been an ongoing continuous dialogue for the last two years 

I have been in this position. On a regular basis, he will, in fact, 

engage and ask those various types of questions. Which have one, 

helped me be much more succinct in what I am trying to achieve 

on behalf of the United States Army in this position that I am in, 

and for our future leaders. 

But secondly, just as important, it allows that dialogue. So again, 

a much greater appreciation for how members in Congress can help 

us move some of these efforts along. 

And I think a formal mechanism like this actually is very, very 

beneficial. I know when Lorry came out and spent time at Fort 

Leavenworth, her and the whole family; we very much appreciated 

them being out there. And giving us that opportunity to discuss 

and go through. 

Because, there are a lot more even smaller items we didn’t talk 

about today. 

Dr. SNYDER. Right, right. 

General CALDWELL. So that we did have the opportunity to sit 

with her and her staff was there out there and dialogue about, if 

we could receive assistance here or—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. 

General CALDWELL [continuing]. If you could be more, clear, in 

your guidance to us that would be very, very helpful. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. 

General CALDWELL. So—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of them are statutory and some of them are 

money issues. And those are the kinds of things that we can work 

on. 

Any other comments? 

I appreciate you all—— 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. 
30 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. From the Navy’s standpoint, we would welcome 

that interaction. We are very grateful for the continued support of 

this committee and others in Congress, for the Navy in general and 

for the flexibility that we have within the PME program. 

That tyranny of time and increased demands, demands that 

flexibility. So we would look for continued engagement with that to 

understand where we need to go and move this ahead. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, thank you all for your time today, and for your 

service. And I am sure we will have some questions, either informally or formally for the record. 

If you have any other comments you would like to make, please 

feel free to send them over. And we will make them part of this, 

part of the record. 

Anything else, Mr. Wittman? 

Mr. WITTMAN. That is it, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 2:26 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JULY 28, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 28, 2009 

(35) 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 28, 2009 

(117) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. There can be a tension between Service assignments necessary for 

an officer’s career development and the needs of the joint force. From the joint force 

perspective, can you comment on how to best manage that tension? What is the optimal balance of Service and joint competency over a career? Given that current 

operational demands in Afghanistan and Iraq may continue for the foreseeable future, is there currently enough time in a 20–30 year career to optimize both? 

General PAXTON. The department continues to make significant strides to ensure 

officer career development includes Service and joint competencies. As evidenced by 

the operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, joint warfare is the way the department operates. Some of the success in these operations is due in part to joint competencies 

becoming a significant part of Service officer development. Every officer is likely to 

be affected to some degree by joint considerations. As such, joint competencies must 

continue to become an inherent, embedded part of Service officer development. 

The department’s strategic approach to managing joint officers provides the mechanism to adjust and evaluate the proper mix of Service/joint development in a 20– 

30 year career. The recent legislative changes to joint officer management and the 

implementation of the joint qualification system (JQS) allows the department needed flexibility to provide officers joint experiences and the ability to recognize the 

joint experience officers receive. The department can now recognize joint experience 

where it occurs and the intensity of the environment where the officer serves. The 

Services now have the flexibility to provide their officers joint experiences of a shorter duration than the normal three-year joint duty assignment. Officers serving in 

joint matters duties in Iraq and Afghanistan can gain the needed experience to earn 

the joint qualified officer designation based on 12 months service in these duties and 

completion of the required joint education. Limited Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase II opportunities and scheduling difficulties creates some delays 

in the officer’s joint development. The legislative authority to create a distancelearning component for JPME II would provide the department a much-needed flexibility to develop joint qualified officers. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you comment on how many general and flag officers are receiving waivers from attending the CAPSTONE course, the joint PME for newly selected one-stars? Why are they receiving these waivers? What impact does not attending the CAPSTONE course have on those officers’ ability to operate in the joint 

arena? We have heard that CAPSTONE, in the past, may not have been as rigorous 

as it should have been. Can you comment on how you ensure that the CAPSTONE 

course is suitably rigorous and focused on appropriately targeted high-level strategic 

considerations? Currently, the National Defense University supports the CAPSTONE courses, but without dedicated faculty and resources specifically devoted to 

the CAPSTONE program. Is this arrangement, seemingly ad hoc, the long term solution or is a more structured arrangement under consideration? 

General PAXTON. In the past 5 years, the Department granted 11 CAPSTONE 

waivers against a total population of 606 required to attend CAPSTONE. The percentage of those receiving waivers over this 5 year period is less than 2%. 

These waivers were granted only to officers whom the Secretary of Defense determined had demonstrated a mastery of the learning objectives of the CAPSTONE 

course. As these officers were determined to have mastered the required joint learning, there was no discernable impact on the officers’ ability to operate in the joint 

arena. 

CAPSTONE follows an executive education type approach, deemed appropriate to 

both the short duration (6 weeks) and non-degree character of the course. This approach recognizes that the principal student body (Active Component General and 

Flag Officers) possess, almost universally, both JPME I and JPME II experiences 

and credentials. The question of academic rigor must therefore be viewed in a different light than the 10-month resident JPME programs. 

CAPSTONE annually conducts a self-assessment under the supervision of the 

NDU President, as advised by both the Joint Staff J7 and the course’s Senior Mentors—all retired 4-star G/FOs. All JPME programs routinely conduct such a self-assessment. 
118 

1 Joint Publication 1, Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United States, 2 May 2007, w/Change 

1, 20 March 2009. 2 Ibid; pg I–3. 3Pace, General Peter. ‘‘CJCS Vision for Joint officer Development’’ November 2005, page 1. 4 CJCSI 1800.01d ‘‘Officer PME Policy’’ 15 July 2009, page A–A–1. 5 Ibid; page A–A–3. 

The legislative designation (NDAA 2005) of CAPSTONE as the third tier in a 

sequenced approach to JPME effectively caused CAPSTONE to be viewed as ‘‘JPME 

III.’’ It was therefore determined that an external evaluation analogous to the Process for the Accreditation of Joint Education (PAJE) was required. 

Joint Staff J7 organized an independent review of CAPSTONE at the direction 

of CJCS. Catapult Consultants were hired to form the backbone of the effort and 

each Service provided a serving G/FO in augmentation. The review effort received 

the personal attention of the CJCS; ADM Mullen provided in person guidance up 

front, was kept informed along the way, and received the results in a personal session. 

The review found that CAPSTONE, as a baseline joint experience for G/FOs, met 

requirements as established in law and policy. The review found that there was no 

indication of any broad discontent with the course, finding that critique points were 

on the margins, and of no pattern. The review further noted that CAPSTONE 

lacked a mechanism to demonstrate achievement of course objectives. 

As a result of the CAPSTONE review, in June 2009, CJCS issued specific guidance to the NDU President. This guidance (copy provided to the O&I Staff) directed 

four adjustments: 1) a curriculum review to ensure linkages with other JPME 

courses (both above and below CAPSTONE); 2) a heightened focus on the interagency dimension—i.e., ‘‘How Washington works’’; 3) the establishment of an endof-course assessment mechanism; and 4) an adjustment in curricula content in the 

CAPSTONE Executive Development (Spouses) sub-course. 

The institutional architecture in place at NDU for the CAPSTONE course is categorically not ad hoc; the organizational construct of a Director, small operations 

staff and Senior Mentors is considered appropriate and consistent with the executive education model. The course methodology puts CAPSTONE Fellows in the presence of senior leaders inside and outside of the DOD and allows them to interact. 

This approach has been found effective in meeting the course objectives, drawing 

near universal support from Fellows, Graduates, Senior Leadership and the like. 

CAPSTONE is adequately resourced by NDU. 

Dr. SNYDER. ‘‘Professional ethics’’ does not appear as a discrete learning area in 

the officer military education policy (the OPMEP). Should it be a part of joint education or is it left to the Services to teach? Can you comment on how professional 

ethics is made part of PME? 

General PAXTON. Joint Publication 1 ‘‘Doctrine of the Armed Forces of the United 

States’’ 1 establishes in Chapter 1 (Foundations) that U.S. military service is based 

on values that U.S. military experience has proven to be vital for operational success. It further notes that the values of joint service adhere to the most idealistic 

societal norms, are common to all the Services, and represent the essence of military 

professionalism. First among the five values, and further specifically marked as the 

foremost value, is Integrity. 

Integrity is understood to be ‘‘ . . . the cornerstone for building trust. American 

Service men and women must be able to rely on each other, regardless of the challenge at hand; they must individually and collectively say what they mean and do 

what they say.’’ 2

It is impossible to separate integrity from ethical behavior, especially for an officer 

corps to whom has been ‘‘ . . . reposed special trust and confidence in their patriotism, valor, fidelity and abilities.’’ Inculcating ethical behavior is therefore a bedrock 

requirement, common to all developmental efforts, across the Services. Given the 

philosophy of the CJCS’ Joint Officer Development Vision that ‘‘Joint officers are 

built upon Service officers’’ 3 it is completely appropriate that the Services have the 

primary responsibility to develop professionalism and professional ethics in their 

personnel. 

The OPMEP however, is not mute on the subject of values and ethics. The Officer 

PME continuum notes that the continuum links each educational level so that each 

builds upon the knowledge and values (emphasis added) gained in the previous levels. 4 Specific to the Precommissioning level of the continuum, the OPMEP focuses 

efforts to inculcating a foundation in ‘‘ . . . leadership, management, ethics (emphasis 

added), and other subjects necessary to prepare them to serve as commissioned officers.’’ 5 Both the General/Flag Officer and Senior levels of the Officer PME continuum JPME venues have joint learning objectives that go to the skills necessary 
119 

6 Ibid; pages E–E–3; E–F–4; E–G–4; E–I–3; and E–K–2. 

to build and sustain ethical organizations and to further evaluate the ethical ramifications of specific historical and contemporary national security decisions. 6

The Joint Staff notes and concurs with the input of the various JPME institutions 

to the HASC O&I’s similar query to them; in their totality, the answers further underpin that Ethics is a vibrant part of PME/JPME. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS) at the Joint Forces 

Staff College was created from within the existing faculty and facilities. Is this 

course currently adequately resourced by the National Defense University? 

General PAXTON. The Joint Advanced Warfighting School (JAWS) is adequately 

resourced. There are no significant budget issues at this time. JAWS has dedicated 

classrooms which have the most advanced technology of any at JFSC. The school 

has adequate faculty to meet the mission; however there is no redundancy to allow 

for seamless turn-over of faculty or additional tasking of faculty to include research 

and writing time. Additionally, the Director must teach in order to meet the student 

to faculty ratio of 3.5:1. 

Dr. SNYDER. The OPMEP requires the Academies to submit a report every three 

years. No one can find the 2006 version but your staff (DJ7) told us the inputs 

weren’t very useful so they are deleting the requirement for the report for Sep/Oct 

2009. Do you think that if the OPMEP is going to require something, it should be 

measured? Should the OPMEP dispense with the joint requirement fully if oversight 

is not provided at the joint level? 

General PAXTON. The 2005 OPMEP (version 01c) required triennially a report 

from the Services concerning their overall assessment of how well joint learning objectives at the precommissioning and primary levels of education were addressed. 

The 2009 OPMEP (version 01d) eliminated the triennial requirement. 

The elimination of the triennial report requirement followed from the first (and 

only) experience in producing (the Services) and collecting/evaluating (Joint Staff 

J7) the report, which occurred between October 2006 and June 2007. The inputs collectively exposed a flawed approach in that unverified self-assessments are of diminished value as an oversight mechanism. Further, that the process proved burdensome administratively to all participants further increased concerns as to the value 

of approach. Accordingly, the working group from the Military Education Coordination Council (MECC) that produced the OPMEP 01d version recommended elimination of the requirement. 

The data collected in 2006 and 2007 was of varying quality and coverage, but 

broadly exposed that multi-year undergraduate precommissioning programs (Service 

Academies and ROTC) reported meeting the joint learning areas. Short-duration 

precommissioning programs (such as OCS, OTS, etc.) inputs ranged from ‘‘meeting’’ 

the requirements (AF OTS, Army OCS) to ‘‘partially meeting’’ (Navy OIS, OCS) to 

‘‘not meeting’’ (USMC OCS). Results from the Primary venue also varied: ‘‘meeting’’ 

were the Army’s Captains Course and BOLC III; the Marine Corps’ Expeditionary 

Warfare School; the Air Force’s Squadron Officers College, Air and Space Basic 

Course and Squadron Officers School; and the Navy’s Primary PME Course (DL), 

the Surface Warfare School’s Division and Department Head courses, the Naval 

Supply School and Naval Intelligence Basic courses. Next, the Navy reported that 

its Submarine Officer Basic course ‘‘partially’’ met requirements. Last, the Navy reported that its Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal School and Marines reported its 

Officer Basic Course as not meeting requirements. 

There is a value in establishing joint learning early in a career and the joint 

learning areas at the precommissioning and primary levels of education have been 

purposely maintained in the 2009 version of the OPMEP. This said, the question 

of how much oversight of the delivery of precommissioning and primary joint learning is appropriate and accordingly what method of oversight serves best, has yet to 

be resolved. These questions are slated to be addressed by the MECC in the coming 

year. 

Dr. SNYDER. There was an Army decision to send at least 50% of each Army 0– 

4 year group to in-residence ILE at Leavenworth. What is the impact on OPMEP 

fulfillment/accreditation? What is the impact on education quality in terms of number and joint faculty/student mix? What is the impact on other Services wanting to 

send faculty and students there given the OPMEP accreditation implications? 

General PAXTON. The Joint Staff understands that the Army’s intent for resident 

ILE is for approximately 76% of its eligible officers to attend a resident JPME I program (to include other service venues). The remainder is to attend a non-resident 

program. This intent fundamentally posits an increase in the number of officers 

from all Services attending the ILE program at Fort Leavenworth. 
120 

1 Courses 09-02 and 10-01 in aggregate. 

The increase in the size of the resident population at Leavenworth has caused 

CGSC to be out of compliance with mandated OPMEP standards regarding student 

mix. Currently, 11 of the 92 staff groups (approximately 12%) now in session 1 have 

only 1 officer from either the Air Force or Sea Services, vice the mandated 1 from 

each of the other Services. 176 students, of which approximately 154 are U.S. officers (143 Army) are negatively effected. These students are not positioned to fully 

receive the desired cross-service affected learning experience. 

Army mitigation efforts (to include replacing the missing U.S. military officer with 

an interagency representative) are not considered adequate; the intent of the mandated service mix goes to establishing jointness amongst the Services, not the interagency. This is especially true at the intermediate level where officers are 

transitioning from tactical perspectives, but are still very much developing as Service members. Concentrating CGSC’s Other Service military faculty (17 total of 

which 7 are from the Sea Services) to the lacking groups is also inadequate both 

in numbers and effect. First, the number of Sea Service Faculty is less than the 

number of Seminars without Sea Service representation. Second, the concentration 

of the other service faculty in 12% of the staff groups leaves the remainder of the 

staff groups with diminished access to other service faculty. 

The Army’s resident and non-resident JPME I programs were last accredited in 

February, 2008. Accordingly, they are not due a PAJE re-certification until 2014; 

this said, the OPMEP allows for CJCS to re-visit certification as need dictates. 

Given the issue, it is likely that such a revisit will occur in the Fall, 2009. A negative outcome from such a re-visit, especially if accreditation were to be withdrawn, 

would have a dramatic impact on other service participation at CGSC. 

Dr. SNYDER. The joint schools feel as if they are orphans in the budget wars, that 

they don’t have a champion like the Services do. Can you reassure us that the joint/ 

DOD budget process understand the value that you and the Chairman put on fully 

funding, specifically, the National War College, Industrial College of the Armed 

Forces, and Joint Forces Staff College? 

General PAXTON. The Chairman and I take every opportunity to emphasize to Department organizations involved in the budget process the value we place on Joint 

Professional Military Education (JPME). 

The vast majority of JPME funding is contained in the National Defense University’s (NDU) budget. On behalf of the Chairman, I endorse NDU’s budget submission each year and forward it to the OSD Comptroller. Further, Joint Staff leadership endorses to Department leadership the unfunded requirements NDU submits 

for Department review through both the annual Program and Budget Review process as well as the Omnibus reprogramming request sent to Congress for consideration. Wherever the Programming, Planning, Budgeting, and Execution system provides an opportunity for us to do so, we ensure DOD organizations understand the 

importance we place on JPME. In fact, we have codified our support of JPME in 

a CJCS Instruction dealing with JPME and NDU matters. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you feel the officer management system for your Service complements the PME/JPME system? We’ve repeatedly heard the critique that they are 

not closely aligned. Are there policy changes that need to be made so officers have 

time to attend the requisite schools and complete key developmental assignments 

for promotion purposes, but more importantly for leader development purposes? 

General CALDWELL. Currently officers are being held, by the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA), to a rigid time-based promotion system. Too 

often professional development finds itself in stiff competition with the heavy demand of Army requirements. Inevitably, meeting Army requirements wins out and 

we try to ‘‘work in’’ professional development. While it is considered essential to the 

development of an officer, it is not always mandatory. Meeting specific gates for promotion has become the driving factor in an officer’s fixed career timeline. While 

DOPMA was sufficient during a time of peace with relatively fixed assignment patterns, its lack of flexibility hinders today’s Army’s ability to balance increasing professional developmental demands while maintaining a continuously deployed force 

in a dynamic and challenging time. To bring change we would recommend modifications to Title 10 (DOPMA) that will add flexibility in the promotion timeline while 

preserving the goodness of ‘‘up and out.’’ The Department of Defense (DOD) should 

move away from a rigid time-based promotion system to a flexible, ‘‘window of time’’ 

based system. This will allow the Army, and the sister services, to ensure that its 

officers can achieve the desired competencies to be effective senior leaders, give 

them the requisite amount of time necessary to achieve those competencies, all 

while maintaining their sanity and their families. 
121 

Dr. SNYDER. The Chairman uses a Military Education Coordination Council 

(MECC) in a formal process to ‘‘build’’ the Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (the OPMEP). Recognizing the Service Chiefs’ prerogatives in terms of ‘‘managing the quality and content’’ of Service-specific curriculum at their PME institutions, does your Service have a similar formal process for determining and integrating Service-specific curriculum throughout your school system, and how does 

that process tie into your overall leader development strategy? 

General CALDWELL. Yes, the Army has a formal process similar to the Military 

Education Coordination Council (MECC). The Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC) Common Core process is documented in TRADOC regulation 350–70. 

The process provides streamlined, consolidated, and standardized training development (TD) policy and guidance for the TD process, product development, management, planning, and resourcing, as well as student testing (test design, development, validation, administration) and test management. 

This process surveys the Army for input on potential new content, modification 

of current content, or deletion of outdated content. A board evaluates recommendations, selects tasks and subject areas for training and education in Professional Military Education (PME) and ensures vertical and horizontal integration across officer 

and enlisted cohorts as well as between Army components. Training and education 

content is continually updated through Needs Analysis. The Needs Analysis addresses training and education solutions to Soldier performance deficiencies and for 

future capabilities that require changes to the way the Army trains and educates 

its Soldiers and leaders. 

The process ensures that outcomes identified in the Army Leader Development 

Strategy (ALDS) are addressed in the PME common core. The TRADOC Commander is the approval authority. Branch proponents use a similar process to determine branch specific training and education requirements, with the branch chief as 

the approval authority. 

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that officers are arriving at the combatant commands 

and joint task forces for joint duty assignments, even for operational planning billets, without having completed JPME II. Some combatant commanders have issued 

policies barring their staff officers’ attendance at the 10-week JPME II course. They 

believe the Services should be sending officers who are fully qualified and ready to 

serve in their assignments, rather than having the combatant commander forced to 

give up these officers for 10 weeks. Can you comment on what is causing this to 

happen? Isn’t this detrimental to the force and to the officers involved? Can you 

comment on the utility of officers attending the JPME II ten-week course after completing or late into joint assignments? It’s perceived as a perfunctory requirement 

(in the nature of ‘‘square-filling’’) necessary for promotion, instead of as a useful part 

of professional development. 

General CALDWELL. Army policy is to send officers slated for joint positions to 

Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), phase II enroute to their joint duty 

assignments. Due to the limited number of seats, no more than 79, available for 

each class, coupled with the critical timing of many senior officer moves, a number 

of the officers are not able to attend JPME II prior to arriving at the combatant 

command. This is particularly true during the summer months when the largest 

numbers of military personnel relocate. Today’s high operational tempo also makes 

it exceptionally difficult at times to release officers from the theaters of operation 

to provide them with the professional military education that is important to future 

effectiveness in strategic assignments. Sending officers at a later date, regardless 

of when, still enhances their professional education, and can even offer added value 

to an officer’s development by adding current doctrine and practice to their previous 

exposure to joint concepts from their previous assignment to a joint position. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Skelton Panel considered faculty as the determinant factor in 

quality education. What policies do your Services have to ensure that the highest 

quality military faculty is assigned to the Service and joint PME institutions including to your other Service counterparts’ institutions? What policies do you have in 

place concerning faculty follow-on assignments? 

General CALDWELL. The Army Human Resource Command (HRC) in conjunction 

with the Combined Arms Center (CAC) at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas and the U.S. 

Army War College (USAWC) at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, outlines strict criteria for the faculty prior to assignment as instructors. CAC and USAWC list in detail the requirements necessary to be considered for an instructor and then HRC 

nominates officers against the positions. At a minimum the criteria contains a requirement for recent deployment experience and completion of the officers’ Key and 

Developmental assignment. Due to the current demands on the force, both the quality and the quantity of who is available require balancing on the part of HRC. It 

is to the benefit of our Army, the services and the officer students to provide the 
122 

best quality officers as our instructors. Officers must be accepted by CAC or 

USAWC to be assigned as instructors, although those available for consideration are 

limited today. While there is no set policy in place for an instructor’s follow-on assignment, HRC usually utilizes their skills in deploying units or other assignments 

that will take advantage of the unique skills that they have acquired as an instructor. 

Dr. SNYDER. ‘‘Professional ethics’’ does not appear as a discrete learning area in 

the officer military education policy (the OPMEP). Can you comment on how professional ethics is made part of PME? 

General CALDWELL. Professional ethics is a critical component of our professional 

military education. It is the basis of who we are as a profession. 

The planned sequence for professional military education (PME) integration is 

Basic Combat Training (BCT), the Non-Commissioned Officer Education System 

(NCOES), the Basic Officer Leaders Course (BOLC), Intermediate-Level Education 

(ILE), and the Civilian Education System (CES). Each moral development redesign 

will address Active Component and Reserve Component courses simultaneously. The 

objective ‘‘supporting socialization of the professional military ethic across the Army 

culture and profession’’ will require spiral moral development in units as the courses 

are redesigned. 

Beyond the preparation of these junior officers and non-commissioned officers, at 

the Command and General Staff College (CGSC) ethics are taught as part of the 

leadership curriculum. A portion of this instruction deals specifically with the tenets 

of ethical organizations, while the remainder utilizes case study methodology to put 

students into ethically challenging situations to evoke responses and require critical 

thought. This thread of ethical decision-making runs throughout the leadership instruction for ILE. 

General Casey designated the United States Military Academy (USMA) as the 

Army Center of Excellence (COE) for the Professional Military Ethic (ACPME) in 

April 2008. In March 2009, USMA became the Force Modernization Proponent for 

Ethics and Moral Development with the mission of assessing the professional military ethic of the force, integrating knowledge of the professional military ethic, accelerating moral development in individuals and units, and supporting socialization 

of the professional military ethic across the Army culture and profession. To accomplish these objectives, during fiscal years 2008 and 2009 ACPME personnel interviewed two hundred and fifty Soldiers who recently returned from combat and conducted fourteen separate studies; published nine articles on moral development and 

the professional military ethic in Army Magazine, Army Communicator, Army 

Times, and Joint Forces Quarterly; developed eighty standard case studies, fifteen 

video case studies, an interactive video learning simulation, and an ethical module 

of the America’s Army video game. 

To support the objective of assessing the professional military ethic of the force, 

ACPME conducted a curriculum assessment of ethics related instruction currently 

conducted across the Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) and has begun 

analyzing the moral development ‘‘skill level’’ required for each rank. 

Dr. SNYDER. The ten-week Joint Combined Warfighting School (JCWS) at the 

Joint Forces Staff College was originally designed as an operational planning course 

for Service intermediate level school graduates (i.e., majors and lieutenant commanders) on their way to a joint assignment. The JCWS has seen a significant number of more senior officers (e.g., colonels and Navy captains) and officers who have 

already completed a joint assignment in attendance. What changes need to be made 

to your officer management policies and practices to avoid what appears to be a misuse of the course, making its completion a perfunctory exercise only needed in order 

to be competitive for promotion to general or flag officer? 

General CALDWELL. We make every attempt to get our majors to the Joint Combined Warfighting School and will continue do so as often as possible. However, the 

Army has experienced, and will continue to experience for the foreseeable future, 

a shortage of several thousand majors and captains across our force. The high demand for these officers generated by Army modular capability growth, and overall 

manpower growth to meet the demands of the operational theaters and our generating forces affects our ability to release some officers to this useful training. Officers who have attended after their joint assignment are part of the group that was 

unable to meet the necessary timing/availability when they were reassigned. The 

other challenge we have faced in getting officers fully joint qualified is the accreditation of the Senior Service College (SSC). Until 2007, the U.S. Army War College 

(USAWC) was not a Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) II producing 

course. The small number of colonels that are now attending the Joint Combined 

Warfighting School are those senior officers who, for a variety of reasons, were unable to attend JPME II producing courses at the appropriate time or went to Senior 
123 

Service Schools that were not JPME II producing courses. The Army is working to 

make the best use possible of all JPME to ensure that we meet our obligations to 

support the Joint warfight. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve heard concerns expressed by military students that the quality 

of the participating military department civilians is well below that of the military 

personnel. How does your military department select its civilian students for intermediate and senior level PME schools? Is there a process analogous to a selection 

board? 

General CALDWELL. Civilian and military students bring different sets of experiences to the U.S. Army War College (USAWC) seminar. Few civilian students will 

have been exposed to the same types of experiences as military students. Civilians 

are less likely to have moved or changed jobs as frequently, been deployed to an 

active theater, or been involved in the planning and execution of operations—resulting in less experience with respect to major portions of the curriculum. Civilian students bring different perspectives on the curriculum and frequently offer wider 

world views on less military-technical issues. The integration of civilian students 

creates professional development for them, and in turn, adds to the military Officer’s professional development; both military and civilian students need a better understanding of their counterparts. 

Civilians selected for senior level professional military education (PME) go 

through a multi-level screening. The nomination process starts with an annual 

Army-wide solicitation. Interested applicants must meet a strict list of eligibility requirements, including completion of Army leadership development training know as 

the Civilian Education System (CES), a minimum of a baccalaureate degree from 

an accredited institution and demonstrated leadership experience. Applicants must 

obtain a letter or recommendation from a general officer (GO) or Senior Executive 

Service (SES) within their chain of command for their package to be forwarded to 

their respective command headquarters. Each command establishes internal deadlines for receipt of applications, holds a selection board composed of command GO 

and SES personnel and generates an Order-of-Merit List (OML) with their recommendations to the Civilian Human Resources (HRC) Agency, Training Management Office (CHRA–TMO), which manages the Army-wide PME selection board. 

CHRA–TMO arranges for six GO and SES board members, ensuring that appropriate demographic representation is reflected in the board membership. The civilian PME selection board follows a memorandum of instruction (MOI) whose guidelines are reviewed and approved by legal counsel, establishing an OML for all 

quotas. The selection board results are further reviewed by legal review for compliance with the MOI before submission of names to Senior Service Colleges. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is PME completion career-enhancing for military department civilians? If so, how? We’ve heard that after PME completion, they often return to the 

same job with the same level of responsibility with virtually no recognition of what 

these civilian students gained from the PME experience. The Air Force apparently 

has at least the beginnings of a different program. Can you describe that and 

whether you think it could serve as a benchmark? 

General CALDWELL. PME completion is a significant element in distinguishing 

most Army civilian senior leaders. The Civilian Human Resources Agency, Training 

Management Office (CHRA–TMO), manages the Army-wide Graduate Placement 

Program (GPP) which seeks to match PME graduates with enterprise-level positions, taking advantage of the skills acquired. The GPP was established in 2003 as 

a result of a Vice Chief of Staff memorandum directing placement of civilian PME 

graduates similar to that of military PME graduates. Placement rates for PME 

graduates all exceed the 90th percentile. For 2009, 92% were placed in new positions requiring PME knowledge and skills with 8% returned to their former position. For 2008, 97% were placed and 3% were returned to their previous assignment. 

2007 and 2006 witnessed 94% placement rates. 

The Central Talent Management Office (CTMO) was established in early 2009 to 

manage the Army Senior Civilian workforce. CTMO goals include: providing civilians the opportunity for assignments with multiple commands and educational opportunities, cultivate senior civilian leaders with a joint mindset through joint assignments, develop senior leaders who are comfortable operating in a global, multicultural environment and lay the groundwork for a program that will develop interchangeable senior leaders. This program will improve succession planning through 

forecasting and knowledge transfer as well as reduce the loss of productivity associated with under-lap. Additionally, this approach will minimize the return of graduates to their former positions. There is no question that we can do better in this 

entire process for the vast majority of our Army civilian workforce. We recognize 

there are shortfalls and are working to improve our system. 
124 

We will contact the Air Force to determine if their program has aspects that are 

readily applicable for the Army, and to learn from what they have done for their 

civilian development program. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve seen that there are very few in-residence PME billets available 

to Reserve Component (RC) officers, notwithstanding their significant contribution 

to current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When PME billets do become available, it can be complicated for RC officers to fill them. The slots are often offered 

at the last minute, i.e., once it becomes clear that active duty personnel will not be 

able to fill those seats. In addition, attendance will require Reserve and Guard officers to take ten months time away from their civilian careers and often will require 

relocation. What is your Service doing to ensure that its RC officers undergo the 

leader development necessary to fully integrate with their active duty counterparts 

in joint operations? 

General CALDWELL. For the reasons acknowledged above, and because officer professional military education (PME) courses generally run from six months to one 

year, while the Army is able to send some reserve component (RC) officers, it is very 

difficult for most RC officers to attend PME courses in residence. There are multiple 

options for RC officers to undergo leader development. The most challenging development is at the major and colonel level. All majors have the option to enroll in 

the distance learning Intermediate Level Education (ILE) at their convenience or 

compete for selection for resident instruction. RC officers at the lieutenant colonel 

and colonel level must complete for selection for resident or Distance Education Program (DEP) Senior Staff College (SSC) education. Considerable effort has been 

made in recent years to ensure that these non-resident PME courses are up to date 

and highly relevant to the contemporary operating environment faced by today’s deploying Soldiers. In addition, the non-resident ILE common core course includes all 

of the Joint PME learning areas. Hence, all RC Officer who complete the non-resident course earn the same Joint Professional Military Education (JPME), phase I 

credit as their peers who attend the resident course. 

The Chief of the Army Reserve (CAR) receives an annual allocation for the resident and DEP versions of the SSC from the Training and Doctrine Command 

(TRADOC). In addition, the CAR receives an annual allocation for resident ILE. 

Based upon the number of seats, the Department of Army Secretariat conducts the 

Professional Development Education (PDE) Board and publishes a list of primary 

and alternate candidates to attend the versions of these courses. Human Resources 

Command (HRC), St. Louis, manages the Order-of-Merit (OML) lists, which are 

used throughout the process and not violated for convenience of individual Soldiers 

or commands. Allocation for resident ILE and SSC, while not excessive, is proportional to the Active Component (AC). 

Dr. SNYDER. There was an Army decision to send at least 50% of each Army 0– 

4 year group to in-residence ILE at Leavenworth. What is the impact on OPMEP 

fulfillment/accreditation? What is the impact on education quality in terms of number and joint faculty/student mix? What is the impact on other Services wanting to 

send faculty and students there given the OPMEP accreditation implications? 

General CALDWELL. The Army, by policy, provides an Intermediate Level Education (ILE) education to all active duty majors and the opportunity for the same 

level of education to National Guard and Reserve majors through distance learning 

programs. For many years selection to attend resident Command and General Staff 

College (CGSC) was made by a Department of Army (DA) Selection Board. This 

board selected approximately 50 percent of the eligible Officers to come to resident 

CGSC, while the remainder was required to complete the course by correspondence. 

All Officers were required to complete CGSC, resident or non-resident, to remain 

competitive for promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. 

In 2004, the Army made the decision to take a different direction in selecting students to attend CGSC. There were a number of reasons for changing this policy. 

First, if CGSC was needed for success for assignments as a major and beyond, why 

should the Army provide less than half of the Officers the requisite in resident education? Secondly, the operational environment was growing more complex increasing 

the demand on education for leader development. Primarily for these reasons the 

Army moved forward to implement universal resident ILE for all active duty majors. 

Universal ILE has two parts: a common core and a credentialing course. The current 10 month resident CGSC experience consists of two courses: a 14-week core 

course which emphasized joint educational outcomes, and a 28-week Advanced Operations Course. It was setup so the resident course was primarily oriented toward 

branch officers—those officers who serve in duty positions directly related to their 

basic branch (infantry, armor, artillery, etc.), while most officers serving in specialty 

branches and career fields attend one of our resident satellite campuses where they 
125 

take the 14-week Core Course and then complete a follow-on credentialing course 

based on their unique specialty. 

Under current policy, approximately 75 percent of active duty officers should come 

to Fort Leavenworth for CGSC, but the throughput capacity to accommodate this 

was never established. Also, given today’s operational demand the Army simply cannot man the operational force and have 75 percent of a year group attend CGSC. 

This has resulted in a backlog of officers waiting to attend the 10 month and 4 

month resident courses. The Army is currently reexamining this issue as we do have 

unfilled seats in each resident program due to the operational force not being able 

to release majors to attend their PME. What we have also found is that an unintended consequence of this policy has been the demand for increased student numbers from our sister services to support the increased number of staff groups. 

Educationally, the concept of universal ILE for all majors is an intriguing debate 

for the Army. Currently, it is unsupportable due to the operational demands of the 

force, yet we also recognize the critical importance of education. We therefore are 

working diligently to find the most optimal solution to balance the competing demands. 

The impact of the Army decision to increase the number of students attending the 

resident ILE at Fort Leavenworth has raised the need for more non-host military 

students to meet the requirement of 1 Air Force (AF) and 1 sea service student in 

each staff group. The Army requested sufficient joint officers to meet our growing 

number of staff groups, but the sister services have been unable to support our request. The last agreed to number of sister service officers was 80 per year, while 

at full capacity the Army ILE requirement would be for at least 96 officers. We are 

currently short 1 AF and 9 sea service officers. The Education Branch of the Joint 

Staff is aware of this shortfall, and we have proposed what we believe is a solution 

to this shortfall. We have worked diligently over the past two years to increase our 

Interagency (IA) student participation. This year we have 18 IA students in the 10 

month resident program. This number of students from the Joint, Intergovernmental, Interagency and Multinational (JIIM) perspective more than mitigate the 

shortfall of the joint officers. We have proposed and do maintain the IA students 

should be part of the accreditation process – it’s how we truly operate around the 

world today and will continue to do so in the 21st century. CGSC has taken actions 

to mitigate the lack of sister service students in these staff groups, but recognizes 

that this does not bring us into compliance with Officer Professional Military Education Policy (OPMEP) standards. Joint accreditation is an absolute must for CGSC 

to keep its sister service students. Resolution of this issue will require senior level 

Department of Defense (DOD) decisions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you feel the officer management system for your Service complements the PME/JPMB system? We’ve repeatedly heard the critique that they are 

not closely aligned. Are there policy changes that need to be made so officers have 

time to attend the requisite schools and complete key developmental assignments 

for promotion purposes, but more importantly for leader development purposes? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The Navy officer management system complements the PME/ 

JPME system through seeking to satisfy the educational requirements of eligible officers when and where best introduced into their individual and community specific 

career paths. Navy officer career paths generally provide sufficient time between 

operational or milestone assignments for Service College eligible officers to enhance 

their skills through resident PME/JPME courses at various points in their careers. 

Every effort is made to satisfy these requirements through resident course attendance, but not all eligible officers get this opportunity due to competing requirements. 

Where transfer timing or community specific manning requirements preclude the 

ability to send eligible officers to resident courses, the Navy has compensated 

through increasing the available opportunities to achieve PME/JPME in non-resident education programs. These programs (Fleet Seminar Program, Web-Enabled 

Program, and CD–ROM Program) are part of Naval War College’s College of Distance Education and provide flexibility for those officers that are unable to attend 

resident courses to gain concurrent education while fulfilling their career milestone 

assignments and meet demanding operational schedules. Balancing the key assignments with PME/JPME is unique to each officer’s career. 

No policy changes are recommended at this time. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Chairman uses a Military Education Coordination Council 

(MECC) in a formal process to ‘‘build’’ the Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (the OPMEP). Recognizing the Service Chiefs’ prerogatives in terms of ‘‘managing the quality and content’’ of Service-specific curriculum at their PME institutions, does your Service have a similar formal process for determining and integrating Service-specific curriculum throughout your school system, and how does 

that process tie into your overall leader development strategy? 
126 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. In October of 2008, the Navy implemented the Advanced Education Review Board (AERB) for oversight of Navy’s education strategy, policy, resources, and execution including professional military education. The AERB process 

is based on the MECC model with a standing working group and sub-working 

groups as needed. The Vice Chief of Naval Operations (VCNO) heads the AERB and 

acts as the CNO’s executive agent for advanced education. He is tasked with ensuring education policy is integrated across the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA), Naval 

Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC), the Naval War College (NWC), and the 

Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and with ensuring education strategy is appropriately resourced. The AERB monitors policy and will direct policy changes to advanced education including professional military education as required. 

Since March of 2005, the President of the NWC has been responsible for the content, its development, and the measures of effectiveness that go along with this responsibility for Navy Professional Military Education (PME). The goal is to provide 

the Navy’s Total Force with a standardized, comprehensive understanding of the 

Navy and its warfighting capabilities through a PME Continuum. For officers, precommissioning PME had been and continues to be successfully conducted by the 

USNA and the Navy Education and Training Command’s (NETC) NROTC and officer commissioning or indoctrination programs. They developed a new program for 

primary-level professional military education and desegregated the intermediate 

and senior-level programs at the NWC. In May 2005, the VCNO approved the educational outcomes developed for the senior, intermediate, and primary programs 

that had been developed by the NWC faculty and staffed with the Navy’s senior 

community and operational flag leadership. 

The NWC faculty then determined the curricular content necessary to deliver the 

approved, educational outcomes for the senior and intermediate programs. For the 

primary-level program, NWC faculty members worked with key representatives 

from the operating fleet and the Navy’s communities to determine the curricular 

content to achieve the desired learning outcomes. The NWC continually assesses the 

effectiveness of its educational programs including the validity of the educational 

outcomes which underlie every level of the PME Continuum. When changes should 

be required for those outcomes, the AERB process will be used to examine and, if 

judged prudent, approve and implement those changes. Sustaining alignment for 

the Navy’s PME Continuum is principally the responsibility of the NWC and its faculty for the Navy’s primary, intermediate, senior, and flag officer courses. The 

USNA and the NETC continue to deliver and assess the pre-commissioning programs. 

Service-specific guidance is provided to the USNA and the NETC for accessionlevel knowledge, skills, and abilities of leaders in the Navy and Marine Corps. The 

NWC, charged with the remainder of the officer PME Continuum, is tasked with 

developing operational and strategic level leaders as part of its overall mission. Curricular elements aimed at building operational and strategic-level leaders are embedded throughout the primary, intermediate, senior, and flag-level courses. Professional military education at each of these levels involves developing habits of 

thought, transferring broad bodies of professional knowledge, maritime and joint, 

and developing key attributes, such as critical thinking, effective communication, 

risk management, and change management. 

The Advanced Education Review Board, the curricular review process, the presence of senior Naval leadership across campus, and thesis requirements ensure 

every curriculum at NPS is tied to a concrete fleet requirement and that NPS graduates will return to the fleet armed with an education which prepares our officers 

to tackle the Navy’s most pressing and challenging issues. 

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that officers are arriving at the combatant commands 

and joint task forces for joint duty assignments, even for operational planning billets, without having completed JPME II. Some combatant commanders have issued 

policies barring their staff officers’ attendance at the 10-week JPME II course. They 

believe the Services should be sending officers who are fully qualified and ready to 

serve in their assignments, rather than having the combatant commander forced to 

give up these officers for 10 weeks. Can you comment on what is causing this to 

happen? Isn’t this detrimental to the force and to the officers involved? Can you 

comment on the utility of officers attending the JPME II ten-week course after completing or late into joint assignments? It’s perceived as a perfunctory requirement 

(in the nature of ‘‘square-filling’’) necessary for promotion, instead of as a useful part 

of professional development. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. There are 2,199 non-critical Navy joint billets (JD1) and an additional 127 billets that are coded joint critical (JD2). There are no prerequisites to 

fill non-critical billets. Critical joint billets must be filled by Joint Qualified Officers 
127 

or officers on a waiver. Some of the joint billets are also coded for planner qualifications. 

The requirements for a Joint Qualified Officer are: • JPME Phase I • JMPE Phase II • Previous joint duty assignment 

For those officers targeted for joint critical billets the Navy makes every effort to 

assign Joint Qualified Officers or schedule and complete JPME Phase II prior to reporting. Navy also works to get JPME II en route to the non-critical JD1 billets as 

well. Due to assignment timing challenges (control grade officer inventory, JPME 

Phase II classes, incumbent’s rotation dates, prospective gain’s rotation dates, and 

the Joint Qualified Officer waiver process) completion of JPME Phase II prior to reporting is not always possible. 

Ideally the Navy would send Joint Qualified Officers to all critical joint billets. 

However, the need for our front-running officers, our future leaders, to maintain tactical and operational proficiency, gain leadership and command experience, and pass 

warfighting skills to our junior members competes with JPME II and, in limited 

cases, precludes this education enroute. 

In these cases, obtaining JPME Phase II on the backside of joint assignments remains valuable for future Joint or Navy operational staff assignments whether in 

control grade or flag billets. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Skelton Panel considered faculty as the determinant factor in 

quality education. What policies do your Services have to ensure that the highest 

quality military faculty is assigned to the Service and joint PME institutions including to your other Service counterparts’ institutions? What policies do you have in 

place concerning faculty follow-on assignments? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The War Colleges’ staffs are comprised of both civilian and military personnel. The civilian staff provides continuity and a rigorous theoretical approach while the military staff brings current and relevant experience to the classroom. The Navy uses the Military Personnel Manual 1301–202, Officer Special Assignments—Nominative Billets/Nomination of Officers, (dated September 19, 2008) as 

guidance for nominating officers for faculty positions at the Naval War College, National Defense University, and other service colleges. It requires that individuals 

being assigned as service college faculty be informally ‘‘proposed’’ to the gaining 

command. The service college is then able to ‘‘screen’’ the officer’s qualifications 

prior to reporting. If the officer does not possess the credentials they are looking 

for, discussions on alternate candidates begin between Navy Personnel Command 

and the Service College. 

Quality of faculty members going to Professional Military Education institutions 

is assured based on the rank requirements and the very nature of the officers assigned to a War College Faculty. Billets for these positions are primarily coded for 

commanders or captains with a limited number of lieutenant commanders (11). 

At Service War Colleges, 46% of Navy faculty billets are filled by post-command 

commanders/captains (40 of 101) or post-major-command captains (6 of 101). These 

individuals go through statutory selection boards and administrative career screening boards, which select officers to promote in rank and command ships, submarines, and squadrons. These are the Navy’s best and brightest. 

There are no policies in place concerning faculty follow-on assignments. Followon assignments vary by community (Aviation Warfare, Surface Warfare, Submarine 

Warfare) depending on current fleet demand signal and individual desires. 

Dr. SNYDER. ‘‘Professional ethics’’ does not appear as a discrete learning area in 

the officer military education policy (the OPMEP). Can you comment on how professional ethics is made part of PME? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Professional ethics is an integral component of the Navy’s Professional Military Education (PME) Continuum. At each level of PME, professional ethics is a continuing theme that is studied and explored. The PME curriculum properly builds toward life-long learning in the field of professional ethics. The Navy believes effective leaders must be steeped in professional ethics and exhibit duty, 

honor, integrity, moral courage, dedication to ideals, respect for human dignity, exemplary conduct, teamwork and selfless service. Accordingly, ethical issues are addressed at every level of Navy PME as detailed below. 

Ethics lessons are incorporated into the Introductory Enlisted PME course designed for E–1 to E–4, the Basic PME course targeted at E–4 to E–6, and into primary PME course for E–7 to E–8 and O–1 to O–3. 

For intermediate and senior-level resident students at the Naval War College 

(NWC), the core academic program includes a year-long Professional Military Ethics 

Program, with the theme, ‘‘Enduring Ethical Dilemmas: Rights and Responsibilities 
128 

of the Professional Military Officer.’’ The program provides a series of events that 

allow the student body to discuss relevant issues associated with the professional 

military ethic as it relates to their classroom studies. The NWC non-resident program provides an opportunity for a focus on professional ethics akin to the ethics 

program for resident students. Resident programs at the NWC are also augmented 

by a series of elective courses taught within the leadership area of study. The marquee elective course is ‘‘Foundations of Moral Obligation: The Stockdale Course’’. 

Also, senior-level students take the Senior Leadership Seminar (SLS) sub-course 

of National Security Decision Making. In one session, devoted to civil-military relations and the profession of arms, the students discuss ethical challenges and issues 

routinely faced by national strategic leaders. SLS examines more than a dozen biographical case studies of successful and failed strategic leaders. Each year, seven 

to nine senior course students are selected for the Stockdale Group to conduct advanced research and analysis resulting in specific recommendations to improve the 

manner in which U.S. Navy officers are developed for senior leadership positions. 

The current research is using the lens of competencies, perspectives and values in 

examining the critical development of those officers. Professional ethics is a critical 

component of values development and will be a focus of the research over the coming years. 

The mission of the U.S. Naval Academy (USNA) is to educate, train, and develop 

future Navy and Marine Corps officers.’’ The ‘‘standards’’ set by USNA graduates 

are embodied in the attributes of character, ethics and leadership and serve as the 

benchmarks for the core institutional values of Honor, Courage and Commitment. 

The USNA graduate’s attributes form the basis of a professional officer identity that 

each junior officer carries to the Fleet. 

The Leadership Education and Development Division provides midshipmen with 

an integrated and comprehensive educational program in leadership, ethics, character, and law. The curriculum consists of formal instruction by military and civilian 

professionals and is complemented by the practical knowledge and real-time fleet 

experiences of Navy, Marine Corps, and Joint Service leaders. 

The Character Development and Training Division integrates the moral, ethical 

and character development of midshipmen across every aspect of the USNA experience and facilitates the development of the leadership and character attributes outside the normal academic environment. This integrated character and leadership development program is the most important feature that distinguishes the USNA from 

other educational institutions and officer commissioning sources. 

The USNA also has a unique asset in the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. Chartered in 1988 by the Secretary of the Navy, and named for Vice Admiral 

James B. Stockdale, a Medal of Honor recipient noted for his inimitable leadership, 

uncommon valor, and unwavering integrity, the Center’s mission is to empower 

leaders to make courageous ethical decisions. The Stockdale Center enhances the efforts of all those at the USNA who have a part in the leadership and moral development mission. 

Beginning with the example of the President, Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), 

and extending to every corner of the campus, professional ethics are understood to 

be the organizational standard. The study of ethical consideration seeps into every 

curriculum across campus. The institutional expectation and regard for ethics in 

duty is constantly reinforced by a robust cadre of retired flag officers and Navy captains who serve as both faculty and staff, mentoring naval officers personally and 

professionally. This culture is further reinforced through the Secretary of the Navy’s 

Guest Lecture series, an ongoing program which brings flag and general officers to 

speak to the NPS student body. 

Instruction of ethics is completely embedded throughout Navy PME. In addition 

to Navy’s Education Institutions, other ethics-strong curricula are provided through 

Navy Chaplain Corps Courses, Supply Corps Officer Courses, Division Officer Leadership Course, Department Head Leadership Course, Command Leadership School 

(XO/CO/Major Command), Officer Candidate School (OCS), and Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps (NROTC). 

Dr. SNYDER. The ten-week Joint Combined Warfighting School (JCWS) at the 

Joint Forces Staff College was originally designed as an operational planning course 

for Service intermediate level school graduates (i.e., majors and lieutenant commanders) on their way to a joint assignment. The JCWS has seen a significant number of more senior officers (e.g., colonels and Navy captains) and officers who have 

already completed a joint assignment in attendance. What changes need to be made 

to your officer management policies and practices to avoid what appears to be a misuse of the course, making its completion a perfunctory exercise only needed in order 

to be competitive for promotion to general or flag officer? 
129 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Joint Combined Warfighting School (JCWS) no longer provides 

an Operational Planner certification and requires prior completion of JPME–I by all 

prospective students, which cannot generally be attained prior to the rank of lieutenant commander. Therefore, the first opportunity to attend JCWS for the majority 

of naval officers is at the rank of commander. Twenty-three percent of 685 Navy 

JCWS graduates since 2007 have been captains. The remainder have been commanders or lieutenant commanders. It is Navy’s goal to assign our officers to Joint 

Education institutions prior to their joint tours; however, because of community requirements and career timing issues, Navy has, by necessity, sent select officers to 

JPME–II following their initial joint tour. Rather than being a ‘‘perfunctory exercise,’’ completion of JPME–II in these instances is important in preparing for future 

joint assignments and potential flag rank. Because assignment of post-joint tour officers to JPME–II is seen as the exception, vice the rule, there is no evidence at this 

time that changes must be made to Navy’s officer management policies and practices. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve heard concerns expressed by military students that the quality 

of the participating military department civilians is well below that of the military 

personnel. How does your military department select its civilian students for intermediate and senior level PME schools? Is there a process analogous to a selection 

board? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Civilian leadership and workforce development falls under the 

purview of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Civilian Human Resource) 

and the Office of Civilian Human Resources (OCHR) for the Department of the 

Navy (DON). Most of the civilians who participate in intermediate and senior level 

PME do so as a result of their participation in a structured developmental program 

such as the Defense Senior Leader Development Program (DSLDP). As such, there 

is a screening process in place designed to ensure each individual has the requisite 

education, competence and experience levels required by the specific program, including all elements of the program such as PME, prior to being accepted into the 

program. We are aware of concerns that some civilian participants are lacking in 

experience equivalent to their military counterparts. Therefore, a more rigorous 

screening process has been implemented recently at both the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and component levels. This process calls for a Senior Executive level panel 

to review all applications and recommend those applicants qualified for the specific 

developmental program, ensuring that only qualified applicants are nominated to 

the DOD program office. The DOD program office hosts a six-hour assessment center in which the candidates’ demonstrated leadership competencies are evaluated 

and documented in an assessment report. Once all candidates have been assessed, 

those who have demonstrated the requisite leadership skills and have documented 

the requisite education and experience are recommended for acceptance into the 

program by a Senior Executive panel comprised of representatives from all DOD 

Components, which includes a mix of flag/general officers and SES members. Recently implemented, this process has significantly improved the quality of civilian 

candidates. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is PME completion career-enhancing for military department civilians? If so, how? We’ve heard that after PME completion, they often return to the 

same job with the same level of responsibility with virtually no recognition of what 

these civilian students gained from the PME experience. The Air Force apparently 

has at least the beginnings of a different program. Can you describe that and 

whether you think it could serve as a benchmark? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Professional Military Education (PME) completion is career-enhancing for Department of the Navy (DoN) civilians. It is true that, immediately 

upon completion of PME, civilian employees most often return to the same position 

they occupied prior to attending PME. However, they are frequently assigned to 

work on corporate strategic initiatives due, in large part, to the perspective they 

bring as a result of their PME experience. Both the PME experience, together with 

the developmental requirements imposed by the specific developmental program, 

most often affords the participant with opportunities to demonstrate their capabilities to Senior Executives and Military leaders throughout the DoN and the Department of Defense (DOD). This exposure frequently results in a career-enhancing job 

change for the individual. Although DoN follows a merit systems principles-based 

approach to position management, the transition to Community Management presents greater opportunity for the Department to use succession planning and overall 

talent management to ensure civilians with PME are recognized and considered for 

positions with greater responsibility. 

We understand that the Air Force takes a more centrally managed approach to 

its leadership development and related positions. If standardizing the selection process for civilian employee participation in PME career management following comple-
130 

tion is a desired goal, Navy recommends careful evaluation and adoption of best 

practices from across DOD Components. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve seen that there are very few in-residence PME billets available 

to Reserve Component (RC) officers, notwithstanding their significant contribution 

to current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When PME billets do become available, it can be complicated for RC officers to fill them. The slots are often offered 

at the last minute, i.e., once it becomes clear that active duty personnel will not be 

able to fill those seats. In addition, attendance will require Reserve and Guard officers to take ten months time away from their civilian careers and often will require 

relocation. What is your Service doing to ensure that its RC officers undergo the 

leader development necessary to fully integrate with their active duty counterparts 

in joint operations? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. At the Naval War College (NWC), there are a small number of 

student billets dedicated for members of the Reserve and Guard components, which 

are highly competitive and consistently filled. Those fortunate enough to attend inresidence, either the intermediate or senior course, have the maritime and joint 

warfighting knowledge and appropriate leadership skills to fully integrate in contemporary joint operations. 

However, there is a significantly greater opportunity for Navy and other Service 

Reserve and Guard members to enroll in one of the four non-resident, intermediatelevel programs offered by the NWC. Each of those courses is focused on producing 

officers skilled in applying operational art and operational perspectives, adept as 

naval and joint planners, and prepared for operational-level leadership challenges. 

Like their resident counterparts, these graduates are prepared to integrate fully 

with their active duty counterparts in contemporary joint operations. 

During the past five years, 5594 Reserve officers have been enrolled in these 

courses, representing 27 percent of the total enrollment. No qualified Reserve officer 

has been denied a seat. Navy leadership recognizes the critical importance of these 

educational opportunities and annually provides the President, NWC with additional resourcing to support this educational opportunity. 

Navy uses every opportunity available to continuously communicate the value of 

Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) to the Fleet. We educate officers on 

available opportunities for the various levels of PME and avenues to facilitate their 

participation throughout their careers. Commander, Navy Reserve Force provides 

Reserve Component (RC) officers joint leadership development opportunities to include: JPME Phases I/II, War Colleges (Navy, Army, Marine Corps, Air Force), Joint 

Advanced Warfighting Schools, and Joint Combined Warfighting School. There are 

also tailored joint education classes specifically developed for the RC such as Navy 

Reserve Advanced Management (NRAM), AJPME, and Joint Forces Reserve Officer 

Course (JFROC). Of note, NRAM and JFROC are high level, strategic courses specifically developed to assist RC officers in preparing for the rigors and challenges 

of current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In fiscal year 2009, Navy funded $2.4 

million in in-residence school quotas, which are boarded at the flag officer/senior O– 

6 level, to ensure the best candidates are selected. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you feel the officer management system for your Service complements the PME/JPME system? We’ve repeatedly heard the critique that they are 

not closely aligned. Are there policy changes that need to be made so officers have 

time to attend the requisite schools and complete key developmental assignments 

for promotion purposes, but more importantly for leader development purposes? 

General SPIESE. Professional Military Education is an integral part of an Officer’s 

career progression and factors significantly into assignment process for Marine 

Corps Officers, which we believe is adequate. The Headquarters Marine Corps 

(HQMC) Officer Assignments Branch is charged with filling valid staffing requirements (both internal and external) and building a balanced officer corps. Officers 

are expected to serve in their Primary Occupational Specialty (PMOS), at each 

grade, in the operating forces. When not serving in the operating forces, officers are 

typically assigned to career broadening assignments which include resident PME, 

supporting establishment, and upper-level staff (both Joint and HQMC Staff). All 

resident PME venues are filled to capacity during each Fiscal Year (FY) Staffing 

Cycle. Those officers who do not attend resident PME are expected to complete it 

via the Distanced Education Program (Independent Guided Study or Seminar). Failure to complete appropriate PME for grade will adversely affect an officer’s competitiveness on both statutory (promotion) and non-statutory (command/program selection) boards. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Chairman uses a Military Education Coordination Council 

(MECC) in a formal process to ‘‘build’’ the Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (the OPMEP). Recognizing the Service Chiefs’ prerogatives in terms of ‘‘managing the quality and content’’ of Service-specific curriculum at their PME institu-
131 

tions, does your Service have a similar formal process for determining and integrating Service-specific curriculum throughout your school system, and how does 

that process tie into your overall leader development strategy? 

General SPIESE. Marine Corps Order 1553.4B identifies the President of Marine 

Corps University as the proponent for PME within the Marine Corps. This unity 

of command allows for centralized planning and decentralized execution, thus providing a coordinated officer leader development continuum from captain through 

general officer. 

The President of Marine Corps University integrates and manages PME curricula 

via a Curriculum Review Board (CRB) formal process. He chairs the board that is 

comprised of all school directors, vice presidents, key staff members, and others as 

required. Each school is required to conduct a thorough brief of their curriculum 

every two years or earlier if a learning outcome is changed. While the briefing covers course and class description, hours devoted to each session, budgetary considerations, and other relevant data, the most important aspect of the board is the vetting of learning outcomes and methods of assessment. Schools discuss, in detail, 

what the students should learn as a result of each course and how the institution 

will assess whether the student learned as required. Representation of each level 

of PME by the appropriate school director during these board meetings allows the 

integration of Service-specific and joint curriculum among all schools. This is an excellent forum to ensure that a change at one level does not adversely impact PME 

at another level. Similarly, redundancy is reduced and connectivity is enhanced. 

Leadership is a key component of the curriculum of each school so the CRB serves 

as an excellent means to manage and link leader development content at each level 

of PME. In fact, schools have dedicated courses and classes on leadership that are 

thoroughly discussed and vetted during the CRBs. Additionally, Marine Corps University is in the final stages of producing a revised education continuum that delineates learning outcomes for each level of PME. This will serve as an azimuth for 

the CRB sessions and help ensure that leader development and other key components are properly integrated throughout the continuum. 

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that officers are arriving at the combatant commands 

and joint task forces for joint duty assignments, even for operational planning billets, without having completed JPME II. Some combatant commanders have issued 

policies barring their staff officers’ attendance at the 10-week JPME II course. They 

believe the Services should be sending officers who are fully qualified and ready to 

serve in their assignments, rather than having the combatant commander forced to 

give up these officers for 10 weeks. Can you comment on what is causing this to 

happen? Isn’t this detrimental to the force and to the officers involved? Can you 

comment on the utility of officers attending the JPME II ten-week course after completing or late into joint assignments? It’s perceived as a perfunctory requirement 

(in the nature of ‘‘square-filling’’) necessary for promotion, instead of as a useful part 

of professional development. 

General SPIESE. Every effort is being made to have officer’s complete JPME II 

prior to assuming a Joint Duty Assignment List (JDAL) billet. The Marine Corps 

sources approximately 200 JDAL billets per FY. Approximately 80 Marine Corps Officers graduate from one of the Service Level or National Defense University (NDU) 

Top Level Schools each year (JPME II accredited). Of these graduates who did not 

have a previous joint assignment, 98% are sent to follow-on JDAL assignments. The 

remaining JDAL assignments are sourced with officers who have satisfied FMF 

PMOS requirements and are postured for success in the joint environment. The Marine Corps receives 75 school seats per FY at the 10 week JPME II course. Additionally, officers who have completed the Experience based Joint Duty Assignment (E– 

JDA) tour pre-requisites are also competing for these school seats. The limitation 

in throughput has resulted in officers having to attend JPME II during or even at 

the conclusion of their JDAL assignment. While this is less than optimal, it is a reality based on school seat quotas. Alternative means to obtain JPME II credit, to 

include web based courseware or inclusion in the joint Distance Education Program 

have been discussed. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Skelton Panel considered faculty as the determinant factor in 

quality education. What policies do your Services have to ensure that the highest 

quality military faculty is assigned to the Service and joint PME institutions including to your other Service counterparts’ institutions? What policies do you have in 

place concerning faculty follow-on assignments? 

General SPIESE. Marine Corps University establishes high standards for both 

military and civilian faculty. The desired criteria for military faculty at the Marine 

Corps War College includes the rank of colonel, a master’s degree from an accredited institution, a TLS graduate, recent operational experience, joint experience, and 

previous teaching experience. At Command and Staff College the desired criteria are 
132 

the rank of O5/O6, TLS graduate, a master’s degree from an accredited institution, 

and recent operational experience. The good news is that we have been successful 

in recruiting faculty who possess most of the desired prerequisites. The bad news 

is that these same criteria are used by promotion and command screening boards 

so that our faculty rarely stays over two years due to promotions, selection for command, or selection for critical billets. Some military faculty is aboard for only one 

year. However, we have made a conscious decision to accept a high turnover rate 

in order to get the highest quality faculty. On the plus side, the constant infusion 

of faculty just returning from the operating forces ensures the curricula are relevant. 

Currently, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) describing the qualities desired for Sister Service faculty exists for JPME II institutions. A similar MOU is 

being developed for JPME I institutions. These MOU ensure faculty possesses the 

baseline prerequisites, thus helping to manage the assignment of non-host faculty 

to Sister Service institutions. 

Faculty departing MCU are subject to the standard USMC policies governing assignments. Generally, the guiding principles are the needs of the Marine Corps, the 

professional needs of the officer, and the personal desires of the officer, in priority. 

The need of the USMC is the determining factor. 

Dr. SNYDER. ‘‘Professional ethics’’ does not appear as a discrete learning area in 

the officer military education policy (the OPMEP). Can you comment on how professional ethics is made part of PME? 

General SPIESE. The Marine Corps War College conducts a Leadership and Ethics 

Course that provides the student with tools he or she can use both in the other 

courses in the curriculum and throughout a career. Designed to expand on the solid 

leadership experience and education/training of War College-level students, the 

Leadership/Ethics course blends the study of theory with discussions with senior 

military and civilian practitioners of strategic leadership. The course begins with a 

study of complexity, critical/creative thinking and decision-making that includes 

seminars on the Profession of Arms, the ethical use of military force and the ethical 

challenges of senior leaders in the complex strategic environment. The discussion 

of ethics at the strategic level also occurs in other areas of the Marine Corps War 

College curriculum. The National Security and Joint Warfare course has at least 10 

classes that deal directly with ethical questions. These include classes such as: Civilmilitary relations; the military and the media; Non-governmental actors on the battlefield; Current issues in National Security; Coercion; pandemics; Weapons of Mass 

Destruction; Defense in Support of Civil Authorities; Counterinsurgency; and others 

that do so more obliquely. The War Strategy and Policy course also has several 

classes that deal with ethics at the policy and strategy level. 

At the School of Advanced Warfighting, professional ethics is broken out in two 

overt sessions 1) The My Lai case study, and 2) Decision making in a problematic 

environment. These cases build upon an ethical foundation built at the intermediate 

school level and below. The focus is on the strategic implications of difficult ethical 

decisions and the available actions to the commander. Where applicable, ethics are 

brought into each planning problem as either friction or establishing the framework 

of the operational environment. 

Command and Staff College adopts the philosophy that ‘‘human factors’’ dominate 

war and conflict and, consequently, the subjects of leadership, morality, ethics, and 

the art of command are central to an understanding of the profession of arms. The 

examination of moral and ethical questions takes place in a variety of ways. In the 

Leadership Course students will examine and assess the Law of War and Morality 

of War, particularly studying the My Lai massacre, the Biscari incident in Sicily in 

WWII, Haditha and Abu Graib. Ethical issues contribute to discussions of command 

climate, relationships with subordinates, and command philosophy. Students draft 

a command philosophy early in the second semester and revise it over the remainder of the academic year. This year they will brief it to their peers and get peer 

feedback as part of the revision process. Several exercises explore ethical issues. 

During the Warfighting from the Sea course, the Response to Catastrophic and Disruptive Events exercise, the Counterinsurgency Exercise, and Exercise NINE INNINGS all deal with the complexities of the operating environment, which include 

ethical questions. The College’s Strategic Communications block, including the 

media sub-course, touches upon ethical issues. The Culture and Interagency Operations course is replete with ethical issues, such as the effectiveness of cross-cultural communications, post-conflict stability and reconstruction, decision-making in 

complex and ambiguous interagency environments, just to name a few. The Operational Art course explores decision-making at campaign levels, which includes ethical issues regarding the use of force in traditional and irregular settings. 
133 

Dr. SNYDER. The ten-week Joint Combined Warfighting School (JCWS) at the 

Joint Forces Staff College was originally designed as an operational planning course 

for Service intermediate level school graduates (i.e., majors and lieutenant commanders) on their way to a joint assignment. The JCWS has seen a significant number of more senior officers (e.g., colonels and Navy captains) and officers who have 

already completed a joint assignment in attendance. What changes need to be made 

to your officer management policies and practices to avoid what appears to be a misuse of the course, making its completion a perfunctory exercise only needed in order 

to be competitive for promotion to general or flag officer? 

General SPIESE. Our officer management policies are sound. There is currently a 

backlog of officers who require JPME II in order to obtain the 9702 Joint Qualified 

Officer (JQO) MOS. This back log is a result of the Service Level Top Level Schools 

not being JPME II accredited until 2007. It is also compounded by the recent implementation of the E–JDA path toward obtaining the JQO designation. We see this 

anomaly as self correcting over time. Instituting alternative JPME II venues will 

only serve to expedite this process. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve heard concerns expressed by military students that the quality 

of the participating military department civilians is well below that of the military 

personnel. How does your military department select its civilian students for intermediate and senior level PME schools? Is there a process analogous to a selection 

board? 

General SPIESE. Civilian Marines apply to attend ILE and SSE as part of their 

professional development opportunities. Usually, a review panel selects the best 

qualified to participate in these programs since seats are limited. 

Marine Corps University recruits civilian students from a wide variety of interagency partners. Generally, the quality of those interagency students has been very 

good. The Marine Corps War College and the Command and Staff College maintain 

a dialog with the agency HR offices and discuss desired attributes before their respective selection panel convenes. The key factor for civilian students is comparable 

operational experience to that of the military students. 

Additionally, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department (MP Division) has a 

process in place analogous to a selection board for all other PME schools sponsored 

throughout the Department of Defense. A MARADMIN message is sent out throughout the Marine Corps to solicit potential candidates for the PME schools that contain information in ref to the school and documentation required to apply. Once the 

nomination packages are received by the Program Manager (PM), they are reviewed 

for completion. A panel consisting of approximately three Senior Executive Service 

members reviews the applications and identifies the best qualified candidates in 

rank order. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is PME completion career-enhancing for military department civilians? If so, how? We’ve heard that after PME completion, they often return to the 

same job with the same level of responsibility with virtually no recognition of what 

these civilian students gained from the PME experience. The Air Force apparently 

has at least the beginnings of a different program. Can you describe that and 

whether you think it could serve as a benchmark? 

General SPIESE. Attending a PME program is definitely career-enhancing for civilian Marines. PME is an investment in the future. Sometimes there is an immediate 

return on investment, but sometimes it’s a long-term investment. The civilian personnel system is not structured to promote all civilians attending PME programs. 

The intent however, according to OPM guidance is for the Marine Corps as an institution to assume responsibility for the development of future leaders as coaches, 

mentors, teachers, and most of all, exemplars within and without leadership development programs. Our efforts are to ensure continuity of leadership by identifying 

and addressing potential gaps in effective leadership. This is accomplished by implementing and maintaining programs that capture organizational knowledge and promote learning. Upward mobility on the civilian side must be in accordance with the 

merit systems principles which only allow an organization to hire the best qualified 

candidates for a position without pre-selection. 

In the end, it is logical to assume that some will return to the same jobs, with 

essentially the same responsibilities. However, civilians completing PME programs 

are definitely more qualified than their peers not participating in the programs and 

they can expect to be more competitive when it comes to selection to key positions 

and advancement within the federal government. 

The Lejeune Leadership Institute, Marine Corps University is currently reviewing 

what the other services are designing and implementing for their civilian workforce. 

This review also includes what is provided by other government agencies. 

Review of the Air Forces’ civilian leadership development process provides excellent insights and a reasonable construct for the Marine Corps to consider. Their ci-
134 

vilian leadership development model is based on a four course approach that addresses entry level civilian workers (acculturation) through sustained education 

(continuing professional development). This is an emerging initiative of theirs with 

significant potential to hire and sustain a professional civilian workforce for the Air 

Force. Additionally, the Army’s Civilian University’s programs have been reviewed 

for potential use by the Marine Corps. 

The Marine Corps has recognized the importance of developing a professional education program for its civilian workforce as well. The Lejeune Leadership Institute 

is currently in the process of defining, designing, developing, and implementing a 

similar development program that is being implemented by both the Army and Air 

Force. The Marines model envisions a curriculum consisting of five courses that will 

be delivered through blended seminars, using Blackboard and regional campuses 

with global reach to our civilian workforce. The model and delivery of the civilian 

leadership curriculum will parallel a similar construct used for our officer and enlisted nonresident professional military education. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve seen that there are very few in-residence PME billets available 

to Reserve Component (RC) officers, notwithstanding their significant contribution 

to current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When PME billets do become available, it can be complicated for RC officers to fill them. The slots are often offered 

at the last minute, i.e., once it becomes clear that active duty personnel will not be 

able to fill those seats. In addition, attendance will require Reserve and Guard officers to take ten months time away from their civilian careers and often will require 

relocation. What is your Service doing to ensure that its RC officers undergo the 

leader development necessary to fully integrate with their active duty counterparts 

in joint operations? 

General SPIESE. Marine Corps Reserve Affairs releases a MARADMIN message 

every summer announcing RC Officer PME opportunities available for the following 

academic year and solicits applications to attend full length schools (FLS), as well 

as staff training courses and participation in PME distance education programs. The 

release of the MARADMIN at this particular time provides RC officers with notice 

of opportunities almost a full year in advance of the individual course convening 

dates. A RC Officer PME Selection Board typically occurs during the month of November and the results are released via MARADMIN that same month. 

The RC of the Marine Corps is allocated a fixed number of quotas for FLS (full 

length course)–Top Level Schools (TLS) and a fixed percentage (1%) of quotas for 

FLS–Intermediate Level Schools (ILS). The quota breakdown for FLS–TLS and 

FLS–ILS, as well as FLS–Career Level Schools (CLS) is provided below: 

FLS–TLS (JPME II Accredited) 

(2) Air War College 

(2) College of Naval Warfare 

(2) Industrial College of the Armed Forces 

(1) Marine Corps War College 

(2) National War College 

(3) U.S. Army War College 

FLS–ILS (JPME I Accredited) 

(2) Air Command and Staff College 

(1) Canadian Joint Command and Staff Program 

(8) Marine Corps Command and Staff College 

(2) Naval Command and Staff College 

(4) United States Army Command and General Staff College 

FLS–CLS 

(3) Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School 

In addition to releasing the results of the RC Officer PME Selection Board, an 

alternate list is simultaneously generated. The Marine Corps recognizes the difficulties associated in getting RC officers to attend FLS on short notice, so an alternate 

list is generated so that RC officers can prepare for potential FLS attendance in 

case another RC officer, or potentially even an Active Component officer, has to drop 

from a course. Alternates are provided with the pre-course work, if applicable, and 

encouraged to complete all pre-course work in the event a vacancy becomes available. 

The Marine Corps also recognizes the difficulties associated with RC officers having to relocate for FLS attendance and take ten months time away from their civilian careers. For this reason, additional opportunities in the form of staff training 

courses and PME distance education programs exist for RC officers to receive the 

appropriate level of PME. The staff training courses are two weeks in duration and 

the PME distance education programs, depending upon the course, can be completed 

at a time and place of the officer’s choosing or physically attended one weekend per 

month in lieu of the officer drilling at a Selected Marine Corps Reserve unit. 
135 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you feel the officer management system for your Service complements the PME/JPME system? We’ve repeatedly heard the critique that they are 

not closely aligned. Are there policy changes that need to be made so officers have 

time to attend the requisite schools and complete key developmental assignments 

for promotion purposes, but more importantly for leader development purposes? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air Force continues to make developing our Airmen a priority 

and recognizes the close tie between force management and force development. In 

fact, three times per year, the Force Management and Development Council (FMDC) 

meets to provide advice and decisions in these areas. The FMDC is a Vice Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force-chaired body whose membership includes the Major Command 

Vice Commanders, the Functional Authorities, the Chief Master Sergeant of the Air 

Force, the Chief of the Air National Guard, and the Chair of the Air Force Executive 

Resources Board. Under the FMDC, there are 5 sub-panels. Three are population 

focused: Officer, Enlisted, and Civilian Force Development Panels; two are synchronization focused: Air Force Learning Committee and the Expeditionary Skills Senior 

Review Group. 

The Officer Force Development Panel (OFDP) is composed of seven three-star general officers, a senior statesman, and several advisors. This body recently conducted 

a systematic and comprehensive review of Air Force Developmental Education policies, including those related to Professional Military Education. Additionally, the 

OFDP has been focused on how to deliberately develop officers for deep and broad 

leadership roles, especially those in the joint environment. At this point, we do not 

anticipate making policy changes, but the panel may recommend programmatic 

changes that would result in a different sequence of development. 

Developing Airmen has long been a focus for the Air Force; that remains true 

today. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Chairman uses a Military Education Coordination Council 

(MECC) in a formal process to ‘‘build’’ the Officer Professional Military Education 

Policy (the OPMEP). Recognizing the Service Chiefs’ prerogatives in terms of ‘‘managing the quality and content’’ of Service-specific curriculum at their PME institutions, does your Service have a similar formal process for determining and integrating Service-specific curriculum throughout your school system, and how does 

that process tie into your overall leader development strategy? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Yes. The Air Force developed the Air Force Learning Committee 

(AFLC) to serve as the gate-keeping body for AF functional injects to curriculum. 

The AFLC is comprised of Air Staff, functional, MAJCOM and Air University (AU) 

representatives. The Committee determines whether requested topics should be integrated in PME curriculum/programs in accordance with senior leader priorities 

and vision. Prior to the AFLC, educators adjudicated functional requests on a caseby-case basis, which lacked formal AF guidance or senior leader oversight/ 

prioritization. In addition to the AFLC, AU is building an AF OPMEP for AF officer 

education that will be presented to the AFLC in the spring of 2010. This AF 

OPMEP will help to lay a foundation of requirements for AF officer education. 

Dr. SNYDER. We have heard that officers are arriving at the combatant commands 

and joint task forces for joint duty assignments, even for operational planning billets, without having completed JPME II. Some combatant commanders have issued 

policies barring their staff officers’ attendance at the 10-week JPME II course. They 

believe the Services should be sending officers who are fully qualified and ready to 

serve in their assignments, rather than having the combatant commander forced to 

give up these officers for 10 weeks. Can you comment on what is causing this to 

happen? Isn’t this detrimental to the force and to the officers involved? Can you 

comment on the utility of officers attending the JPME II ten-week course after completing or late into joint assignments? It’s perceived as a perfunctory requirement 

(in the nature of ‘‘square-filling’’) necessary for promotion, instead of as a useful part 

of professional development. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Fundamentally, this is a timing/scheduling/seat availability issue. 

Overall, we have had no problems filling USAF class seats to 100%. However, with 

only four JMPE II courses annually, and those with limited seating, it is inevitable 

that some officers will not be able to attend prior to assuming their joint duties (the 

vast majority of our officers move during the summer months). Our priority is to 

send officers ‘‘enroute,’’ but when the choice is between sending the officer to the 

joint position or allowing them to sit and wait for a class, we feel it is in everyone’s 

best interests to have the officer report to the joint organization and begin the new 

job, albeit without JPME II. For example, if we waited to send officers to this September’s course before reporting to the joint job, that joint position most likely 

would have been vacant for over three months (mission impact) and the family 

would be moving during a school year (retention impact), which is a larger disservice to all concerned. 
136 

Fortunately, we have had good success in working with joint commands to send 

officers after their arrival; albeit on average, slightly more than halfway through the 

joint assignment. 

We are aware of only one combatant commander policy barring their staff officers 

from attending the JPME II ten-week course—for the next course we have received 

53 names from nine combatant commands, which tells us this practice is not widespread. That said, this policy is somewhat troubling and we have addressed our concerns with the appropriate J1 staff. 

The Air Force views service in a joint assignment as a valuable part of an officer’s 

professional development and attendance at requisite JPME II is mandatory to be 

designated a joint qualified officer (JQO). To the Air Force, JPME II is not seen as 

a ‘‘square filler.’’ 

Dr. SNYDER. The Skelton Panel considered faculty as the determinant factor in 

quality education. What policies do your Services have to ensure that the highest 

quality military faculty is assigned to the Service and joint PME institutions including to your other Service counterparts’ institutions? What policies do you have in 

place concerning faculty follow-on assignments? 

Mr. SITTERLY. AF military faculty members are selected by the AF assignment 

system. Development Teams (DTs) vector officers based on qualification, career progression and needs of the AF and DOD. Assignment and career field teams manage 

placement. Air University works closely with the Air Force Personnel Center 

(AFPC) or the Colonels’ Group to ensure highly qualified faculty members are assigned to meet the mission requirements of its schools. Each school identifies requirements for its military faculty to AFPC and works closely with them to ensure 

officers being considered for faculty duty meet minimum requirements. Departing 

faculty members are vectored for the appropriate developmental follow-on assignments by their respective DTs. 

In addition to assignment management by the DTs, the AF has developed additional opportunities for follow-on assignments for faculty. In 2007, the AF implemented a program to competitively select officers through the developmental education designation process to instruct at Squadron Officer School for 2 years and 

then attend Air Command and Staff College as a student. Additionally, officers may 

be selected to instruct at Air Command and Staff College for 2 years and then attend Air War College as a student. 

Dr. SNYDER. ‘‘Professional ethics’’ does not appear as a discrete learning area in 

the officer military education policy (the OPMEP). Can you comment on how professional ethics is made part of PME? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Ethics is a foundational requirement in all officer professional development curricula taught throughout the Carl A. Spaatz Center for Officer Education. The Air Force Institutional Competency List (included in Air Force Policy Directive 36–26, Total Force Development, Air Force Doctrine Directive 1–1, Leadership and Force Development, and cross-referenced in Air University Continuum of 

Officer and Enlisted Professional Military Education Strategic Guidance (CESG)) directs the teaching of Ethical Leadership under Standard 3A in order to prepare students for future leadership challenges. 

The AF embraces ethics as a cornerstone of its professional development programs, exemplified by the foundational doctrine statement contained in Air Force 

Doctrine Document 1–1: ‘‘The professional Air Force ethic consists of three fundamental and enduring values of integrity, service and excellence.’’ These core values 

permeate the curricula at each officer school as well as the expectations for student 

performance both within the academic programs and beyond. 

Ultimately, ethical lessons are embedded in curricula taught at all levels of officer 

in-residence PME and distance learning programs. For example, at the Air and 

Space Basic Course, students are introduced to ethical standards, values, and integrity in the ‘‘Officership’’ lesson; at Squadron Officer School, students face true-tolife ethical dilemmas in the ‘‘What Now, Commander?’’ block; at Air Command and 

Staff College, ‘‘Ethics in Time of Crisis and War,’’ ‘‘Ethical Leadership,’’ and ‘‘Morality and War’’ are blocks in the Leadership and Command courses; and finally, Air 

War College engrains ethical leadership throughout its curriculum, even including 

differing cultural ethics amongst coalition partners. Furthermore, AWC offers nine 

elective programs in which students may explore ethical challenges faced by senior 

leaders. 

Dr. SNYDER. The ten-week Joint Combined Warfighting School (JCWS) at the 

Joint Forces Staff College was originally designed as an operational planning course 

for Service intermediate level school graduates (i.e., majors and lieutenant commanders) on their way to a joint assignment. The JCWS has seen a significant number of more senior officers (e.g., colonels and Navy captains) and officers who have 

already completed a joint assignment in attendance. What changes need to be made 
137 

to your officer management policies and practices to avoid what appears to be a misuse of the course, making its completion a perfunctory exercise only needed in order 

to be competitive for promotion to general or flag officer? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air Force values the skills gained at JCWS and ensures those 

attending need those skills as part of their assignment. There are not a significant 

number of senior Air Force officers (colonels) attending JCWS. In fact, of the last 

four classes, 47% of the Air Force officers were majors. Only 14% were colonels. The 

Air Force does not believe that attendance at JCWS is a ‘‘perfunctory exercise’’ needed solely to become competitive for promotion to general. As stated in question 38, 

joint service is a valuable part of an officer’s professional development; joint education is an essential part of the joint experience. 

We are satisfied with the current guidance in DOD Instruction 1300.19 that allows for both intermediate and senior level students to attend JPME II, and believe 

we are sending an appropriate mix of junior and senior field grade officers to JCWS. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve heard concerns expressed by military students that the quality 

of the participating military department civilians is well below that of the military 

personnel. How does your military department select its civilian students for intermediate and senior level PME schools? Is there a process analogous to a selection 

board? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Each year there is an Intermediate/Senior Developmental Education (IDE/SDE) Designation Board (DEDB) nomination procedural message and 

Civilian Developmental Education (CDE) nomination call that goes out to the field. 

Civilians self-nominate for qualified IDE/SDE programs and route their applications 

through their Senior Raters for approval. All eligible employees are encouraged to 

apply; however, commanders and managers only encourage and recommend quality 

civilians. Civilians are nominated by their chain of command to their functional 

community. Each respective functional Developmental Team (DT) ranks those employees to go forward to the CDE Board. The CDE Board is comprised of an SESlevel panel which identifies high potential civilian employees to participate in AF 

IDE/SDE programs. The goal is to identify high potential employees for the developmental education (DE) programs that best suit the employee’s career goals and the 

needs of the AF. Civilians identified by the CDE are in-turn forwarded to the DEDB 

for final selection. Respective career fields DTs monitor and work follow-on assignments for employees upon graduation. Follow-on assignments are selected based on 

the best utilization of the employee’s DE experience. 

Eligibility criteria are included in the Civilian Developmental Handbook. To be eligible to attend AWC, civilians must be a GS 14–15 or NSPS Pay Band 3. Civilians 

must be a GS 12–13 or NSPS Pay Band 2 to be eligible for ACSC attendance. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is PME completion career-enhancing for military department civilians? If so, how? We’ve heard that after PME completion, they often return to the 

same job with the same level of responsibility with virtually no recognition of what 

these civilian students gained from the PME experience. The Air Force apparently 

has at least the beginnings of a different program. Can you describe that and 

whether you think it could serve as a benchmark? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Yes, however we are continuously working to improve and implement new initiatives to enhance the careers of our civilian workforce. 

The AF believes it is important to invest in the development of its civilian workforce, especially since the civilian workforce makes up about 60% of the officer and 

equivalent population (up from about 50% in the 1990s). We have a robust selection 

process and encourage employees to volunteer to attend in-residence programs. Generally, AF participants in developmental education have exhibited a history of mobility, and participants must sign mobility agreements as part of the application 

process. 

The AF recognizes that our ability to find high-quality candidates depends on supervisor and senior leader involvement. Senior leaders routinely encourage participation in programs. When members are assigned to developmental education, they 

are placed onto centrally-funded positions, thereby freeing up the organization to 

hire a replacement. This also allows the AF to find a new assignment for the participant. The intention is to find a position which capitalizes on the education and experience gained during the program, and one that continues the member’s development. 

The AF generally relies on the Development Teams, a group of senior leaders 

from each functional community, to identify appropriate follow-on assignments. Recently, we initiated a review of our ability to find follow-on assignments that build 

on the learning in each developmental education program. This information will be 

reviewed by our Civilian Force Development Panel, a select group of senior AF career members of the Senior Executive Service, who advise on the creation, adjustment, and adequacy of our civilian force development strategy, policies, programs, 
138 

and initiatives. If the results of this analysis show we are not executing our philosophy, we will work on a new strategy for identifying post-program assignments. 

Dr. SNYDER. We’ve seen that there are very few in-residence PME billets available 

to Reserve Component (RC) officers, notwithstanding their significant contribution 

to current operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. When PME billets do become available, it can be complicated for RC officers to fill them. The slots are often offered 

at the last minute, i.e., once it becomes clear that active duty personnel will not be 

able to fill those seats. In addition, attendance will require Reserve and Guard officers to take ten months time away from their civilian careers and often will require 

relocation. What is your Service doing to ensure that its RC officers undergo the 

leader development necessary to fully integrate with their active duty counterparts 

in joint operations? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserves (AFR) ensure officers undergo the leader/force development necessary to fully integrate with 

their active duty counterparts in joint operations. The career field managers, Development Teams, and the respective components’ Career Management Board are involved in efforts to inform and guide high potential officers to the joint arena. 

The ANG and AFR are each given designated developmental education quotas 

each academic year. For CY09/AY10 starts, ANG received 20 Senior Developmental 

Education (SDE) and 24 Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) in-residence 

quotas that award JPME I & II credit. The ANG was able to fill all but 7 of the 

allotted slots for this year. The AFR filled 21 Senior Developmental Education 

(SDE) and 21 Intermediate Developmental Education in-residence quotas that 

award JPME I & II credit. Additionally, at the junior level, ANG/AFR each receives 

approximately 40+ Air and Space Basic Course and 100+ Squadron Officer School 

in-resident quotas per year. 

Specifically, ANG/AFR request in-residence officer developmental education 

quotas through an annual submission to the Developmental Education Designation 

Board (DEDB). Requests are based on historical attendance statistics, adjusting 

input as trends/requirements change. Quotas are approved and provided to the 

ANG/AFR in time to announce an application period, convene a competitive selection board, and notify personnel of selection for the upcoming academic year. Normally, any short-notice opportunities are the result of late-notice civilian or interagency quota cancellations that are offered to the ANG/AFR above the normal allocation. These quotas are never difficult to fill and ANG/AFR are always given an 

opportunity to fill them, as well as the active duty component. Historically, the AFR 

has normally been prepared to take advantage these additional quotas. 

While it is true that ANG and AFR personnel experience unique challenges as a 

result of selection to attend in-residence developmental education programs, such as 

extended absences from civilian employment and maintaining dual residences, there 

are alternative means of completing IDE/SDE programs. Both ANG and AFR personnel are eligible to complete their PME requirements via correspondence, seminar, or by participating in one of the 45 Air Reserve Component Seminar Programs 

for Air Command and Staff College and Air War College. These programs are a combination non-resident/student-led seminar program (blended learning), augmented 

with 2-week attendance requirements at Maxwell AFB, AL, scheduled periodically 

throughout the course. All three options are available, regularly utilized, and recognized in the development of ANG and AFR officers; the resident and non-resident 

offerings present a robust portfolio of opportunities. 

AFRC also has a professional development program which offers the opportunity 

to attend leadership development opportunities to over 400 officers each year prior 

to or after IDE or SDE completion. 

Æ