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 

53–209 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–80] 

BEYOND SERVICE CORE COMPETENCY: 

ARE OUR JUNIOR OFFICERS PREPARED 

FOR TODAY’S SECURITY ENVIRONMENT? 

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 15, 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 

ANNE MILES, 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: 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009, Beyond Service Core Competency: Are Our Junior 

Officers Prepared for Today’s Security Environment? ...................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, July 15, 2009 ....................................................................................... 37 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 15, 2009 

BEYOND SERVICE CORE COMPETENCY: ARE OUR JUNIOR OFFICERS 

PREPARED FOR TODAY’S SECURITY ENVIRONMENT? 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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 ............................................................. 12 

WITNESSES 

Beaudreault, Col. Brian D., USMC, Director, U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School ........................................................................................ 10 

Born, Brig. Gen. Dana H., USAF, Dean of the Faculty, U.S. Air Force Academy ........................................................................................................................ 2 

Finnegan, Brig. Gen. Patrick, USA, Dean of the Academic Board, U.S. Military Academy ........................................................................................................ 4 

Klunder, Capt. Matthew L., USN, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval 

Academy ................................................................................................................ 6 

Tanous, Col. Steve, USAF, Commandant, U.S. Air Force Squadron Officer 

College ................................................................................................................... 8 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Beaudreault, Col. Brian D. .............................................................................. 84 

Born, Brig. Gen. Dana H. ................................................................................ 46 

Finnegan, Brig. Gen. Patrick ........................................................................... 56 

Klunder, Capt. Matthew L. .............................................................................. 63 

Snyder, Hon. Vic ............................................................................................... 41 

Tanous, Col. Steve ............................................................................................ 75 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 43 
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 ......................................................................................................... 105 
(1) 

BEYOND SERVICE CORE COMPETENCY: ARE OUR JUNIOR OFFICERS PREPARED FOR TODAY’S SECURITY 

ENVIRONMENT? 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, 

Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 15, 2009. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:05 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. Hearing will come to order. 

Mr. Wittman was just finishing a speech on the floor of the 

House and should be with us momentarily as we go ahead and 

start. 

Good afternoon. Welcome to the fourth in a series of hearings on 

officer in-residence Professional Military Education, known as 

PME. We have already heard at this subcommittee from the seniorlevel and intermediate-level schools. Now it is time for the primarylevel schools—the Army, Navy, and Air Force academies. 

The Skelton Panel 20 years ago recognized that the early part of 

an officer’s career focuses on the tactical realm and what the services call core competencies, meaning the skill-sets required by a 

particular warfare specialty. However, it is increasingly apparent, 

that officer is required to operate in joint interagency, intergovernmental and multinational environments earlier in their careers. 

Are officers ready for this new operational reality? What knowledge is truly necessary? At what level should we consider these 

skills as part of and not separate from core competencies? Do we 

need to redefine service core competencies according to the new national security environment? 

And we are also interested in the other themes of our earlier 

hearings relative to this developmental level, foundations for strategy, particularly through the study of history, language skills and 

cultural competency, and hybrid warfare. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Snyder can be found in the Appendix on page 41.] 

Dr. SNYDER. When Mr. Wittman arrives, we will give him a 

chance to make any comments he wants to make. Our witnesses 

today are Brigadier General Dana Born, Dean of the Faculty of the 

U.S. Air Force Academy, Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, 
2 

Dean of the Academic Board, U.S. Military Academy, Rear Admiral 

(Select) Matthew—is it Klunder? 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Klunder, Commandant of Midshipmen, U.S. Naval 

Academy, Colonel Steve Tanous, Commandant U.S. Air Force 

Squadron Officer College, Colonel Brian Beaudreault, Director of 

the U.S. Marine Corps Expeditionary Warfare School. 

We appreciate you all being with us here today. As we get further and further into this topic, the more interested we get in it 

and also the more importance we are putting on this look at it. It 

has been some time since the Congress, I think in either body, has 

taken a look in some depth at the issue of professional military 

education and your presence here is very helpful. 

Your written statements will be part of the formal record of the 

committee and we will put the clock on there that will fire up a 

red flare at five minutes, but if you still have things to tell us, you 

tell us and we will begin—well, we are joined by Mr. Skelton, 

chairman of the full committee. 

Mr. Chairman, do you have any comments, do you have any comments you want to make? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. We were just going to go to our faculty. Are 

we going to begin with General Born and go down the row? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Born, why don’t you go ahead and tell us 

what you have to say. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. DANA H. BORN, USAF, DEAN OF 

THE FACULTY, U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEMY 

General BORN. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Wittman, when he arrives, and our distinguished members of the Oversight and Investigations subcommittee, on behalf of Lieutenant 

General Mike Gould, our superintendant, Brigadier General Sam 

Cox and myself, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

address how we prepare our cadets and future officers for the challenges they will face in today’s national security environment. 

We think it is important that our services continually assess how 

well we prepare our service members for the challenging roles they 

must play in serving our Nation, and we appreciate the efforts of 

this committee to help us meet our current and our future requirements. 

Our mission at the Air Force Academy is to educate, train and 

inspire men and women to become officers of character motivated 

to lead the United States Air Force in service to our Nation. 

We designed our program to meet the developmental needs of 

young officers in the current national security environment and 

provide the foundation to grow into future strategic thinkers and 

leaders through a broad spectrum of academic, athletic, military, 

and character education and training opportunities. 

Our four-year program focuses on achieving developmental outcomes that imbue our graduates with societal, professional, and individual responsibilities and empowers them with an integrated set 
3 

of intellectual and warrior skills and establishes a foundation of 

knowledge essential to the profession of arms. 

Our curriculum is acknowledged as among the best in the Nation. The U.S. News and World Report ranked us the best in the 

west for two years in a row in the baccalaureate degree category. 

We were recently recommended for a maximum national accreditation of 10 years by the Higher Learning Commission and our 

graduates continue to earn numerous national competitive scholarships and today 52 percent of the general officers in our Air Force 

are Air Force Academy graduates. 

Our faculty and staff are exceptionally well-qualified and wellprepared. We have a teaching staff of 525 of about 30 percent 

which are civilian faculty. Over 50 percent of our faculty members 

hold Ph.D.’s or terminal degrees in their field. 

Our faculty also includes 6 endowed chairs, 7 distinguished visiting professors, 8 international officers and 12 sister exchange officers. We also have interagency scholars and residents from the 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency 

(NSA), Department of Homeland Security and the State Department. 

Maintaining a high caliber of personnel presents many challenges, particularly in attracting and maintaining the right mix of 

military faculty due to the competition with the operational needs 

of our Air Force. 

In particular, shortages of rated officers, scientists and engineers 

across the Air Force make it harder for us to keep these specialties 

at desired levels. Another challenge is just the sheer workload in 

delivering our diverse curriculum. A recent manpower study validated the need for us to increase the faculty and staff by 21 percent 

to meet our current mission requirements. 

However, because it is unlikely that we will obtain the required 

funding, we anticipate this manning shortfall will continue. 

Our academic curriculum comprises 147 semester-hours of instruction with a balanced coverage of social sciences, humanities, 

basic sciences, and engineering. Several courses from the academic 

core curriculum focus directly on the areas of strategy, military history, irregular warfare, interagency, and multicultural operations 

as well as language and culture and they continually are updated 

to reflect emerging issues and ideas. 

Outside the core curriculum, many classes and courses and programs further develop strategic skills or the special topics that I 

just listed. This year, more than 600 cadets participated in language and cultural immersion programs and military exchanges 

with over 40 countries. Summer training sends cadets to operational Air Force base and sister service training opportunities as 

well. 

We also have cadet-centered research programs in the fields of 

space operations, unmanned aerial systems and computer network 

defense. 

We recognize that while the Air Force Academy is only the start 

of the process in developing the next generation of strategic leaders 

for our Air Force, we provide critical foundation, however, for these 

careers. 
4 

We also believe that as junior leaders in the military, our graduates must be able to translate the big ideas of leaders into operational reality. Thus, we must develop the necessary competencies 

as early as possible in an officer’s career. 

We are proud of our team effort at the Air Force Academy to provide a nation with the best and brightest new officers and leaders 

of character with the knowledge, skills, and responsibilities to lead 

our future Air Force. 

We thank you very much for this opportunity to share our programs and our ideas with you today. We share your vision, focus, 

passion for orienting our program towards the joint, interagency, 

coalition national security environment of the 21st century with the 

curriculum course of instruction and rigor to achieve Congressman 

Skelton and this committee’s vision. 

I look forward to answering your questions as we explore this 

issue further. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Born can be found in the Appendix on page 46.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, General. 

General Finnegan. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG. GEN. PATRICK FINNEGAN, USA, DEAN 

OF THE ACADEMIC BOARD, U.S. MILITARY ACADEMY 

General FINNEGAN. Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, good 

afternoon. 

I am Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan, Dean of the Academic 

Board at the United States Military Academy at West Point. I 

graduated from West Point in 1971 and served around the world 

for 27 years as an infantry officer and as a military intelligence officer and finally as a judge advocate, including in 3 joint assignments before returning to my alma mater in 1998 as the staff judge 

advocate. 

One year later, I became the professor and head of the department of law, where I served for six years before being selected as 

the dean, a position I have been privileged to hold for the last four 

years. 

On behalf of our superintendant, Lieutenant General Buster 

Hagenbeck, and our commandant, Brigadier General Mike 

Linnington, and our entire staff and faculty, we appreciate the opportunity to share with this subcommittee how West Point, the 

country’s premier leader development institution, continues to 

produce smart, highly-adaptive leaders of character who are capable of succeeding in today’s increasingly complex and difficult operational environments. 

We are incredibly proud of our institution and the many achievements of our staff, faculty, and graduates, but we also recognize 

the importance of continual reassessment and honest feedback. To 

that end, we appreciate this subcommittee’s efforts in helping our 

program to evolve in ways that best meet the changing needs of 

our Army and our Nation. 

The 47-month West Point experience begins and ends with our 

mission: to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that 

each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to 

the values of duty, honor, country, and prepared for a career of pro-
5 

fessional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the 

United States Army. 

A way to capture what we try to do comes from one of my favorite quotes attributed to the Greek historian Thucydides: ‘‘The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its 

warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting 

done by fools.’’ 

We are producing—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me interrupt. I think that was Sir Francis 

Butler that said that. 

General FINNEGAN. Yes, sir. 

General BORN. William Francis Butler. 

General FINNEGAN. Sir, yes, sir. Although, if you Google it, sir, 

it does say Thucydides, which is interesting. [Laughter.] 

We are producing scholar-warriors who are comfortable facing 

both the tactical and intellectual challenges our leaders face in the 

current environment. The richness and breadth of the West Point 

education combines world-class academics with a rigorous military, 

physical, moral, and ethical program. 

We introduce cadets to a broad range of subjects while familiarizing them with the experiences that ultimately prepare them to 

successfully engage a diverse set of issues throughout their military careers. 

Our program is repeatedly recognized, both nationally and internationally, as a top-tier college and preeminent leader development 

institution. We are currently ranked as the best public college in 

America by Forbes.com and the best public liberal arts college by 

U.S. News and World Report. 

Over the past year, West Point cadets earned an extraordinary 

number of national scholarships from Rhodes and Truman to 10 

Rotary International scholarships, and beyond the Academy, West 

Point graduates continually replicate this kind of success. 

Our academic program includes 45 majors. Our graduates complete 30 core courses in an average of 147 semester-hours worth of 

course work. Those courses provide cadets with extensive coverage 

across the spectrum of disciplines such as mathematics and natural 

science, engineering, history, literature, foreign languages, behavioral science, geography and military science. 

We have taken a leading role in promoting opportunities to foster 

cross-cultural and language competencies in our cadets by offering 

instruction in eight languages, including the most recent Farsi, and 

sponsoring an active semester abroad exchange program involving 

150 cadets each year. 

The core of our success as a top-tier college lies not only in the 

diversity of curriculum but in the cadets’ access to an equally diverse blend of faculty. We believe that our mix of civilian faculty, 

rotating military, and permanent military faculty provides an outstanding education as well as role models and mentors of professionalism and the values we adhere to as an institution and an 

Army. 

Our faculty members, both civilian and military, work to foster 

close relationships with the Army and other organizations that are 

tied to current operations, priorities, and analytical needs. We find 

these interactions not only bolster the currency and relevancy of 
6 

our faculty but also help to better focus our curriculum in light of 

the ever-changing demands our graduates will eventually face. 

We currently have faculty members from the Department of 

State, CIA, NSA, the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) 

and the Geographical Information Service. 

When it comes to developing strategic thinkers, West Point is invested in how cadets learn to become independent thinkers. The 

strategic particulars they face in the future will come with time 

and experience. Learning how to think about the moral and ethical 

challenges of the current operational environment are foundational 

skills that we most highly value. 

In the final analysis, the number of Rhodes Scholars or national 

rankings by outside organizations do not matter nearly as much as 

what our graduates accomplish in defense of our Nation. The best 

measure of our success is the performance of our graduates and 

what they are trained and educated to do. 

And from Second Lieutenant Brian Jackson, class of 2005, who 

earned the Distinguished Service Medal, to Generals Odierno, 

McChrystal, and Petraeus, to the more than 60 graduates, men and 

women, who have given their lives in the defense of freedom in the 

current fight, we are confident that we are accomplishing our mission and producing the scholar-warriors our country requires of its 

oldest military academy. 

West Point is proud of the diverse education opportunities and 

leader development effort it affords each graduating class, and our 

efforts to maintain the exceptional quality of the overall West Point 

education. We will continue to adjust our curriculum so that it 

meets the needs of our Nation and the increasingly difficult challenges our graduates will face in their future service. 

Our discussion here today is one of the critical steps in that process. 

Thank you for providing me this opportunity to share our perspective with you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Finnegan can be found in 

the Appendix on page 56.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Captain Klunder. 

STATEMENT OF CAPT. MATTHEW L. KLUNDER, USN, 

COMMANDANT OF MIDSHIPMEN, U.S. NAVAL ACADEMY 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, good afternoon, Chairman Skelton, 

Chairman Snyder, and other distinguished ladies and gentlemen of 

the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. 

I am Captain Matthew Klunder, the 83rd Commandant of the 

United States Naval Academy. And I thank you for the opportunity 

to speak today about the mission of the Naval Academy and, more 

specifically, how we prepare midshipmen to become officers ready 

to meet the demands of a country at war or at peace, and ready 

to face the challenges of an increasingly interdependent and dynamic world both today and in the future. 

The mission of the Naval Academy is to develop midshipmen 

morally, mentally, and physically and to imbue them with the 

highest ideals of duty, honor, and loyalty in order to graduate lead-
7 

ers who are dedicated to a career of Naval service and a potential 

for future development in mind and character to assume the highest responsibility of command, citizenship, and government. 

The essential purpose of the Naval Academy is to grow, shape, 

and motivate junior-officer leaders for the Navy and Marine Corps. 

And the emphasis is in our three primary focus areas, the moral, 

mental, and physical development of our midshipmen. 

All three of our programs are complimentary and fully integrated 

throughout the institution. The Naval Academy combines character 

development, undergraduate education, and professional training 

to provide officers that are selfless, inspirational, proficient, innovative, articulate, adaptable, and professional. 

As we further discuss our Naval Academy graduates, I have been 

asked to comment, among other things, on our curriculum and the 

balance between academic and military requirements. Let me first 

touch on our world-class faculty. 

Our 550-member faculty is an integrated group of officers and civilians in nearly equal numbers. This composition is unique among 

service academies. Currently, officers rotate to the Academy for 

two- to three-year assignments, bringing not only fresh ideas and 

experiences from operational units of Navy and Marine Corps but 

their joint and interagency experiences as well. 

The Academy’s civilian faculty members give continuity to the 

educational program and virtually all have doctoral degrees with 

many of them leading scholars in their fields. The Naval Academy 

academic curriculum develops the intellectual foundation for the 

professional competence essential to leadership in the Naval service. 

In accordance with Secretary of the Navy guidance, we have coupled a strong core technical foundation in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics with studies in humanities, social 

sciences, leadership, professional military training, and character 

development to ensure that every midshipman is well-prepared as 

a junior officer. 

In our division leadership education and development, we provide midshipmen with an integrated and comprehensive program 

in leadership, ethics, character and law and the opportunity to 

study specialized electives in these fields. 

In our division professional development, midshipmen are allowed to develop professionally by immersion into Naval culture, on 

land and at sea, with emphasis on building personal confidence 

through professional mariner skills and warfare community exposure. 

A character development and training division is tasked with the 

development of leadership and character attributes for midshipmen 

outside the normal academic environment. This integrated character and leadership development program is the single most important feature that distinguishes the Naval Academy from other 

educational institutions and other commissioning sources. 

Recent geopolitical developments, beginning with the end of the 

Cold War, but more evident since 9/11, have also highlighted the 

growing need for Naval leaders to acquire greater knowledge about 

the history, culture, civilization, languages, and religions of geographic regions with strategic importance to the United States. 
8 

The Naval Academy has adopted a differentiated approach to 

achieving this goal by one, providing small numbers of midshipmen 

with extensive in-country study abroad programs, two, affording 

larger groups of midshipmen a significant foreign language and 

professional immersion programs and, three, affording all our remaining midshipmen enhanced opportunities to acquire greater 

cultural knowledge through outstanding elective courses and visiting international experts. 

In addition to our longstanding tradition of exchanging cadets 

and midshipmen between the service academies, we also have 53 

international 4-year exchange midshipmen from 28 different nations along with 21 semester exchange midshipmen from several 

foreign military academies enrolled at the Naval Academy, all of 

which contributes significantly to the Brigade’s regional and cultural awareness. 

Allow me today to conclude by referring back to the main focus 

of our Naval Academy mission, to develop midshipmen morally, 

mentally, and physically. The challenge of our mission is to maintain a very delicate balance between the moral, mental, and physical aspects of our curriculum and to ensure that we continue to 

graduate leaders that are prepared to lead sailors and marines immediately upon graduation. 

I observe our midshipmen on a daily basis, and I am convinced 

that we are succeeding and achieving that correct balance for their 

limited time. 

I hope that I was able to provide some insights into our institution’s professional military education and how it touches every aspect of midshipmen development, training, and education at the 

United States Naval Academy. 

On behalf of the students, the faculty, the superintendent, Admiral Fowler, and the staff at the Naval Academy, we thank you for 

your continued support within Congress and your commitment to 

the development of our Navy and Marine Corps future leaders. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Captain Klunder can be found in the 

Appendix on page 63.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Captain. 

We have been joined by Mr. Wittman, and he has asked us to 

proceed with your statements. 

So, Colonel Tanous. 

STATEMENT OF COL. STEVE TANOUS, USAF, COMMANDANT, 

U.S. AIR FORCE SQUADRON OFFICER COLLEGE 

Colonel TANOUS. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman Snyder, Chairman Skelton, Ranking Member Wittman, members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to appear and testify about Squadron Officer College (SOC). I am 

honored to discuss with you the important role the Squadron Officer College plays in the professional development of the Air Force’s 

most important resource, its people. 

Squadron Officer College is located at Maxwell Air Force Base, 

Alabama, as the Air Force’s educational institution committed to 

developing company-grade officers. Squadron Officer College is 

comprised of two schools, the Air and Space Basic Course (ASBC) 
9 

for second lieutenants and Squadron Officer School (SOS) for our 

junior captains. 

The college’s curriculum is based on educational requirements established by a number of sources. Principal among them is the 

Joint Staff’s Officer Professional Military Education Policy, the Air 

Force Institutional Competency List, the Air University Continuum 

of Education, and Strategic Guidance. 

Combined, Squadron Officer College responds to over 140 separate learning requirements with an eye towards achieving its vision 

for the future. That vision is for the college to become the premier 

leadership development institution in the Air Force. 

We are building towards that vision by executing our mission, 

which is to develop company-grade officers as leaders of integrity 

ready to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and cyberspace. 

The college achieves mission success through its two schools and 

the numerous educational initiatives underway, and I will describe 

each of those briefly. 

The Air and Space Basic Course is the newer of the two schools, 

launched just a decade ago. It is a 6-week resident program that 

is conducted 10 times a year. Two weeks of the course provide 

hands-on instruction in skills specifically related to operations in 

an expeditionary environment. 

Specially qualified, enlisted and officers train the students who 

then execute what they have learned at two simulated deployment 

locations. One, a small tent city on the base, another at a 200-plusacre remote site located about 30 miles from Maxwell. 

In addition, students spend a week building a working knowledge of officer-enlisted relationships through interaction with students from our Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy. They 

also receive three weeks of classroom instruction in the profession 

of arms and Air Force doctrine. 

The Air Force goal is 100 percent attendance of its line of the Air 

Force officers to attend the school. Between 3,200 and 3,500 Air 

Force active-duty, reserve and National Guard officers attend the 

school each year. The Air and Space Basic Course graduated its 

30,000th student last month. 

The school represents the Air Force’s investment in today’s junior 

officers who will become tomorrow’s air, space, and cyberspace 

power leaders. The Air and Space Basic Course is a crucial first 

step in the professional military education of Air Force officers. 

The next step in that professional development is the college’s 

second educational program, Squadron Officer School. Squadron 

Officer School is unquestionably a leadership school. The resident 

program is five weeks long and employs a wide variety of academic 

and experiential offerings. 

A typical class consists of some 420 Air Force active-duty, Guard 

and reserve officers as well as a handful of rank-equivalent Air 

Force civilians. In addition, three of the seven classes each year 

host some 40 international officers from partner nations that enroll 

their captain-equivalents in the course. 

The students also benefit significantly from interaction with others who have different specialties, experiences, and perspectives. 

Relationships that result are a major positive consequence of the 

program. 
10 

The Air Force goal is for 80 percent of the line of the Air Force 

officers to attend Squadron Officer School, and a distance learning 

version is available for those unable to attend in residence. Squadron Officer School is an innovator in professional military education and is key to the college realizing its vision as a leadership 

center of excellence. 

This year, we began an effort to enhance its curriculum. Its efforts sparked interest from its academic counterparts across the 

country, including the University of Texas and Michigan State and 

Kansas State Universities. 

An Air Force officer will remain at the company-grade level for 

roughly nine years. In recognition of today’s complex national security environment, the Air Force is committed to additional development opportunities in order to match the increasing responsibilities 

and challenges they will face during that period. 

As a result, the college has designed five targeted voluntary developmental distance learning offerings collectively known as the 

Company Grade Officer Leadership Program. The first course was 

offered in March of 2009 and the rest will launch later this year. 

With an annual faculty turnover rate of roughly 1/3, the college 

must also make a robust investment in its faculty education and 

training in order to achieve the high standards it has set for instruction. We have designed a robust faculty development program 

that spans recruitment, orientation, initial training, and in-service 

sessions throughout a faculty member’s tenure. Combined, these efforts produce our top-notch faculty. 

Squadron Officer College has a critical mission. It is solely responsible for the professional development of the entire Air Force 

company-grade officer corps. We are accomplishing our mission 

through an array of programs and initiatives that ensure rewarding developmental experiences for our students. 

I am justifiably proud of my people. Their drive and innovation 

underscore their commitment to the college’s mission and to their 

students. The students’ comments say it all. Squadron Officer College is on the right path to reach its goal of becoming the Air 

Force’s premier leadership development institution. 

I thank you again for the opportunity to testify and talk about 

Squadron Officer College and welcome your comments and questions. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Tanous can be found in the 

Appendix on page 75.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Colonel Beaudreault. 

STATEMENT OF COL. BRIAN D. BEAUDREAULT, USMC, DIRECTOR, U.S. MARINE CORPS EXPEDITIONARY WARFARE 

SCHOOL 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Good afternoon Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, Ranking Member Wittman, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. 

I greatly appreciate this opportunity to address the subcommittee in order to discuss the accomplishments of your Marine 

Corps Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS) located at Quantico, 

Virginia. 
11 

Since 1921, the Marine Corps resident career-level education and 

training program has consistently adapted, anticipated, and effectively prepared its graduates to meet the complex challenges of the 

operating environments to which they were dispatched. 

Today’s Expeditionary Warfare School is the product of a 2002 

merger between two Quantico-based career-level courses, the Amphibious Warfare School (AWS) and the Command and Control 

Systems Course (C2SC). That brilliant merger extracted the best of 

both courses; the command and control emphasis, or the C2 Systems Course, and the detailed instruction on expeditionary operations taught at Amphibious Warfare School. 

EWS’s 91⁄2-month curriculum provides Marine, sister service and 

international captains career-level professional military education 

in command and control, planning, Naval expeditionary operations, 

employment of the Marine Air-Ground Task Force (MAGTF) 

ashore, operational culture, professional communications, leadership and ethics, and 8 weeks of hands-on occupational field expansion training. 

Throughout the curriculum, an emphasis is placed on decisionmaking, the employment of combined arms, and maneuver warfare 

doctrine. The curriculum contains approximately 80 percent academic education and 20 percent dedicated to training. 

The Marine Corps University (MCU) provides oversight of the 

curriculum through its curriculum review board process. 

EWS challenges the students to think critically. In fact, it is the 

first academic class on day one. The curriculum provides them with 

a firm doctrinal foundation augmented with outside readings, guest 

speakers, the exchange of experiences, and reinforced with extensive practical application and planning exercises. 

The program outcomes for EWS include the ability for a graduate 

to clearly express ideas in a well-reasoned manner that stems from 

a disciplined thought process. They will be able to integrate the capabilities of each of the four elements of the Marine Air-Ground 

Task Force, plan and execute Naval Expeditionary operations, integrate the six warfighting functions with consideration to the principles of war, maneuver warfare doctrine, and cultural factors. 

They will be prepared to command a company or operate as a 

technically proficient staff officer within their element of the 

MAGTF. They will know how to lead subordinates within a framework of ethical values. 

At a fundamental level, they will understand joint operations; coalition operations; the formation, organization, and purposes of a 

joint task force; and coordination with interagency and nongovernmental organizations. 

The EWS faculty consists of 15 faculty advisors in the grade of 

major and three division heads in the grade of lieutenant colonel 

or commander. One hundred percent of the faculty advisors and division heads are highly experienced combat veterans with great appropriate command and staff experience. Seven hold master’s degrees from command and staff colleges while two more hold master’s degrees from civilian universities. 

An EWS instructor position is considered a premier and 

upwardly mobile billet for a Marine Corps major with many generals having once served on the faculty and staff. The Marine 
12 

Corps University faculty supports EWS with academic chairs, 

scholars, and subject matter experts in the fields of culture, the 

Middle East, insurgency, terrorism, intelligence, leadership and 

ethics, historical case studies, interagency coordination, and our 

own faculty education. 

Two hundred and forty-two officers will attend the resident EWS 

program in academic year 2010, which includes 190 marines, 22 

soldiers, 6 airmen, 2 sailors and 22 international officers from 21 

countries. Two hundred and thirty-seven officers graduated in May 

2009, 191 of them, including our international officers, were Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) 

combat veterans. 

I anticipate that the student body for next month’s incoming 

class will be similarly experienced. 

EWS has a very powerful curriculum that for career-level officers 

is unique in the Department of Defense. A common misperception 

is that EWS is a school for captains. In reality, EWS is a school 

with a student body of captains who are preparing to be majors 

and beyond. 

As the first step in the Marine Corps University’s PME continuum, EWS provides a solid foundation for the intellectual and 

professional growth of our officers. Your Expeditionary Warfare 

School is a national treasure, one whose modest budgetary requirements provide the Nation an exponential return through the increased effectiveness of the career-level leaders that serve in our 

armed forces. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for a chance to speak with you today. 

I welcome the subcommittee’s questions. Semper Fidelis. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Beaudreault can be found in 

the Appendix on page 84.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all. 

Before we begin our questioning, Mr. Wittman, I wanted to give 

you a chance for any opening comments that you want to make. We 

saw you on the floor of the House through C–SPAN so you looked 

very sharp—but, go ahead. Any opening comments you want to—— 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Listen, in the interest of time, I would ask unanimous consent 

that my opening remarks be entered into the record for the committee. 

Dr. SNYDER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 43.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Skelton can only be with us a short time. I recognize him for as long as he likes for any questions he may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this opportunity. Unfortunately, I have a conflict. My questions would go on and on and on if I had the opportunity, but let 

me just limit myself to just a few, if I may. 
13 

My staff tells me that after six years of being a graduate of the 

primary institutions, the three, the Air Force, the Navy, the Army, 

undergraduate institutions, about 50 percent bail out and leave the 

military. My staff also tells me that about 70 percent bail out and 

leave the military after 10 years. 

This, of course, disturbs someone who appoints people. And it is 

a rather rigorous process and very competitive for each member of 

Congress who has the privilege of appointing young men and young 

women to your service academies, and those figures cause me concern. 

So I ask you, should I be concerned? And do you have any reaction to those approximate figures? 

General? General Born. 

General BORN. Chairman Skelton, I appreciate the question, and 

in looking at our mission statement, it is really about developing 

leaders of character for service or Air Force and to our Nation, ultimately. 

Our mission statement, in the past, had in it to develop career 

Air Force officers, and that really has not been our focus, although 

during a four-year program, we hope that we will instill within our 

future officers an identity of being an armed forces officer, Air 

Force officer. 

There are several complicating issues, I think, with some of the 

figures, be our economy, our force shaping throughout the years 

within the Air Force and, for us, our attrition figures at the 10-year 

point might be higher, in that over half of our graduates go on to 

pilot training, and there is a 10-year commitment, whereas those 

who are going into other fields, it is a 5-year commitment. So you 

will see some variation there. 

Ultimately, we would hope that service in the Air Force, it—they 

would get hooked on the mission and hooked on the people and obviously we would love everyone to stay for a full career, but that 

is not part of our current mission statement, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. General Finnegan. 

General FINNEGAN. Chairman Skelton, I think you should be concerned about it. We are concerned about it, as well, and it is an 

issue for us, for the retention of our graduates. We have about a 

50 percent retention rate at the 6-year mark, as you said. 

Part of that is for the operational tempo of the Army, currently. 

When you have a graduate who deploys three or four times in that 

six-year period, it is sometimes difficult to convince them that they 

should stay when they are leaving their family behind all that 

time. 

One of the things that we have looked at and implemented a program in the last several years to work on this issue of retention 

beyond the five- or six-year mark is also related to things that this 

subcommittee is looking at, and that is the, what we call our grad 

school program. 

As you probably know, all the graduates of the Military Academy 

incur a five-year active-duty service obligation and a three-year reserve commitment. If they are willing, at the time of graduation or 

just before graduation, to instead sign up for eight years of active 

duty rather than five and three, we will guarantee them graduate 

school at a graduate school of their choosing. 
14 

Then they will go to graduate school and incur an additional 

commitment to the Army which will take them past the 12- or 13- 

year mark. We have done this program for the last three years, 

and between that and signing up for a specific branch of the Army, 

you can do the same thing, three years additional active duty if you 

sign up for infantry, for example, if you want that branch. We have 

more than 33 percent of every graduating class has signed up for 

those options. 

So we anticipate, as we look to the future, that those retention 

figures are going to improve dramatically. 

The CHAIRMAN. Captain. 

Captain KLUNDER. Mr. Chairman Skelton, I have similar dilemmas in terms of pipeline and training wickets that we meet, just 

as General Born described to you in the Navy and specifically, like 

in Naval aviation for training, but I will offer this. 

The encouraging spirit that I see in our most recent classes at 

the Naval Academy and the young people that are committed to 

serving their Nation, I do feel that if we can capture that and indeed try to instill that continued inspiration in their hearts to 

serve their country in the future years, I think we have some fertile ground here to plow. 

Something that we have taken on at the Naval Academy recently, as General Finnegan mentioned at West Point, our strategic 

imperative—I can’t speak for the entire Navy—but what we are 

trying to do is go back to our alumni in the fleet, assess what it 

is that exactly, at that critical time in their milestone career, what 

is driving them out or keeping them in. 

We have seen in our recent discussions with the bureau that we 

have a lot of people that do want to stay in. I can’t say that we 

are going to see that bow wave change dramatically, but we do see 

encouraging statistics. I won’t speak for them because I just keep 

inside the Naval Academy line, but we are comforted in talking to 

our alumni. More than not, now, we are seeing them wanting to 

stay in the Navy. 

The CHAIRMAN. We did some considerable investigation hearings 

a number of years ago trying to identify the need for jointness, but 

also the need for strategic thinkers within the military. 

And not too long before he retired, I had the opportunity to talk 

with General Peter Pace, and I asked him in the average class that 

graduates from the National War College, and most would be lieutenant colonels and colonels, how many could actually sit down and 

have an intelligent conversation with the late George C. Marshall? 

And he said three or four. 

And that is really pretty good. All of them would understand 

strategic thinking, but if you have three or four that are on the cutting edge, I think that is pretty good. 

Now, flash backwards to the young lieutenants and ensigns that 

you produce in your schools, and I realize that is early in one’s career. But can you put your finger on those that just might be a 

strategic thinker and be a potential leader in that area? And, if so, 

how would you recommend to your service to take care of that person and to guide their career so that that ability would be enhanced? 

General Born. 
15 

General BORN. Chairman Skelton, another great question, sir. 

The program that the service academies have, fundamentally, 

are based upon a core curriculum that is balanced between the humanities and social sciences and engineering and basic sciences, 

but just having that foundation of subject matter isn’t enough to 

produce the strategic thinker that could have a conversation. 

What we have tried to do is develop a program that is aligned 

with purposeful, intentional development to meet students where 

they are and to help them reach their highest potential in all areas 

of the program. 

We have established learning outcomes that are in the three 

main areas that I mentioned in my opening statement on knowledge, skills, and responsibilities, and those three main areas are 

followed up with 19 learning outcomes that we have established at 

the institutional level for our entire program. 

Those outcomes are aligned with liberal education outcomes in 

America for citizens as well as the institutional competency list for 

our Air Force. One of those Air Force competencies, and also embedded in the higher education, is strategic thinking. 

And what we have tried to do in the past where a course was 

enough to learn material is to link courses intentionally, developmentally to hold students accountable from one year to the next in 

a developmental fashion and also to provide avenues for those that 

excel. 

One of those examples is our Academy Scholars Program where 

we identify very early, matter of fact, halfway through a four-degree freshman’s period of—somebody who is an outstanding performer, and we put them through more of a St. John’s accelerated, 

more of a seminar-based core sequence, and they are with some of 

our most senior scholars. They have other opportunities that go 

with that with participating in Aspen Institute, and Developmental 

Model League Nation opportunities. 

But we have a dedicated faculty of professionals who pick out 

people, not just in the academic arena, but those that will be leaders in their squadron area who become some of our group commanders and wing commander levels or in our athletic arena who 

rise to be the captains of their teams and then also become NCAA 

All-American academic scholars or athletes. 

And we also identify those to go to special developmental programs. One of those, for example, is a commander-leader enrichment seminar which is an advanced leadership development opportunity for our cadet leaders as well as our team captains. 

So, to answer your question, it is more intentional and developmental to help students connect the dots to have more deep learning and effective learning for a very complex, volatile, dangerous 

technical environment that they are graduating into in the 21st 

century. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

General Finnegan. 

General FINNEGAN. Chairman Skelton, I am not sure we can 

identify strategic thinkers at our level, but we can certainly identify good thinkers and even great thinkers who can solve problems. 

And that is really what we are trying to do is create young men 

and women who can solve problems that they haven’t seen before. 
16 

We are not trying to teach them what to think but how to think. 

And that, of course is the germ for eventual strategic thinking, to 

face problems that you haven’t seen before and figure out ways to 

get to the solution. 

We have many of the similar programs that General Born described. We have identified scholarship candidates early on. We 

identify them and channel them into particular programs, into particular seminars. 

We also have an extensive summer program in internships, 600 

within the United States at various agencies, including with offices 

and members of Congress and 600 overseas. And we will take some 

of those high-performing cadets and specifically select them for 

those programs to develop their intellectual capability and to help 

them in the classroom. 

I think you have touched on one of the issues that is sort of beyond what we can do. And that is once we have identified these 

high-achieving young people who have done very well at the academies and maybe been scholarship recipients or been in an Academy Scholars program, what happens to them out in the force? 

Because they then go in the Army circumstances, of course, the 

normal path and probably the required path and the right path is 

to go be a platoon leader and a company commander and do the 

kinds of things that they need to do in the Army. 

We have to find a way to keep them connected to their intellectual development, as well, at the same time. That is something 

that the Army must grapple with in addition to us. 

The CHAIRMAN. Captain. 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, Chairman Skelton. 

We have felt very strongly about not only just strategic thinking 

but strategic awareness, and what I will offer is that all of our midshipmen need to be absorbed and have the opportunities to take on 

the awareness, not only in a professional manner, but in a 

globalization kind of manner, internationally speaking. 

We want to provide that to all of them. 

Now, once we have done that, it is our challenge—and I know 

General Finnegan just alluded to it a little bit—we are very proud 

of our scholarship and graduate education for midshipmen, as they 

graduate and become ensigns and second lieutenants. 

The challenge for us—and I have talked about this with the Bureau of Personnel—we want to ensure that we are mentoring them 

closely during that graduate education process to ensure that, 

when they are done and they have attained all the accomplishments and strategic thinking they can absorb and use in their professional careers, we want to, as quickly as possible, and in an efficient and effective way, get them into their other major training 

pipelines so we don’t lose any time with them to keep them 

upwardly mobile. 

That has been something in the past—I don’t know what the 

other services, how they experienced—but that is a challenge for us 

and we have taken that on. We are going to closely monitor those 

upwardly-mobile strategic thinkers that we have identified in the 

graduate education program to ensure they are successful throughout their careers. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 
17 

My very last is a request of you. Some six years ago, I put together a recommended reading list for military officers and for 

members of the Congress, and it was well-received over here at the 

National War College. 

Just a few days ago, I compiled a recommended book list number 

two and I will ask the staff at a later moment to give you my list, 

and if you have a few moments, let me know that you would critique my list for me—if each of the five of you, I would really appreciate it and tell me good, bad or indifferent thereon. [Laughter.] 

I appreciate your testimony and I apologize. I must go and, Mr. 

Chairman, thank you so much. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for all 

the work that you have done throughout your career on these topics. 

Mr. Wittman and I will begin our questions, and we will use the 

5-minute clock. 

Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And we will just go back and forth for 5 minutes. Go ahead and 

start the clock. 

General Born, you kind of are in the hot seat right there just because you are at the end, so we start with you, but let me go a different way. Let me ask a general question first, and I will come 

back later to a specific question for each institution. 

What avenues are there for you all or whoever makes decisions 

about your student body, your curriculum, how you are doing, what 

opportunities are for your institutions to hear from the combatant 

commanders about how your folks are performing, you know, based 

on what they learned at your institution? 

I think, Colonel Beaudreault, we will start with you. 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Mr. Chairman, the student body is basically initially screened by the monitors, the occupational field sponsors, on looking through the records of everybody that is eligible. 

There is then a selection board meets to pick those best qualified 

to come to the school. 

Most of the captains, when they arrive, have anywhere between 

five and seven years experience, so it is limited observation. Some 

of it will be their performance at the basic school as a lieutenant, 

and then their performance in the operating force is as a platoon 

commander, company executive officer, young pilot, things of that 

nature. 

So it is a selection board process. Did I answer the specific question? 

Dr. SNYDER. No, but my question is so they go through that process—— 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Sir. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. They go to their next duty assignment. 

What process do you all have for hearing from the combatant commanders about how your folks performed against those people who 

did not go through the kind of training that you all provide? 

I mean, you think, and I agree, that you add value to these remarkable young men and women. Do the combatant commanders 

agree with you? What process do you have for evaluating, I mean, 

if they can’t see any difference, then why waste their time and our 

money on doing it? 
18 

So my question is, what formal process do you have, if any—and 

you may not have any—for hearing from the combatant commanders, the users of your product, in a very crude way, about 

whether you all are giving them something that is helpful to them 

or not as far as personnel? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Yes, sir. It is personal visits by the director of the school, such as myself, and it is a survey process that 

goes out to the commanders for their input on those that recently 

graduated. And then we also send a survey to those that graduated 

from the course to see what deficiencies we may have in the program and did it best equip them to go out and assume that position 

as a staff officer. 

Did we adequately prepare them to be company commanders? 

So, it is really a survey process is the formal method. Informal 

method is the director getting out and about, talking to the battalion commanders and the regimental commanders, Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) commanders, et cetera, on the performance 

specifically of those that graduated from the resident school. 

The baseline course, as mentioned by Colonel Tanous, is a nonresident program and certainly the resident course brings a bunch 

of enhancements that aren’t available to a nonresident student. 

And I think that is the major difference. 

There are EWS graduates from a nonresident program that are 

parts of battalions and squadrons, et cetera. But, specifically, we 

are after what can we do in-house at the resident course that is 

going to turn out that better product, and it is done through that 

survey and personal visits. 

Dr. SNYDER. So, I don’t mean to put you on the spot since, but 

since poor General Born has been on the spot all day. So somewhere—you said surveys—so somewhere, do you have a series of 

surveys signed by Admiral Olson from special ops command? 

You were in his position the last couple years as the combatant 

commander or the previous four years as the deputy that says we 

have looked at the people you have sent us and we find them lacking. We find them superlative. 

You have mentioned battalion commanders, I am talking about 

the combatant commanders (COCOMs). 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. No, sir, not to the four-star level combatant commanders. Our survey process really ends at the O–6 level. 

Dr. SNYDER. At the O–6 level. 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Tanous. 

Colonel TANOUS. Chairman, our formal institutional effectiveness 

process is directed at both the student and the student supervisor. 

So, to directly answer your question, no, we don’t have direct feedback from the COCOMs themselves saying this is how well our students are doing in the field once they graduate from Air and Space 

Basic or SOS. 

So, the bottom line is we go back, normally, after a year and say, 

okay, the year has gone by. Tell us, students, what do you think 

of the education that you got from the school. Did it add value to 

your contribution at the unit, and then go do the same thing with 

the supervisor. 
19 

And we have got a series of questions that we ask them that essentially say, hey, they have been through Squadron Officer School. 

Did they get what they were supposed to get out of it? And then 

we take that feedback and we roll it back in to our curriculum development process. 

Dr. SNYDER. Captain Klunder. 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, Chairman Snyder. We specifically use 

our OPNAV staff and our Chief of Naval Personnel (CNP) as our 

conduit to let them evaluate are we sending the right type of ensigns and second lieutenants out into the fleet and to support the 

COCOMs. 

So, there is a formal requirements process and we serve to that 

need. 

That being said, I will offer that, in not necessarily a survey kind 

of format, but in actually demand signal kind of format, we have 

had the COCOM’s come to us in an undergraduate level and say 

we would like to offer these kind of internships to the Naval Academy to give them increased awareness and an early jumpstart on 

the kind of political-military situations they might encounter. 

I will give you the perfect example. The Joint Task Force—Horn 

of Africa (JTF–HOA) down in Djibouti last summer came to us and 

said we have a great idea we would like to offer you for 12 to 20 

midshipmen. Would you like them to come down for a summer internship. We said you bet. Can we make it work? You bet. And, as 

it turned out in the end, they had a great experience. We are doing 

that again this summer. 

I also offer to you that in other, kind of, summer training, we 

have had people go to internships in Africa Command (AFRICOM), 

Southern Command (SOUTHCOM). 

Again, they are not asking are we meeting the—scratching the 

itch they require right now of our young, undergraduate level, but, 

as a minimum, they have come to us and said we have a demand 

signal to give this kind of undergraduate awareness, cultural 

awareness, geographic, geopolitical awareness, and we are providing that, and we think that is a success story. 

As for meeting the requirements from the COCOM specifically, 

Admiral Stavridis, Admiral Keating, when they talk to OPNAV 

staff or CNP, we feel that we are meeting that need, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Finnegan. 

General FINNEGAN. Sir, I guess my answer combines probably 

Captain Klunder’s and Colonel Tanous’s. We have a system where 

we assess both at the battalion commander level and at the graduate level after two years and after five years. 

We also work very much with the combatant commands, although we don’t specifically ask the combatant commanders are 

our folks meeting your needs. It is more in the reverse. We have 

cadets who go to Central Command (CENTCOM). We have several 

cadets who are in CENTCOM this summer. We have 18 who are 

in Africa this summer who are doing internships with that command. 

We have a continual relationship with the Southern Command 

and have sent a number of cadets down there during the summers 

and their folks come up on our project days, some of their both al-
20 

lied officers and officers from Southern Command come up and 

evaluate the projects that we have done. 

In addition, we traveled to some of those commands, particularly 

Central Command. Last summer, the superintendent and I both 

traveled to Afghanistan and talked to General McKiernan over 

there. This summer, General Hagenbeck, the superintendent, traveled to Iraq, talked to General Petraeus, General Odierno, and the 

other commanders over there to get their assessment of our graduates. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Born. 

It is nice to be number five sometimes. [Laughter.] 

General BORN. Chairman Snyder, I thank you very much for 

being the last. [Laughter.] 

And I will pick up on the theme that emerged and that is one 

of both informal as well as formal feedback, but probably more that 

we can do directly with the combatant commanders. 

Informally, we do get a lot of feedback and we currently, this 

summer, had 100 of our cadets over in the CENTCOM arena. We 

have had 70 of our faculty deploy, mostly to Iraq and Afghanistan, 

over the last year. And so there is a lot of conversation in terms 

of, you know, how are our graduates doing? 

I also had the opportunity to travel to Afghanistan twice in the 

last year, once with the superintendent from West Point, and we 

met with our graduates while we were over there and got a sense 

from their perspective on how well prepared they were for the mission that they are facing there. 

But we also have some formal assessment of our graduates at 

the four-year point where we go out through our Air Force Personnel Center to assess all of our new accessions in the first four 

years of service as well as their supervisors slash commanders. 

And the assessment is aligned with some of the institutional 

competencies, one of them being strategic thinking, that we talked 

about earlier. And we probably could look at that data, not just in 

terms of a breakdown of Air Force Academy graduates, Officer 

Training School (OTS) and Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

(ROTC), but also ratings that came out of the combatant commands as well as our own major commands. 

We are in the process right now of assessing our 2008 data. We 

do it about every three to four years. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank all of the members of the panel for joining us 

today, taking time out of your busy schedules. 

I want to kind of drill down a little bit on the chairman’s questions. He was asking about how you go about the evaluation process on your graduates and how that opportunity and that experience is serving them and serving the branches. 

We all know the experiences there are unique, whether it is 

there at the service academies, whether it is—they are at the Expeditionary Warfare School, the Squadron Officer School—all very 

unique experiences, bring a lot of things to the table, a lot of value 

to the table. 

I want to try to understand a little bit about how all of that gets 

integrated. If you take the DOD requirements that you have, the 
21 

service and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) requirements, how do 

you integrate that into the pre-commissioning experience, and then 

also how do you take the lessons learned in current conflicts and 

integrate that in? 

So, you are taking those requirements, the real-world efforts 

there and current conflicts. How do you integrate all of that to 

make sure that those requirements and lessons learned get incorporated into the educational experience and the efforts to develop 

our junior officers? 

So, this is kind of, I guess, at a level before the evaluation. It 

is sort of building that to the point, and then, obviously, you talked 

a little bit about the evaluation point. I wanted to understand, you 

know, how you build that, both on requirements and on taking experiences being learned in current conflicts and integrating those 

together for your education and development of your junior officers. 

And we will start, now, in the middle of the table. 

So, Captain Klunder, we will start with you, and then we will go 

around. [Laughter.] 

Captain KLUNDER. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Captain KLUNDER. We have struck a chord here in that we have 

seen that, also—a challenge always to assess yourself and assess 

what the COCOM’s and specifically our Navy and Marine Corps 

leaders want for requirements in their undergraduates. 

That being said, we have had a very effective Academy Effectiveness Board. We use that on an—well, annually it assesses, but it 

is the actually meeting every month at our Naval Academy to assess our curriculum and then provide modifications to the curriculum as needed. 

The most dramatic change recently was in—excuse me, two-anda-half years ago, it was in 2006, when we actually created a little 

additional white space in our curriculum. We reduced the number 

of credit hours by three so we could provide more flexibility in electives to respond to those type of emerging threats and situations 

we might like to highlight for our midshipmen. 

There is also an aspect, again, because we report to OPNAV and 

specifically to the Chief of Naval Personnel. We are having just 

next week—the timeliness of this question is perfect—we are having our education curriculum review with all our graduate and undergraduate institutions next week for the Navy. 

We will meet. We have priorities we establish with them and determine what type of curriculum modifications we might like to 

make. So, again, we are getting ready to do that here in the next 

week and my dean with me have already been talking about our 

priorities. 

Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Colonel Tanous. 

Colonel TANOUS. Sir, that is a very well-timed question, as it 

turns out, for Squadron Officer College. 

We just completed an entire review of our curriculum here back 

at the beginning of April and started instituting changes as a result of that at the beginning of May. And what we have done is 
22 

gone back and looked at all those higher headquarters requirements that I referred to in my opening remarks. 

But we also have the opportunity to roll in the experiences of our 

instructors, as well. Because we are short courses, one of the 

unique things that we can do, I think, is focus on what the students and the instructors bring to the flight rooms. 

And the construct that we have got allows us to focus on the 

learning requirements that we know what it is that we are trying 

to accomplish in each element of the class, but then the instructors 

bring their experiences to bear as well, and when we have got 12 

to 14 members in each of the flights, especially for Squadron Officer School. 

What we have got there is four- to seven-year captains who, a 

lot of times, have been deployed once or twice and they have got 

that to bring to the discussion as well. 

And one of the things that we have done is moved away from the 

set piece PowerPoint presentations where here is the learning objective. And you just kind of pound through the charts and maybe 

a little guided discussion at the end and call it a day, to really open 

it up to where we going more into the case-study mode of operation, the guided discussions where the discussions really are led 

by the flight commander but we leverage the experiences of the 

students in there. 

And, to the same extent, even though we don’t have that experience base in the Air and Space Basic Course, again, we start with 

the requirements, but we weave in the experiences of our instructors. 

So, we have got most of our military instructors are coming in 

after at least a tour or maybe two. A lot of them have deployed. 

We recently hired 15 expeditionary skills instructors to do that expeditionary training piece. 

Now, almost all of them have been deployed and have some very 

unique experiences to share. So, half of what goes on in the field 

is just that interchange so that we can roll in those firsthand accounts of what is going on in the field with the requirements that 

are levied on us. So we have got kind of a tapestry going on. 

In a short course, it lends itself to some flexibility from that 

standpoint. We have built, instead of just a chock-a-block schedule, 

more of a weave over the five or six weeks of each course to make 

sure that we are meeting our levied requirements, but also 

leveraging that real-world experience. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thanks. 

Colonel Beaudreault. 

Excuse me. [Laughter.] 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Congressman Wittman, as a tactical-level 

school that touches on the operational, we are very much responsive to the needs of the operating forces and it goes into Chairman 

Snyder’s earlier question that the feedback we receive from the operating forces on whether we are hitting all the points that we 

need to at the courses is really driven by the demands there. 

How do we respond to that? 

We have a current operating environment module that takes 

place every spring. The beauty of Quantico is the co-location of our 

school with Marine Corps University, with the Center for Advanced 
23 

Operational Culture as well as the Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned is headquartered out of there. 

The immediate feedback from the Lessons Learned Center as 

well as information that may be flowing from Helmand Province or 

still in Anbar Province will get worked in to the current operating 

environment module to make sure that we are teaching relevant 

information that is going to arm and equip them as soon as they 

walk out the door in May. 

Certainly, the Commandant’s guidance gets fed in to our content 

review, which goes annually at the end of the academic year, and 

at the end of—we have five major modules of instruction—at the 

end of each module, there is a curriculum review that takes place 

as is there a comprehensive curriculum at the end of the year that 

gets, again, approved by Marine Corps University for any major 

changes in curriculum. 

Combat performance, sir, in sum, is the number one driver of 

whether Expeditionary Warfare School is hitting the mark or not 

on what we produce. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Thank you, Colonel Beaudreault. 

General Born. 

General BORN. Thank you, Member Wittman. 

Our process that I talked about earlier is moving towards aligning with how do we best meet the needs of our Air Force. And, 

again, I mentioned the institutional competency list and also to receive a bachelor of science degree with a liberal education foundation, what kind of skills, knowledge, responsibility should our graduates have? 

From a very macro perspective, what we are trying to embrace 

in an effective, efficient way is a learning-focused culture, learning 

organization, which starts first with what is it that we are trying 

to achieve, and then how do we go about, what kind of program or 

lesson do we go about to embed that learning outcome? 

Then, how do we assess? Is the student getting it? Is our program delivering, and then feedback that to the system in order to 

adjust that learning activity or to adjust the program objectives 

overall. 

So, from a multiple-level perspective, I will answer at our institution we also have an institutional effectiveness program that will 

look at whether or not we are achieving that loop and closing that 

loop. We, fortunately, just received our accreditation, and that is 

what they look at. 

They look at what you say you are about as an organization to 

meet your customers needs, and are you effectively demonstrating 

that you are achieving that. 

So, that is one way, but all the way down to the lesson level, that 

same loop is involved. And so instructors spend a lot of time. And 

when you have 70 who deploy in a year, they bring back that so 

what, how do I embrace a learning activity that is going to achieve 

that strategic thinking or critical thinking outcome? 

Our curriculum process is very similar. We have emerging recommendations on changes to close gaps that come through departments and their individual courses in the core curriculum, but they 

also can come through our junior faculty forum or through our faculty forum. They can also come through from external rec-
24 

ommendations, which we evaluate and, ultimately, must be approved as our program at our Academy Board level. 

Mr. WITTMAN. General Finnegan. 

General FINNEGAN. Congressman Wittman, as at the other academies, our assessment process is continual. We have an Assessment Steering Committee, we have a Curriculum Committee that 

meets regularly during the year to evaluate these things. 

And much of it for us comes from our faculty, both our permanent faculty and our more senior military faculty who deploy. We 

have had more than 300 faculty members deployed since 9/11. In 

fact, right now we have several of our senior faculty members who 

are on General McChrystal’s staff and others who are on General 

Odierno’s staff for 6- to 12-month periods. 

So they will come back and help with that. 

The other aspect of the faculty that is great for us is that our 

rotating military faculty, which makes up 60 percent of our faculty, 

all of them have been deployed, many, multiple times. So they 

come from their graduate school program, recent experience in the 

Army, and they talk to us about adjustments to the curriculum as 

well. 

We have made some significant adjustments overall since 9/11, 

added two minors, one in terrorism, another in regional studies, 

added majors in nuclear engineering and chemical engineering because of nuclear and biological threats. 

And in response to the first part of your question concerning requirements from DOD or JCS, we had the DOD Language Transformation Roadmap a few years ago that asked us what we were 

doing about cultural immersion and language proficiency and directed us to increase our programs. 

And what we did was, up to that point, every cadet had to take 

one year of a foreign language. We thought that that probably was 

inadequate, so those cadets who major in humanities, now, are required to take two years of a foreign language. Those who major 

in math, science and engineering still take one year of a foreign 

language. 

But the first year of that language, whether you are doing one 

year or two years, is now taught five days a week so that it is sort 

of a mini-immersion experience. 

In 2001, we had two cadets who spent a semester abroad in 

France. Last year, we had 142 cadets who spent a semester abroad 

in 14 different countries. In 2001, we had 126 cadets who went to 

25 countries over the summertime. This year we have 560 cadets 

going to 70 different countries. 

So we are increasing both language proficiency and cultural 

awareness because that is clearly something that our Army needs 

right now and that our graduates need. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Born, in your written statement you talk 

about the percentage of military versus the percentage of civilian 

faculty. There has been some criticism of the Air Force Academy, 

however, that in that your civilian, significant numbers of them are 

actually retired military. 

The report that came out several years ago, the Larson Report, 

discussed that issue, but there doesn’t seem to be any movement 
25 

by the Air Force Academy in terms of looking at that issue. What 

is going on? 

General BORN. Sir, the question with regard to mix of the faculty 

and the Larson Report, our ideal composition in response to the 

Larson Report was 25 percent civilian and 75 percent military faculty, and we have risen to about around 30 civilian faculty and 

about 1⁄3 of those faculty are retired military. 

We have tried to hire nationally based on our advertisements in 

the Chronicle of Higher Education and select the best qualified. 

And we try not to, in our processes, advantage military or disadvantage military, retired military. 

We haven’t set a floor or a ceiling, but we monitor to see the extent that our civilian faculty positions are retired military. Right 

now, the blend is a wonderful blend in terms of having the pure 

civilians, many whom have been with us since 1992 when they arrived, which shows their tremendous commitment and dedication 

to the mission. 

We have a nice blend with our military faculty who are providing 

a little bit more of the operational perspective, and with the turnover that we have, and I think, arguably, we probably—matter of 

fact, I think we can demonstrate, we had the highest rotation of 

faculty—having a core of our civilian faculty as retired military actually helps us achieve our mission where they have a balance of 

both their military experiences as well as their advanced scholarship. 

Dr. SNYDER. When you make the comment, you didn’t think that 

people should be advantaged or disadvantaged by being former 

military, but, I mean, I am not sure why not. 

I mean, if you make a decision that you want so many percentage to be pure civilian so they may come from a life of being a retired State Department, being a retired physician who worked in 

third-world countries or whatever, I don’t see that you are somehow drawing some ethical line in the sand to say we want a blend 

of people who are pure civilians. 

So I mean, you were criticized by the Larson Report, and the 

criticism still stands, I think. But those numbers, by the way, we 

have votes going on, so Mr. Wittman and I are going to have to 

leave here for a little while and then come back. 

But, General Finnegan, what is going on with budget cuts with 

regard to faculty and staff and where are you at with that? 

General FINNEGAN. Sir, the Army is facing budget cuts and personnel cuts in what we call the ‘‘institutional Army’’ in an attempt 

to help build up the ‘‘operational Army,’’ those forces that are actually fighting. 

The Army is undergoing a total Army analysis, and it looks like 

we may face a minor personnel cut on our military staff. 

Dr. SNYDER. So, is what you are saying is, essentially, that slots 

that you all have are being shifted for operational slots? 

General FINNEGAN. Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. 

Dr. SNYDER. Now, have you actually had some cuts already? 

General FINNEGAN. It is not final yet. We are undergoing the 

process right now. The Army is trying to decide. The latest news 

we have is that the cuts will not be severe, but there will be some 

cuts. 
26 

Those we can withstand. It will be more difficult because we are 

continuing to bring in larger-size classes as we grow to a corps of 

4,400 from 4,000. 

If we combine those with budget cuts, though, that causes significant issues because one way to make up for some small military 

cuts is to hire additional civilian faculty, but that causes pressures 

on your budget because the largest part of my budget, the dean’s 

budget, is the hiring of civilian faculty. 

So, if we combine personnel cuts on the military side with budget 

cuts overall, that will have a significant impact on our faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. So there is not a one-to-one offset? 

General FINNEGAN. No, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Colonel Beaudreault, you refer to it in your written 

statement about the issue of laptops and where you are at with 

laptop computers. I am confused, I think, because, I mean, I would 

think that that is a pretty basic thing in an academic environment 

or some kind of teaching environment. 

I remember Dick Gephardt, when he was here, he told me a 

story—it was quite a few years ago, now—and he made some 

speech about, you know, how there was going to be funding for 

these computer labs in every school and, afterwards some guy came 

up and said you politicians are so stupid, so stupid. And Gephardt 

said what do you mean? 

He said well, let me ask you a question. When you were in 

school, did you have a pencil lab? Did you go down once a week 

for an hour and they give you a pencil and you would use your pencil for an hour and that would hold you for that week? 

I mean, aren’t we past the point where we think that having a 

laptop computer for a student is a luxury? I mean, shouldn’t that 

be more important than a whole lot of other things at your school, 

and in your statement, you say only three of your 15 conference 

groups are going to have laptops. 

That is like saying a grade school 30 years ago, 40 years ago, 50 

years ago didn’t get a pencil, isn’t it? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Yes, sir. 

Some of the—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I mean, how much total money are you talking 

about to get additional computers for 12 more conference groups? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Mr. Chairman, the money, I think, is out 

there through Marine Corps University or Training and Education 

Command. 

Part of our challenge right now is the infrastructure of the building in terms of being able to plug those computers in to a network 

that can support 15 conference groups at 16 students each, 15 to 

16 students each to be able to tap in. 

So what we need to do first is modernize the infrastructure of the 

building—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Does that mean that the money is out there for the 

computers but it is not out there for the infrastructure? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. My understanding is the money is available for both ends of the project, sir. 

So it is in the works. In fact, it is an ongoing issue. We are having a discussion with the Marine Corps University at the moment. 

Money may come through through Training and Education Com-
27 

mand or Marine Corps University may want to stagger it out over 

a period of two academic years. 

We are going to have to see, only because once the infrastructure 

starts to get laid into the building, it could become very disruptive 

to the ongoing instruction we are trying to provide during the 

course of the academic year. 

So we need to find how long is the project going to take and 

when is the best time to do it. But I think the money is out there 

to actually make it happen. 

Dr. SNYDER. It just seems like that is a pretty basic thing. 

I can’t remember what it was, six or eight years ago or, the committee had a private meeting with some special-ops guys just to 

show us their equipment. And of course, you know, it is the weaponry and the protective stuff. 

But, anyway, one was the guy’s laptop, and I always remember 

the special ops sergeant said—who had done missions overseas— 

said you know it is going to be a bad day when your Microsoft Outlook won’t open. [Laughter.] 

And I don’t think that was ever a line from a John Wayne movie, 

you know? [Laughter.] 

But, you know, if there is a way that we can help on it. I mean, 

this seems like pretty basic stuff. I mean, when you are putting in 

a written statement to Congress that you are proud of the fact that 

you have got three of the 15 with computers when that is as basic 

as a pair of boots for guys going in the field, I mean, as basic as 

that. 

I think, Mr. Wittman, we probably better—— 

Mr. WITTMAN. Yes. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Better go. 

And if you all don’t mind waiting here, they assure us it is five 

votes. The first one is about done, and then the next four are twominute votes, which, in Congress time, is probably about four minutes, but I don’t think it is going to be terribly excessive. 

If it looks like it is, we will let Dr. Fenner know, if that is all 

right. 

We will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Those were the last votes for the day, so we will be 

uninterrupted. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will just ask a simple question and we will go down the line. 

General Born, can you tell me, how are ethics taught at the academy? 

General BORN. Thank you, Member Wittman. 

Ethics is a part of developing leaders of character, and we have 

1 of our 19 outcomes we talked about earlier is ethical reasoning 

and action. All of our program is really oriented to develop cadets 

over four years in ethics and integrity. 

We have a robust character development program that really is 

a synergistic activity, both for our cadets, but also for our permanent party. We have a statement that says we really graduate two 

classes every year. 
28 

One of them is our, obviously, our second lieutenants entering 

into the Air Force, and the other is our rotational faculty, up to 1⁄4

or 1⁄3 that go back out into the operational Air Force. And so the 

character development is for all. 

And we also have an ethics across the curriculum thread that 

leads to that one outcome to have specific experiences. 

For example, we have four character-development programs over 

the four years that are graduation requirements, and they are 

aligned with our officer-development system which starts with focusing on personal leadership development, values, attitudes, and 

then it goes to an interpersonal level in terms of respect and dignity as you have an interpersonal relationship and coaching and 

mentoring others, and that is for a sophomore level. 

Then one at the team level, which is for our juniors where they 

start to take on team leadership roles within their squadrons and 

then, again, as seniors and more of an organizational level, how do 

you align, now, an ethics program within the organization and Air 

Force? 

And we have mentors and facilitators that come in too and provide ethical dilemma examples, case studies, if you will, on how 

they can reflect upon some of the challenges that they may have. 

That is also integrated across the four years with our thread towards the ethical development in our courses. And, you know, we 

start as a fourth-classman and again throughout their curriculum, 

along with some of our other programs, and we have embedded assessments throughout there to see are we meeting the target for 

you as a student, but also so we can assess a class or at the institutional level overall. 

But, I guess the final answer is that developing leaders of character is really what every single member at the United States Air 

Force Academy is really there for and focused on in our student 

population, but to have our students develop, we are also developing along with them. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

General Finnegan. 

General FINNEGAN. Congressman Wittman, it is very much a 

similar answer. Ethics is embedded throughout our curriculum. 

We have a Simon Center for Professional Military Ethics, which 

runs our overall ethics program. There are classes that begin as 

early as this summer with the new cadets who are there now and 

continue throughout the four years. 

They are taught some by the tactical officers and tactical NCO’s 

who are assigned to each company, but about 300 of our academic 

faculty, as an additional volunteer assignment, teach those ethics 

classes during the year as well. 

It culminates in their senior years, their first four years, with a 

new course we have, MX–400, which is a combination of a military 

science course and a combination of integration of many of the topics we have had that particularly focuses on ethics and ethics on 

the battlefield. 

One of the centerpieces of that is the Battle Command Conference that we have each year, and this past April we brought 

about 300 junior officers and NCO’s back from the Army, mostly 

from very recently deployed or about-to-deploy who spent 2 days, 
29 

21⁄2 days with all of our seniors talking to them about small unit 

operations, but particularly the moral-ethical aspects of those that 

are so central to what we are doing now. 

We also have, as an adjunct to that, a Robust Law of Armed Conflict program that starts in their summer training before their 

sophomore year. We have just undergone that. We integrate problems into scenarios there. We teach the classroom instruction in it 

and then continue to integrate that into summer training aspects 

as well. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Great. 

Captain Klunder. 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, Congressman Wittman. 

It is clear with my other panel members that this is absolutely 

a cornerstone of what we believe in at the service academies and 

other schools. And I mean, truly, it is what sets us apart from 

other institutions in this great country of ours. 

I will offer as a small anecdotal little piece, it is clear that the 

rest of the country is catching on to how important this is and 

what we do and how we lead young people in this great world, and 

that, this last year, we had a leadership conference with the Naval 

Academy and we had 33 representatives from other institutions 

and civilian colleges and organizations around the country that attended that. That was the largest number we have had, ever. 

So, again, we are very happy with that. Now, particular to our 

institution, we find that it is not only in an academic environment 

study. We are clear in our four-year development, just like General 

Born described. It is a four-year progress in the academic world, 

but it is also something that we feel very strongly in the practical, 

more on-the-job training (OJT) kind of environment. 

What we teach in the academic classroom I must absolutely adhere to and practice in the Bancroft-Hall, everyday environment 

when we lead young people. 

So I own that, and that is very near and dear to my heart and 

I am very passionate about honor, integrity, ethics. It is something 

we stand for. Not only academic and OJT practical, but we will 

bring guest speakers from all over the country. We have seminars. 

We have senior mentoring. I have a great, very short story. 

There was a young man that was having a little difficulty, wasn’t 

quite getting the picture on what it really meant inside here and 

up here. We had a senior mentor—it just happened to be General 

Peter Pace, who is a great graduate from my institution—and we 

said, General, would you like to take this one on? He said, you bet. 

So, we had a young midshipman talking to a senior four-star marine general about mentoring. It was a total success. He got it. But 

I offer that small example as we will go to any lengths we can to 

try and inspire our young people in this kind of field. 

Again, I know General Finnegan has alluded to his center. We 

have the Stockdale Center for Ethical Leadership. This is hugely 

important to us and I think I will leave it at that, sir, if that is 

okay. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Colonel Tanous. 
30 

Colonel TANOUS. Congressman Wittman, as has been stated before, ethics is weaved into everything that we do and we have got 

short courses, but that doesn’t relieve us of the responsibility to address this in its entirety. 

And I will just tell you from the time they come into the Air and 

Space Basic Course as a lieutenant until the time they leave 

Squadron Officer School as a captain, in both courses and in the 

distance learning courses as well, we focus on the core values, in 

particular, and ethics, specifically. 

And, in fact, one of the things that we rely on to kind of guide 

how we emphasize that is the institutional competency list that the 

Air Force provides and there are four in particular for instance for 

SOS, decision-making, developing and inspiring others, building a 

team, and ethical leadership. 

So we focus on those four in particular for Squadron Officer 

School and rely on that and the underpinnings of the Air Force 

Doctrine Document 1–1, because that basically tells Air Force officers how to act. And so we try to instill that throughout the entire 

course. 

And the same is true for the Air and Space Basic Course. We try 

to talk to the young lieutenants about their distinctive roles as airmen in society, the standard that we hold them to. We talk to them 

and we give them, essentially, situations, case studies where they 

can talk about what it means to act in certain ways and in certain 

situations so they have to actually think about it. 

It is not just a one-way dialogue from the instructor saying, okay, 

we all need to be ethical. 

What I try to encourage them to do is think larger than themselves, put themselves in the position of their supervisor or their 

commander having to deal with a specific situation. That is the 

model we are trying to go to where they have to think about the 

second- and third-order effects of their decisions. 

And, so, using that model, we are trying to put that in place 

where in each and every instance, they can think about the ethical 

ramifications of any action that they take. 

So, regardless of the block of instruction, we have managed to 

weave that into almost everything that we do with the guest speakers, with the guided discussions, with the case studies, and we 

have been very successful. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Great, thank you, Colonel. 

Colonel Beaudreault. 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Congressman Wittman, very much the 

same answer as the previous that you have heard. 

The leadership and ethics is one of the three subsets of what we 

call our Professional Studies Program and that is threaded 

throughout the blocks of instruction throughout the year. Primarily, we will use guest speakers. We do have small group discussions mentored by the majors who have been company commanders 

in combat. 

We do bring in Colonel Art Athens, retired, who is with the 

Stockdale Center from the Naval Academy. We use speakers and 

Ph.D.s from over at Marine Corps University to augment our instruction. It is vignette-based training. It is woven into tactical decision-making exercises. 
31 

So, primarily, and also case studies. This particular academic 

year, Rwanda will be the major case study that students will get 

into on that. But that is the primary means we use, sir. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thanks, Colonel Beaudreault. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Let us see. Colonel Tanous, I wanted to ask you, as 

you know, most of the work done in the Congress is done by the 

staff and so we have had some preliminary discussions, both I 

think with you all and with the students and so on in all the institutions. 

We got some feedback that, not because of the atmosphere of 

your institution, but because of where the Air Force or how the Air 

Force values these positions that there are some faculty members 

who think that being assigned to the faculty at your place is not 

a help for their career. In fact, some of them see it as a hindrance. 

What are your thoughts about that? 

Colonel TANOUS. I think, sir, if you ask some of the instructors 

what they think when they come in, you get a different answer 

than what—— 

Dr. SNYDER. When they leave? 

Colonel TANOUS [continuing]. They say when they leave. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, that is a good point. 

Colonel TANOUS. So, I think because they are coming from a position of ignorance, for lack of a better term, because they are not 

sure what they are getting into, all they know is they are leaving 

their operational career track and walking into a different environment, one that they are not familiar with. They are not sure what 

the expectations are. There is probably a little hesitance on their 

part to dive in fully. 

And if you ask them, you know, is this going to be a help or a 

hurt, you are going to get an answer that is going to be different 

than when they leave. 

And I think a lot of that is just due to the fact that one is when 

they realize the impact that they make on an entire generation of 

officers during their time as instructors, that gives them a sense 

of satisfaction that they probably didn’t anticipate when they got 

there. 

The other thing is they have the same opportunities to excel in 

their position that they have everywhere else, and I think once 

they have been there for a while and they understand that, essentially, we operate as a small wing, for lack of a better term. 

I walked in there as a graduated wing commander from Vandenberg and that is kind of how we treat it. We have got two schools 

that we treat as groups, and we have got the small number of folks 

that provide infrastructure for it. 

And, so we give them that same environment that they would 

see in the operational Air Force in terms of—— 

Dr. SNYDER. There may be some value, and you may have already done this in doing a little survey, like, you know, what you 

like if all of you track your students to see where your faculty 

members from the last three or four years have ended up and how 

they view it in their career now. That may be helpful. 

Because the issue for me is if there is that sense, I mean, you 

know how the military is. It is one big rumor mill, and you want 
32 

people to be applying for these jobs and excited about being there, 

and so if there is an unjustified sense among a few of your faculty 

then it may be helpful to deal with that. 

I wanted to ask for our three Academy folks, would you spend 

a minute, each of you, just talk about, in terms of financial resources, what role nonprofit foundations, nonprofit support, you 

know, the non-governmental money helps. 

General Finnegan, let us start with you just to give General Born 

a rest. 

General FINNEGAN. Mr. Chairman, we have the Association of 

Graduates, which is our main nonprofit organization—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Association of—— 

General FINNEGAN. Association of Graduates—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Graduates. Yes. 

General FINNEGAN [continuing]. Which is our alumni association, 

and one of the main purposes is to do fundraising to supplement 

appropriated funds. 

What we consider them to do is what we call ‘‘margin of excellence’’ activities. So the private fundraising that they do allows us 

to have, for example, some cadet clubs that we might not have 

using appropriated funds, the Model U.N., the debate team are 

funded largely with those private donations. 

Many of our overseas summer experiences are funded through 

private dollars. We get some appropriated funds for that, but many 

of them are funded through the MacArthur Foundation and other 

fundraising that is done by our fundraising arm, the Association of 

Graduates. 

So, we just built a brand new library, Jefferson Hall Library and 

Learning Center, that had about $60 million of appropriated funds, 

but to enhance some of the architectural parts and some of the interior parts of the library, we used about $5 million of private 

funds raised through the Association of Graduates. 

Dr. SNYDER. Captain Klunder. 

Captain KLUNDER. Yes, Chairman Snyder. 

We are very pleased with working through OPNAV and CNP. 

Right now it is Chief of Naval Personnel is our resource sponsor. 

We do requests through him in that position, and we are very 

pleased that all of our appropriated dollar requests have been met, 

and we expect them to be met for the next year. 

So, again, that is a good thing. 

The aspect of the 501(c)(3) funds, or in this case, just as General 

Finnegan stated, the Alumni Association and Foundation is what 

we call it, and believe it or not, we use the exact same term, the 

‘‘margin of excellence.’’ 

And what we have done there is to take those over-and-above requirements that we have established with our OPNAV and our 

Chief of Naval Personnel resource sponsors, those things that will 

really give us that extra value-earned kind of capacity in that global world, the international world. And in many cases it goes to exactly what General Finnegan stated, international travel, international immersion programs, things that have great value, and we 

do get some appropriated dollars for. 
33 

I don’t want to make it sound like this is all through 501(c)(3). 

But they assist us in those means. So we found that to be very, 

very helpful. 

And in that regard, obviously economic standings does impact 

that, but we are very pleased, again, that our Alumni Association 

and Foundation works very closely with us on aligning those potential ‘‘margin of excellence’’ areas where they can help us, and they 

have done that. 

Dr. SNYDER. General Born. 

General BORN. Yes, we have an extra ‘‘margin of excellence’’ in 

addition to really good support for the program from our Air Force. 

We have several foundations that do contribute to allowing us to 

do some things that we aren’t allowed or don’t do with our appropriated funds. 

The extra ‘‘margin of excellence,’’ an example is we actually have 

an Academy Assembly Program that is about ready to launch in 

October that is looking at building a bridge from war to peace and 

interagency role in terms of rebuilding nations. 

And in order to put that program on, we use a combination of 

some appropriated funds, but a majority from a gift in order to 

bring in top-name speakers, et cetera. 

We have a lot of our programs that are in our athletic departments through our Air Force Academy Athletic Association, which 

I think contributes almost 50 percent of what we are able to do 

through our athletic programs. 

So, it is an extra ‘‘margin of excellence.’’ I think what all of us 

would say is similar to higher education. We are seeing some reductions in endowments. And so that extra ‘‘margin of excellence’’ 

is going down. And as you have heard from others, some are experiencing appropriated downturns as well, so that will impact our 

programs. 

But right now, it adds a lot of opportunity for our cadets. 

Dr. SNYDER. Before we go to Mr. Wittman, I will have, probably, 

some questions for the record probably for all of you, particularly 

for you, General Finnegan. 

I need to understand better. We need to understand better. We 

need to understand better the specifics with regard to what you 

refer to as budget cuts. I need to understand exactly what monies 

you are talking about and what accounts and what is that. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am out of questions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Okay. All right. 

General Born, I had a couple of more questions for you. You mentioned, I think in both your written and oral statement, about the 

manpower study that said that you are 21 percent behind, and is 

that in terms of faculty? 

And if that is right, what does that mean, number one, how are 

you responding to it? Number two, what does 21 percent mean in 

terms of actual . . . if you wanted to fulfill that, what would that 

mean in terms of enhanced budget. And my guess is that that is 

kind of an ideal world of academics that you really don’t think that 

you, for the last 50 years or so, have been operating 20 percent behind. 
34 

But how did you get behind? Do you agree with the conclusions 

of the study? What are you all doing about that? What does that 

mean in terms of money, budget process, everything like that? 

General BORN. Chairman Snyder, the good news is, and this is 

really validated recently in our 10-year accreditation, because they 

do look at resources, and are you resourced to be accredited and to 

continue in the direction you are, and from that they said you are 

meeting your mission. 

The Manpower Study is actually working its way through corporate Air Force right now, but, primarily, what I think they identified is that we have had a reduction in our military manning that 

is similar to a reduction in overall Air Force authorizations and 

manning—— 

Dr. SNYDER. This is part of the Air Force’s—over the last several 

years, they had this plan of reducing—— 

General BORN. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. 3,000, I think, personnel to find money 

for platforms and so on and they backed off that. Was that part of 

this? 

General BORN. That is correct, sir. 

And we have also added mission, and I think we have taken on 

additional roles with regard to deployments. And when you have 70 

faculty members who deploy, right now we have 28 deployed, and 

13 of those are a ‘‘365,’’ which is a full-year deployment. 

And so that has an impact in terms of what you need in your 

authorizations in order to support something that is also an important mission, but it is an additional mission. 

A lot of what we are doing also in terms of our character development programs we are doing by using our permanent party who 

are basically doing additional mission for the right thing. So, we 

have a heavily worked faculty, and I think there is a lot that moves 

into private time—research is one of those—that keeps an educational program rigorous and innovative and is a benefit to our 

students. 

And I think a lot of the faculty are finding time to do that on 

their own time. But we do a lot of grading and a lot of other things 

at home. 

But the good news is we are meeting mission because we have 

the dedication of people who believe in the mission and who are 

dedicated to what we are working to accomplish. 

There is an additional workload I think all of us take on with 

regard to other requirements with the way that we have streamlined technology, and that is a choice we have made in terms of 

doing our own travel and doing everything online and then that is 

additional. 

We volunteer to participate in, you know, dorm patrol and duties 

like that. So, I think that it is additional mission, and we probably 

need to look internally at where we have high-impact practices that 

are making a big difference and where do we need to prune a little 

from things that maybe aren’t as central to achieving our mission 

and vision. 

Dr. SNYDER. When you said that study is working its way 

through corporate Air Force, will there be some kind of public re-
35 

sult come out or will it just be reflected, hopefully, in the budget 

process? Is that what you anticipate would happen and—— 

General BORN. Yes, sir. That is our approach right now is we are 

actually starting to already work the budget process through our 

Air Force in addition to looking at ways that we can streamline our 

own efficiencies at the academy. 

Dr. SNYDER. If you get something back, General Born, that is 

some kind of a formal result after that gets worked through the Air 

Force, I would appreciate if you would share it with Dr. Fenner 

and the staff. And it might be helpful to us as we look at defense 

bills and budgets. 

I wanted to ask you one other question, General Born. On page 

eight of your written statement, you talked about creating a ‘‘learning-focused environment,’’ and this probably doesn’t have much to 

do with the topic today, but would you describe for me what does 

that mean compared to what you were doing before? 

I would think most would say, I mean, is that a term of art, a 

‘‘learning-focused environment’’? 

General BORN. Chairman Snyder, I think we have always been 

in the business, also, of developing leaders of character, but what 

we have learned over the years is how people develop and how we 

can become more effective at how we do that. 

I would say that a learning-focused culture is somewhat very 

similar. 

Teaching and learning come from the same root word and if you 

hold the word ‘‘teach’’ in a mirror, it is a reflection of ‘‘learn.’’ But 

the difference is that it is really focused primarily on what is the 

student learning, and teaching is a very important role in that. 

But it is outcomes-based and it is laying specifically out in a lesson or at the institutional level what it is we are trying to accomplish, how are we going about accomplishing it, what is our evidence that shows that we are accomplishing that mission, and then 

how are we closing the loop and feeding that back into changing 

something because we have identified a gap or we have identified 

a best practice that we can capitalize on. 

Learning focus is adaptable. It is agile, and it is all of what I believe this committee is focused on. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. That is helpful. 

Colonel Beaudreault, you may know that I have a special affection for the Marine Corps since I spent 211⁄2 months—not years, 

months—with a 2-year enlistment many years ago, and so I hope 

you didn’t feel like I was beating you up about the computers. 

Many, many years ago, back when I was a young man in Vietnam, and I was not a grunt in Vietnam, but one of my friends who 

was, he said, we just got so tired as marines watching all the Army 

Hueys flying over, and they would make us walk. 

You know, it is the thing about equipment for the Marine Corps. 

[Laughter.] 

It has always been an issue. So, I think I am probably reflecting 

one incident that happened to one of my friends 40 years ago. 

But maybe it would be helpful, Dr. Fenner. This is July. We will 

be back here after the first of the year in January. Sometime that 

third or fourth week of January, why don’t we plan on driving to 

Quantico and do a computer count. [Laughter.] 
36 

And we will see how the infrastructure looks. We will take along 

our laptops and see if we can get into your system, if that might 

be helpful. 

Mr. Wittman, do you have anything further? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Nothing further. 

Dr. SNYDER. We appreciate your time. There will be some questions for the record, but you should also look on those as opportunities to share with us any clarifications or additions or anything else 

you want to share with us either formally. Or if you want to pick 

up the phone and just call the staff, we would appreciate it. But 

this has been helpful today. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JULY 15, 2009 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 15, 2009 

(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 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 15, 2009 

(105) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. Please elaborate on how efforts to gain efficiencies within the USAFA 

budget and to streamline it to high impact areas of the mission within the budget 

will affect institutional decisions? What will be targeted for cuts or reductions? 

General BORN. Operating efficiently and effectively is one of our seven Strategic 

Goals at USAFA: Obtain and manage resources for our mission activities by maintaining effective institutional investment strategies and management processes. Efforts to gain efficiencies at USAFA is a multi-phased endeavor to include: 

1) Quarterly Financial Working Group (FWG) and Financial Management Board 

(FMB) meetings which approve budgets, execution plans, and revisions. The 

FMB, chaired by the Superintendent, also distributes annual funding, 

prioritizes Mission Element requirements, and ensures consistency with programs to meet USAFA mission priorities. 

2) Performance of statistical historical analysis of program spending during Execution Plan and Initial Distribution drills. USAFA has tracked historical 

spending and funds distribution since 2001 using this data to derive/update 

mission requirement execution and one-time expenses. 

3) Programming and analysis of new mission requirements or re-aligning resources during the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and Amended Program Objective Memorandum (APOM) drills. The impacts of these drills are 

deliberated by the Management Integration Team (MIT) and approved by the 

Senior Steering Group (SSG), USAFA’s Corporate Structure representing all 

Mission Element leadership. 

4) In FY09, USAFA’s contracting office put forth an aggressive plan to streamline 

all ‘‘like’’ contracts across the academy into a single contract award. This has 

essentially eliminated multiple vendors performing the same functionality for 

multiple organizations and saved manpower in the process. Due to this approach, contract awards across USAFA decreased from nearly 3,000 in FY08 

to 1,500 in FY09. 

In addition to these efforts, within our curriculum we impress upon cadets their 

future role in the budgetary process and their need for careful decision-making. For 

example, the programs offered by the Center for Character and Leadership encourages cadets to internalize the Core Values and the Honor Code so they will graduate 

as officers of character with the moral foundation to be good stewards of resources. 

Dr. SNYDER. What will be targeted for cuts or reductions? 

General BORN. The Air Force Academy has experienced an increase to our baseline for desperately needed renovation and modernization and to improve cadet programs across the Mission Elements. USAFA is positioned to execute these resources 

in the most efficient and effective manner. If forced to take cuts or reductions, the 

following effects will be felt across the institution. 

1) A reduction in funding for construction project designs and facility restorations 

already in the progress via the ‘‘Fix USAFA’’ initiative. Potential funding cuts 

would delay projects, degrade cadet standard of living and could affect recruiting efforts in future years. 

2) Faculty continuation training for accreditation would be scaled back from the 

higher education standard of one developmental education experience per faculty member per year to one experience per faculty member every other year. 

3) Cadet travel to present papers they have written would be decreased as would 

be their ability to attend summer research programs not funded by sponsoring 

agencies. 

4) Academic materials would be scaled back forcing cadets to share, or perhaps 

purchase their own supplemental materials. 

5) A reduction in funding could lead to cadets not meeting the 68-days of summer 

ops training goal due to a reduced number of opportunities available for program participation. 
106 

Dr. SNYDER. Please explain how the ongoing manpower study at the USAFA is 

affecting staffing decisions? 

General BORN. The ongoing manpower study at USAFA is a comprehensive study 

by the Air Force Manpower Agency (AFMA) looking at manning requirements in all 

mission elements. The USAFA manpower study has produced four completed efforts 

thus far: the Center for Character Development which resulted in an increase of six 

positions funded effective 1 Oct 09; the Preparatory School which resulted in an increase of 14 positions, three of which are funded effective 1 Oct 09; the wing AntiTerrorism Office which resulted in an increase of one position which was funded effective 11 May 09; and the History Office which had no change. There are 11 other 

individual studies covering a total of approximately 1,200 positions in various stages 

of staffing and development. 

One of those individual studies still in the staffing and development stage includes the Dean of Faculty manning authorizations. The initial outbrief from the 

AFMA team conducting the on-site study validated our need to increase the faculty 

and staff by 21 percent (149 positions) to meet our current mission requirements. 

However, the final report still needs to be approved by AFMA and AF/A1 before we 

can begin the budgeting process to increase our manning authorizations. Due to this 

lengthy process, we anticipate this manning shortfall will continue in the near-term. 

To help alleviate some of the near-term needs, we are exploring several initiatives, including adding enlisted authorizations across the Dean of Faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. Is the USAFA planning to assign a non-commissioned officer to each 

academic department to assist in managing administrative demands? 

General BORN. We’re currently examining the feasibility of assigning enlisted personnel to academic departments in both administrative support and laboratory technician roles. There is a precedent—there were 83 enlisted authorizations in the 

Dean of Faculty organization in the late 80’s and they’re down to 14 today. Though 

the AF endstrength in the 80’s was significantly higher than today’s, we believe increasing the number of administrative support and laboratory technician personnel 

merits consideration. After analyzing and establishing a baseline requirement, we’ll 

work with our Director of Manpower and Personnel to validate those requirements 

and develop a funding strategy. 

Dr. SNYDER. The JCS Chairman’s Officer PME Policy includes a requirement for 

each of the service chiefs to provide the CJCS with reports on the joint education 

programs at the pre-commissioning and primary levels. We want to know the significant findings and recommendations of your 2006 Report and whether you would 

anticipate significantly different findings and recommendations three years later? 

General BORN. USAFA has never been tasked with a Joint Education Program 

Report. We have been alerted to the report by HQ AF/A1DO who is deciding a future course of action regarding whether USAFA should provide this information in 

the future. 

Dr. SNYDER. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case study is a 

particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do you use the case study 

method, and if so, to what ends? 

General BORN. We value case studies as student-centered scenarios that encourage active learning in many academic disciplines, including history and strategy. We 

also invest in the appropriate faculty development to fully leverage this learningfocused pedagogy. For the past twenty years, we have hosted experts from DoD 

(most recently in August 2009, Mr Reese Madsen, Chief Learning Officer for the 

Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence) and academia (John Boehrer, Harvard), 

and sent faculty to a variety of case teaching and strategy workshops (Evans School 

at the University of Washington, Center for Irregular Warfare and Armed Groups 

at the U.S. Naval War College, the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced 

International Studies Strategy Workshop). 

In the Department of History, case studies are accompanied by substantial 

thought and consideration to bring the essential element of ‘‘context.’’ We use historical case studies regularly to dig deeply into a given historical event, to demonstrate 

the importance of strategy formulation, as well as to assess critically the range of 

factors that must be considered when ‘‘thinking strategically.’’ Some of our courses 

can be considered whole case studies in and of themselves (e.g., our course on the 

Korean and Vietnam wars). While they can be effective instrument to learn history, 

they can also be potentially dangerous when they are studied without sufficient context and breadth or when approached with a predetermined agenda. Poorly selected 

or insufficiently understood case studies may not give clear lessons for current and 

future policy makers. History can be misused. Case studies require a nimble and 

nuanced approach to recognize the problems associated with any predictive quality. 

Nevertheless, when studied appropriately, a case study can wonderfully demonstrate the range of questions which shed light on historical and contemporary 
107 

events. A range of case studies can help policy-makers develop the judgment to 

make suitable strategic decisions and to get a sense of the elements of strategy formulation. Historical case studies allow us to speak to the difficult concept of strategy outside the abstract. 

In the Department of Military & Strategic Studies, the focus is on teaching processes of strategy in different contexts. In both core and advanced courses, historical 

cases are compared to cases of potential futures, capabilities-based strategies to 

threat-based strategies, enemy-centric doctrines to population-centric doctrines, political goal-setting to culturally rational goal-setting, and so forth. 

In the Department of Political Science, historical case studies play a central role 

in political science pedagogy. Political science teachers use case studies to illustrate 

complex ideas, demonstrate the plausibility of systematically arrived at findings, 

and also to debunk erroneous conventional wisdom, all the while purporting that 

a single case alone does not establish the veracity of a perceived causal connection. 

As with other schools of management and business, the Department of Management frequently uses the case method because many professors believe it is the 

most practical and relevant way to develop student managerial and leadership skill 

sets. The case study method also forces students to decide what questions are most 

important and what the real problem in the case is. These are very valuable competencies for Air Force officers. In addition, students typically find the case study 

method to be a relevant, interesting, rewarding, and fun way to learn about ‘‘real 

world’’ applications of the things they are learning in class. We select cases that 

sharpen student analytical and communication skills by asking them to produce 

quantitative and qualitative evidence to support assertions made in case analysis. 

Dr. SNYDER. It is concerning that there are only two required history courses 

within the USAFA core curriculum. Credit in American history is not required of 

all cadets, and credit in military history need not be achieved within a cadet’s first 

two years of study. How will the USAFA remedy these concerns? 

General BORN. The value of American History goes without question. In fact, during the past year, several different mechanisms have been considered for enhancing 

USAFA’s coverage of American History. These include the possibility of adding an 

additional requirement to the core curriculum (i.e. American History); replacing an 

existing core requirement with American History; and enlarging the coverage of 

American History topics in existing core courses (e.g., appropriate courses in political science, military studies, literature, etc.). The Academy’s preferred approach to 

remedying these concerns is to address them systematically through the comprehensive curriculum review process which is currently underway. 

With regard to ‘‘only two required history courses within the USAFA core curriculum,’’ it should be noted that there are only two disciplines—English and mathematics—for which there are as many as three required core courses. There are many 

other non-technical disciplines for which there is only one required core course (e.g. 

management, political science, economics, law). In the technical disciplines, there is 

only one required core course each in aeronautics, astronautics, and computer 

science to equip cadets with the knowledge and skills needed for service in the air, 

space, and cyberspace domains. To further put things in perspective, the distribution between technical and non-technical core course hemispheres is shown below 

with a slight edge given to non-technical (51 semester hours) compared to technical 

(45 semester hours). 
108 

Dr. SNYDER. Why do the Service Academies only award Bachelor of Science degrees? What would be the professional effect of offering Bachelor of Arts degrees in 

certain academic disciplines? What would be the professional effect of offering alternate tracks within Bachelor of Science programs that would be heavier on humanities and social science requirements? 

General BORN. The Uniformed Services Code Title 10, Section 9353, only grants 

Academy Superintendents the authority to grant a Bachelor of Science degree. 

Therefore, a change to law would be necessary for an Academy to grant a Bachelor 

of Arts degree. However, there may be other problems with offering both Bachelor 

of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees even if the law were changed. To offer a 

Bachelor of Arts degree involving significantly greater academic specialization in social science or humanities disciplines would represent a significant departure from 

USAFA’s historic approach from an educational mission premised upon developing 

generalists with a strong technical background. 

Since its inception, USAFA’s curricular philosophy has been to offer a broad and 

balanced core curriculum. That is, to offer a sizable core curriculum (i.e., approximately two-thirds of a cadet’s total academic coursework) that is roughly equally 

balanced across the humanities, social sciences, basic sciences and engineering disciplines. At the same time, USAFA offers 32 academic majors including 13 in the 

humanities and social sciences as well as two minors in the humanities. This allows 

for more depth in an area of interest to cadets. For cadets pursuing an academic 

major in the humanities or social sciences, a total of 102 out of the 147 total semester hours required for graduation would be taken in those disciplines. 

This emphasis upon broad, balanced and diverse coursework spanning multiple 

disciplines has been based on the historically distinctive roles that the military 

academies have played as accession sources into the junior officer ranks. 

Dr. SNYDER. How many engineering majors does your institution try to graduate 

each year? On what professional demands are these goals predicated? Generally 

speaking, does the amount of time needed to provide each cadet with a knowledge 

base in engineering allow the latitude to balance academic pursuits with respect to 

the hard sciences, social sciences, communications skills, military studies, and the 

humanities, especially history, as they relate to a foundation in strategy? 

General BORN. While graduating cadets with Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Math (STEM) majors is important to the USAF because of its highly technical 

mission, USAFA does not have a fixed target or quota. Over the past 20 years, the 

percentage of USAFA STEM majors has fluctuated between 45% and 55%. This is 

above both the national average of 17% and the international average of 26.4% but 

behind China’s average of 52%. Presently there are approximately 250 cadets in the 

senior class majoring in Engineering while approximately 200 are majoring in the 

Basic Sciences. 

As shown in the figure below, the amount of time devoted to the engineering core 

curriculum is between 15 and 18 semester hours, depending upon the choice of the 

interdisciplinary option, out of a total of 97 semester hours of academic core. 

We believe it helps to consider the phrase ‘‘foundation in strategy’’ as it applies 

to the preparation of preparing graduates to effectively face dynamic and complex 

global challenges in their roles as junior officers. The Academy is not trying to develop experts in strategy in the same way that it is the war colleges’ responsibility 

to do so. Rather, we need to prepare our graduates to behave in strategically effective ways in often ill-defined and rapidly changing conditions and environments. Behaving in such ways requires a particular constellation of skills and perspectives, 

an understanding of the service’s and the nation’s strategic interests and strategy, 

and in the particular ways one supports those as a junior officer. 
109 

In that sense, ‘‘behaving strategically’’ requires that individuals, teams, and organizations be able to learn adaptively. Increasingly, strategy itself can even be 

thought of as an ongoing learning process throughout the organization. In fact, this 

is precisely the overarching purpose of the Academy’s attempt to be an examplar 

of learning-focused education in the development of its still relatively new institutional Outcomes. 

Furthermore, in the face of ill-defined and rapidly changing conditions, adaptive 

learning in ill-defined and rapidly changing conditions benefits from an appreciation 

of the interconnectedness of multiple factors and variables—just the kind of appreciation that we believe is fostered by our broad, intentional and developmental core 

curriculum including its long-standing emphasis on STEM elements of the core curriculum. In fact, two of the Academy’s institutional Outcomes include developing understanding of the ‘‘Principles of Science and the Scientific Method’’ and ‘‘Principles 

of Engineering and the Application of Technology.’’ 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent is the USAFA’s engineering-based curriculum preparing cadets to become effective officers on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

elsewhere? 

General BORN. USAFA’s academic curriculum is based not on engineering but 

rather a diverse core curriculum of 97 semester hours in basic sciences, humanities, 

social sciences, as well as engineering as shown in the figure below. 

This emphasis upon broad and balanced coursework spanning multiple disciplines 

best prepares junior officers for the complex, dynamic, and uncertain situation in 

Iraq and Afghanistan where problems are ill-defined and often dangerous. The engineering core coursework is specifically designed to help develop skills associated 

with problem solving, critical thinking, decision making, and teamwork, as well as 

providing the technical background necessary to effectively apply technology in the 

ground, air, space, and cyberspace domains. Methods developed and experience 

gained in the engineering curriculum in framing and solving ill-defined problems 

are invaluable to their success as leaders. 

Dr. SNYDER. At the USAFA, we know that the ‘‘cadet experience’’ is a combination 

of academic and professional development curricula, leadership opportunities, summer training and travel, competitive athletics, etc. How do you factor Service, JCS, 

and DOD requirements into the overall pre-commissioning experience? 

General BORN. Identifying AF, JCS, and DOD requirements is a continual process, due to the ever changing environment within which we live, learn, and operate. 

The Academy’s mission is to develop leaders of character. So with that in mind, 

teams have worked, and are continuing to work, multiple issues for integration into 

the USAFA curriculum. We emphasize the actionable—what knowledge, skills, and 

responsibilities should the next generation of officers possess? The conversation may 

begin at one of three organizational levels. First, at the pre-commissioning level 

(USAF Commissioning Training and Education Committee—AFA, ANG, AFOTS, 

AFROTC), we regularly meet with the other USAF commissioning sources to adapt 

our curricula to the contemporary learning and operating environment. Adjustments 

to the course of instruction resulting from this collaboration are incorporated into 

strategic guidance such as Air Force Instruction 36–2014, Commissioning Education. This guidance also incorporates current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Officer Professional Military Education Policy. Second, our AF leadership may issue 

a vector for the Academy. Third, through current research and education and training engagement with our Service, JCS, and DoD, we, the Academy team, adapt to 

and anticipate emerging requirements. A prime example is our Operation Air Force 

deployed summer program where cadets engage with other services in Southwest 

Asia locations. This provides first-hand exposure and experience in the joint environment. 
110 

To integrate requirements, USAFA has developed, implemented, and assessed a 

single set of Outcomes that all mission elements support to develop cadets into leaders of character who embody the Air Force core values (Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence in All We Do). The Outcomes (Tier One: Responsibilities, Skills, 

and Knowledge) are the foundation upon which our recent ten-year accreditation 

was based, and to which all programs and courses across mission elements are connected. Specific programs and courses have been identified to assess each of the 

Outcomes’ nineteen Tier Two categories (see Outcomes chart below). When determining how to integrate a requirement, we evaluate how it relates to Tier One Outcome(s), and then, in greater detail, to one of the nineteen Tier Two Outcomes. Connecting the requirement to mission elements is the responsibility of commanders, 

senior leaders, Ph.D. faculty, certified trainers, and athletic professionals. The Outcomes are assessed based upon Higher Learning Commission accreditation standards. Linking Service, JCS and/or DoD requirements to the Academy Outcomes is 

key to maintaining a credible, accountable, value-added four-year academic, professional, and character/leadership curriculum (which only the nation’s service academies provide) at the pre-commissioning level. 

Dr. SNYDER. How frequently are major reviews of the USAFA’s core curriculum 

conducted? What is the process for review and for the implementation of any recommended adjustments? 

General BORN. Major reviews/revisions of the core curriculum were accomplished 

in 1964, 1975, 1979, 1986, 1994, 1997, 2002, and 2006. Regarding the process for 

curriculum review and change, a few of the highlights of the governing USAFA Instruction 36–3507, Curriculum Handbook and Curriculum Change Control, are listed below: 

– The USAFA Curriculum Committee (a subcommittee of the Academy Board) 

meets once a semester 

– Committee is chaired by the Dean of the Faculty; voting members include the 

Dean of the Faculty; the Vice Dean of the Faculty; the Associate Dean for 

Student Academic Affairs and Academy Registrar (DFR); the Deputy Registrar and Chief, Academic Affairs and Curriculum Division (non-voting); the 

Associate Dean for Curriculum and Strategy; all DF academic department 
111 

heads; the Vice Commandant of Cadets; the Vice Commandant for Strategic 

Programs; the Director of Training and Support; the Director, Center for 

Character Development; the Wing Director of Curriculum; the Vice Athletic 

Director; the Deputy Director of Athletics and Head, Physical Education; the 

Director, Plans and Programs (non-voting); and the Director of Admissions 

(non-voting) 

– DFR requests Curriculum Change Proposals (CCPs) from all Mission Elements (MEs) through committee members—effective NET 1 year from semester submitted 

– DFR publishes CCP package two weeks before USAFA Curriculum Committee meets 

– The Integrated Curriculum Review Committee (ICRC), a subcommittee of the 

USAFA Curriculum Committee with a balanced composition across all mission elements, meets prior to the Curriculum Committee 

– The ICRC has authority to approve/disapprove some proposals; forwards review on others 

– The ICRC meets outside of curriculum cycle to discuss integration initiatives across USAFA 

– The USAFA Curriculum Committee meets to discuss and vote on CCP’s 

– Significant changes forwarded to Academy Board for final approval 

– Approved changes are incorporated into USAFA’s curriculum via the Curriculum Handbook, USAFA Catalog, Cadet Administrative Management Information System (CAMIS), and other products required for implementation 

Dr. SNYDER. We understand that the USAFA was going to conduct a comprehensive 50-year curriculum review, but that it may not proceed. Would you please explain your current efforts? 

General BORN. This question reflects a misunderstanding of our plans to mark the 

occasion of USAFA’s 50th Anniversary through an initiative we’ve entitled FALCON 

Flight. FALCON stands for Fortifying and Aligning our Learning Capacity for Our 

Nation. The details of FALCON Flight are currently being coordinated at the mission element level but several of the important issues are discussed below. 

Our previous comprehensive curriculum review occurred in 2006. Since then, 

USAFA has begun implementing several major transformations in our institutional 

approach to developing cadets. These include the adoption of nineteen institutional 

Outcomes, and a more integrated approach across our Mission Elements linking our 

efforts in developing these Outcomes. There have been several recent external validations of these efforts by the academic community, including a strong endorsement 

by the Higher Learning Commission for a ten-year institutional re-accreditation. 

Perhaps the most important challenge facing us today, then, is to assure that we’ve 

embedded the myriad of changes to our systems, practices and culture so that this 

transformation will be sustained. 

It has become increasingly clear to us that a curriculum review needs to address 

the total institutional context including not ‘‘just’’ the curriculum itself (broadly defined to include academic, military, athletic and airmanship coursework) but also 

the broader policies and practices that impact our ability to assure that our varied 

learning outcomes are achieved. There are presently strategic conversations underway among the USAFA senior leadership about what should be our mid- and longerterm strategy. 

An important element in this mid- to longer-term strategy as articulated in FALCON Flight will be the design and implementation of an explicit mechanism by 

which the USAFA Outcomes will be periodically reviewed to ensure that they address the shifting requirements of officers in the 21st century. The nineteen USAFA 

Outcomes were recently developed based upon a careful analysis of the requirements of officers in the 21st century as we understood them to be at the time. But 

because our profession and the AF’s role in it are going through dramatic changes, 

the Outcomes and the supporting Course of Instruction (COI) will need to be periodically reviewed. Our graduates must be prepared to lead in an increasingly complex, joint, interagency, and multinational environment. To remain relevant and 

support the Air Force and the American people, we must understand how the profession of arms is changing and what the Air Force needs of its Lieutenants. We 

must make sure our COIs align with and produce officers who meet those Outcomes. 

To help ensure that this forward-looking activity is ongoing, a mechanism should 

be developed by which the USAFA Outcomes are periodically reviewed. The time period for updating or changing the Outcomes should reflect a balance between ensuring sufficient responsiveness to the changing world on the one hand and on the 
112 

other, providing enough time to conduct an effective assessment cycle. Another way 

of thinking about it, USAFA will need to adjust the Outcomes ‘‘target’’ from time 

to time but not before we know whether or not we hit that target in the previous 

round of COI delivery. 

Dr. SNYDER. How do you evaluate the performance of the faculty and staff at your 

institution? 

General BORN. Civilian Faculty: 

The civilian faculty and staff are comprised of four groups of federal civil service 

employees (Administratively Determined (AD), General Schedule (GS), National Security Personnel System (NSPS), and Wage Grade (WG)), employees from other governmental agencies (Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), National Security Agency 

(NSA), and the Department of State (DOS)), and visiting faculty members from colleges, universities, and the private sector. 

The federal civil service employees are evaluated on an annual basis utilizing the 

respective federal performance appraisal system (AD, GS, NSPS, and WG), each of 

which is designed to evaluate performance aligned with each employee’s Core Document (position description). In addition, the quarterly and annual awards programs 

serve as a means of recognizing outstanding performers. 

Since the employees from other governmental agencies are brought to the Academy as teachers, they are evaluated on the quality of their performance as related 

to the fundamental faculty responsibilities of teaching, research/scholarship, and 

service. 

Visiting faculty members are also evaluated on the quality of their performance 

as related to the fundamental faculty responsibilities of teaching, research/scholarship, and service. In addition, these civilian educators are called upon to be critical 

external evaluators of our academic programs. They bring a vital expertise to the 

Air Force Academy and this two-way exchange of knowledge has proven to be mutually beneficial to both the Academy and the visiting faculty members. 

Military Faculty: 

Military faculty and staff are evaluated according to the same Air Force Instruction (AFI 36–2406, Evaluations) as all other military members throughout the Air 

Force. The fact that many of them are operating outside their core area of assigned 

duties (AFSC) makes this a valuable career broadening opportunity. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do your military faculty members get promotions and are they selected for command? Please provide statistics for the last five years. 

General BORN. Our military faculty members are competitive for promotions as 

the figures (in the table below) for the last five years indicate. For promotions to 

Major and Lt Col, the Dean of Faculty has been above the AF average in all years 

except for calendar year (CY) 2006. Promotions to the grade of Colonel are below 

the AF average for this 5 year time period. 

Many of our officers are competitive and selected for command after completing 

their faculty tour or later on in their Air Force career. Although we do have several 

field grade officers each year screened and selected for command positions, we do 

not maintain a database on these command selections. 

The table below shows the Dean of Faculty’s statistics with comparison to Air 

Force selection rates for ‘in the promotion zone’ (IPZ) Line of the Air Force (LAF) 

promotion boards to Maj, Lt Col, and Col for CY 2005 through CY 2009. 
113 

Dr. SNYDER. The USAFA has recently developed a ‘‘rotating contract’’ system. 

Please describe and discuss that system. What feedback have you received from civilian faculty with respect to the system? 

General BORN. Our civilian faculty system is called the Civilian Faculty Reappointment System. We do not refer to it as a ‘‘rotating contract’’ system. 

For civilian civil service faculty members on an initial three-year appointment, 

the Dean of the Faculty, after conferring with the respective Department or Staff 

Agency Head, determines whether a faculty member is to be reappointed when one 

year remains on the initial three-year appointment. Factors considered in deciding 

to reappoint will include superior faculty member performance as detailed in current and past performance appraisals and careful consideration of the following factors: 

– Essential qualities expected of every faculty member include the personal attributes of integrity, industry, cooperation, initiative, and breadth of intellectual 

interests. 
114 

– Demonstrated excellence in teaching is an absolute and fundamental requirement. Teaching performance may be demonstrated by classroom presentations; 

course and laboratory development; course direction; leadership of independent 

student projects; and mentorship of junior faculty. 

– Faculty members normally conduct research, engage in consultation (consistent 

with public law and DoD and Air Force directives), write and publish educational and professional articles and textbooks, and participate in conferences 

and other activities of learned societies. These activities strengthen and improve the faculty’s capacity to carry out the Academy’s mission and simultaneously enrich classroom teaching. 

– Each faculty member provides service to the Air Force, the Air Force Academy, 

and the professional community. Such service may take the form of involvement 

in cadet activities and programs, administration, faculty governance, curriculum and program management, or temporary assignment to other Air Force 

organizations. 

Based on feedback from the Faculty Forum (an advisory group to Dean of Faculty 

senior leadership) the current reappointment system was established. If a reappointment is warranted, the new appointment length will normally be for a period 

of four years, although lesser periods may be approved depending on the specific circumstances. The respective Department Head or Staff Agency Head will inform the 

Dean in writing on the Performance Appraisal of the faculty member’s desire to be 

reappointed, after consultation with the faculty member. For faculty members who 

have already been reappointed at least once, at the end of each annual appraisal 

cycle, the Dean of the Faculty, after conferring with the respective Department or 

Staff Agency Head, will determine whether a faculty member will be reappointed. 

This decision will be made when three years remain on a faculty member’s current 

four-year appointment. Reappointments will normally be for a one-year period, 

meaning that after reappointment, the faculty member will have no more than four 

years remaining on their appointment. 

The Dean of Faculty organization recently completed the second academic year 

under the new reappointment system. The new system was supported by a large 

majority of civilian faculty members because reappointments would now be determined with three years remaining on a faculty member’s current appointment. 

Under the old system that decision was made with only one year remaining. So 

there is improved job security if warranted by performance. 

Now that the ‘‘timing’’ for reappointments has been established, we are continuing 

the process of modifying existing instructions to incorporate consistent language 

with regard to performance measurement criteria and the coupling of quality performance to reappointment. The feedback we have received from the faculty regarding our progress in this area has been very positive. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent may civilians from other government agencies, such 

as the State Department or the CIA, be detailed to the USAFA faculty? How do 

these visiting faculty members help students better understand the perspectives of 

other agencies? 

General BORN. Civilians from other governmental agencies such as the Central 

Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the State Department can 

be detailed to the USAFA faculty if both organizations agree to such an arrangement and if the sponsoring agency provides funding and logistical support. The specifics of each detail vary from agency to agency. The Academy’s primary responsibility is to supply adequate administrative support (office space, computer, etc.). The 

only restriction on accepting qualified civilian employees is from governmental agency policies. 

Since the inception of the Visiting Faculty Program in the mid-1970s, employees 

from other governmental agencies have brought their personal academic expertise 

as well as their professional perspective to the classroom, adding an important dimension to the learning cadets receive. In addition, the dialogue between these instructors and their cadets concerning the strategic and tactical operations of their 

respective agencies allows cadets to gain a unique and extremely valuable insight 

into policy making at the national level. For example, the Department of State visiting professor is often asked to explain the role of the State Department and contrast its culture and mission with the Department of Defense. He uses anecdotes 

such as one developed by U.S. diplomat Anton K. Smith that describes the warrior 

approach to problems as ‘‘How can we get this done?’’ in contrast to the diplomat’s 

approach which might be ‘‘How can we shape the situation to arrive together at a 

mutually desirable goal, while maintaining a relationship capable of addressing 

other important goals in a continuing process?’’ 
115 

Visiting government faculty members help cadets understand the perspective of 

other agencies by presenting the unique organizational culture of that agency. Most 

government policy is formulated through an interagency process and in general, no 

national security or international affairs issue can be resolved by one agency alone. 

Visiting faculty members present the views and cultures of other agencies in the 

classroom and through participation in extracurricular activities, thus giving cadets 

significantly different perspectives than if just limited to those of the Air Force or 

Department of Defense. Interaction between visiting faculty and cadets increases 

the comfort level of cadets in dealing with government civilians, which is critical as 

military and civilian roles become increasingly intertwined. By providing cadets 

with early exposure to different perspectives and approaches to problem solving, visiting faculty members serve to prepare cadets for their future careers in which being 

able to perform effectively in the government interagency process and interact with 

civilians depends on a broad knowledge of issues and organizational cultures. 

Dr. SNYDER. In 2004, the ‘‘Larson Report’’ looked at the role of permanent professors (PPs) at all of the Service Academies with a special focus on the USAFA. Please 

discuss the changes you have made in the PP system as a result of the Larson Report? The Larson Report specifically called for the USAFA to hire ‘‘pure’’ civilian 

academics, as intended by Congress. The USAFA has apparently disregarded that 

recommendation. Please explain. Also, please discuss the effect that PPs have on the 

participation of civilians within the school’s leadership structure. 

General BORN. The 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, Section 528, directed the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) to complete a ‘‘study and report related to permanent professors at the United States Air Force Academy.’’ The SecAF 

selected Admiral (ret) Charles R. Larson to lead the study, the goal of which was 

to provide a detailed look at the Air Force Academy while at the same time comparing Air Force Academy faculty systems, organizations, and structure with those 

at West Point and Annapolis. 

The Larson Report concluded, ‘‘There is a perception across the Air Force that the 

Air Force Academy’s permanent professors have been at the Academy too long, have 

lost touch with the Air Force, and are a part of the systemic problems that led to 

the current crisis. The average longevity of permanent professors at both West Point 

and the Air Force Academy is approximately nine years. The term ‘‘permanent’’ is 

misleading and has become pejorative. This study found no serious problems with 

the existing Air Force Academy permanent professor system and little evidence of 

an ‘‘ivory tower’’ mentality or stagnation. To the contrary, permanent professors 

have served as an anchor of stability during a period of faculty transition.’’ In addition, ‘‘This study strongly recommends the permanent professor program be sustained.’’ 

Given the strong support by Admiral Larson for the PP program as it existed, few 

changes were needed. The primary change was adopting the study’s recommendation for consideration to be given to the value of short-term TDY assignments or 

deployments in critical operational areas as being equally or more important than 

sabbaticals to narrow areas unrelated to cadets’ first assignments. This language 

has been codified in Air Force Instruction 36–3501, Air Force Academy Operations 

(28 April 2008), which says, ‘‘Permanent Professors will periodically (normally every 

5 years) serve on sabbaticals in fields related to their Permanent Professor responsibilities to ensure they remain current in their discipline or serve in the operational 

Air Force for the purposes of refreshing their operational experience in their primary career field. The service can be extended TDYs, deployments, or PCS assignments (para. 2.13.16.3.)’’ 

The Larson Report recognizes the intent of Congress in its 1994 legislation to 

bring in civilian faculty members that can add a fresh outlook, doctoral-level currency, and depth in their academic discipline to the U.S. Air Force Academy and 

recommends that ‘‘to comply with the true intent of Congress, and to ensure the maximum strength of the civilian element of the faculty, future civilian hires should be 

‘‘pure academicians’’ from civilian higher education. However, specific application of 

this recommendation is constrained by other legislation such as the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA, 38 U.S.C. 

§ 4301–4335). USERRA is a federal law intended to ensure that persons who serve 

or have served in the Armed Forces, Reserves, National Guard or other ‘‘uniformed 

services:’’ (1) are not disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service; 

(2) are promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their return from duty; and 

(3) are not discriminated against in employment based on past, present, or future 

military service (emphasis added). Specifically § 4311 of the USERRA legislation 

makes it illegal to discriminate against a person who is a member of, applies to be 

a member of, performs, has performed, applies to perform, or has an obligation to 

perform service in a uniformed service. Such a person shall not be denied initial em-
116 

ployment, reemployment, retention in employment, promotion, or any benefit of employment by an employer on the basis of that membership, application for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation. 

Previous USAFA attempts to hire ‘‘pure academicians’’ instead of equally or more 

qualified military retirees resulted in a complaint to and an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). As a result of the investigation, OSC informed 

USAFA that they would bring an action before the Merit Systems Protection Board 

unless USAFA strictly complied with the anti-discrimination provisions of USERRA. 

After a discussion with OSC and a review of the law, USAFA thereafter hired the 

soon-to-be retired military applicant for a civilian faculty position at USAFA. 

The report, A Blend of Excellence: Military-Civilian Faculty Mix at the Service 

Academies, submitted by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force 

Management and Personnel) in response to the 1993 NDAA makes no mention of 

‘‘pure academicians.’’ It defines the role of civilian faculty to be competent in their 

disciplines, adept at educational innovation, and abreast of educational advances— 

all characteristics demanded of any new civilian faculty member, regardless of their 

previous work history. In fact, a number of our retired military faculty members 

have also served at civilian universities before being hired here. 

The PPs embrace the participation of civilians within the school’s leadership 

structure. Since 2007, three PPs have selected civilians from their departments to 

serve as department heads while the PPs completed sabbaticals ranging from six 

months to 2.5 years. All PPs have embedded civilians throughout their department 

leadership hierarchy, and in 2005, the Dean of the Faculty established the position 

of Associate Dean for Curriculum and Strategy that rotates among civilian full professors every 2–4 years. This position is equivalent to the Vice Dean of the Faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. How hard is it to attract top civilian faculty to the USAFA? What 

incentives do you offer civilian faculty candidates? 

General BORN. Since the inception of the Civilian Faculty Program in 1993, we 

have been extremely successful in attracting and retaining top-quality faculty members who are dedicated to the Academy mission of educating, training, and inspiring 

men and women to become officers of character. One measure of faculty quality is 

institutional recognition. In addition to recently receiving institutional re-accreditation for the maximum allowable period of ten years, the Academy was just named 

the best baccalaureate college in the west for the third year in a row. In addition, 

for the past few years the Academy was cited as the #1 institution in the nation 

for possessing the ‘‘most accessible faculty.’’ These institutional accolades are a direct reflection of the quality and dedication of the civilian faculty members. In addition, the number of civilian faculty members receiving individual recognition is truly 

noteworthy as evidenced by the following list of recent awards: 

Colorado Professor of the Year: 2008, 2005, 2003, and 2002 

2009 Award for Innovative Excellence in Teaching, Learning & Technology 

2009 von Ka` rma`n Lectureship in Astronautics 

International Association of University English Professors 

Patents for holographic/laser technologies (2007–8) 

Patent for Hydrogen Flow Controller (2008) 

2007 NASA Engineering/Safety Group Achievement Award 

2007 Robert M. Yerkes Award (Military Psychology) 

McLucas Basic Research Award 2008 (Hon Men) 

Fulbright Scholarships: 2009 (Russia, Singapore, Jordan), 2007 (South Africa, 

India, Warsaw) 

2007 Air Force Nominee for Arthur S. Flemming Award 

2007 Ernest L. Boyer International Award for Excellence in Teaching, Learning, 

and Technology 

2008 Air Force Nominee for the DoD Distinguished Civilian Service Award 

2008 Dolores Zohrab Liebmann Fellowship 

2008 Association for Computing Machinery Distinguished Scientist/Engineer/ 

Member Award 

2008 Pi Mu Epsilon Faculty Award 

Quality civilian faculty members are drawn to the Air Force Academy for a number of reasons to include the opportunity to interact with an outstanding student 

body, participate in top-tier undergraduate research initiatives, and contribute to a 

unique and extremely important mission. In addition, the ability to live in one of 

the most beautiful areas of the country is an incentive for many. Salary and benefit 
117 

packages offered to civilian faculty members at the Air Force Academy are comparable to other four-year institutions of higher education, with the one exception 

being contract length. Nine-month and ten-month contracts for faculty members in 

higher educational institutions are the norm. At the Air Force Academy, all civilian 

faculty members are on twelve-month appointments because their services are required during the summer months as well as during the academic year. For the vast 

majority of faculty members, receiving a paycheck every month of the year is an employment incentive. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are there any significant impediments to sending USAFA faculty 

members, whether civilian or military, for professional or academic purposes to foreign universities? Are there any significant impediments to sending faculty members for the same reasons to top tier universities within the United States? 

General BORN. USAFA strives to send faculty members to a diverse pool of universities to ensure the quality of our academic curriculum. USAFA considers faculty 

members’ attendance at top-tier schools both in the United States and overseas as 

critical in sustaining and evolving the diversity and quality of our programs. 

For military faculty, the primary challenge to enrollment is the cost of tuition at 

both state-side and overseas universities. The Air Force Institute of Technology 

(AFIT) provides both administrative oversight and financial responsibility to sustain 

our faculty education programs both in-residence at Wright Patterson AFB and at 

civilian universities. When appropriate, we send faculty members in-residence to 

AFIT. When the required program is not offered at AFIT, the individual has already 

received an AFIT degree at the Masters level, or when diversity is needed among 

a particular program’s faculty, faculty are sent to a large number of universities 

throughout the U.S. and overseas. Faculty are currently attending four overseas 

universities: Oxford, Cambridge, and Surrey in England, as well as Delft University 

of Technology in the Netherlands. Tuition costs currently range from $17,000 to 

$28,000 per year for these overseas universities. In the United States, the tuition 

can approach $40,000 per year for top tier schools. At the same time, AFIT is only 

budgeted at $19,000 per year per student. While many excellent schools have tuitions that fit this requirement, many schools do not, including most private universities. The result has been to limit our faculty to those state-side schools with lower 

tuitions unless the faculty member can obtain merit based supplemental scholarship 

money from the university they wish to attend. In today’s environment, those opportunities are limited. With few exceptions, most of our faculty attend AFIT in-residence or attend state universities. For the three universities in England, our faculty 

members are normally able to attend with tuition scholarships through long-standing relationships with the schools and various research programs. In the case of 

Delft, we have a relationship that allows us to send a faculty member to a PhD program free of tuition. 

With regard to civilian faculty members, there are no significant impediments to 

sending faculty members to either top tier U.S. institutions or to foreign universities 

in a TDY status for a relatively short period of time. With regard to sending faculty 

members to either top tier U.S. institutions or to foreign universities for an extended period of time (a semester or an academic year), one impediment is insufficient funding. Currently, we cannot reimburse faculty members for moving costs to 

and from their temporary locations. While some external funding assistance in the 

form of grants or scholarships helps, the only plausible long-term solution is dedicated funding for Leaves for Professional Development. 

Dr. SNYDER. It has been asserted that institutional efforts to generate more diversity in the student body and to recruit top athletes have had a negative impact on 

classroom dynamics and the quality of students and graduates. How do you respond 

to those assertions? 

General BORN. Research shows that diversity (structural diversity complemented 

by interaction and classroom diversity) produces significant benefits for both minority and majority students alike. Increased diversity in the classroom not only enriches the learning environment for all students, but it promotes greater understanding, interaction, and acceptance across other institutional settings and beyond. 

As noted by Scott and Cooney (2004), ‘‘significant diversity among students on a 

campus can challenge racial, ethnic, gender, religious and regional stereotypes, promote intergroup respect and willingness to embrace differences, increase feelings of 

belongingness among minority students, and in the words of Supreme Court Justice 

Lewis Powell, ‘create robust marketplaces of ideas’ that enhance the intellectual experiences of all students. Further, researchers have found that many benefits of diversity accrued in one’s college years have significant carry-over in later years.’’ 

The Air Force definition of diversity is a composite of individual characteristics 

that includes personal life experiences (including having overcome adversity by personal efforts), geographic background (e.g., region, rural, suburban, urban), socio-
118 

economic background, cultural knowledge, educational background (including academic excellence, and whether an individual would be a first generation college student), work background (including prior enlisted service), language abilities (with 

particular emphasis on languages of strategic importance to the Air Force), physical 

abilities (including athletic prowess), philosophical/spiritual perspectives, age (cadet 

applicants must be within statutory parameters for academy attendance), race, ethnicity and gender. 

Our focus on increasing cadet diversity has resulted in higher-quality students. 

The USAFA Class of 2013 has the highest average SAT composite and tied for the 

highest average ACT composite in USAFA history. Their average weighted high 

school grade point average was 3.86, and 76 percent of them were in the top fifth 

of their graduating high school class. In addition to record academic scores, their 

character and leadership indices were both the highest on record since Admissions 

began using the current holistic review process. Finally, the pool of applicants was 

larger than it has been in the past five years realizing an 11 percent increase over 

the previous year, while the number of qualified candidates also experienced the 

highest one year increase on record. 

Not only has the quality jumped, but the USAFA Class of 2013 is also by far one 

of our most structurally diverse ever. We received the highest number of African 

American, Hispanic, and Asian Pacific Islander applications and the third highest 

number of female applications. This class yielded the highest number of qualified 

Hispanic candidates and the third highest number of qualified female candidates. 

Hispanic candidates accepted the highest number of appointments in USAFA history, while minorities overall, as well as females, accepted the second highest number of appointments ever. The Class of 2013 also produced the highest number of 

qualified African American candidates and African American appointments offered, 

while tying the highest number of African American appointments accepted, all in 

the last 17 years. 

The efficacy of the outstanding programs, curricula, and environment at the Air 

Force Academy is borne out by the graduation statistics for diverse and majority cadets. As an example, the chart below indicates that African American and Hispanic 

cadets graduate at nearly identical rates as majority cadets and that all three categories graduate well above the national average for undergraduate students. 

*After implementation of Air Force Academy Diversity Plan 

**From the article from the Diverse Issues in Higher Education magazine dated 9 Jun 09, by 

Michelle J. Nealy 

***Data from 2007 US. Average from NCHEMS Information Center for Higher Education Policymaking and Analysis website 

Increased diversity not only enriches the USAFA educational and training experience but also enhances Air Force capabilities and warfighting skills. Our graduates 

will serve as leaders of an Air Force already composed of people from widely diverse 

backgrounds and experiences and projected to become even more diverse. This diversity is one of our greatest strengths and optimizing the effectiveness of that strength 

is our leadership challenge. The Air Force must also be prepared to respond to a 

variety of threats throughout the world, so Airmen must be able to fight effectively 

in this dynamic global environment and successfully work with, or fight against, 

military forces and people of differing cultures and views. Our approach therefore 

must go beyond recruiting and accessions to encompass retention, leadership development and accountability. 

To this end, the Air Force Academy is a leadership laboratory where cadets develop leadership abilities through demonstrated performance. They are organized in 

a structure similar to the Air Force itself, and progress through cadet ranks and 

positions that allow them to exercise leadership skills at progressively more challenging levels. This provides exceptional opportunities to learn and these opportunities are best realized when the cadet cadre itself is widely diverse. Only in such an 
119 

amalgamated environment can cadets learn to bring out the best in each individual 

regardless of his or her background, and achieve organizational effectiveness by 

combining the individual strengths and perspectives each person brings to the organization. Correspondingly, we conclude that recruiting, retaining, developing and 

graduating a diverse cadet corps is as important for Air Force leadership training 

as it is for the quality of academic education. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USAFA receive funding for the purpose of promoting diversity? If so, how is this funding utilized? 

General BORN. Prior to FY10, there has been no specific budget line item programmed into USAFA’s baseline for Diversity Recruiting/Outreach. 

• In FY08, USAFA/RR committed $166K of its O&M toward Diversity Recruiting 

and received an additional $180K from the USAFA/CC and $15K from USAFA/ 

FM for a total FY08 program of $316K. 

• In FY09, USAFA/RR committed $214K of its O&M toward Diversity Recruiting 

and received $250K from the USAFA/CC, $440K via congressional insert from 

CM Becerra, and an additional $180K from the USAFA/CC for Leaders Encouraging Airmen Development (LEAD), Diversity Affairs Coordinators (DAC), and 

Diversity Visitation Program (DVP) for a total FY09 program of $1.084M. 

• For FY10, Air Force Corporate Structure added $250K to the USAFA baseline 

specifically for Diversity Recruiting. USAFA/RR is committing an additional 

$388K for a total program of $638K. 

–USAFA Diversity Recruiting/Outreach FY10 O&M Requirement = $1.597M 

–USAFA Diversity Recruiting/Outreach FY10 O&M Shortfall = $959K 

Currently, Congress is deliberating through the FY10 authorization and appropriations acts a USAFA request for $1.7M to support the USAFA diversity program 

in FY10. 

This response does not address the USAFA Diversity Retention requirement 

($1.655M) or Diversity Program Civilian Pay requirement ($2.9M) identified in the 

2009 USAFA Diversity Plan. The additional USAFA Diversity Plan requirements 

will be addressed in the FY12–17 Program Objective Memorandum (POM) process. 

Dr. SNYDER. What are the current retention figures for USAFA graduates among 

active duty Air Force personnel at the five and fifteen year milestones? 

General BORN. AFPC provided the attached document (below) to answer similar 

Congressional inquiries. 

AFPC data shows the following USAFA graduate retention for line officers: 

5-year point: 79.6% 

15-year point: 37.9% 

Additional questions regarding active duty retention data (including USAFA graduate) can be directed to HQ AFPC/CCX Workflow AFPC.Workflow@RANDOLPH.AF. 

MIL DSN 665–4606 Comm (210) 565–4606. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please provide a comprehensive list with the numbers of all outside 

scholarships awarded to USAFA graduates over the past five years, together with 

a brief description of each. 

General BORN. The answer is in two parts: 

I. description of the outside scholarships awarded 

II. summary of the scholarships by year. 

I. Description of outside Scholarships awarded to cadets, 2005 through 2009. 

a. California Institute of Technology. Two-year program of study leading to an MS 

degree in Physics. 

b. Eisenhower Center for Space and Defense Studies Scholarship. A 12-month or 24- 

month master’s degree program in either Political Science or Engineering. 

c. East-West Center Scholarship at the University of Hawaii. Two-year program of 

study leading to a master’s degree. It can be either an MA or MS, depending on 

the program of study—see list of programs available below. Language proficiency in 

one of the Pacific Rim languages is required (primarily Chinese and Japanese). 

1. Program for Cultural Studies: This program deals with historical and social 

aspects of Asia and the Pacific. It applies to those specializing in the Humanities and Behavioral Science. 

2. Program for Environment: Concentrates on environmental and developmental 

aspects of Asia and the Pacific. Environmental Engineers and Management majors should consider this area. 
120 

3. Program for International Economics and Politics: Appropriate for Political 

Science, Economics and Management majors. 

4. Resource Programs: Focuses on development, extraction, and efficient use of 

resources in the Asia and Pacific region. This is an appropriate field for Engineering majors. 

d. Fulbright Scholarship. International program for a 10-month stay in a foreign 

country to learn about the culture and improve language proficiency. Open to all 

disciplines but requires language proficiency in the language of the country for 

which one applies. This is not a degree-scholarship program, although some Fulbright Scholars have obtained degrees in Canada, India and the UK. The purpose 

of the Fulbright scholarship is to increase mutual understanding between the people 

of the United States and other countries through the exchange of persons, knowledge, and skills. 

e. Gates-Cambridge Scholarship. Open to all disciplines. Two-year scholarship at 

Cambridge University leading to either an MSc (Research Master degree usually in 

the sciences) or an MPhil (Master of Philosophy) degree. A three-year version is offered which will lead to a doctorate (DPhil). 

f. Hertz Scholarship. The Hertz Scholarship is considered by many to be the top 

U.S. scholarship for the U.S. citizens who intend to make their skills and abilities 

available for the defense of the United States in times of national emergency. Primary fields of study are in the Applied Physical Sciences construed in a broad 

sense—Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, and Engineering Sciences. Scholarship is 

tenable at any one of the 43 top engineering and basic sciences institutions in the 

United States 

g. Alberta Bart Holaday Scholarship. Two-year program of study at Exeter College, 

Oxford University, UK. This scholarship is open to all majors and leads to a master’s degree. 

h. JFK Presidential Scholarship @ Harvard University. Two-year program of study 

at Harvard University, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, leading to a 

Master’s of Public Policy with choice of a Policy Area of Concentration. This program is open to all majors. 

i. Marshall Scholarship. Open to U.S. citizens under 26 years of age on October 1 

of the year in which the award will be taken up. Must be a graduate or a graduating senior of an accredited U.S. college or university, with a minimum grade 

point average of 3.7 for the final three undergraduate years. Open to all disciplines 

for a two-year scholarship at any college or university in the UK leading to either 

an MSc (Research Master degree usually in the sciences) or an MPhil (Master of 

Philosophy) degree. A three-year version is offered leading to a doctorate (DPhil). 

j. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Scholarship (MIT). Two-year scholarship 

open to students admitted to research degree programs at MIT. This includes many 

technical areas, including but not limited to the following: aeronautical engineering 

and astronautical engineering (mostly instrumentation, control, and estimation), 

mechanical engineering, materials science, electrical engineering, and computer 

science. Scholarships are awarded by the department, Charles Stark Draper Laboratory, or MIT Lincoln Laboratory. 

k. National Science Foundation (NSF) Scholarship. Two-year scholarship only available to persons who (a) are citizens or nationals of the United States (or will be by 

the time of the application), (b) have demonstrated ability and special aptitude for 

advanced training in the sciences, (c) have been admitted to graduate status by the 

institution they select or will have been so admitted prior to beginning their fellowship tenures, and (d) have not completed more than one year of full-time or parttime graduate study. Scholarships awarded primarily to Mathematical, Physical, Biological, Behavioral Sciences, Social Sciences, Engineering, History of Philosophy, 

and History of Science. 

l. Superintendent’s RAND PhD Scholarship. Open to all majors, but candidates 

must have a strong analytical background. This three-year program of study leads 

to a doctorate in Policy Analysis. This is an interdisciplinary program combining analytical rigor with practical experience in some of the world’s most challenging problem areas: security, health, justice, education, and poverty. 

m. Rhodes Scholarship. One- or two-year program of study at Oxford University, 

UK. It is open to all disciplines. Must be a United States citizen with at least five 

years domicile, between the ages of 18 and 24 at the time of scholarship application, 

have at least junior standing at a recognized college or university, and receive official endorsement of the college or university. Quality of both character and intellect 

is the most important requirement for a Rhodes Scholarship, which the Rhodes 
121 

Scholarship Committee seeks to ascertain. The commonly held opinion is that the 

Rhodes Scholarship is the most prestigious scholarship in the world. They select 

only 32 scholars per year. 

n. Rice University Scholarship. This two-year program of study is open to all qualified Aeronautical Engineering, Astronautical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, 

Computer Science, Mathematical Sciences, Operations Research, and Physics students. Many technical areas, including: Guidance, Navigation, Control Automation, 

Electrical Engineering, and Computing Technology. Degree program leads to an MS 

in engineering. 

o. Harry S. Truman Scholarship. This junior year scholarship awards $30,000 for 

graduate study. It is open to all disciplines with a focus on service and leadership. 

p. University of Colorado Scholarship. 18-month program leading to an MS in Engineering. 

q. University of Maryland Scholarship. Two-year interdisciplinary program open to 

all majors. An important selection criterion is a continuing interest in public problems and service in the public sector. This program awards a Master’s in Public Policy. 

r. University of Washington Aero-Astro Fellowship. The fellowships are open to all 

qualified Aero-Astro Engineering students for an 18-month program of study leading 

an MS in Engineering. 

s. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University Scholarship. 12-month or 18- 

month program of study is open to all qualified Aeronautical Engineering, Astronautical Engineering, Mechanical Engineering, Computer Science, Mathematical 

Sciences, Operations Research, and Physics students. Program leads to an MS degree in the discipline studied. 

II. OUTSIDE SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED—2005 TO 2009 

Program Scholarship/School 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

2005 

through 

2009 

a California Institute of 

Technology 

—— —— —— —— 1 1 

b Center for Space and Defense Studies Scholarship —— —— 2 —— 2 4 

c East-West Center Scholarship at the University of 

Hawaii 

1 —— 1 —— 1 (declined) 3 

d Fulbright Scholarship 1 —— 2 —— 2 (declined) 5 

e Gates-Cambridge University Scholarship+ —— —— —— —— 1 1 

f Hertz Scholarship —— —— —— 1 —— 1 

g Alberta Bart Holaday 

Scholarship 

1 1 1 1 1 5 

h JFK Presidential Scholarship @ Harvard University 5 4 5 4 5 23 

i Marshall Scholarship —— —— 1 —— 1 2 

j Massachusetts Institute of 

Technology Scholarship 

(Departmental,/Draper/or 

Lincoln Laboratory) 

7 9 7 12 5 40 

k National Science Foundation (NSF) Scholarship —— —— 1 (deferred) —— 1 (deferred) 2 

l Superintendent’s RAND 

PhD Scholarship 

1 2 4 3 4 14 

m Rhodes Scholarship —— —— 1 1 ——- 27 
122 

II. OUTSIDE SCHOLARSHIPS AWARDED—2005 TO 2009 

Program Scholarship/School 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

2005 

through 

2009 

n Rice University Scholarship (Departmental or 

Draper Laboratory) 

2 4 6 7 8 2 

o Truman Scholarship 1 1 1 —— 1 4 

p University of Colorado 

Scholarship 

—— —— —— —— 5 5 

q University of Maryland 

Scholarship 

4 3 4 4 4 19 

r University of Washington 

Scholarship 

2 1 1 3 1 8 

s Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University 

Scholarship 

—— —— —— 1 —— 1 

TOTALS 25 25 37 37 43 167 

Dr. SNYDER. Please explain in detail the difference between the USAFA’s ‘‘Learning Focused Environment’’ and the environment which preceded it at the USAFA. 

General BORN. While relatively recent, USAFA’s learning-focused environment 

has both paralleled and been reinforced by new directions in education and training 

in the broader Air Force as well as in higher education. The broader Air Force recently has adopted a ‘‘Continuum of Learning’’ that looks at the progressive development of a specified set of key competencies over the entire course of a career. In 

this view, any given competency is developed in deeper and broader ways so that 

its expression later in one’s career is appropriate to the nature of responsibilities 

and challenges often faced by more senior personnel. The key idea underlying the 

Continuum of Learning is precisely that: learning must continue throughout one’s 

career, and that it is each individual service member’s responsibility to be committed to and able to continue that process of lifelong learning. The real essence of 

education and training, then, is not just mastery of any given body of knowledge 

and skills but even more fundamentally commitment to a skilled process of continuous learning. 

Over the past decade or so, both USAFA and the broader higher education community have embarked on a cultural shift, from an ‘‘instruction-centered paradigm’’ 

to a newer ‘‘learning-centered paradigm’’ (Barr & Tagg, 1995; Huba & Freed, 2000; 

Tagg, 2003). According to the instruction-centered paradigm, the professor’s primary 

task was to deliver instruction—to transmit his or her knowledge of a particular 

subject to students. This paradigm has at least two limitations. First, even if a professor is great at ‘‘delivering instruction,’’ there is no guarantee that his or her students are learning. When it comes to facilitating learning, educational research is 

very clear that faculty need to take into account that students are active constructors, discoverers, and transformers of knowledge and not just vessels to be filled 

with content. (e.g., Campbell and Smith, 1997; Hake, 1998; for a more comprehensive discussion, see Bok, 2006). 

The second problem with the instruction-centered paradigm emerges from patterns that are becoming apparent in our current information age. For example, the 

volume of readily available knowledge is growing exponentially. What is ‘‘known’’ 

today is likely to be very different from what is ‘‘known’’ even a few years from now. 

Furthermore, modern technology (e.g. internet, PDAs, cell phones) is making the information that is known increasingly easy to access. Therefore, while our classes 

must still build on foundational knowledge, it is clear that they needn’t be solely 

dedicated to the acquisition of the current state of available knowledge. 

Because of the problems inherent in the instruction-centered paradigm, the higher 

education community is shifting its focus more specifically on learning. Colleges and 

universities are placing much greater emphasis on the learning outcomes that are 

essential for 21st century students to achieve, and then creating environments 

where that essential learning can take place. What the faculty member does in class 

is still important, of course. However, the faculty’s principal task is creating environments where student learning is most likely to occur. Furthermore, the faculty 

member’s goals haven’t been accomplished unless students have learned what we 
123 

wanted them to learn. (As Biggs (1999, p. 63) points out, it should no longer be possible to say, ‘‘I taught them, but they didn’t learn.’’). 

This is not to suggest that the USAFA faculty members are solely responsible for 

cadets’ learning—obviously, the cadets play a pivotal role as well. To be successful, 

the faculty and cadets will work together as an effective team. The faculty will use 

their experience and expertise to create effective learning environments, and the cadets will apply themselves and their past experiences to the task of learning. This 

collaborative relationship exemplifies how we accomplish ‘‘Excellence in All We Do’’ 

within DF. 

The shift to an approach that is explicitly focused on learning is perfectly consistent with the demands of the Academy’s external stakeholders. For example, one 

of our Air Force’s new core competencies is ‘‘Developing Airmen.’’ This overt Air 

Force level focus compels us to create environments where our personnel (to include 

cadets) can develop the knowledge, skills, and responsibilities needed by members 

of our 21st century Air Force. As another example, the Higher Learning Commission 

of the North Central Association (USAFA’s accrediting agency) recently adopted new 

accreditation criteria demanding that we clearly articulate our learning goals, create 

systems that allow that learning to take place, and then assess the extent to which 

those learning goals are met. This is an inherently learning-focused approach to 

educational quality. 

Here at USAFA, we have embraced a learning-focused approach to our education 

and training programs to help achieve the USAFA Outcomes. When considering a 

lesson, a course or even the curriculum as a whole, the practitioner needs to ask, 

’’what is it that I hope a cadet will get from this experience (lesson, course, 4-year 

education) when it is over.’’ Notice, then, that our lessons, courses, and curricula 

need to be designed with the desired end-point in mind. Fink (2003) calls this ‘‘backwards design,’’ and it is the basis for the Learning Focused Cycle, shown below. 

The steps of this model can be outlined as follows: 

1. Choosing appropriate learning goals/outcomes that we want cadets to 

achieve. 

• This step is absolutely critical, as it lays the foundation for the remainder of 

the model. Faculty ask themselves ‘‘What combination of knowledge, skills, 

and responsibilities do we want cadets to learn from this lesson/course?’’ 

2. Creating learning experiences for cadets that will help them best accomplish those learning outcomes. 

• Notice that the focus is not on the teacher’s classroom experience, but on the 

cadets’ learning experience. What the cadets learn is what is most important! 

• The learning experience may be accomplished outside of class time or during 

class time. 
124 

• Notice also the inclusion of the word ‘‘best’’—educational research has much 

to say about how to best facilitate student learning. The learning experiences 

we plan for cadets should incorporate what we know about student learning 

as much as possible. 

• For example, research shows that students remember more presented material, and are better able to use it, when they actively engage with the content, 

rather than when they are more passive. Thus, it is important to design 

learning experiences that take advantage of this. 

3. Assessing the degree to which cadets are accomplishing the learning 

outcomes. 

• Cadets’ learning increases when they know what they are setting out to learn, 

know the standards they must meet, and have a way of seeing what they 

have learned. 

• In order to gather information about cadet learning, cadets will need to demonstrate their learning in some way—consequently, we need to think about 

how cadets will display their knowledge, skills, and responsibilities. 

• Assessment occurs within the context of graded events (e.g., papers, projects, 

exams, etc.) but also can occur on a more frequent, informal basis during time 

in class. 

4. Providing feedback—both to cadets and to faculty. 

• Cadets need to know whether or not they are successful in meeting learning 

goals—if they are falling short, in what areas can they improve? 

• Graded events provide one avenue for providing cadets with feedback. However, notice that grades, by themselves, don’t really provide rich information 

about how cadets should improve. 

• Feedback is also useful to faculty members. We need to know whether cadets 

are successful in meeting the learning goals—if they are not successful, in 

what ways can we better facilitate their learning? 

5. Using feedback to improve. 

• Improvement is the action step that results from clearly communicated and 

received feedback. 

• When asked how to improve their performance, many cadets say things like 

‘‘I will try harder.’’ Unfortunately, vague action plans of this sort are rarely 

effective. Therefore, we encourage cadets to think of positive, specific actions 

they can take to improve their performance. Perhaps they can take future 

drafts of their papers to the Writing Center for review. Perhaps they can commit to coming in for Extra Instruction on a weekly basis to go over practice 

problems. The best answer will obviously depend on the discipline, the course, 

and the cadet involved—but ‘‘closing the loop’’ in some way is critical to enhanced cadet performance. 

• This is also an opportunity for faculty members to improve their own processes as well. Faculty will reflect on what positive, specific steps they can 

take to improve their own actions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USAFA have information technology challenges? If so, 

please describe them. Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated 

with maintaining a ‘‘.edu’’ versus a ‘‘.mil’’ internet domain registration? Are there 

advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain registrations? 

General BORN. Yes, USAFA does have many information technology challenges. 

These include the challenges of most academic institutions: keeping current with 

technology, providing network security, protecting privacy information, leveraging 

social networking, and supporting a large, highly-mobile, educational environment 

with dozens of research initiatives that push the envelope of network use. In addition, USAFA must deal with the challenges of providing an IT environment that satisfies both educational and military requirements. The lack of supporting AF and 

DoD guidance requires USAFA to create policy that governs the educational environment within a military framework. Also USAFA must support separate networks 

for educational and military environments that requires expertise beyond that of the 

standard base communications squadron. 

It’s a significant advantage for USAFA to maintain an EDU domain registration. 

Besides identifying USAFA as an educational institution, the EDU domain allows 

flexibility in governance. The MIL domain is governed by DoD and AF and requires 

strict compliance to protect operational information. The USAFA EDU domain has 

a local governance process that uses the MIL rules as a starting point and allows 

exceptions based on operational risk management. USAFA currently has several ex-
125 

ceptions to AF policy: approved operation of personally owned cadet computers, established internet blocking process and categories, streamlined software approval 

process, approved YouTube access, allowed guest access and approved opening specific ports, accepted risk for library system, and allowed HTML e-mail. 

There are both advantages and disadvantages of maintaining two networks. The 

advantage of maintaining two domains is that we can apply the appropriate security 

model for each environment. We provide a tightly-controlled MIL environment for 

operational military use and a more flexible EDU environment for education. The 

disadvantage is that our communications squadron must maintain both environments. The system architecture is very similar but the rules governing each environment are different. Operators must understand which network they are working 

on. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please elaborate on how budget and manpower/billet reductions at 

the USMA are specifically affecting faculty staffing decisions? 

General FINNEGAN. Budget reductions: Budget reductions impact West Point in 

two major ways—civilian personnel or program (academic or military) cuts. Since 

cutting manpower is not a viable alternative, we are left with reductions in the programs we offer cadets, and a shortfall in our ability to maintain military and academic equipment. We will continue to accomplish our mission, but our graduates 

will not have the experience that America expects West Point to produce. 

Billet reductions: Reductions to the military TDA authorized strength (pending 

TAA reductions) will put USMA in a temporary over strength status that will preclude or prohibit recruiting to fill vacancies in specific disciplines. This factor coupled with the long lead time schooling pipeline will seriously impact the military 

faculty staffing operation. The military reductions (faculty) could under normal circumstances be offset by hiring civilians. However, due to the current budget constraints this course of action is not available to us. 

Increased Size of the Corps Faculty: When the decision was made to increase the 

size of the Corps of Cadets from 4,000 to 4,400, a concept plan was submitted recommending the addition of 30 military faculty. Due to the ongoing war effort, military officers were not available and USMA was offered 26 civilian faculty in their 

place. Funding for these 26 faculty members has been provided on a year to year 

basis in the form of Global War on Terror (GWOT) dollars. To date, this increase 

in faculty authorization has not been officially recognized on the TDA, which leads 

to tremendous uncertainty in re-hiring and extending of their appointments. 

The interaction of these three issues has put faculty staffing decisions in turmoil. 

Forced military faculty reductions which could normally be offset by hiring civilian 

faculty is an option that has been taken off the table. USMA needs Department of 

the Army to officially recognize the resource implication of the decision to increase 

the size of the Corps of Cadets. 

Dr. SNYDER. The JCS Chairman’s Officer PME Policy includes a requirement for 

each of the service chiefs to provide the CJCS with reports on the joint education 

programs at the pre-commissioning and primary levels. We want to know the significant findings and recommendations of your 2006 Report and whether you would 

anticipate significantly different findings and recommendations three years later? 

General FINNEGAN. On 17 MAY 06, the United States Military Academy submitted its Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Triennial Report to the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Pre-commissioning Education. The report’s 

summary, submitted by Brigadier General Scaparroti, Commandant of Cadets reported: 

‘‘During the reported period [2004–2006], cadets received a minimum of 27 hours 

of instruction of Joint Warfare Concepts as part of their 4-year education. This reflects an increase of 5 hours of JPME instruction since the 2003 Triennial Report. 

JPME requirements are embedded when appropriated in both the Academic and 

Military Programs. I believe USMA currently meets or exceeds the requirements established in CJCSI 1800.01C both in letter and intent.’’ 

That remains true today. While the Academic and Military Programs are constantly updating their curriculums, the task to provide quality joint instruction will 

not change. Of note, within the Military Program, most of the Military Science joint 

instruction has transitioned to other core courses as the fourth year course, MS403, 

was replaced with a multi-disciplined capstone course on Officership, MX400. Currently, there is a significantly greater emphasis on Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational instruction as it relates to contemporary operations. We 

are specifically focusing on practical junior-officer-level joint operations (we ran two 

demonstration JAAT missions this past summer for first class cadets) and on working with governmental agencies, local leaders, and international agencies (in classrooms and during field training). 
126 

1Michael Howard, ‘‘The Use and Abuse of Military History,’’ Journal of the Royal United Service Institute, No. 107 (February 1962): 4–8; reprinted in Parameters 11 (March 1981): 9–14. 2 Ibid., 191. 

3 Ibid., 195–6. 

4 Ibid., 196. 

5 Ibid., 196–7. 

6The Department of History assigns cadets to either U.S. or world regional history depending 

on their educational experience in high school or college. For example, a cadet who had a strong 

background in U.S. history in high school would be enrolled in world regional history. 

Dr. SNYDER. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case study is a 

particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do you use the case study 

method, and if so, to what ends? 

General FINNEGAN. West Point uses historical case studies in many of its courses, 

some of which apply directly or indirectly to the process of developing strategy. 

In general, history is an excellent tool for teaching strategy. Among its many virtues, history enables students to understand and appreciate the complexity of the 

human experience. It helps put human activities and ideas in context, avoid false 

analogies, lend a sense of scope and scale, assess moral implications, anticipate unintended consequences, and judge the feasibility and suitability of possible courses 

of action. These capabilities are essential for anyone whose professional responsibilities might include the formulation of strategy. 

Despite these virtues, the discipline of history has limitations. Most important, 

history cannot predict the future, as every situation is historically unique. Consequently, the value of history lies not in divining answers (or ‘‘lessons learned’’) 

about current or future issues, but in asking the right questions based on an understanding of the differences between one situation and another. 

While historical case studies are potentially useful in all of the ways described 

above, students of history can easily misuse them. The distinguished military historian, Michael Howard, addressed this topic in a now famous article, ‘‘The Use and 

Abuse of Military History.’’ 1 Howard’s analysis focused specifically on the use of history for military officers, but it was equally applicable to the use of history to train 

strategists. Concerning the use of case studies, Howard argued: 

Analogies with events or personalities from other epochs may be illuminating, 

but equally they mislead; for only certain features in situations at different epochs resemble one another, and what is valid in one situation may, because of 

entirely altered circumstances, be quite untenable the next time it seems to 

occur. The historian must be always on the alert not to read anachronistic 

thoughts or motives into the past.2

His warnings notwithstanding, Howard believes that history can be useful to the 

military officer under three conditions. First, it must be studied in breadth—that 

is, the officer ‘‘must observe the way in which warfare has developed over a long 

historical period. Only by seeing what does change can one deduce what does not.’’ 3

Second, the officer must study in depth, drawing ‘‘not simply from official histories 

but from memoirs, letters, diaries, even imaginative literature.’’ The officer must 

‘‘get behind the order subsequently imposed by the historian and recreate by detailed study the omnipresence of chaos.’’ 4 Finally, the strategist must study in con- text because wars ‘‘are not like games of chess or football matches, conducted in 

total detachment of their environment according to strictly defined rules. . . . The 

roots of victory and defeat often have to be sought far from the battlefield, in political, social, and economic factors.’’ 5

Historical case studies are closely associated with the second of Howard’s three 

conditions for using history. They allow the student to examine a discrete event, 

such as a campaign or battle, in great depth and to compare the competing interpretations of eyewitnesses, historians, journalists, and others. This process helps the 

student form a personal interpretation that is, ideally, as close as possible to the 

absolute truth of what happened. Armed with such insights, the student is then able 

to ask informed questions about analogous situations in the present or future and 

to develop sound solutions. 

Students who honor the first and third of Howard’s three conditions—breadth and 

context—can use historical case studies to meet the second condition, depth. Admittedly, meeting Howard’s three conditions can be difficult, especially in a culture like 

ours that is largely dismissive of history. It is by no means impossible, however, and 

students in some institutions are better equipped for it than those in others. 

The United States Military Academy, perhaps more than any other undergraduate institution, strives to meet Howard’s three conditions for the use of history. Every first-year cadet must take a two-semester sequence of either United 

States history or world regional history.6 Similarly, all senior cadets must take a 
127 

two-semester sequence of military history, which examines many historical cases of 

the formulation and execution of strategy. Very few other colleges in the nation require their students to take four history courses; fewer still require those courses 

to be broad and sequential; and virtually none requires a year of military history. 

With two full years of history under their belts, cadets have reasonably broad exposure to history (condition #1) and are more able than most college students to study 

events in historical context (condition #3). 

Cadets who major in history—about 8 percent of each graduating class—take between twelve and fourteen history courses (including the four required courses mentioned above) and thus receive an immersion in the discipline of history. In most 

history elective courses, the syllabus requires cadets to study a particular topic 

(country, region, idea, war, culture) in depth; hence, one might characterize such 

courses as semester-long historical case studies. An example of such a course is War 

and Its Theorists (HI385), which exposes cadets to the ideas of Sun Tzu, Clausewitz, 

Mahan, Douhet, and many other theorists whose ideas have greatly influenced the 

formulation of strategy. Other history courses hone more closely to the typical case 

study. For example, the History of Unconventional Warfare (HI381) requires cadets 

to study military operations in the Philippines, Northern Ireland, Algeria, and Vietnam. Another elective course, Strategy, Policy, and Generalship (HI358), uses case 

studies to examine how political and military leaders develop and execute policy and 

strategy. With a wide variety of courses available, cadet history majors have the opportunity to study in breadth, depth, and context. 

Many non-history courses at West Point also use historical case studies to good 

effect. Most of those courses reside in the Department of Social Studies, where instructors routinely use case studies to analyze issues dealing with economics, national security, international relations, and American politics. Among the many social science courses using historical case studies are Economics (SS201), American 

Politics, (SS202), International Relations (SS307), Politics and Government of Europe (SS377), Legislative Politics (SS379), American Civil-Military Relations 

(SS472), American Foreign Policy (SS473), Economics of National Security (SS477), 

and International Security Seminar (SS486). Case studies also are common in the 

Department of Law, which teaches required and elective courses in constitutional 

law, military law, and the law of land warfare. Examples of law courses using historical case studies are Constitutional and Military Law (LW403) and Law of War 

(LW474). 

Regardless of their academic majors, cadets take a robust history curriculum and 

apply it in many other courses, both required and elective. Some of the courses relate directly to the formulation of national or military strategy. Even those that do 

not, however, still develop in cadets the intellectual habits that promote strategic 

thinking. 

Dr. SNYDER. Why do the Service Academies only award Bachelor of Science degrees? What would be the professional effect of offering Bachelor of Arts degrees in 

certain academic disciplines? What would be the professional effect of offering alternate tracks within Bachelor of Science programs that would be heavier on humanities and social science requirements? 

General FINNEGAN. The Service Academies, particularly USMA, only award the 

Bachelor of Science (BS) degree because of an existing DoD and/or Congressional 

mandate that requires USMA to award a BS degree to all graduates. 

The Military Academy could offer Bachelor of Arts (BA) degrees in many of its 

45 majors. The NY State Education Department, which regulates the SUNY colleges 

and universities, places more stringent and directed requirements on the awarding 

of BA degrees based on the number of courses completed with liberal arts content 

(source: Regent’s Rule 3.47(c)). Accordingly, colleges and universities within the 

SUNY system may confer BA degrees to students who complete a minimum of 120 

semester credit hours with at least 90 credit hours being drawn from courses 

aligned with liberal arts content, including mathematics, science, humanities, social 

and behavioral sciences. By contrast, the Bachelor of Science (BS) degree requires 

the completion of 60 credit hours of liberal arts content while other undergraduate 

baccalaureate degrees (BFA, B.Tech, BBA, etc.) require 30 credit hours of liberal 

arts content. Engineering, management, marketing, finance, and other specialized 

professional courses are not considered to be within the definition of liberal arts. 

West Point requires cadets to complete a core academic curriculum of 96 credit 

hours in 30 courses. All but 10 of these 90 credit hours meet the definition of 

courses with liberal arts content. Thus, all cadets who complete a non-engineering 

major would earn 86 credit hours from the core curriculum and at least 30 additional credit hours from courses with liberal arts content through the completion of 

a major; these 116 credit hours are sufficient to award cadets a BA degree. In total, 
128 

approximately 65 percent of the degrees conferred to a particular class of cadets 

could be BA degrees based on the SUNY classification. 

The professional effect of offering a BA degree to cadets completing a major in 

fields associated with the humanities and the social and behavioral sciences would 

likely be minute. Such a practice would be consistent with higher educational practices but is unlikely to negatively impact cadets’ opportunities to pursue higher educational degrees in these fields. 

Dr. SNYDER. How many engineering majors does your institution try to graduate 

each year? On what professional demands are these goals predicated? Generally 

speaking, does the amount of time needed to provide each cadet with a knowledge 

base in engineering allow the latitude to balance academic pursuits with respect to 

the hard sciences, social sciences, communications skills, military studies, and the 

humanities, especially history, as they relate to a foundation in strategy? 

General FINNEGAN. An MOA signed between the Superintendent, USMA and the 

CSA in 2008 encourages USMA to confer approximately 50 percent of the degrees 

conferred for a graduating class, plus or minus five percent, in the fields of mathematics, science, and technology. Approximately 70 percent of all MSE majors, and 

35 percent overall, receive degrees in one of ten engineering majors. This MOA was 

placed in effect to reflect the anticipated needs of the Army. The programs in Civil 

Engineering, Computer Science, Electrical Engineering, Engineering Management, 

Environmental Engineering, Information Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering, and Systems Engineering are accredited by ABET Inc. 

While these engineering programs meet the standards established by the profession for which they prepare cadets, all graduates, regardless of major, must meet 

the standards of the USMA core curriculum, which is tantamount to a professional 

major. The academic goals of mathematics and science, engineering and technology, 

information technology, cultural perspective, historical perspective, understanding 

human behavior, communication, creativity, moral awareness, and continued intellectual development are met through 30 core courses, 26 of which are taken in common by all graduates. The rationale, learning model and outcomes for each of these 

goals are described in the publication ‘‘Educating Future Army Officers for a Changing World.’’ 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent is the USMA’s engineering-based curriculum preparing cadets to become effective officers on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

elsewhere? 

General FINNEGAN. Regardless of whether a cadet pursues a major in an engineering or humanities and social sciences field, the core curriculum and attendant 

academic goals are designed to produce officers prepared for the uncertainties they 

will likely face throughout their professional career as Army officers. These challenges include the changing overall strategic goals of the Army and the operations 

they are required to execute. The most notable change in preparation of officers has 

occurred as the range of non-traditional military mission such as peacekeeping, stability and support operations has increased. The rise of regional, ethnic and religious conflicts, often the result of millennial long struggles or environmental pressures have become factors necessitation these strategic accommodations. Additionally, many officers are engaged in project management work with developmental or 

humanitarian projects (water, sewer, roads, etc). 

Our core curriculum is focused on preparing our graduates for the uncertainties 

of a changing political, technological social and economic world. In particular, over 

the past decade we have modified our core curriculum to integrate the development 

of cultural understanding throughout the curriculum, highlighted by the cultural 

awareness academic goal to ‘‘draw from a appreciation of culture of understand in 

a global context human behavior, achievement and ideas.’’ Graduates of USMA are 

well-rounded and able to operate in a region burdened by cultural and historical 

animosities. Feedback from former battalion commanders at the AWC and field 

commanders during LTG Hagenbeck’s June 2009 visit to Iraq suggest that graduates are excelling in the varied and diverse tasks assigned to them. Many praise 

the quality of education the graduates’ received and West Point’s preparation of junior officers. 

We have established a curriculum that prepares cadets to recognize and understand the components of a culture necessary for operating successfully in Iran, Afghanistan, or any unexpected environment, with military or humanitarian mission 

objectives. Cadets develop an understanding of how beliefs, religion, norms, values, 

family and social relationships bind and influence behavior and interactions of a cultural group. This cultural understanding is developed through elements of several 

core courses as well as through extracurricular activities such as visiting professors 

and students, and international experiences in a semester long or summer training. 

Within the curriculum cadets study cultural components in different cultural set-
129 

tings, examine historical and political events from various cultural perspectives, and 

develop an understanding of at least one foreign language. Cadets in a humanities 

or social science major receive two additional semesters of a foreign language, and 

have the opportunity to have coordinated history and foreign language courses organized around a relate area study. All cadets, regardless of major, have a capstone 

experience that requires them to combine the core curriculum and their major area 

in a project that demonstrates their ability to ‘‘anticipate and respond effectively to 

the uncertainties of a changing technological, social, political and economic world.’’ 

Dr. SNYDER. At the USMA, we know that the ‘‘cadet experience’’ is a combination 

of academic and professional development curriculum, leadership opportunities, 

summer training and travel, competitive athletics, etc. How do you factor Service, 

JCS and DOD requirements into the overall pre-commissioning experience? 

General FINNEGAN. While the Academic and Military Programs are constantly updating their curriculums, the task to provide quality joint instruction will not 

change. Of note, within the Military Program, most of the Military Science joint instruction has transitioned to other core courses as the fourth year course, MS403, 

was replaced with a multi-disciplined capstone course on Officership, MX400. Currently, there is a significantly greater emphasis on Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational instruction as it relates to contemporary operations. We 

are specifically focusing on practical junior-officer-level joint operations (we ran two 

demonstration JAAT missions this past summer for first class cadets) and on working with governmental agencies, local leaders, and international agencies (in classrooms and during field training). 

Dr. SNYDER. How frequently are major reviews of the core curriculum conducted? 

What is the process for review and for the implementation of any recommended adjustments? 

General FINNEGAN. The curriculum is reviewed on a yearly cycle by the West 

Point Curriculum Committee. Proposals for curricular change may be submitted by 

departments although the Dean also generates topics that he wishes to be reviewed 

and evaluated. In September, the Dean meets with the committee chair to provide 

command guidance. By late November, the departments submit their proposals to 

the committee. The Curriculum Committee evaluates the proposals and makes a 

recommendation to the General Committee in April or early May. The General Committee likewise makes a recommendation to the Dean of the Academic Board who 

makes a decision to include or not include it in a revision of the academic program. 

The revision is then staffed and submitted to the Academic Board who makes a recommendation to the Superintendent. The Superintendent ultimately decides. This 

decision occurs in June or July and the cycle begins anew. Major reviews of the core 

curriculum occur approximately every five years and follow the same process for review and implementation. The last internal review of the core curriculum occurred 

in 2005–2006. 

Our core curriculum is reviewed externally as well. Our regional accreditation 

agency, Middle States, reviews our curriculum every ten years. The next review is 

scheduled for Sep 2009. ABET reviews our engineering and science program curricula every six years with the last review taking place in 2008. The American 

Council of Trustees and Alumni evaluated the core curriculum of leading educational institutions in August 2009. West Point received a grade of ‘‘A’’ for our core 

curriculum—a distinction achieved by only five institutions in the nation. Additional 

information can be obtained at WhatWillTheyLearn.com. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do your military faculty members get promotions and are they selected for command? Please provide statistics for the last five years. 

General FINNEGAN. Each year USMA produces a second graduating class of 

approx 150 faculty and staff who return to the Army with a renewed intellectual 

vigor. Many of which continue to excel in the Army. 

• 4 of 12 Generals were faculty here. 

• 10 of 54 Lt. Gens were on the faculty/staff. 

• 3 of 10 Division Commanders were on the faculty/staff. 

USMA rotating military faculty members are extremely competitive for promotion 

and selection for command particularly given the fact that they leave the operational Army anywhere from 4 to 5 years. USMA rotating military faculty members 

are promoted below the zone to Major at higher rates than their non-ACS peers. 

Selection rates for BZ to COL and Battalion Command are slightly lower their nonACS peers. 
130 

No ACS Non-USMA ACS USMA ACS Overall 

BZ to Major 0.0589 0.0660 0.1105 0.0633 

BZ to LTC 0.0643 0.0801 0.0670 0.0670 

BZ to COL 0.1330 0.1714 0.1250 0.1378 

DA Bn CMD Select 0.4395 0.5690 0.4348 0.4463 

Table 1. Selection rates for BZ Promotion and Battalion Command (All Competitive 

Category Year Groups 1987 through 1992 Officers, condition on 15 years of service). 

Dr. SNYDER. Some USMA faculty reported a lack of transparent appraisal and renewal recommendation procedures. Please describe and discuss the system at your 

institution? What feedback have you received from civilian faculty with respect to 

these procedures? 

General FINNEGAN. The Code of Federal Regulations, the USMA Faculty Manual 

and the Title 10 appraisal system are the cornerstones of these processes. Each Title 

10 faculty member receives an annual appraisal. During the appraisal process the 

faculty are counseled on their performance and provided a clear indication as to 

whether or not they should anticipate re-appointment at the end of their current 

appointment. If substandard performance becomes an issue, the individual is counseled and a plan for corrective action is put into place. Continued counseling for substandard performance becomes the audit trail for a decision to non-reappoint. 

All Title 10 faculty in the first year of their first appointment are in a probationary status. Failure to meet performance standards during the first year is 

grounds for non-reappointment. After the probationary year, instructors and assistant professors must be notified in a timely manner that they will not be reappointed. For associate and full professors, notification of non-reappointment must 

be made by June 15th of the final year of appointment. Associate and full professors 

who are identified for non-reappointment for adequate cause have the opportunity 

to request a hearing by the Review Committee. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please discuss the pros and cons of the PUSMA system? Also, please 

discuss the effect that the PUSMA system has on the participation of civilians within the USMA’s leadership structure. 

General FINNEGAN. The Professors, USMA, provide long-term stability to the education programs at USMA to insure accreditation standards and continuity are 

maintained. As members of the Academic Board they advise the Superintendent on 

major policy changes, recommend separation of cadets, and authorize the awarding 

of diplomas. Advantages of having PUSMA officers at West Point are numerous. 

These accomplished leaders in their academic disciplines and military careers, provide military and academic leadership to USMA’s academic departments composed 

of stabilized military faculty, Army, and other Service officers on a two or three year 

USMA assignment, and civilian faculty hired in accordance with 10 USC, and professional staff. They are highly successful and experienced military officers and are 

outstanding educators with doctorates in one of the academic areas offered at 

USMA. Stabilized military faculty members contribute to formulation of USMA’s 

curriculum, methods of instruction, and academic standards required for graduation; 

establish standards within academic departments for classroom instruction; guide 

and mentor faculty development, professionalism, and academic accomplishment; 

educate, train and inspire cadets within areas of academic expertise; provide continuity to the academic program; serve as a source of experience and academic depth 

to the rotating and civilian faculty; participate in USMA governance by serving on 

bodies such as the Academic Board, Curriculum Committee, Admissions Committee, 

and accreditation committees; in conjunction with PUSMA department heads they 

select officers to be sponsored for graduate schooling prior to a teaching assignment 

at USMA; maintain academic currency by research, writing, and involvement with 

professional education or academic specialty organizations; maintain military professional currency in a variety of ways, including operational deployments with Army 

troop units and conducting outreach activities in support of the Army; contribute to 

cadet development by supporting athletic and extracurricular activities at USMA; 

and contribute to officer development by counseling and mentoring. The goal is to 

maintain a faculty, sensitive to both Army needs and academic standards, which 
131 

support the USMA mission to provide the Army with commissioned leaders of character. 

The advertisement below illustrates that interested civilian faculty are eligible to 

apply and compete for selection as Professor, USMA. In practice, the selection of a 

civilian member as a PUSMA is a rare event, but this population is not excluded 

from the candidate pool. 

The United States Military Academy seeks Professors and Deputy Heads, 

USMA; and an Academy Professor 

GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR PROFESSOR AND DEPUTY 

HEAD POSITION: Principal responsibilities will include executing the department’s vision and leading faculty and staff to enhance the quality and 

national stature of academic programs, leadership and governance, and the 

development of military and civilian faculty. Candidates should possess significant leadership experience and practical experience related to the subjects taught in the departments. Combat zone deployment experience and 

advanced military schooling (ILE minimum) are desirable. Candidates must 

have a strong commitment to the development of cadets as leaders of character. Applicants should have a record of research and publication and demonstrated excellence in education at the college level, with teaching at the 

USMA or a comparable college or university being highly desirable. The selection committee will evaluate breadth and depth of professional experience, leadership ability, demonstrated teaching excellence, scholarship potential, and personal attributes. Those selected for these positions may 

serve at the discretion of the Secretary of the Army until age 64. Upon retirement, any Professor, USMA whose service as a Professor, USMA has 

been long and distinguished, may, at the discretion of the President, be retired in the grade of Brigadier General. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent may civilians from other government agencies, such 

as the State Department or the CIA, be detailed to the USMA faculty? How do these 

visiting faculty members help students better understand the perspectives of other 

agencies? 

General FINNEGAN. Currently, one Foreign Service Officer from the State Department is assigned to the USMA faculty in the Department of Social Sciences. This 

is a long-standing relationship of over 40 years and has been instrumental in ensuring that both cadets and faculty understand the perspectives of other agencies. 

Another longstanding relationship is with the National Security Agency. An NSA 

staff member has served as Fellow in the Department of Electrical Engineering and 

Computer Science, with some interruptions, since the 1980’s. Others have served in 

the Department of Mathematical Sciences. The current Deputy Director of the NSA, 

Mr. John ‘‘Chris’’ Inglis, served at West Point in 1991–2. The NSA partnership has 

been instrumental in developing information security as a thread through the 

USMA curriculum. The Cyberdefense Exercise (see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/ 

11/technology/11cybergames.html) is one of many examples of close NSA–USMA collaboration resulting from the Fellow program. These have enhanced mutual understanding between our organizations. 

We have also had individuals from the CIA assigned to USMA in the past and 

are currently working with the Assistant Director of the CIA for Military Affairs to 

have a CIA official assigned to the USMA faculty again in 2010. 

We think that these kind of interagency relationships are valuable both for the 

West Point faculty and cadets as well as the officials who are assigned. They grow 

personally and professionally in an academic environment, establish new bonds with 

military colleagues, and gain and increased understanding of military officers when 

they return to their parent agency. 

Dr. SNYDER. How hard is it to attract top civilian faculty to the USMA? What incentives do you offer civilian faculty candidates? 

General FINNEGAN. From inception of the Blend of Excellence program in 1993 

to approximately 4 years ago, there was a comprehensive package of benefits designed to attract top level civilian faculty to USMA. This ‘‘package’’ included: (1) the 

opportunity to teach some of the country’s most motivated students, (2) reside in 

an historic setting in the picturesque Hudson Valley, (3) although not provided tenure, solid performers could expect continued re-appointment, (4) a PCS relocation 

package, (5) a reasonable expectation of a salary step increase every other year, (6) 

a year long sabbatical (at the Associate Professor or Full Professor level) every six 

years, and (7) the opportunity for professional development leading to promotion 

through the faculty grades to Full Professor. 
132 

However, approximately 4 years ago, as budgetary constraints dictated many elements of this package began to erode. The every other year step increases ceased 

to occur in a consistent fashion. PCS relocation for newly hired faculty was limited 

to a select few. Opportunity for a full year sabbatical was curtailed to effectively 

a half year one. With the current FY10 budget forecast, salary step increases will 

virtually cease, PCS relocation offering for newly hired faculty will not be available 

and the ability to support sabbaticals is in jeopardy due to the reductions in military 

faculty staffing, which has increased the overall teaching load on the remaining personnel. 

The recent downturn in the economy has offset some of these limitations when 

hiring, since the civilian faculty model normally hires at the entry end of the academic spectrum. However, the erosion of the benefit package that was in effect for 

the hiring of the majority of the civilian faculty that is currently here presents a 

serious retention problem. So far, there has not been an identifiable trend of civilian 

faculty departures, but everyone is keeping a keen eye on what transpires over the 

next year. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are there any significant impediments to sending USMA faculty 

members, whether civilian or military, for professional or academic purposes to foreign universities? Are there any significant impediments to sending faculty members for the same reasons to top tier universities within the United States? 

General FINNEGAN. There are no operational impediments to sending USMA faculty members to foreign universities. However, budgetary constraints coupled with 

recent military slot reductions would prohibit them at this time. Just as with foreign universities, there are no operational impediments to sending USMA faculty 

members to top tier U.S. universities. However, budgetary constraints coupled with 

recent military slot reductions would prohibit them at this time. 

Dr. SNYDER. It has been asserted that institutional efforts to generate more diversity in the student body and to recruit top athletes have had a negative impact on 

classroom dynamics and the overall quality of students and graduates. How do you 

respond to those assertions? 

General FINNEGAN. USMA is committed to student body diversity toward the creation of an officer corps reflective of America. Annually, the Academy establishes 

Class Composition Goals which inform our recruiting efforts. Our class composition 

goals include goals for leaders, scholars, as well as demographic groups and are generated based upon the projected composition of the Army officer corps. A constraint 

in pursuing these goals is the societal trend of academic preparation of minorities. 

For example, of the 160,000 African-Americans taking the SAT in 2007, 73% scored 

less than 1,000 combined. Therefore, USMA carefully balances academic preparation 

risk with assisting the Army in creating a diverse officer corps. 

Each candidate is evaluated on the merits of his or her complete file. Only qualified candidates are admitted to USMA as cadets in accordance with the Academic 

Board decisions. The Academy’s admissions goal is to ‘‘enroll annually a diverse, 

high-caliber class that meets the needs of the Military Academy and the Army, and 

whose members have the potential for success at the Academy and long-term service 

in the Army.’’ 

Considering diversity, one must note that Henry O. Flipper was the first African 

American admitted to USMA in 1873 and the first to graduate, in 1877. Since that 

time, USMA has continued to recruit minority candidates for the Corps of Cadets. 

The purpose of the Academic Board Class Composition goals has been to create a 

Corps of Cadets which reflects the diversity of the Officer Corps. These minority 

Class Composition categories include African Americans (8–12%), Hispanics (7–9%), 

Native Americans (>1%), and Asians (4–6%). It is important to understand that 

these are goals and not quotas for the admissions process. We normally exceed the 

goals for Hispanics and Asians while not meeting the goals for African Americans 

and Native Americans. 

Considering the recruiting of athletes, athletics has been a major part of the cadet 

curriculum and is one of the three major considerations for cadet standing: Academic, Military, and Physical. Army athletics has been a focus for the cadets’ preparation, aptly shown in the statement by General George C Marshall during WWII, 

who said ‘‘I need an officer for a dangerous mission, I want a West Point Football 

Player.’’ This exemplifies the spirit of athletics at USMA, where we have been playing Army football since 1890 and have been recruiting football players and other 

varsity athletes since the early 1900’s. Additionally, the Class Composition Goal for 

athletes has decreased from the historical level of >25% to 18–21% for the past few 

years. In tier 1 college programs, athletics is the window through which potential 

candidates will view the institution and become inspired as candidates. This is an 

extremely important recruiting and marketing tool for the United States Military 

Academy and the Army. 
133 

Additionally, it should be noted that athletics is very important in achieving the 

minority Class Composition Goals; it is a great recruiting tool to ensure racial diversity in the Corps of Cadets and the future officer corps. 

Considering the years that each of these goals has been part of the admissions 

program, it is hard to say that the institutional efforts have had a negative impact 

on the classroom environment. Graduation rate for the class in general has risen 

over the past 20 years from 61% in 1980 to the current graduation rate of 79% for 

the class of 2009. While the graduation rate for the class as a whole has trended 

upward, there is no consistent trend for the minorities or recruited athletes. Their 

graduation rate has fluctuated from 10% less than the class to 5% greater than the 

class. 

The assertion that recruited athletes and minorities have had a negative impact 

on classroom dynamics and the overall quality of students and graduates is false. 

It would be better to state that those candidates deemed qualified who are admitted 

with risk can change the dynamics within a classroom. It should be noted that all 

risk candidates are not minorities or athletes and do include several other groups, 

including Congressional Principal appointees and Soldiers. The Academy understands and manages this risk in many ways. We send 246 candidates to the United 

States Military Academy Preparatory School for a year of study in mathematics, 

English, and reading and study skills prior to their admission to USMA. Additionally, we send other at risk candidates to civilian preparatory schools under the auspices of the Association of Graduates Scholarship Program. The year of remediation 

under either of these two programs prepares the student for qualification and admission to USMA. 

There is a consideration of the intensity of the recruiting necessary due to other 

schools recruiting the same candidates. While the Class Composition goals have not 

changed much, the overall recruitment of the candidates has increased dramatically 

in the past few decades. This means that the Academic Board has taken additional 

risk on some of the candidates when they are selected for admission to USMA. The 

changes in the classroom have been due to individual capabilities. Even though academic risk is taken with some candidates who are strong in other areas, every admitted candidate—of whatever race or gender, varsity athlete or not—is fully qualified for entry to USMA. 

Table 1. USMA Graduation rates by Demographic 
134 

Table 2. Fall Term Course Failures by Demographic. Note: Reserve Component 

(RSCOM) includes ‘invitational reserves,’ made up primarily of recruited athletes 

attending USMAPS. 

Table 3. 5 and 10 year Army Retention Rates by Demographic 
135 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USMA receive funding for the purpose of promoting diversity? If so, how is this funding utilized? 

General FINNEGAN. USMA does not receive direct funding for the purpose of promoting diversity, but does receive it indirectly. West Point receives funds for the 

Leading Diversity Office, which, on April 2nd 2007, assumed the mission of developing and implementing strategic plans for maintaining an inclusive environment 

throughout West Point. This office is headed by a COL, and the staff is funded with 

USMA appropriated funds. We also receive funds through our Directorate of Admissions, which has marketing and outreach programs that promote diversity throughout the process of recruiting and selecting candidates who will become USMA cadets 

and eventually officers in the U.S. Army. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please provide a comprehensive list with numbers of all outside 

scholarships awarded to USMA graduates over the past five years, together with a 

brief description of each. 

General FINNEGAN. West Point graduates compete in Rhodes, Marshall, Mitchell, 

Gates, Truman, Hertz, Rotary, East-West, Olmsted, Fulbright, National Science 

Foundation, and Churchill scholarship programs. Historically, USMA has competed 

well with top Tier I academic institutions. Over the last five years USMA graduates 

have received 99 academic scholarships. They have received 370 academic scholarships since the beginning of competition for these scholarships (See Table 1). 

USMA Scholarship Winners 

Class Year 

Scholarship 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Total 

(last 5 

years) 

Since 

competition 

began 

Churchill Scholarship 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 

East-West Fellowship 4 4 4 3 2 N/A 17 38 

Fulbright Student Grant 2 2 2 2 0 N/A 8 8 

Gates-Cambridge Scholarship 0 2 1 3 1 N/A 7 12 

Marshall Scholarship 3 2 3 1 0 N/A 9 33 

Mitchell Scholarship 2 0 1 0 0 N/A 3 4 

National Science Foundation Graduate 

Fellowship 

1 0 0 0 2 N/A 3 41 

Olmsted Scholarship 2 2 3 5 4 1 17 93 

Rhodes Scholarship 2 1 1 1 1 N/A 6 88 

Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship 1 0 1 2 8 9 21 24 

Truman Scholarship 1 2 2 1 0 1 7 28 

Total 18 15 19 18 18 11 99 370 

N/A = Not Announced Yet 

The Rhodes Scholarships, the oldest international fellowships, were initiated 

after the death of Cecil Rhodes in 1902, and bring outstanding students from many 

countries around the world to the University of Oxford, normally for two years. 

Marshall Scholarships finance young Americans of high ability to study for a 

degree in the United Kingdom. Up to forty Scholars are selected each year to study 

at graduate level at an UK institution in any field of study. As future leaders, with 

a lasting understanding of British society, Marshall Scholars strengthen the enduring relationship between the British and American peoples, their governments and 

their institutions. Marshall Scholars are talented, independent and wide-ranging, 

and their time as Scholars enhances their intellectual and personal growth. Their 

direct engagement with Britain through its best academic program contributes to 

their ultimate personal success. 
136 

The Mitchell Scholars Program is a national competitive fellowship sponsored 

by the U.S.–Ireland Alliance. The Mitchell Scholars Program, named to honor 

former U.S. Senator George Mitchell’s pivotal contribution to the Northern Ireland 

peace process, is designed to introduce and connect generations of future American 

leaders to the island of Ireland, while recognizing and fostering intellectual achievement, leadership, and a commitment to public service and community. Twelve 

Mitchell Scholars between the ages of 18 and 30 are chosen annually for one year 

of postgraduate study in any discipline offered by institutions of higher learning in 

Ireland and Northern Ireland. Applicants are judged on three criteria: academic excellence, leadership, and a sustained commitment to service and community. 

The Gates Scholarship Program is an international scholarship program to enable outstanding graduate students from outside the United Kingdom to study at 

the University of Cambridge. The scholarship is funded by the Bill and Melinda 

Gates Foundation and awards up to two years of fully funded graduate study, with 

an emphasis on the fields of Arts and Humanities, Humanities and Social Sciences, 

Biological Sciences, and Physical Sciences and Technology. 

The Truman Scholarship recognizes college juniors with exceptional leadership 

potential who are committed to careers in government, the nonprofit or advocacy 

sectors, education or elsewhere in the public service; and to provide them with financial support for graduate study, leadership training, and fellowship with other 

students who are committed to making a difference through public service. 

The Hertz Foundation Graduate Fellowship empowers outstanding young 

people pursuing a PhD degree in the applied physical, biological, and engineering 

sciences with the freedom to innovate and explore their genius in collaboration with 

leading professors in the field. The Hertz Foundation’s goal is to support the early 

stage research endeavors of students who possess the potential to change our world 

for the better by solving difficult, real-world problems. 

The Rotary Ambassadorial Scholarship sponsors one academic year to further 

international understanding and friendly relations among people of different countries and geographical areas. While abroad, scholars serve as goodwill ambassadors 

to the host country and give presentations about their homelands to Rotary clubs 

and other groups. 

The East-West Center Scholarship Program provides a 2 year scholarship for 

students to study at the East-West Center at University of Hawaii. The East-West 

Center is an education and research organization established by the U.S. Congress 

in 1960 to strengthen relations and understanding among the peoples and nations 

of Asia, the Pacific, and the United States. The Center contributes to a peaceful, 

prosperous, and just Asia Pacific community by serving as a vigorous hub for cooperative research, education, and dialogue on critical issues of common concern to the 

Asia Pacific region and the United States. 

The Olmsted Scholarship Program provides outstanding young military leaders an unsurpassed opportunity to achieve fluency in a foreign language, pursue 

graduate study at an overseas university, and acquire an in depth understanding 

of foreign cultures, thereby further equipping them to serve in positions of great responsibility as senior leaders in the United States Armed Forces. (Note: The 

Olmsted Scholarship program is not open to cadets upon graduation, but is available 

after 3 years of commissioned service) 

The Fulbright program was started in 1946 by Congress and is administered by 

the State Department. Fulbright grants are designed to ‘‘increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries.’’ 

A Fulbright grant is for 10–12 months and requires that a student affiliate with a 

local university for classes and research. 

The National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship provides 

for three years of study leading to a master’s or doctoral degree in the mathematical, physical, biological, engineering, or social science, or in the history and philosophy of sciences. The fellowship helps ensure the vitality of the human resource 

base of science and engineering in the United States and reinforces its diversity. 

The Churchill Scholarship was established in 1959 and is awarded by the Winston Churchill Foundation. The Foundation’s Scholarship Program offers American 

students of exceptional ability and outstanding achievement the opportunity to pursue graduate studies in engineering, mathematics, or the sciences at Churchill College, the University of Cambridge. 

Here is a current listing of scholarship recipients for the past five years, with 

brief descriptions of their backgrounds and programs of study: 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 

Olmsted Scholars are selected after at least 3 years of commissioned service. The 

following is a listing of all Olmsted scholars selected in the past 5 years: 
162 

Dr. SNYDER. Among active duty personnel in the Army, how many general officers 

are USMA graduates? Of the total active duty Army general officer population, what 

percentage does this number represent? 

General FINNEGAN. USMA graduates historically represent 20% of the commissioning cohort each year. The proportion of USMA general officers is well above this 

rate. USMA general officers represent 40% (133) of the current total active duty 

general officer population (332 GOs). The proportion of the LTG and GEN ranks are 

even higher (See Table 1). 

All USMA 

Grade Number Number Proportion 

2LT 10146 1956 19% 

1LT 7197 984 14% 

CPT 25772 3574 14% 

MAJ 16545 2153 13% 

LTC 11202 1653 15% 

COL 4823 785 16% 

B G 168 64 38% 

M G 104 39 38% 

LTG 49 25 51% 

GEN 11 5 45% 

Table 1. USMA Distribution across Active Duty population 

Dr. SNYDER. Please comment on the utility of the most recent professional military reading list compiled by Chairman Skelton. 

General FINNEGAN. The Defense and Strategic Studies major includes some of 

these books in its required courses. Elective courses introduce about 20 of these 

texts in classes and the MX400 Professional Military Officer course for first class 

cadets lists some of these books as choices for the professional biography reading 

assignment. 
163 

The list contains many popular books that faculty consider good professional and 

good personal reading. Few of the texts, if any, form the basis for any specific major, 

but as a collection, the list is useful for cadets and faculty in prioritizing their professional and educational reading. Rep. Ike Skelton’s new reading list is a national 

security reading list of 50 essential books. There are quite a few professional military reading lists available and they are all helpful to the student of history, governance and the military profession. As Chairman Skelton stated, ‘‘officers and senior 

enlisted members need to read books about military strategy and American history 

to benefit from lessons of the past and better understand American values.’’ His selected books highlight topics relating to national defense, thereby having great utility for those interested in national defense issues. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USMA have information technology challenges? If so, please 

describe them. Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated with 

maintaining a ‘‘.edu’’ versus a ‘‘.mil’’ internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain registrations? 

General FINNEGAN. There is a constant three-fold challenge. 

First, we must maintain a technology infrastructure representative of top-tier 

educational institutions and the ways they employ technology to support learning, 

program administration, and communication. 

Second, we must consistently provide a vibrant and relevant education regarding 

current and emerging technologies, including both those specific to Army and the 

DoD and also the broader commercial technology sphere. 

Third, our network security environment is challenged by the confluence of our 

academic requirement for exploration and collaboration, ‘‘student life’’ requirements, 

and the increasing frequency of DoD security requirements and actions resulting in 

operational constraints or changes to our work processes as a result. 

The first two challenges require significant, steady financial investments to update existing facilities and adopt emerging technologies as they appear. Many of the 

requirements exceed those of average Army installations. The Army has generally 

made the needed investments for decades, but recent trends have been negative. 

Some equipment has not been updated, and some desirable emerging technologies 

and support to enhance cadet education are unresourced within the Academy budget. To some extent, these shortfalls are being made up through external government 

resourcing of faculty and cadet research and outreach projects. 

In pursuit of managing the third challenge, West Point is vigilante it’s efforts to 

secure IT operations and has taken significant steps to ensure compliance with DoD 

security requirements. This is a challenging goal given its requirement for continuous communications in a global academic sense beyond traditional DoD borders. 

Operational processes differ depending on a garrison’s mission; the model of network security that works well at non-academic sites such as Fort Bragg or Fort 

Hood may have a very different effect when applied to West Point’s college mission 

imperatives. Providing a more open network security policy to facilitate academic 

pursuits and student life is possible, however it requires the application of more 

granular controls. These controls translate to tools that vary from standard Army 

installations, a more demanding set of systems administration and security skills, 

and additional manpower requirements. 

Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated with maintaining an ‘‘.edu’’ versus a ‘‘.mil’’ internet domain registration? 

There are distinct educational advantages for Military Academy faculty, staff, and 

cadet communication to maintain a .edu domain registration. It is a fact of modern 

life that Internet address domains communicate the professional affiliation of people 

who use them. People at West Point find it useful and important to communicate 

an educational affiliation in some cases and a military affiliation in others. The 

‘‘.edu’’ suffix, for example, is available only to accredited educational institutions. 

Consequently, it immediately confers a modest form of legitimacy by its use alone. 

A faculty member attending a conference or collaborating on a scholarly paper with 

colleagues at other schools is likely to use ‘‘usma.edu’’ web and email addresses for 

this reason. The same faculty member consulting with a government agency is likely 

to use ‘‘army.mil’’ addresses in order to convey his or her service connection. 

Perhaps the greatest importance of the ‘‘usma.edu’’ domain is in communications 

with prospective cadets and their families, where the educational aspect of West 

Point is often paramount. 

It is noteworthy that the Air Force Academy for many years maintained only 

af.mil addresses, but changed within the last few years to dual domains for the reasons cited above. 

Are there advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain 

registrations? 
164 

The advantage lies in the flexibility cited above, allowing West Point personnel 

to operate in both domains. There are some modest technical issues, but since both 

‘‘usma.edu’’ and ‘‘usma.army.mil’’ have been in active use since approximately 1989, 

these have long been solved, and the solution is part of the IT fabric of West Point. 

The disadvantages lie in the increased IT management, operations and security 

complexity inherent in two domains within a single geographic footprint. Additionally, until a common enterprise directory capability is established and shared between the domains, the users in the .edu domain cannot easily look up their .mil 

Army counterparts in the Army’s master Global Address List (GAL). 

Dr. SNYDER. The JCS Chairman’s Officer PME Policy includes a requirement for 

each of the service chiefs to provide the CJCS with reports on the joint education 

programs at the pre-commissioning and primary levels. We want to know the significant findings and recommendations of your 2006 Report and whether you would 

anticipate significantly different findings and recommendations three years later? 

Captain KLUNDER. The Navy has a variety of schools that teach pre-commissioning joint education. In 2006, the Navy reported that pre-commissioning joint 

learning objectives were being fully met through the courses of instruction at the 

U.S. Naval Academy and Naval Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (NROTC) units. 

Joint learning objectives were not being fully met at Officer Indoctrination School 

(OIS), Officer Candidate School (OCS), the LDO/CWO Indoctrination Course or the 

Direct Commission Officer Indoctrination Course (DCO), and Naval Science Institute (NSI). In these cases, recommendations were made to incorporate joint learning 

objectives into the Professional Core Competencies (PCCs). PCCs are used for developing course objectives and are the approved professional training requirements for 

officer accession programs. These competencies are the minimum which should be 

instructed, and are based on fleet requirements. 

Since 2006, significant changes have occurred within the non-NROTC training 

pipeline. All Officer training programs have been consolidated at Officer Training 

Command (OTCN), Newport, R.I. PME topics are covered in all OTCN curriculum 

(OCS, ODS, LDO/CWO, DCO, NSI) and are currently under revision. Included in 

the curriculum redesign is a more thorough PME exposure for all pre-commissioning 

candidates. With the implementation of the new curriculum, OTCN graduates will 

be fully prepared to transition into the Navy’s Primary PME courses. 

Navy community-specific schools continue to provide educational elements related 

to the CJCS Primary learning area, Joint Warfare Fundamentals. The Warfare Specialty Schools were generally found to be meeting joint learning objectives for joint 

warfare; however, they were not routinely covering the ‘‘Joint Campaigning’’ PCC. 

Of the PME courses reviewed by the individual institutions, the majority are designed for first tour junior officers and ‘‘Joint Campaigning’’ is deemed beyond the 

skill set expected of a first fleet tour junior officer. The ‘‘Joint Campaigning’’ is an 

area that is a staff training objective and outside the scope of Individual Warfare 

Specialty Schools. 

The Navy’s Primary PME course was first fielded by Naval War College in May 

of 2006 via Navy Knowledge Online. Currently, there are over 16K students enrolled in the Primary PME course which satisfactorily addresses joint learning areas 

and objectives. The program is available to all active duty and reserve members and 

is updated on a regular basis to remain current and relevant. 

Dr. SNYDER. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case study is a 

particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do you use the case study 

method, and if so, to what ends? 

Captain KLUNDER. Historical case studies are used in various classes and applications at USNA. The USNA curricula include one core history course (HH104) that 

provides all midshipmen with a foundation in naval/military history. The emphasis 

on the study of strategy varies, however, by individual professor. The level of analytical rigor in the core course is that appropriate to a freshman or ‘‘Plebe’’. When case 

studies are used, they typically entail only one lecture period, unlike the Naval War 

College where students rigorously analyze the historical cases over the course of 

several lectures. The shorter case studies match the maturity and sophistication of 

students in a one semester, freshman-level course. 

The USNA core curricula also include a course on Naval Warfare, taught at Luce 

Hall. Case studies are used in the Naval Warfare Course (NS300) to reinforce lecture points and to demonstrate examples of historical naval situations. The Battle 

of Midway, the Amphibious landing at Inchon, the Battle of Yorktown, Air-to-Air 

combat in Vietnam, and Naval and Joint Logistics in the 1991 Gulf War are the 

specific case studies utilized. In addition to historical examples, our instructors are 

encouraged to use their real life experience to drive home the importance of Command and Control, Commander’s intent, and standard planning procedures. 
165 

There remains a last option for midshipmen, if they are so inclined, to gain a better understanding of naval/military history and strategy. The history department offers a broad range of higher-level courses (e.g., HH381, Warfare in the Middle Ages; 

HH383, The Age of Total War 1815–1945; HH386A, History of Airpower; HH386C, 

History of Modern Counter Insurgency). These electives include a substantive discussion of the evolution of strategy, in some cases using the case study method. 

These electives, taken together on a yearly basis, can provide up to 1,000 midshipmen the opportunity to study both strategy and naval/military history (in practice, many of same students take more than one course, thus the brigade coverage 

is less than the theoretical maximum of one thousand possible midshipmen). Furthermore, the academy recognizes the importance of a higher level analysis of naval 

history and strategy and will offer in Spring 2010 a specialized course, ‘‘Readings 

in Grand Strategy’’. In addition, the academy recognizes the importance of an interdisciplinary study of military/naval history, military technology, and strategy, and 

is considering other initiatives that might improve midshipmen education in this 

area. Dr. SNYDER. Why do the Service Academies only award Bachelor of Science degrees? What would be the professional effect of offering Bachelor of Arts degrees in 

certain academic disciplines? What would be the professional effect of offering alternate tracks within Bachelor of Science programs that would be heavier on humanities and social science requirements? 

Captain KLUNDER. A B.S. degree is specified in Title 10. Also, meeting the needs 

of warfare communities requires some flexibility. This necessitates a core program 

that prepares midshipmen sufficiently for any warfare community. The heavy emphasis on Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) in the core justifies 

the B.S. degree. 

Currently, there are opportunities for midshipmen in STEM majors to increase 

their education in humanities and social science and there are opportunities for nonSTEM majors to enhance their education in mathematics, science and engineering. 

There are also opportunities for midshipmen in STEM majors to take more 

coursework than that required for graduation in areas of humanities and social 

science. Those opportunities may arise from course validation, overloading or attending summer school. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the amount of time needed to provide each midshipman with 

a knowledge base in engineering allow the latitude to balance academic pursuits 

with respect to the hard sciences, social sciences, communications skills, military 

studies, and the humanities, especially history, as they relate to a foundation in 

strategy? 

Captain KLUNDER. All midshipmen are required to take four courses in mathematics, two with lab in chemistry, two with lab in physics. Many are free to take 

more ‘‘hard science’’ as electives. All midshipmen are required to take two courses 

in English, three in history, one in government, one in ethics and moral reasoning, 

and two more electives in humanities and social sciences. All midshipmen are required to take at least five courses in engineering. All midshipmen take a course 

in naval strategy and tactics. This core foundation provides a balance for whichever 

area the midshipmen choose for their major—whether it is engineering, mathematics, science, humanities, or social sciences. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent is the USNA’s engineering-based curriculum preparing midshipmen to become effective officers on the ground in Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and elsewhere? 

Captain KLUNDER. Our core engineering and math/sciences based curriculum has 

proven to be very successful in the preparation of our midshipmen to handle and 

understand the intricacies of today’s modern weapons systems and machinery. What 

we are also extremely proud of, however, is our ability to properly prepare our 

young men and women to lead sailors and marines into combat and non-combat environments. This important aspect of our graduation requirement is accomplished 

by all midshipmen receiving a commission into the Naval Service. To ensure we are 

developing effective leaders that can succeed in Iraq or Afghanistan we have incorporated a leadership training curriculum that includes the utilization of two new 

educational and training divisions ‘‘The Division of Character Development and 

Training’’ and ‘‘The Division of Leadership Education and Development’’. In both of 

these divisions, the curriculum spans all four years and is designed to provide the 

Brigade of midshipmen a solid theoretical foundation in leadership values that is 

reinforced through summer training deployments, exercises, and career information 

programs. 

An additional focus area that has enhanced our leadership and character development curriculum is the Naval Academy’s Language Proficiency, Regional Expertise, 

Cultural Awareness (LREC) program. Adopting a multi-disciplinary approach, the 
166 

Naval Academy has been able to expose the majority of midshipmen to a full spectrum of joint, regional, and interagency operations. Either through small extensive 

in-country immersion programs, to larger foreign language immersion experiences, 

to effective foreign military exchange and embassy internship programs all midshipmen were able to acquire greater knowledge regarding the languages, history, 

politics, economies, culture and civilizations of strategically important regions of the 

world. 

Dr. SNYDER. At the USNA, we know that the ‘‘midshipman experience’’ is a combination of academic and professional development curriculum, leadership opportunities, summer training and travel, competitive athletics, etc. How do you factor 

service, JCS, and DOD requirements into the overall pre-commissioning experience? 

Captain KLUNDER. Incorporating all the important requirements for the breadth 

of training morally, mentally and physically is challenging. We have an Academy 

Effectiveness Board of senior leaders that meets monthly to make recommendations 

to the Superintendent on integration of all requirements into our curriculum. Based 

on this review, we have made changes in recent years and added inputs from guidance established by JCS, DOD, and Navy. 

Specifically, USNA used the 2006 Triennial Report on Pre-Commissioning JPME 

assessment as a foundation to refine its professional classroom instruction and practical fleet training to better align with the JCS Chairman’s Officer Professional Military Education (PME) Policy. For example, classroom instruction in the NS300 

Naval Warfare course was enhanced based upon 2006 Triennial Report recommendations. In this course, learning objectives are derived from CJCSI 1800.01C 

to include: 

• Know the organization for national security and how defense organizations fit 

into the overall structure. Know the organization, role and functions of the JCS. 

Know the chain of command from the President and the SecDef to the individual Service headquarters and to the unified commands. Know the primary 

missions and responsibilities of the combatant commands. Know the Military 

Services’ primary roles, missions and organizations. 

• Describe the nature of American Military Power. Identify the values in Joint 

Warfare. Understand fundamentals of information operations. Know how to access joint learning resources. 

Other focus areas where value was added to the JPME training curriculum include the establishment of two new educational and training divisions ‘‘The Division 

of Character Development and Training’’ and ‘‘The Division of Leadership Education 

and Development’’. In both of these divisions, the curriculum spans all four years 

and is designed to provide the Brigade of midshipmen with a solid theoretical foundation reinforced through summer training deployments, exercises, and career information programs. Of particular note, the Plebe Summer Character sessions, the 

Professional Reference manual (Pro-Manual), the Midshipman Leadership Development Guide (MLDG), and the Reef Points informational booklet all provide easy-touse instructional tools that assist the midshipmen’s PME development. 

One final area of PME that was enhanced following then 2006 Triennial Report 

was the Naval Academy’s Language Proficiency, Regional Expertise, Cultural 

Awareness (LREC) program. Adopting a multi-disciplinary approach, the Naval 

Academy was able to expose the majority of midshipmen to a full spectrum of joint, 

regional, and interagency operations. Through small extensive in-country immersion 

programs, to larger foreign language immersion experiences, to effective foreign 

military exchange and embassy internship programs, all midshipmen were able to 

acquire greater knowledge regarding the languages, history, politics, economies, culture and civilizations of strategically important regions of the world. 

Dr. SNYDER. How frequently are major reviews of the core curriculum conducted? 

What is the process for review and for the implementation of any recommended adjustments? 

Captain KLUNDER. Major reviews of the curriculum occur about every five to ten 

years. A review that surveys the needs of the Navy and Marine Corps has typically 

occurred once per decade. Five and ten year reviews are dictated by Middle States 

Accreditation. Reviews of parts of the curriculum occur continually. Each department undergoes external review on a regular basis. Changes to the curriculum come 

from departments and are reviewed at higher levels by their divisions (colleges), the 

Faculty Senate, the Dean, and the Superintendent. Superintendents have directed 

general changes and departments have implemented them after the aforementioned 

review process. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do your military faculty members get promotions and are they selected for command? Please provide statistics for the last five years. 
167 

Captain KLUNDER. Rotational Military Faculty are eligible for promotion; these officers can be and are selected for command based on the quality of their records. 

The long term military faculty—Permanent Military Professors—are eligible for promotion as well. Many have served in Command, but once selected for PMP, they 

are no longer eligible for Command. 

With the exemption of the Permanent Military Professors from U.S. Navy 

DOPMA quotas in NDAA 2005, the Academy has been able to establish up to 16 

Captain (O–6) PMP billets. PMP promotion opportunity to Captain for the foreseeable future is up to three selectees per year through FY14. Statistics to date for 

PMP promotion are 

FY08: 1 

FY09: 3 

Dr. SNYDER. Some USNA faculty reported a lack of transparent appraisal and renewal recommendation procedures. Please discuss the tenure system at your institution? What feedback have you received from civilian faculty with respect to these 

procedures? 

Captain KLUNDER. The tenure system and its requirements are described in detail 

in the Faculty Handbook, recently updated (2008) and available to all new and continuing faculty. The system in place is based on the policies and best practices developed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). Requirements 

are discussed in depth with all tenure-track faculty candidates prior to hiring. Ongoing mentorship and counsel is received from department chairs and senior faculty 

members. 

Initial tenure-track appointments are renewed after three years, with a departmental review for reappointment occurring at the two-year point, accompanied by 

a letter from the Academic Dean and Provost offering reappointment along with a 

short appraisal of performance to date. This ‘‘mid-tenure’’ review is designed to provide both summative and formative feedback to the individual regarding progress 

toward tenure. 

The Academy-wide Promotion and Tenure Committee reviews packages for tenure 

(and academic rank promotion) during the second three-year appointment, usually 

during the fifth or sixth year of service. Clear instructions are provided for preparing packages. Members of the Promotion and Tenure Committee are faculty colleagues appointed through due processes within the Faculty Senate. The percentage 

of faculty renewed after the first three-year appointment is nearly 100%. The percentage of tenure-track faculty who actually achieve tenure by their 6th year of 

Academy service (not counting those who may resign for reasons unrelated to performance) is about 95% over the past five years. These success rates are indicative 

of both the quality of the faculty being hired at the Naval Academy as well as the 

effectiveness and clarity/transparency of the promotion and tenure process. The Promotion and Tenure Committee provides verbal and written feedback following each 

review cycle to Division Directors, Department Chairs, and especially to those candidates for tenure who were not selected during the review. The Academy is somewhat unique among academic institutions in that faculty candidates may apply for 

tenure consideration more than once, i.e., during their 5th year of service and/or 

during their sixth year of service. If not selected by the sixth year of service, there 

is another full review during the seventh year of service. Of course, if not successful 

at that point, their faculty appointment at the Academy expires soon thereafter and 

is not renewed. 

The Academic Dean and Provost meets with the Promotion and Tenure Committee after they have concluded their reviews and discussions relating to all candidates each year. Each case is thoroughly discussed again in this setting. The Academic Dean and Provost then approves the final recommendation list of successful 

candidates and informs the Superintendent. 

Town Hall meetings are held annually, at the Division level, providing Promotion 

and Tenure Committee members the chance to convey guidance/clarifications to all 

faculty members, and to answer faculty questions in general. 

The Promotion and Tenure Committee has met with specific departments upon 

request, especially where the criteria for tenure are less easily defined within the 

traditional academic framework, as a way to achieve the greatest possible transparency and clarity for faculty members in those departments. The Committee is 

also chartered as a standing committee within the Faculty Senate to update the 

basic processes as required, including the official written instruction regarding submission of packages for review. This instruction is updated typically in response to 

observed practices or requests for more clarification, especially as venues for scholarly publication evolve or new tools are developed for evaluating faculty performance. 
168 

In summary, feedback from faculty is periodically received regarding clarity of the 

instruction for preparing promotion and tenure packages; and feedback from entire 

departments whose disciplines are rapidly evolving is periodically received relating 

to assessment of scholarship. Both of these kinds of feedback are directly addressed 

as described above, with broad information also being shared via the annual Town 

Meetings and through interactions of the members of the Promotion and Tenure 

Committee within their departments and divisions. Questions or concerns regarding 

individual cases reviewed by the Promotion and Tenure Committee are addressed 

in a confidential manner, with feedback provided directly by the Promotion and Tenure Committee during outbriefs with the candidate and their chain-of-command, 

with written guidance provided as a follow-up to the outbriefs. 

Dr. SNYDER. Since the 2004 ‘‘Larson Report,’’ the USNA has instituted a permanent military professor (PMP) program. Please describe and discuss this program? 

How is it similar to, or different from, those of the other Service Academies? How 

many PMPs are stationed at the USNA? What are the numbers of PMPs according 

to rank? What is the projected target number of PMPs? How many PMP candidates 

are currently in school pursuing their advanced degrees? Please discuss any effect 

that PMPs may have on the USNA’s leadership structure. 

Captain KLUNDER. The PMP program was created in 1997 by then-Superintendent Larson as a cost-effective means of providing a stable cohort of military 

role models in USNA classrooms who can also provide meaningful curricular and 

personnel links to the operating forces of the Navy. 

USNA has traditionally depended on a balance of civilian and military instructors 

to teach its classes. USNA has relatively fewer military instructors than its sister 

academies, as a result. The USNA PMP program—modeled on the Academy Professor program at USMA—is thus considerably smaller than counterpart programs 

at USAFA and USMA. There are 34 PMPs in residence at USNA in fall 2009; 

USAFA, if their budget is approved, will have 65, and USMA has 64. Unlike its two 

sister academies, USNA does not have any professors who serve as department 

heads and retire in the rank of O–7. There are 19 such officers at West Point and 

21 at the Air Force Academy. 

The Naval Academy currently plans for 50 PMPs on board. There are 21 PMPs 

in graduate school in the fall of 2009 pursuing the PhD. 

PMPs’ primary duties are as officer role models to midshipmen: in the classroom, 

in the direction of USNA courses, and in the maintenance of their discipline currency through relevant links to the Fleet and through collaborative research programs with midshipmen. Occasionally PMPs are asked to assume duties in the 

USNA leadership structure, as department chairs, deputy division directors, and, in 

one instance, as executive assistant to the Superintendent. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the cost of the Permanent Military Professor (PMP) program 

in real dollars? Recognizing that the PMP program is fairly new, how much time, 

on average, will PMPs spend on the faculty before reaching statutory retirement? 

What has been the shortest time on record? The longest? Have any PMPs been released from their commitment to serve on the faculty until statutory retirement? If 

so, why? 

Captain KLUNDER. The principal cost of the PMP program is in O–5 pay and allowances (individuals’ account funds): three years for those attending the Naval 

Postgraduate School (NPS) (3 × $174,991, the annual DOD composite rate for 2009), 

and 4 × $174,991 for those attending civilian graduate school. There are no tuition 

costs for NPS. We expect PMPs, on average, will spend approximately ten years on 

the faculty, including those who have asked for continuation beyond normal statutory retirement. No PMPs have been released from their commitment once they 

have arrived at USNA. Two officers have asked to be disenrolled while in graduate 

school because of the difficulty of the doctoral course of study at NPS. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent may civilians from other government agencies, such 

as the State Department or the CIA, be detailed to the USNA faculty? How do these 

visiting faculty members help students better understand the perspectives of other 

agencies? 

Captain KLUNDER. Other government agencies may enter into agreements, typically via Memoranda of Agreement, to have civilians detailed to USNA to serve as 

part of the faculty. One such agreement is currently in place with the National Security Agency. This agreement, which could serve as a model for additional agreements with other agencies, includes significant USNA involvement in the final step 

of the selection process, helping assure that the detailed civilian faculty member will 

have the greatest chance for success in the undergraduate teaching environment at 

USNA. Most of the candidates for these details do not have significant undergraduate teaching experience, and depending on the agency, most will not have the 
169 

Ph.D. degree. Note that USNA cannot accept candidates without at least a Masters 

degree in an appropriate discipline for accreditation purposes. 

Detailees not only teach courses to midshipmen, but they also help established 

other relationships between USNA faculty members and their home agency, which 

can bear fruit in scholarly activity, including midshipmen involvement in many 

cases. Detailees may also be invited to address special gatherings of midshipmen, 

beyond their own assigned classes, so that their perspectives and insights can be 

shared with a broader audience at the Academy. 

This past year, we have been approached by both CIA and the State Department 

with proposals to work together to draft Memoranda of Agreement for this very purpose, with a target of Fall 2010 semester for initial implementation. 

Dr. SNYDER. How hard is it to attract top civilian faculty to the USNA? Do you 

offer tenure to civilian faculty candidates? What incentives do you offer civilian faculty candidates? 

Captain KLUNDER. USNA competes in a national market to attract the very best 

civilian faculty. We are successful in doing so because we offer competitive salaries, 

an appropriate balance of teaching with scholarly expectations, sufficient funding for 

ongoing professional development, an opportunity to teach and learn with outstanding students, and a system that leads to tenure after 6 years for those who 

demonstrate outstanding performance. Hence, the vast majority of the civilian faculty are in such tenure-track positions (positions that are eligible to lead to tenure 

after six years); this is an important ‘‘attractor’’ for recruiting since institutions that 

do not offer tenure-line positions rarely compete effectively in a national market. 

These positions are ten-month academic year positions, with faculty in a leave-without-pay status during the 2-month intercessional (summer) period, unless other 

funding arrangements are made, such as external research sponsorship. This tenure-track model has been the foundation civilian faculty model at the Academy for 

many decades. All tenure-track civilian faculty members possess the Ph.D. degree, 

and all are expected to remain current in their academic disciplines in order to keep 

the curriculum for academic program current, vibrant, and exciting. The awarding 

of tenure requires that civilian faculty excel in the classroom as well as in their 

scholarly activities, and to be supportive of the ‘‘whole person’’ development of midshipmen consistent with our mission. This is a special combination of expectations 

which appeals to many potential faculty candidates. 

There are several incentives that help in recruiting new civilian faculty. For about 

the last decade, we have offered newly hired civilian tenure-track faculty the option 

to apply for three years of summer intercessional salary support, subject to approval 

by the Academy’s Research Council of the individual’s proposed scholarly activities. 

Of course, faculty are still encouraged to pursue external funding via grant proposals, but for those unable to secure such funding, we have been able to provide 

this support, in partnership with the Office of Naval Research for technically oriented faculty. In addition, we have seen recent activity and improvement in the area 

of child care for civilian faculty, which has proven very helpful in recruiting junior 

faculty in the past couple of years. 

On the other hand, there are also several challenges that impede our recruiting 

efforts. We have seen an increase in declined offers in some disciplines, typically related to the long-term pay parity with private sector counterparts. That is, in recent 

years, we have begun to see an erosion of salary competitiveness in the highest academic rank (Professor), which is attributed to the federal pay cap as applied in the 

Department of Defense. As this trend continues, we see a growing impact on recruiting faculty, especially in the disciplines whose markets sustain higher salary requirements (engineering disciplines, computer science, economics), since faculty 

hired into these disciplines will only have 12–14 years within their 30–35 year careers to be eligible for merit-based salary increases. 

Other incentives common at many other academic institutions, including many 

public state universities and colleges, but which are not available to civilian faculty 

at USNA, include tuition assistance for faculty dependents and faculty housing arrangements. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are there any significant impediments to sending USNA faculty 

members, whether civilian or military, for professional or academic purposes to foreign universities? Are there any significant impediments to sending faculty members for the same reasons to top tier universities within the United States? 

Captain KLUNDER. No, although there are additional costs associated with per 

diem for temporary lodging, food and incidentals. 

Dr. SNYDER. It has been asserted that institutional efforts to generate more diversity in the student body have had a negative impact on classroom dynamics and the 

quality of students and graduates. How do you respond to those assertions? 
170 

Captain KLUNDER. The Naval Academy has graduated warrior leaders for 164 

years, and it continues to do so today. In order to carry out our mission with an 

all-volunteer naval force during a time of war, the Naval Academy has conducted 

a recruiting campaign to reach out to all of America, particularly in under-represented areas of the nation. We have found vast talent around the nation who simply do not know of the opportunity to serve their country through the Naval Academy. Our admissions department has reached out nationally to attract this talent. 

For the incoming freshmen class of 2013, we attracted over 15,300 applicants—a 

40% overall increase and the most in 21 years. Included in the much larger applicant pool is a 57% increase in minority applications from the previous year. The result is the Class of 2013 is the most geographically, racially, and ethnically diverse 

class in Academy history. 

The Class of 2013 is comprised of well-rounded talent that brings a broad spectrum of experience to the Naval Academy. The Naval Academy admits only highly 

motivated young men and women based upon their combined excellence in academics, athletics, leadership potential and community service. While SAT scores 

alone are not predictors of success either at the Naval Academy or in the Fleet, it 

is significant to note that when their scores are compared to their national collegebound ethnic peers, Naval Academy Hispanics were in the top 5%, African-Americans were in the top 6%, and Caucasians were in the top 11%. Quite simply, because of the increased outreach efforts, we greatly increased number of applications. 

The Class of 2013 has more minorities because more highly qualified minorities applied. 

Quality is high, spirit is high, and we will continue to train the finest students 

in the nation morally, mentally, and physically to be among the finest leaders for 

our nation. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USNA receive funding for the purpose of promoting diversity? If so, how is this funding utilized? 

Captain KLUNDER. USNA outreach efforts are typically within the operating funding provided to USNA Admissions Department as part of their efforts across the nation in attracting youth. However, in the FY2008 National Defense Authorization 

Bill congress specifically added $460k to the U.S. Naval Academy for diversity outreach. This funding was used to enhance the outreach efforts including travel of 

midshipmen for school visits, outreach across the nation by midshipmen groups like 

the USNA Gospel Choir, STEM camps at USNA and STEM outreach. Finally, on 

a case-by-case basis, private gift funds are sometimes available to support specific 

actions or programs from private donors. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please provide a comprehensive list with numbers of all outside 

scholarships awarded to USNA graduates over the past five years, together with a 

brief description of each. 

Captain KLUNDER. Voluntary Graduate Education Program (VGEP). The VGEP 

Scholars begin working toward advanced degrees at local universities in the spring 

semester of their senior year at the Naval Academy. They are continuing their graduate work as junior officers in the Navy and Marine Corps. The VGEP Scholars will 

complete their community schools in January of the following year. 

2005 20 

2006 19 

2007 20 

2008 19 

2009 19 

Immediate Graduate Education Program (IGEP) at the Naval Postgraduate 

School and Air Force Institute of Technology. The IGEP officers participate in accelerated one-year master’s degree programs in designated technical curricula. 

2005 48 (18 Aviation, 13 Surface, 17 Submarine) 

2006 39 (14 Aviation, 17 Surface, 8 Submarine) 

2007 22 (13 Aviation, 5 Surface, 4 Submarine) 

2008* 6 Bowman Scholars (5 Nuc Submarine, 1 Nuc Surface) 

2009* 5 Bowman Scholars (4 Nuc Submarine, 1 Nuc Surface) 

* IGEP at NPS limited to just nuclear power Bowman Scholars. 

Authorized to accept scholarships at civilian universities—allows up to 24 months 

for the officers to complete their master’s degrees before attending their service 

schools. 

2005 40 (33 Navy and 7 Marine Corps) (4 Rhodes, 1 Marshall) 
171 

2006 32 (23 Navy and 9 Marine Corps) (3 Rhodes, 0 Marshall) 

2007 39 (34 Navy and 5 Marine Corps) (1 Rhodes, 1 Marshall) 

2008 32 (20 Navy and 12 Marine Corps) (1 Rhodes, 3 Marshall) 

2009 38 (21 Navy and 17 Marine Corps) (0 Rhodes, 4 Marshall) 

(9 Rhodes, 9 Marshall) 

Numbers of Rhodes Scholarships to Oxford and Marshall Scholarships to United 

Kingdom Universities are indicated on the right and are included in the summary 

totals for each class. 

Secretary of the Navy/Office of Naval Research Oceanography Program at Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution. 

2005 3 

2006 2 

2007 0 Graduating midshipmen became ineligible for 

2008 0 the Oceanography at MIT program starting with 

2009 0 the Class of 2007. 

Burke Program students begin graduate work, usually at the Naval Postgraduate 

School, after their first operational tour in the Navy or Marine Corps. 

Navy Burke Program 

2005 48 (15 principals and 33 alternates) 

2006 47 (15 principals and 32 alternates) 

2007 24 (15 principals and 9 alternates) 

2008 28 (15 principals and 13 alternates) 

2009 29 (15 principals and 14 alternates) 

Marine Corps Burke Program 

2005 23 (15 principals and 8 alternates) 

2006 23 (15 principals and 8 alternates) 

2007 15 

2008 14 

2009 15 

Olmsted Scholarship Nominees. The nominees will be screened for the Olmsted 

Scholarship three to ten years after commissioning, by Navy-Marine Corps screening committees. Ultimately, up to 10 Navy and 3 or more Marine Corps Olmsted 

nominees may be selected for graduate study at foreign universities, using a foreign 

language. 

2005 29 

2006 27 

2007 32 

2008 37 

2009 46 

Dr. SNYDER. Among active duty personnel in the Navy and Marine Corps, how 

many Flag and General officers are USNA graduates? Of the total active duty Navy 

and Marine Corps Flag and General officer populations, what percentages do these 

numbers represent? 

Captain KLUNDER. USNA records indicate 13 of 107 Active Duty Marine Corps 

General Officers are USNA graduates (12%). The current number of active duty 

Navy Flag Officers who are USNA graduates is 137 (includes flag selectees). The 

percentage of active duty Navy Flag Officers is 49% (includes flag selectees). 

Dr. SNYDER. What are the specific lengths of commitment incurred by USNA 

graduates, according to Service selection and/or specialty? 

Captain KLUNDER. For Naval Aviation, Navy pilots serve a commitment of eight 

years after earning their wings and Naval Flight Officers serve six years after earning their wings. For USMC, rotary pilots serve six years after wings and fixed wing 

pilots serve eight years. For USNA graduates who attend the Uniformed Services 

University of the Health Services and become Medical Officers their active duty 

commitment is twelve years. All other designators or military occupational specialties incur the USNA minimum active duty service obligation of five years. 

Dr. SNYDER. What are the current retention figures for USNA graduates among 

active duty Navy and Marine Corps personnel, respectively, at the five-, ten-, and 

fifteen-year milestones? 
172 

Captain KLUNDER. For Navy, personnel retention rates of USNA graduates based 

on 2001–2006 career continuation rates are 80.8% at five years, 41.4% at ten and 

33.1% at fifteen years. For Marine Corps, personnel retention rates are 90.7% at 

five years, 48.4% at ten and 36.1% at fifteen. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please comment on the most recent professional military reading list 

compiled by Chairman Skelton. 

Captain KLUNDER. #1. History Matters: This may seem rather over-simplified, but 

when discussing Geo-Political Issues and U.S. engagement in strategic regions 

around the world it is clear that one should have a thorough understanding of that 

region and its history. Works like Kaplan’s ‘‘Warrior Politics’’, Sun Tzu’s ‘‘The Art 

of War’’, and Handel’s ‘‘Masters of War’’ are some that immediately resonated with 

me. #2. Battles & Conflicts Repeat Themselves: In my study of conflicts, great warriors and leaders often recognize the same critical elements for mission success. Sir 

Gavin De Beer’s ‘‘Hannibal’’, Keegan’s ‘‘The Book of War’’, and Freeman’s ‘‘Lee’’ have 

particular significance in this area. 

#3. Study Great Leaders: The piece on Stonewall Jackson by Robertson and the 

interesting read on Lincoln, ‘‘Team of Rivals’’ by Goodwin are most interesting. 

#4. A Strong Read for this Era: I am convinced that David Kicullen’s ‘‘The Accidental Guerilla’’ will influence our decisions for many years to come with regard to 

modern warfare. 

#5. Truly Understanding Afghanistan: If a reader wants to get a comprehensive 

understanding of current Afghanistan society, one should spend some time with 

Barrnett Rubin’s ‘‘The Fragmentation of Afghanistan’’. It is a detailed read, but extremely insightful (recommend adding to the list). 

#6. Understanding Military Discipline: This pertains to aviation; however, the 

reader will quickly appreciate how critical discipline becomes to a unit’s mission success by reading Tony Kern’s ‘‘Flight Discipline’’ (recommend adding to the list). 

#7. U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers: There is no better read on the U.S. Navy’s Aircraft Carrier than ADM James Holloway’s ‘‘Aircraft Carriers at War’’ (recommend 

adding to the list if an Aircraft Carrier work is desired). 

#8. If You Don’t Read, You Can’t Lead: We had a renowned speaker come to the 

Naval Academy (Dr. Samuel Betances) and he mentioned these strong words. In the 

discussion, he also recommended ‘‘Future Think’’ by Edie Weiner and Arnold Brown. 

I have just picked it up, but the initial feedback regarding this book is very positive. 

It is a very healthy read on managing change. 

#9. Overcoming Resistance: ‘‘The War of Art’’ is another book that I have just 

been recommended to read. It deals with achieving goals by overcoming the resistance and hurdles that always seem to get in the way. I haven’t picked it up yet, 

but this is my next one in the queue. 

#10. A Reading List is Created to Share: Thank you for sharing your list with 

me. I clearly remember Chairman Skelton speaking to my graduating class at National War College and one of the important points he stressed regarded continual 

reading and learning. I am trying to honor those words. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the USNA have information technology challenges? If so, please 

describe them. Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated with 

maintaining a ‘‘.edu’’ versus a ‘‘.mil’’ internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain registrations? 

Captain KLUNDER. The Naval Academy’s information technology challenge is to 

provide information technology to a U.S. Navy Echelon II Command, in a competitive university setting, supporting a timeless pedagogical mission, within the boundary conditions established by the military. 

There are significant advantages (and requirements) associated with a ‘‘.edu’’ network/domain. 

The Naval Academy’s mission is exceptionally different from other Navy commands; consequently our use of information technology (IT) is inimitable when compared to other Navy organizations. 

Operating as a .mil (e.g. in a .mil domain) does not support the context within 

which the Naval Academy uses IT. The context dictates the technology required, 

who uses it, and how it is used. Our context is completely different than traditional 

naval shore establishments and sea commands, including training commands. Most 

of the differences are reflected in how the information and communication technology is acquired, developed, integrated, and used. Examples of the context include: 

Accession Accession source for ∼1000 officers into the Navy and Marine 

Corps 

Education Undergraduate degree granting institution 

Research Pedagogical, scientific, and industrial research 
173 

Athletics NCAA participation in ∼30 Olympic sports at the intercollegiate 

level 

Accreditation Academic and professional accreditation for all academic programs 

Collaboration Collaborative membership in international research and education network 

Exploration Evaluating technology futures—keeps us competitive with our 

peers 

Each of the above requires a unique blend of hardware, software, network/communication capabilities, and security either not available, or not allowed on a .mil network. 

‘‘.Mil’’ networks cannot support the complexity, diversity, agility, responsiveness, 

and flexibility required of competitive, degree granting, and fully accredited educational institutions such as USNA. 

By design, Academic programs (and therefore the Naval Academy), require innovation, experimentation, and research as a requirement for accreditation and as a 

requirement to improve teaching and learning (pedagogy). 

There are no advantages and significant disadvantages as discussed above. 

Dr. SNYDER. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case study is a 

particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do you use the case study 

method and, if so, to what ends? 

Colonel TANOUS. The faculty at the Squadron Officer College (SOC) agrees with 

Chairman Skelton and uses case-study methodology in both the Air and Space Basic 

Course (ASBC) and Squadron Officer School (SOS). The use of the case-study method aids in teaching history and strategy, but is also valuable in strengthening students’ skills in critical thinking. Through their use of case studies, students conduct 

analysis and have their interpretations of facts challenged by peers and instructors 

alike. 

The Air Force chartered ASBC to educate junior officers in the capabilities and 

limitations of the U.S. Air Force. Those capabilities and limitations are detailed in 

the Air Force Doctrine Document (AFDD)–2 series. SOC is using case studies to 

drive ASBC students into the applicable doctrine, allowing them to discover linkages 

between historical events and current doctrine, but also facilitating critical thinking 

about the applicability and currency of the existing doctrine. 

SOC employs case-study methodology in SOS in support of that School’s leadership-development mission. Students are exposed to case studies and biographical information to analyze, assess and comment on leadership traits and experiences of 

the past. In this way, they correlate past leaders’ approaches and accomplishments 

to today’s challenges and determine better ways to overcome obstacles and achieve 

success. 

Dr. SNYDER. How do you factor Service, JCS and DOD requirements into your approach to educating and developing junior officers? 

Colonel TANOUS. Service requirements are levied on the Squadron Officer College 

(SOC) through the Air Force Learning Council and the Institutional Competency 

List (ICL). Joint and DOD requirements are transmitted via the Officer Professional 

Military Education Policy (OPMEP), contained in CJCS Instruction 1800.01. In addition to the OPMEP, the Joint Staff/J–7 Joint Education Branch conveys additional 

topics it wants covered via its annual list of ‘‘Special Areas of Emphasis.’’ SOC also 

responds to learning requirements levied by the Air Education and Training Command, Air University, and the Professional Center for Officer Development. 

SOC regularly reviews assigned learning requirements to ensure the curricula of 

its programs meet or exceed desired learning levels in each area. Where shortcomings are noted, curriculum items are added or revised appropriately. Similarly, 

requirements that are deleted are reviewed to determine if they are no longer relevant to the curriculum and, if determined to be inappropriate for retention, are 

eliminated. 

All curriculum decisions, to include additions, revisions and deletions, are weighed 

against the entire curriculum within any given education program. Professional educators ensure programmatic decisions are enacted in such a manner as to ensure 

a coherent educational experience consistent with the mission and desired learning 

outcomes for each academic program. 

Dr. SNYDER. In thinking about how to integrate the curricula of ASBC and SOS, 

how do you compensate for the fact that the two schools are years apart in an officer’s career—and thus much of what is learned at ASBC may be forgotten by the 

time an officer goes to SOS? 
174 

Colonel TANOUS. Curriculum integration is a major concern not just for Squadron 

Officer College (SOC) in its ASBC and SOS offerings, but across the entire continuum of U.S. Air Force Professional Military Education. To facilitate integration, 

the Air Force created a continuum of learning, encompassing training, education 

and experience. The Air Force Institutional Competency List (ICL) is based on this 

continuum and helps the schools define their programs and integrate their offerings 

across officers’ careers. 

Air University clarifies the Air Force’s continuum guidance with its own publication, the Continuum of Officer and Enlisted Professional Military Education Strategic Guidance, commonly referred to as the ‘‘CESG.’’ The CESG, most recently published in April 2009, incorporated the ICL, but adds several levels of granularity to 

ensure topic integration and minimize the potential for duplication across the University’s educational offerings. 

SOC ‘‘deconflicts’’ its educational requirements between ASBC and SOS to ensure 

that curriculum is developed commensurate with the specific needs of its students 

and assigned learning requirements. There is very little review of ASBC curriculum 

in the SOS program. The education and skills imparted through ASBC are reinforced through experience and review of military doctrine that occurs as a natural 

part of an officer’s service. 

A recent enhancement in officer education is SOC’s new Leadership Development 

Program (LDP). The LDP consists of four, self-paced courses developed specifically 

to aid officers at particular points in their career. The Company Grade Officer Development Course reinforces precommissioning materials on officership and the profession of arms, building on that knowledge to address the expanding responsibilities and requirements junior officers face in the early years of their careers. The 

Flight Commander Course provides additional instruction in the areas of supervision and resource management. SOC’s Organizational Leadership Course delves 

into organizational theory to aid students in designing, improving and leading organizations. Lastly, the Expeditionary Leadership Course addresses specific requirements related to deployment preparation and recovery, as well as unique challenges 

associated with leading people in austere and/or hostile environments. Together, the 

four courses of the LDP offer educational reinforcement of basic concepts while 

building on those concepts in areas that specifically meet the needs of today’s junior 

Air Force officers. 

In addition to LDP, Air Force officers also have the Warfighter Developmental 

Education (WDE) program, a series of five courses developed by the Curtis E. 

LeMay Center for Doctrine Development and Education and presented across Airmen’s careers to help keep them current. The second of these courses, ‘‘Foundations 

of Warfighting,’’ specifically targets junior officers. It complements the ASBC and 

SOS curricula and bridges the time between the two schools. The course reinforces 

students’ understanding of air, space and cyberspace power employment from homeland to expeditionary operations; lessons critical to all Airmen, but particularly pertinent to these junior officers. 

Dr. SNYDER. At the ASBC, virtually all USAF officers matriculate, even recent 

USAFA graduates. Recent graduates reportedly consider the ASBC experience to be 

a ‘‘huge waste of time.’’ How do you try to make the ASBC experience a valuable 

one for students? 

Colonel TANOUS. ASBC was developed with the intent to create within our junior 

officers an ‘‘Airman First’’ attitude, meaning airmen recognize themselves as components of their Service first and foremost, irrespective of accession source or specialty. While a challenging goal, over the course of the last decade the course has 

matured, and several successive Chief of Staff U.S. Air Force (CSAF)-directed initiatives have continued to improve ASBC, culminating in the current ASBC ‘‘Retool’’ 

effort. The collective result of the CSAF-directed initiatives, as well as internal reviews and student and faculty feedback, addresses many of the concerns referenced 

above. The singular focus for ASBC across Squadron Officer College (SOC) is to 

maximize the value of this unique learning opportunity for the entire officer corps 

just as they begin their careers. 

As noted above, the CSAF-directed changes have significantly enhanced the ASBC 

experience, and today’s ASBC bears almost no resemblance to the course our Lieutenants went through ten years ago. These included the addition of a ‘‘combined 

ops’’ curriculum (cooperative, experiential sessions between ASBC and Senior NonCommissioned Officer Academy [SNCOA] students), new learning outcomes aimed 

at imparting a warrior ethos in ASBC graduates. SOC has recently completed a 

major adjustment in ASBC to achieve these ends, however; some replication between commissioning sources and the resulting educational program were almost 

immediately obvious to the students, faculty and staff. Just as quickly, SOC is making additional adjustments. 
175 

In terms of the expeditionary skills imparted in the Course, SOC has coordinated 

with Air Force expeditionary skills program managers to deconflict its offerings with 

those of the Academy, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) and Officer 

Training School (OTS). More importantly, SOC incorporated ASBC into its curriculum-revision undertaken earlier this year to elevate that program to higher levels of learning. 

Instead of merely focusing on ‘‘the family business’’ and imparting warrior skills, 

the educational aims of the past, the revised ASBC is offering expeditionary skills 

in the intellectual context of 21st Century warfare. Students are immersed in a simulated expeditionary environment, but their learning experiences are specifically 

linked to Air Force doctrine and the context of modern warfare as never before. The 

result is a more coherent and more valuable learning experience. 

The new ASBC program consists of three, key stages of development, each dedicated to a specific area of student learning. The course opens with the Blue Thunder 

experience, a simulated-deployment, tent city located on Maxwell Air Force Base 

where students are acquainted with the expeditionary skills and requirements that 

define modern Air Force operations. Blue Thunder serves as an ‘‘equalizer’’ for students from varying commissioning sources and specialties ensuring a common baseline of understanding for the next two stages. 

In the second stage of development, students participate in three weeks of rigorous academics and one week of Combined Ops with students from the SNCOA. 

The academic portion of the course has been extensively modified to provide a far 

more rigorous learning experience; one specifically focused on higher-headquartersdirected learning requirements as they apply to these junior officers. The Combined 

Ops activities encourage collaboration, team-building and understanding between 

the junior officers and mid-level senior NCOs. In addition to experiential activities 

and problem-solving scenarios, there is ample time for interaction on issues of vital 

concern to today’s Air Force. Many students in both ASBC and SNCOA consider the 

combined-ops experience to be the highlight of their educational endeavors. 

In the final stage of the ASBC experience, Vigilant Warrior, students ‘‘deploy’’ to 

a simulated deployment site at a pristine location 25 miles north of the base. Here 

they are provided opportunities to demonstrate all that they have learned throughout the course in a series of challenging scenarios. This unique and rewarding learning experience is drawing rave reviews from students, faculty and staff alike both 

for its authenticity and its focus on real-world challenges. 

Combined, the three stages of ASBC build upon the knowledge imparted in 

precommissioning educational opportunities, carrying students to higher levels of 

learning in the skill and knowledge areas most appropriate to junior military officers. They create an intellectual context into which students can better comprehend 

the importance of their unique contributions to the Air Force and Joint-Force missions they will support, and they have a broader understanding of the full spectrum 

of Air Force capabilities and the ways in which their Service supports Joint Force 

commanders and national security objectives. 

This transformation of ASBC is still underway and will be complete in early 2010. 

SOC will continue to monitor very closely student, faculty and staff feedback as it 

progresses toward its goal of creating a gateway educational experience that prepares these junior Air Force officers for the operational challenges they will face in 

their careers. 

Dr. SNYDER. We understand that there is a recently completed curriculum review 

that, among other things, focused on operational art, language and culture, and the 

balance of joint concepts between ASBC and SOS. The goal for ASBC is the ‘‘awareness level,’’ and for SOS the ‘‘competency level.’’ What more can you tell us about 

this review? Please differentiate the substantive meanings of the terms ‘‘awareness 

level’’ and ‘‘competency level.’’ 

Colonel TANOUS. The curriculum review was launched on 1 April 2009 and involved the identification and review of every learning requirement assigned to the 

Squadron Officer College (SOC). Conducted by a team of faculty and staff members 

from within SOC, but supplemented by educational experts across the University, 

the team identified a number of requirements that were not being adequately addressed, but also vast opportunities for improvement in terms of both curriculum 

currency and relevance. The team concluded its deliberations on 15 April, forwarding a curriculum plan for senior leaders to coordinate and approve. The plan 

was approved and launched on 1 May 2009. As of this writing, 101 of the 124 lessons of the new SOC curriculum are in work, with 22 already in use in the classrooms. 

The new curriculum is focused entirely in SOS’ core mission area, leadership. 

Using cutting-edge leadership theory, experiential activities, a new instructional approach that challenges students to be more proactive in their learning, and new as-
176 

sessment strategies, students are developing enhanced communications and critical 

thinking skills even as they are honing their leadership skills. 

The curriculum in ASBC is changing as well. The ASBC curriculum is delving further into the intellectual context of 21st Century warfare to make the existing expeditionary-skills and combined-operations (in conjunction with Senior Non-Commissioned Officer Academy students) portions of the curriculum more relevant. The curriculum updates in ASBC and SOS will be complete no later than March 2010, however, already SOC is realizing gains through its aggressive student and faculty feedback programs. 

SOC envisions itself as the premier leadership-development institution in the U.S. 

Air Force; a program respected throughout the Air Force and beyond. With the 

changes underway today, SOC is well on its way to reaching its vision. 

Other educational institutions agree. SOC has established partnerships with several educational institutions, both civilian and military, to expedite the changes underway. The results have been phenomenal. The University of Texas has visited to 

observe the new educational approach and has reported phenomenal successes. The 

Air Force Institute of Technology (AFIT) has assisted by designing a leadership-assessment survey that is helping SOS students comprehend their leadership 

strengths and weaknesses so they can build personal development plans. AFIT is 

also helping SOC reengineer its distinguished-graduate/recognition programs to better incentivize desired student behaviors. Michigan State University is collaborating 

with SOS to conduct a wargaming exercise that assesses and develops team-building 

and decision-making skills. These are just some of the partnerships contributing to 

the success of SOC’s new educational approach. 

SOC does not differentiate its educational offerings in terms of ‘‘awareness’’ and 

‘‘competency’’ levels. Learning requirements are assigned by higher headquarters 

via the Air Force Institutional Competency List, the Joint Staff’s Officer Professional 

Military Education Policy, the Air University Continuum of Officer and Enlisted 

Professional Military Education Strategic Guidance, as well as other mechanisms, 

typically using the learning levels associated with Bloom’s Taxonomy. Those levels 

are: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. SOC 

reviews its assigned learning requirements and, at its discretion may exceed assigned learning levels in the interest of producing a better graduate for the Air 

Force. 

It is inaccurate to state that the ASBC curriculum targets lower learning levels 

than SOS’. ASBC reaches desired learning levels in its focus areas, team-building, 

expeditionary operations and Air Force capabilities and limitations, often reaching 

application and analysis. SOS reaches its desired levels of learning in its focus area, 

which is leadership. 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes ‘‘rigor’’ in your educational program? How do you 

establish and evaluate ‘‘rigor’’ for any particular course offering or academic program? Do you give letter grades? Please explain. 

Colonel TANOUS. The Squadron Officer College (SOC) enhances the academic rigor 

of its educational offerings by focusing on higher levels of learning as defined by the 

Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. Instead of rote memorization, a hallmark of past offerings, SOC is delving more deeply into activities that demand analysis and application from its students. Instead of multiple-choice testing and simple experiential 

activities, SOC is adopting a wide array of student assessments that combine to provide a more holistic picture of student learning and success while at the same time 

challenging students to master critical thinking and communication skills as an inherent element of their learning. 

In support of these initiatives, SOC has completely revised its Academic Evaluation Plan. Part of that plan includes implementing letter grades for academic assignments. Additionally, rubrics are being created to guide instructors in assessing 

student performance. These rubrics, available to students in advance of their performances, help guide both students and instructors to focus on the desired behaviors and performance levels while simultaneously limiting subjectivity in instructor 

assessments. 

In addition to these initiatives, SOC is currently revising its distinguished-graduate/recognition programs. The goal in this initiative is to incentivize those behaviors desired in SOC’s students—those behaviors, skills and knowledge areas most 

desired by the Air Force and Joint Staff. Combined, these initiatives help instill and 

assess academic rigor as never before. 

Dr. SNYDER. How does performance in primary-level PME matter for onward assignments? Should attendance of the primary-level PME schools in-residence matter 

for later assignments? 

Colonel TANOUS. Squadron Officer College (SOC) has anecdotal evidence that distinguished graduates fare better in their future assignments. SOC is initiating an 
177 

endeavor to employ the institutional-effectiveness experts at the Spaatz Center for 

Officer Professional Development to conduct studies of demographic data to provide 

additional insights into the short- and long-term aspects of its educational offerings 

on students’ careers. 

This initiative is timely, given the fundamental alterations underway in primary 

PME. The new curricula in the Squadron Officer School (SOS) and the Air and 

Space Basic Course (ASBC) will produce officers whose knowledge and skill sets are 

more closely aligned to the needs of the U.S. Air Force and joint community. SOC 

expects that student and supervisor surveys will also bear out the value of the new 

approach. Although it is still too soon in this process to definitively claim success, 

early student, faculty and staff feedback clearly indicates SOC is on the right path. 

External reviewers, to include academic partners from civilian educational institutions and higher headquarters concur. 

Attendance at primary-level PME should matter a great deal in considering officers’ assignments. Attendance should not be just a ‘‘square-filler,’’ however. Graduates from SOC’s programs should possess skills and knowledge that set them apart 

from their peers who have not attended. They should be better leaders and more 

knowledgeable of Air Force capabilities. They should be better team-builders and 

have a broader working knowledge of Air Force processes. SOC should definitely 

‘‘count’’ in assignment decisions, but the responsibility for making it ‘‘count’’ clearly 

lies with SOC. SOC has to create and deliver educational offerings that empower 

its students to success and make them more desirable to the Air Force. That transformation is underway. It is already producing early signs of success. 

Dr. SNYDER. How do you evaluate the performance of the faculty and staff at your 

institution? 

Colonel TANOUS. In addition to initiating a complete review and revision of its 

curriculum, the Squadron Officer College (SOC) simultaneously launched a comprehensive review of its faculty recruitment, development, evaluation and recognition programs this spring. In the past, faculty evaluations were conducted by the 

individual instructor’s chain of command. Faculty duty was not well incentivized 

and the faculty was not empowered to provide coaching and mentoring. Instead, the 

faculty was limited to an evaluator/observer role. 

All of that has changed. Robust development opportunities, to include preparatory 

courses, in-service educational opportunities and increased sharing among the faculty are now a regular part of the SOC teaching experience. Two of the preparatory 

classes have been reviewed by a civilian academic partner and graduated faculty 

members receive six hours of transfer credits into that University’s Master’s of 

Adult Education Degree. 

Faculty observations and evaluations are conducted by senior staff members as 

well as identified master instructors across the faculty, with feedback directed at 

improving teaching performance. Instructional skills are incentivized with awards, 

‘‘senior’’ and ‘‘master’’ rankings, as well as opportunities for off-duty research and 

participation in subject-relevant symposia. 

Specific to this question, a new faculty-observation/evaluation form has been developed, with an accompanying Operating Instruction, to guide reviewers to identify 

and report on desired teaching behaviors in the classroom. The evaluation process 

relies on candid peer reviews, focused entirely on student learning outcomes. 

The results of these initiatives are maturing now across the College. What was 

a few months ago a ‘‘band of brother instructors’’ is emerging as a faculty, committed to student learning and sharing ideas on better ways to reach students and 

guide them to achieve desired learning objectives. SOC is moving toward the graduate-level educational experience it seeks to become. The instructor observation/ 

evaluation program is facilitating this transformation. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the SOC doing to eliminate perceptions among its military 

faculty that duty at the SOC is neither professionally satisfying nor career enhancing? Do these perceptions impact the school’s ability to select qualified military instructors? Do your military faculty members get promotions and are they selected 

for command? Please provide statistics for the last five years. 

Colonel TANOUS. In spring of 2009, the Squadron Officer College (SOC) simultaneously launched comprehensive reviews of its curriculum and its faculty recruitment, development, evaluation and recognition programs. These reviews uncovered 

vast opportunities for improvements in the educational programs SOC delivers in 

support of the Air Force mission. SOC is capturing and enacting these improvements which are being captured and enacted in a series of changes affecting lesson 

content and delivery, as well as faculty selection, preparation and support. The 

transformations underway at SOC are fundamentally altering the quality of instructors’ assignments to the College. 
178 

First, SOC’s academic day—as calculated in ‘‘contact hours’’ has been contracted 

to allow more time for faculty preparation and development, as well as more time 

for student reflection. The absence of time for grading papers, classroom preparation 

and professional development was a major detractor noted by past faculty members. 

Secondly, SOC is better preparing its faculty for success. The time invested in faculty development reinforces SOC’s commitment to its teaching staff. In return, this 

ensures a more capable and more committed faculty. Further, the interactive, developmental opportunities SOC is providing open additional avenues for communication providing faculty with a greater voice in the curriculum, delivery methods, and 

even College procedures. 

Third, the focus of faculty duty is transforming. Moving from an observer-evaluator to a coach-mentor approach is empowering faculty members to become involved in their students success. Where in the past the faculty was on the sidelines 

observing students, they are now ‘‘in the game,’’ playing alongside their charges and 

extolling them to higher levels of achievement. This has created a far more satisfying experience for the faculty members while at the same time making them far 

more effective as educators. 

Lastly, SOC is incentivizing top-notch teaching. In the past, SOC’s awards programs tended to recognize outstanding performers who completed special projects 

outside of the classroom. Now SOC is recognizing its outstanding teachers and using 

them to model effective educational techniques across the College. In addition, SOC 

has identified a list of qualifications it desires in its new faculty members and is 

working with the Air Force Personnel Center to identify officers who meet or exceed 

these standards, knowing that the enhanced quality will translate into greater student respect and higher prestige for faculty. Lastly, SOC is incentivizing faculty 

duty through opportunities for additional education (SOC recently requested two additional Advanced Academic-Degree slots), attendance at subject-related symposia, 

opportunities for individual research, and opportunities to present research and personal experiences in faculty fora both within the College and beyond. Combined, 

these incentives and the increased responsibilities entailed in the new teaching approach are eliminating some of the major detractors of faculty duty identified in the 

past, and making an assignment to SOC more highly prized than ever before. 

There is currently no statistical data supporting the relative value of faculty service. However, promotion rates for SOC have exceeded Air Force averages. For the 

last several years, the USAF promotion rate to the rank of major has averaged 

around 94%, and 74% from major to lieutenant colonel. In comparison the promotion 

rate for 2008 within SOC for captains meeting their primary board for promotion 

to major was 100%, as was the rate for Majors meeting their primary board for Lt 

Colonel. The impact may be discernable at more senior levels of service, however, 

that data has not been captured. SOC is working with the Spaatz Center for Officer 

Professional Development to develop new approaches to capture and analyze data 

supporting its institutional effectiveness program. Part of this initiative is to partner with the Air Force Personnel Center to capture demographic data looking into 

the areas of retention, promotion, and selection for command. 

Dr. SNYDER. We understand that approximately 80 percent of USAF Captains go 

to SOS in-residence. Should the USAF establish a screening process for SOS to 

make attendance more selective? 

Colonel TANOUS. In effect, a screening process already exists. Wing and Numbered 

Air Force commanders currently make SOS attendance selections based on those eligible to attend. Although these commanders have to take operational factors and 

timing into consideration, they nevertheless make a ‘‘quality cut’’ in their selection 

decisions. This process ensures that only the most qualified individual are selected 

to attend. No additional screening process is warranted. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are we identifying the potential for high-level strategic thinking in 

promising young officers early enough in their careers? How is this potential for 

strategic thinking subsequently tracked and monitored? 

Colonel TANOUS. The new Squadron Officer College (SOC) curriculum places a 

greater emphasis on critical thinking than at any time in the College’s past. Students that perform well and indicate high capacity in this area will be recognized 

via the distinguished graduate program or through other student-recognition programs. These distinctions are recorded on the students’ Training Reports (AF Forms 

475) which become a permanent part of the officers’ military record. As such, they 

are reviewed and pertinent excerpts are incorporated into recommendation forms at 

each promotion opportunity. In this way, the superior thinking abilities of these officers are tracked throughout their careers. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please comment on the most recent professional military reading list 

compiled by Chairman Skelton. 
179 

Colonel TANOUS. Chairman Skelton’s list provides both breadth and depth in exploring personalities and key events in military history. It is commendable in that 

it balances recent works on recent operations (Fiasco, The Gamble, The War Within, 

etc.) and works covering events and personalities throughout military history. 

While an outstanding list for uniformed personnel and people associated with 

military operations, this list, in conjunction with Chairman Skelton’s original list, 

constitutes 100 recommended works. Because of the tempo of operations in the military, a brief guide to the readings would be helpful so interested personnel could 

select those works most relevant to their current challenges and level of experience. 

For example, the Constitution—a reading from the first list—remains a touchstone 

reading that every military member should read and reference often. The biographies are most appropriate to officers who are transitioning from followership to 

leadership roles—about the 4–7 year point for Air Force officers. Strassler’s 

Thucydides, however, is more appropriate to more senior officers, as it encompasses 

military and national strategies and the larger international security issues. 

Therefore, the Squadron Officer College (SOC) recommends that the list be revised in such a way as to target specific audiences. Perhaps the ‘‘Google Books’’ descriptions could be replaced by a few lines guiding readers to works more pertinent 

to their specific levels of development, interests, academic pursuits or responsibilities. 

In addition, SOC notes the singular lack of air, space and cyberspace power reading in the list. In the original list, there were two books specifically devoted to air 

power, Homan and Reilly’s Black Knights and Coram’s biography of John Boyd. In 

this list, we find Korda’s With Wings Like Eagles, Davis’ biography of Carl Spaatz, 

and Clodfelter’s Limits of Airpower. In order to develop a broader understanding of 

joint-service capabilities, SOC suggests increasing the presence of air, space and 

cyberspace power offerings in the list. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does the SOC have information technology challenges? If so, please 

describe them. Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated with 

maintaining a ‘‘.edu’’ versus a ‘‘.mil’’ internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain registrations? 

Colonel TANOUS. Yes. This is common to all educational institutions attempting 

to employ educational technology, however. For the readers’ convenience, specific 

challenges are reviewed below: 

• Limited information-technology (IT) resources: IT can be expensive. Investments 

in IT come at a cost, normally resulting in cuts elsewhere. Further, IT personnel and expertise are now obtained through contracts, not through indigenous capabilities. This results in increased costs and reduced flexibility. The absence of an indigenous capability also reduces opportunities to employ multimedia and online simulations to the degree we would like. The fact that supporting services have to be contracted for these capabilities results in both an 

initial cost and additional costs for revisions and updates. 

• Access is also problematic. In fact, access is probably the greatest challenge we 

face today. The very real cyber-security concerns that protect our systems from 

hostile intruders also limit students’ access to course materials put on our servers. We can minimize these restrictions by hosting courseware on contracted civilian servers—and have done so in the past—but this comes at a cost. Further, 

as there are not yet centralized DoD data solutions, we have yet to capture efficiencies across the Department in this important area. 

• Similarly, multiple DOD users are contracting individually for learning management system access. SOC, like many entities at Air University, employs the 

Blackboard system. Were all DOD users of Blackboard to join together, we could 

take advantage of quantity discounts that would substantially reduce costs. 

The ‘‘.edu’’ domain offers potential remedies for access, to the extent that security 

restrictions will permit. As the Air Education and Training Command (AETC) and 

Air University (AU) work together toward an AF.EDU domain solution, numerous 

decisions are being addressed. The Defense Research and Engineering Network 

(DREN) was selected as a bandwidth provider for a future AF.EDU domain for several reasons. Reduced cost was a critical consideration as was the need to provide 

an acceptable level of security for the Air Force data that will reside on and traverse 

through this domain. DREN, being a DoD network, must follow the security standards dictated by Defense Information Systems Agency to ensure the AF.EDU is secure and data is properly protected albeit in a less restrictive manner than on 

‘‘.mil.’’ 

The educational advantages of the AF.EDU environment are many. The domain, 

using DREN, would provide less restrictive Internet access to AU’s faculty and stu-
180 

dents to support expanded research and collaborative opportunities. Many websites 

of interest to AU’s students and faculty that are currently blocked in the Air Force 

‘‘.mil’’ domain are accessible through DREN. 

In addition, an AF.EDU domain would give AU more flexibility with the use of 

the standard desktop configuration. Air Force educational communities use unique 

software not employed by other organizations and not approved for use on the military network. An AF.EDU domain would give increased decision-making authority 

to local leadership to assess risks and implement software solutions to support their 

unique educational missions. 

Another benefit is collaboration. AU faculty members routinely collaborate with 

personnel and agencies outside the military environment. AF.EDU would provide a 

collaborative environment through which guests could be invited to work together 

on academic programs and projects. 

Since AU has more than 100,000 distance-learning students located around the 

world, the AF.EDU environment would be ideal to host the University’s student 

management, registration and content-delivery systems, making them accessible 

anywhere and at any time. Use of the AF.EDU domain would balance AU’s need 

for academic freedom to teach our Airmen to fly, fight, and win in air, space, and 

cyberspace while protecting the rest of the Air Force military network from security 

risks and vulnerabilities. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please elaborate on the Expeditionary Warfare School’s plans to upgrade its infrastructure and information technology assets to meet students’ computer needs. When will these improvements be fully implemented? Will additional 

funding be required? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Expeditionary Warfare School (EWS) is in the process of 

implementing the EWS Distributed Education Network (EDEN) which rides on the 

EWS Local Area Network (ELAN). ELAN currently provides file sharing, e-mail, 

SharePoint, Command and Control Personal Computer (C2PC), mIRC (Internet 

Relay Chat) and the potential for simulation applications. EDEN enhances EWS’ 

mission by allowing collaborative planning, facilitates critical thinking, tactical decision making, provides ready access to the academic year’s coursework and it exposes 

the students to the command and control systems in use throughout the operating 

forces. EWS currently has 110 laptops in its inventory. Three of the 15 conference 

groups (49 students) have been individually issued laptops in support of the EDEN 

initiative. The balance of the laptop computers are set up in two advanced electronic 

classrooms to support individual training in various software applications that the 

students will use when they return to the Operating Forces. EWS also has three 

ELAN desktop computers situated in 12 of the 15 conference group rooms. The three 

conference groups without the desktop computers use their individually issued 

laptops to access the ELAN. Additionally, each conference group is wired for access 

to the Navy-Marine Corps Intranet (NMCI). The EWS plan calls for a total purchase 

of 250 laptops to support the entire student body. EWS must not only acquire the 

laptops, servers and software but must also make substantial infrastructure upgrades to Geiger Hall. Those upgrades include installing network drops in the classrooms and conference rooms, power upgrades to support the additional users, and 

permanent technical support to manage the network. The goal is to complete the 

project prior to commencement of the next academic year. While we have received 

initial funding for this project, an additional 1.2 M is required for full implementation. Training & Education Command and the Marine Corps University are evaluating funding strategies to support the effort. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are there educational advantages or disadvantages associated with 

maintaining a ‘‘.edu’’ versus a ‘‘.mil’’ internet domain registration? Are there advantages or disadvantages with maintaining both domain registrations? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. The primary educational advantage of operating within an 

‘‘.edu’’ domain is the enhanced access it provides between EWS personnel and other 

civilian organizations and higher education institutions. The primary disadvantage 

of operating within an ‘‘.edu’’ domain may be the restricted access to ‘‘For Official 

Use Only’’ government web sites and information available only from ‘‘.mil’’ domains. The advantages of an ‘‘.edu’’ domain are significantly reduced, however, if 

severe information security restrictions (common to many ‘‘.mil’’ networks) are 

placed on the ‘‘.edu’’ domain. While security risk is always a concern, it must be balanced with accessibility and a physically separate ‘‘.edu’’ domain should be able to 

tolerate a higher level of risk when combined with a lower level of sensitive information. 

While there is additional overhead in maintaining dual ‘‘.edu’’ and ‘‘.mil’’ domains, 

this approach may be useful in providing the necessary access in both the military 

and higher education environments. The ‘‘.mil’’ domain provides access for performing government functions such as military performance evaluations, civilian 
181 

personnel management and provides access, when required, to sensitive, but unclassified ‘‘For Official Use Only’’ information. The ‘‘.edu’’ domain provides greater access to non-government resources and facilitates collaboration with other educational institutions. Other than increased overhead, the primary disadvantage to 

maintaining two domains is the inability to transfer information between the domains. Physically connecting the domains would defeat the security protections and 

would be unacceptable. 

Dr. SNYDER. Chairman Skelton is persuaded that the historical case study is a 

particularly good way to teach both history and strategy. Do you use the case study 

method, and if so, to what ends? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. EWS uses the case study, battle study and staff ride methodology throughout its curriculum. Historical studies are used as a means of reinforcing the subject educational material in Command and Control, MAGTF Operations Ashore, Naval Expeditionary Operations and Professional Studies. This method allows for an examination of how historical actions contributed to the formulation 

and reasons for the doctrine in use today; how it changed the ways and means we 

conduct ourselves; and mistakes that led to changes in both doctrine and operations 

both today and into the future. EWS also offers an elective in the study, use, and 

development of the Case Study Method. 

The specific studies we use are: 

Operation Albion—supports the USMC Planning Process 

Guadalcanal—supports MAGTF Operations 

Inchon—supports amphibious planning and expeditionary ops 

Gallipoli—supports amphibious planning 

Restore Hope—supports MPF planning and operations 

Desert Shield/Desert Storm—supports offensive operations 

Chosin Reservoir—(Fox Co 2/7) supports defensive ops 

Dewey Canyon—supports ACE and heliborne operations 

Task Force 58 (Afghanistan)—supports logistics operations 

Iwo Jima—supports amphibious assault operations 

Tarawa—supports naval expeditionary operations 

Somalia NEO—supports MEU operations 

Fallujah—supports current operating environment 

Antietam and Gettysburg staff rides support leadership studies 

Dr. SNYDER. What constitutes ‘‘rigor’’ in your educational program? How do you 

establish and evaluate ‘‘rigor’’ for any particular course offering or academic program? Do you give letter grades? Please explain. 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. Rigor is addressed in multiple ways. Students are evaluated with tests and also by quality of participation in their seminar group. Students 

are evaluated in their participation in Tactical Decision Games, Practical Exercises, 

Battle Studies, Mission Analysis, Mission Planning and Briefing, and Mission Execution. Students are taken on Staff Rides and are responsible for understanding and 

briefing the historical aspects of the given battle as well as finding linkages and relevance to today’s operating environments. There is a professional communications 

program consisting of a research/decision paper and nine short analysis papers. Students are required to make multiple oral presentations and briefings throughout the 

curriculum. There is also an in-depth required reading program for every course 

throughout the curriculum. All of these evolutions are graded and debriefed by the 

faculty. The students earn a numerical grade for each (see attached grade worksheet) ranging from 1–100. The students are eligible for various writing awards at 

the end of each academic year. Additionally, this academic year, EWS implemented 

an electives program to expand academic challenges beyond the robust core curriculum where the school is leveraging the talent of the Marine Corps University’s 

PhD faculty. 

The legend that corresponds to the attached grade worksheet is as follows: 

Legend: 

SPT Self Paced Text 

IMI Interactive Media Instruction 

MR Marked Requirement 

PE Practical Exercise 

LE Leadership and Ethics 

OC Operational Culture 

Dr. SNYDER. How do you evaluate the performance of the faculty and senior staff 

at your institution? 
182 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. EWS goes to great lengths to properly prepare our faculty 

and staff to ensure their performance meets the Marine Corps’ standards. The first 

step in faculty preparation is a four-week Faculty Development Program conducted 

prior to the start of the academic year for both new and returning faculty. Each faculty member is ‘‘murder boarded’’ by their Division Head and other experienced faculty members on their knowledge and presentation abilities prior to assuming classroom responsibilities. The faculty is then evaluated on their presentations in both 

the large classes and conference group environments. Areas of evaluation include 

their facilitation skills and use of the Socratic method of instruction. To highlight 

strengths and weaknesses, all evaluations are debriefed with the faculty member by 

their Division Head and the Chief Academic Officer. Each presentation by the faculty is also evaluated by the students using an Instructor Rating Form. It is important to note that the instructor evaluation process is an integral tool in the overall 

professional development of the faculty throughout their time at EWS. All military 

faculty are also evaluated in accordance with the standard performance evaluation 

reports that each service uses for promotion and other selection board processes. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are we identifying the potential for high-level strategic thinking in 

promising young officers early enough in their careers? How is this potential for 

strategic thinking subsequently tracked and monitored? 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. EWS does not teach at the Strategic level of war. While 

we introduce Operational concepts and briefly discuss Strategic considerations, our 

focus is teaching captains Tactical fundamentals. Our promising young, career-level 

officers are formally identified at the conclusion of each academic year, namely 

those in the top 10% of the graduates gain the prestige of being designated as Distinguished Graduates of EWS. The subsequent duty assignments and longer-term 

tracking of all officers, including these top performing officers, remains the responsibility of the assignments monitors at Headquarters Marine Corps, Manpower and 

Reserve Affairs. 

Dr. SNYDER. Please comment on the utility of the most recent professional military reading list compiled by Chairman Skelton. 

Colonel BEAUDREAULT. As with the Marine Corps’ Professional Reading Program, 

also known as the Commandant’s Reading List, any structured reading program is 

beneficial to the professional education and intellectual growth of our Marines. 

While Congressman Skelton’s list is principally aimed at the officer corps, the Marine Corps’ list is further broken down by rank to ensure that each Marine studies 

topics that are essential for their position and grade while it also provides a great 

reference for the next grade and higher should a particular officer be a voracious 

reader. Congressman Skelton’s comprehensive list positively complements the Commandant’s required list. 

Æ