U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

 Research Report 1851 

Recruitment and Accession of 

Special Forces Warrant Officers 

Gonzalo Ferro 

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. 

Michelle M. Wisecarver 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Susan S. White 

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. 

William A. McPherson 

U.S. Army John F. Kennedy 

Special Warfare Center and School 

April 2006 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited 
U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

A Directorate of the Department of the Army 

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1 

Authorized and approved for distribution: 

 

 MICHELLE SAMS ZITA M. SIMUTIS 

 Technical Director Director 

Research accomplished under contract 

for the Department of the Army 

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. 

Technical review by 

John E. Stewart II, U.S. Army Research Institute 

James W. Lussier, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Research Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-MS, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926. 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Research Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences. 

NOTE: The findings in this Research Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents. 
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE 

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

 April 2006 

2. REPORT TYPE

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 June 2003 – October 2004

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

DASW01-98-D-0049 0031

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Recruitment and Accession of Special Forces Warrant Officers 

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

633007 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

A792 

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Gonzalo Ferro (Personnel Decisions Research Institutes),

Michelle M. Wisecarver (U.S. Army Research Institute), Susan 

S. White (Personnel Decisions Research Institutes), William A. 

McPherson (U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare 

Center and School)

5d. TASK NUMBER 

 

218b 

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

 

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. 

1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 100 

Arlington, VA 22209

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER 

 

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

 ARI 

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 

U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral & Social 

Sciences

ATTN: DAPE-ARI-RB 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

 Research Report 1851 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Contracting Officer’s Representative and Subject Matter POC: Dr. Michelle Wisecarver

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

Special Forces (SF) has had difficulty filling the available training slots in the SF Warrant Officer Basic Course 

(WOBC). Research was required to analyze factors related to the accession and retention of SF WOs. Four specific 

objectives were identified that include describing the available target population, describing SF Non-commissioned 

Officers’ (NCOs) opinions regarding the WO position, identifying barriers to recruitment, and providing 

recommendations regarding future accessions. Analyses indicated that the percentage of SF NCOs that meet the 

WOBC accession requirements is very small – possibly as low as 2-6% of the SF NCO population. In addition

recruitment into the WO program may be hampered by a lack of awareness of the requirements; 52% of survey 

respondents were not aware of requirements for accession to WOBC. Results also indicated a continued negative 

view of the SF WO pay structure, with 47% of respondents ranking “fixing pay” as the most important thing the Army 

could do to encourage NCOs to apply. Finally, results indicated about half of the NCOs have indifferent or negative 

perceptions of the WO position. Recommendations are provided and recent initiatives that address some of these 

issues are discussed.

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

 Special Forces Warrant Officer recruitment and accession, perceptions of Special Forces Warrant Officers, Special 

Forces career intentions

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF

ABSTRACT

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified 

 

 Unclassified 

 

48 

Ms. Ellen Kinzer 

Technical Publications Specialist 

703-602-8047 

i 
 ii
Research Report 1851 

Recruitment and Accession of 

Special Forces Warrant Officers 

Gonzalo Ferro 

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. 

Michelle M. Wisecarver 

U.S. Army Research Institute 

Susan S. White 

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. 

William A. McPherson 

U.S. Army John F. Kennedy 

Special Warfare Center and School 

 

Fort Bragg Scientific Coordination Office 

James W. Lussier, Chief 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

April 2006 

Army Project Number Personnel Performance 

633007A792 and Training 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

iii
Acknowledgements 

We would like to thank the five senior Warrant Officers from each Special Forces Group who provided 

information to develop the Special Forces Warrant Officer Interest Survey as well as the Soldiers from the 

Warrant Officer Basic Course and Warrant Officer Advanced Course who participated in focus groups to

identify relevant issues. We would particularly like to thank Major George Franko for putting 150% effort 

into coordinating the distribution and collection of the surveys, and the 325 SF Soldiers who took the time 

to respond to the survey. 

We would also like to thank Dr. Jim Lussier, Dr. John Stewart, CW4 Doug Frank and CW2 Steve Tuttle 

for their thorough and helpful reviews of this report, and Mr. Kip Mendini for his support in coordinating

across multiple offices at the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School. 

iv
RECRUITMENT AND ACCESSION OF SPECIAL FORCES WARRANT OFFICERS 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

The U.S. Army Special Forces (SF) often has difficulty filling available training slots in the 

Special Forces Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC). Becoming an SF WO enables a Soldier to remain 

on an SF Operational Detachment-Alpha (ODA) longer. Anecdotally this is viewed as a positive 

outcome; however, historically switching to the WO pay structure incurred the loss of some additional 

pay categories, resulting in a lower net pay for the Soldier upon graduation from the WOBC. This is 

likely to have a negative impact on interest in becoming a WO. Although pay reforms were enacted in 

fiscal year (FY) 2004, a positive effect on accessions to the WOBC was not immediately seen. Research 

was required to analyze factors related to the accession and retention of SF WOs. 

Procedure: 

The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) requested 

help from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI). ARI agreed to 

include the research as part of its research program and contracted with Personnel Decisions Research 

Institutes (PDRI) to conduct the research. Four specific objectives were identified: (1) Describe the 

availability of the target population for accessions to the SF WOBC, (2) Describe SF Non-commissioned 

Officers’ (NCOs) opinions regarding the WO position, (3) Identify barriers to recruitment of future WOs, 

and (4) Provide recommendations regarding future directions with respect to WO accessions.

To fulfill the requirements of this project, we collected data from a variety of sources. We 

obtained data from the Enlisted Master File (EMF) and an SF field survey to analyze the available 

recruiting population for the WOBC. To learn more about current issues facing the WO program we 

conducted interviews with senior WOs. We conducted focus groups with students from the WOBC and 

Warrant Officer Advance Course (WOAC) to explore the factors that led them to choose to become WOs 

as well as factors that may have discouraged them from doing so. Finally, we developed and 

administered the Special Forces Warrant Officer Interest Survey (SFWOIS) to 325 SF NCOs to gather 

information on current SF NCOs’ attitudes about accession into the WOBC. 

Findings: 

Analyses indicated that the percentage of SF NCOs that meet the WOBC accession requirements 

is very small. We estimated that only 2-6% of the SF NCO population met the requirements at the time of 

the analyses. In addition to a scarcity of eligible candidates, recruitment into the WO program may be 

hampered by a lack of awareness of the requirements; 52% of survey respondents were not aware of 

requirements for accession to WOBC. 

Results from the SFWOIS indicated there continued to be a strong perceived negative view 

associated with the pay structure, with 47% of respondents ranking “fixing pay” (e.g. offering Special 

Duty Assignment Pay, other bonuses, and pay increases) as the most important thing SF or the Army

could do to encourage NCOs to apply to the WO ranks. Importantly, the pay reforms enacted in FY04 

were described on the SFWOIS and respondents were asked to answer the questions keeping in mind the 

v
new pay structure. Nearly 70% of the respondents said they were not aware of the pay structure changes 

that had been made before seeing them on the survey. NCOs did appear to be aware that in the long run 

WOs made higher salaries and received better retirement pay. When asked what the top two positives 

would be about becoming a WO, responses were varied, but the most commonly selected responses were 

retirement benefits (25%) and longer time on an ODA (20%). 

Finally, results indicated that a wide variety of opinions – including endorsement, indifference, 

and negative perceptions, exist regarding the WO position in SF. While on the average about half of the 

respondents indicated positive perceptions of the WO position, the other half were indifferent, unsure, or 

negative. 

Based on the results, a number of recommendations were made regarding WO accessions, 

focusing on areas USAJFKSWCS could influence. These included the following: 

• Ensure information regarding pay comparisons, the WO accession process, and eligibility 

requirements are well publicized to the target SF WOBC recruit population. An information 

booklet containing a realistic job preview and describing benefits and challenges of becoming a 

WO could be a useful recruiting tool. 

• Establish a more definitive career path for WOs and include this information in the information 

booklet. This would provide greater definition and clarity to the WO program, and could be used 

to demonstrate the long-term benefits of becoming a WO. 

• Develop an Active Plan to Improve Perceptions of the WO Position. Given that about half of the 

respondents indicated positive perceptions of the WO position and the other half were indifferent, 

unsure, or negative, more information should be obtained regarding reasons for negative or 

indifferent responses. An active plan to improve perceptions could be developed based on 

feedback from individual and group interview sessions. 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

The information and recommendations presented in this report can be used by personnel at the 

Directorate of Special Operations Proponency (DSOP), USAJFKSWCS, and other manpower planners to 

facilitate SF NCO accession to the WOBC. Implementation of the suggestions presented here could help 

the WO program in its efforts to increase manpower to full strength. Findings were briefed to the Chief 

of Staff and Assistant Commandant of USAJFKSWCS in October 2004. Subsequent changes have 

already addressed some of these issues. 

vi
RECRUITMENT AND ACCESSION OF SPECIAL FORCES WARRANT OFFICERS 

CONTENTS

PAGE 

Introduction......................................................................................................................................1 

Method .............................................................................................................................................2 

Results............................................................................................................................................. 4 

Availability of Eligible Soldiers for WOBC....................................................................... 4 

Interest in the WO Position................................................................................................. 9

Barriers to Recruitment .................................................................................................... 15 

Recommendations for Future WO Accessions..............................................................................18 

Recent Initiatives ..........................................................................................................................21 

References......................................................................................................................................22 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Special Forces Warrant Officer Interest Survey (SFWOIS) ................................ A-1 

Appendix B: SFWOIS Results.................................................................................................... B-1 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Special Forces (SF) Warrant Officer Interest Survey Response rates by SF Group ........4 

Table 2: Special Forces Population by Rank ..................................................................................5 

Table 3: Percent of NCOs Who Meet Each Warrant Officer Accession Requirement .................8 

Table 4: Interest in being a Warrant Officer (WO) – Special Forces WO Interest 

 Survey Sample .................................................................................................................9 

vii
CONTENTS (continued)

Table 5: Percent of NCOs Who Meet Each Warrant Officer Accession Requirement by 

 Level of Interest ..............................................................................................................10 

Table 6: NCO Knowledge of Warrant Officer Accession Requirements by 

 Level of Interest .............................................................................................................11 

Table 7: Attractive Features of the Warrant Officer (WO) Program: Opinions from the 

 Special Forces WO Interest Survey ...............................................................................12 

Table 8: Special Forces (SF) Command Field Survey: The Importance of Incentives to NCOs 

 for staying in SF ..............................................................................................................14 

Table 9: Responses to Special Forces Warrant Officer (WO) Interest Survey Regarding 

 the Effectiveness of the WO Position .............................................................................17 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: NCOs eligible for the Warrant Officer position ..............................................................7 

viii
RECRUITMENT AND ACCESSION OF SPECIAL FORCES WARRANT OFFICERS 

Introduction

The Special Forces (SF) Warrant Officer (WO) serves as the Assistant Detachment Commander to 

an SF Operational Detachment Alpha (ODA). In the absence of a Captain to serve as the Detachment 

Commander, the WO will assume command of the ODA. In addition, the WO usually commands one of the 

teams during split team operations. As such, WOs are part of the ODA leadership, along with the 

Detachment Commander and the Team Sergeant. In this capacity, the WO serves as an advisor to the 

Commander on SF operations and training. The primary functions of a WO on an ODA are as follows:1

• Tactical and technical expert in all aspects of SF Operations. 

• Regional authority. 

• Primary advisor to the Detachment Commander. 

• Detachment Chief of Staff. 

• Commands in the absence of the Detachment Commander. 

• Supervises all staff activities; psychological operations; civil affairs; and cultural, regional, and 

linguistic abilities. 

• Manages mid-term and long-term planning. 

• Develops and updates operational plans and target data. 

• Prepares the ODA to operate in all physical environments. 

In addition to his leadership and advisory roles, the WO provides continuity across time for an 

ODA. WOs typically have about 5 years of ODA experience as Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) before 

becoming WOs, and will serve another 5 years as WOs before transferring out of an ODA. Because of their 

level of ODA experience, they are able to provide the medium and long term planning that their duties 

require. 

All WOs are recruited from the SF NCO ranks, but Special Forces often has difficulty filling 

available training slots in the WOBC. Becoming an SF WO enables a Soldier to remain on an SF 

Operational Detachment-Alpha (ODA) longer. Anecdotally, this is viewed as a positive outcome; however, 

switching to the WO pay structure incurs the loss of some additional pay categories, resulting in no net pay

raise upon graduation from the WOBC. This is likely to have a negative impact on interest in becoming a 

WO. Although pay reforms were enacted in fiscal year (FY) 2004, a positive effect on accessions to the 

WOBC was not immediately seen. Research was required to analyze factors related to the recruitment and 

accession of SF WOs. 

The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) requested 

help from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) to conduct this 

research. ARI agreed to include the project as part of its research program and contracted with Personnel 

 1

 These functions were drawn from the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School Warrant 

Officer Schoolhouse website, http://www.training.sfahq.com/warrant_officer_school.htm

1
Decisions Research Institutes, Inc. (PDRI) to conduct the research, working closely with personnel from

ARI and USAJFKSWCS. 

The research team identified four specific objectives: 

(1) Describe the availability of the target population for accessions to the SF WOBC, 

(2) Describe SF NCOs’ interest in the WO position, 

(3) Identify barriers to recruitment of future WOs, and 

(4) Provide recommendations regarding future directions with respect to WO accessions. 

This report will first provide an overview of the methods we used to investigate these issues, then 

present results related to each of these objectives. 

Method 

We used a number of different sources to obtain information related to these objectives, including 

existing Army and SF regulations and records, survey results from a Special Forces Command Field Survey

conducted in 2000, focus groups and interviews with current SF Warrant Officers (WO), and the SF 

Warrant Officer Interest Survey, a survey developed specifically to measure attitudes of SF NCOs. 

Existing Army/SF Regulations & Records 

The Directorate of Special Operations Proponency (DSOP) sets the criteria for eligibility for the 

WOBC. The information is posted on several websites, including the USAJFKSWCS Warrant Officer 

Schoolhouse website.2

 Additional information can be found in the Department of the Army Pamphlet 611-

21 Military Occupational Classification and Structure (published on 31 March 1999). DSOP provided a list 

of the criteria in place at the time, although they noted that the eligibility standards are regularly adjusted, 

and some are frequently waived to allow otherwise qualified Soldiers to apply. 

The criteria at the time were: 

1. Rank of Staff Sergeant (SSG/E6) or above. 

2. SF Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) 18B, 18C, 18D, 18E, 18F, or 18Z. 

3. Minimum of 3 years rated time on an SF ODA. 

4. A score of 85 or better on the Defense Language Aptitude Battery or a current language rating of 

1+/1+ (Some documentation lists 2/2 as the necessary language rating, but 1+/1+ is the standard 

currently in use.) 

5. Completion of the Special Forces Operations and Intelligence (O&I) course prior to 3 October 1994 

or SF Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). 

6. Letters of recommendation from Detachment, Company, Battalion, and Group Commanders. 

7. Letters of recommendation from SF WO with personal knowledge of the applicant abilities. 

 2

 http://www.training.sfahq.com/warrant_officer_school.htm; the version used for these analyses was updated on 

12/16/2003) 

2
8. Less than 12 years of Active Federal Service (AFS).3

In order to identify the eligible population, we used data from the September 2003 Enlisted Master 

File (EMF) to examine the enlisted population that met the first and second criteria, rank and MOS. The 

EMF records descriptive information on all Active Duty Soldiers in the U.S. Army. The database listed 

5300 Enlisted Active Duty men in SF between the ranks of E1 and E9.

Information regarding DLAB scores was estimated based on historical data provided by the 

Defense Language Institute (DLI). 

Survey Results – Special Forces Command Field Survey 2000 

The U.S. Army Special Forces Command (Airborne) (USASFC(A)) Field Survey was administered 

in February 2000 by ARI to determine opinions and attitudes of SF Soldiers (Zazanis, Sanders, & 

Carpenter, 2001). There were 1696 completed surveys by SF enlisted personnel, representing more than 

30% of this population. Of those who answered the SF Command Field Survey, 444 (26%) were Staff 

Sergeants (SSG), 876 (52%) were Sergeants First Class (SFC), 288 (17%) were Master Sergeants (MSG), 

and 59 (4%) were Sergeants Major (SGM). This breakdown by rank is similar to the breakdown found in 

the September 2003 Enlisted Master File. We used results from this survey to examine the eligibility criteria 

regarding time on a team and years of Active Federal Service (AFS) as well as interest in the WO program.

Focus Groups and Interviews 

In order to obtain general information about issues that might affect accession to the WOBC, we 

conducted focus groups with current students of the WOBC and the Warrant Officer Advanced Course 

(WOAC) in the Fall of 2003. In addition, we conducted phone interviews with four Chief Warrant Officer 

5s (CW5s) from four different SF Groups. Information was gathered regarding what current WOs perceive

to be the major attractions for NCOs to become WOs, as well as the biggest obstacles to recruitment. After 

listing these factors, respondents were asked to further explain how these factors influenced NCOs’ interest 

in becoming WOs. Lastly, they were asked for ideas on how to overcome these barriers to recruitment. This

information was used to guide the development of the SF Warrant Officer Interest Survey and interpret the 

results. 

SF Warrant Officer Interest Survey (SFWOIS) 

While the SF Command Field Survey was able to provide some information regarding who might 

be interested in pursuing a WO career, we wanted to obtain data that were more detailed regarding 

perceptions and opinions about the WO position. We developed a survey, entitled “SF Warrant Officer 

Interest Survey” or SFWOIS (see Appendix A). The survey was distributed to all five Special Forces 

Groups in March 2004. Each group was sent 80 surveys to be distributed to NCOs between the ranks of 

SGT and MSG. SGTs were asked to participate because they were approaching the rank at which they

would be eligible to be WOs, and MSGs were asked to participate because they are eligible to become WOs 

even though few choose to do so. 

Of the 400 distributed, a total of 325 usable surveys were returned, for a response rate of 81%. The 

majority of these were from the prime target population of SSGs (38%) and SFCs (53%). The remaining 

respondents by rank were: SGT (6%) and MSG (3%). Response rates were similar across the 1st, 3rd, 5th, 

 3

 It is important to note that this requirement was viewed operationally as having AFS less than or equal to 12 years, so

that is how it was operationalized in analyses. 

3
and 7th Groups, with an average response rate of 94%, but was much lower for 10th Group at 31%, due to 

deployment conflicts (see Table 1). However, no differences among patterns of responses were found by

Group, and we therefore collapsed responses across the Groups. 

Table 1 

Special Forces (SF) Warrant Officer Interest Survey Response Rates by SF Group 

SF Group Surveys Returned Response Rate 

1st Group 78 98%

3rd Group 71 89%

5th Group 76 95%

7th Group 74 93%

10th Group 25 31%

Total surveys returned 325* 81%

*Note that one survey was returned with no Group association, so the surveys returned by Group add to 324.

While the surveys were intended to be distributed randomly to all NCOs from SSGs to MSGs, they

were distributed by personnel within each SF Group, and it appears this was not done completely randomly. 

While 17% of the SF population from the EMF and from the SF Command Field Survey were MSGs, only

3% of the SFWOIS population were MSGs. This provides more responses from the primary WO target 

group (SSG and SFC), but it also suggests sample bias. It is possible that bias also exists regarding which 

Soldiers were more likely to volunteer to complete the survey; that is, that the NCOs in this sample were

self-selected to some degree on the basis of their interest in the WO program. Thus, caution must be 

exercised in making inferences about the views of the entire SF SSG to MSG population based on this 

sample. 

We will now address each of the objectives set forth in the Introduction, starting with a description 

of the availability of the target population for accessions to the SF WOBC. 

Results 

Availability of Eligible Soldiers for WOBC 

Most of the criteria required for the WOBC do not pose a substantial problem for accession into the 

WO program when considered separately; however, the combination of them does restrict the number of 

NCOs who meet the necessary criteria. 

In discussing how WO requirements impact accession, we will focus specifically on those 

requirements that are most limiting: rank, time-on-team, AFS requirements, and language requirements. 

Other requirements pose less of a barrier to Soldiers. For example, if applicants have not met the O&I 

course/ANCOC requirement, they are sent to ANCOC for completion of the 18F portion of the course. As 

such, this requirement does not by itself restrict anyone for admission into the WOBC although it could 

mean a delay. We instead focus on those requirements that serve to substantially limit the number of 

eligible applicants for WO positions. 

4
Meeting the Rank Criteria: Staff Sergeant (E6) or Above 

The EMF listed 5300 Enlisted Active Duty men in SF between the ranks of Private (PVT) and 

Sergeant Major (SGM). Of these, 4206 (79%) met the WO eligibility requirement of being a Staff Sergeant 

(SSG) or higher (see Table 2 for a breakdown of SF NCOs by grade). 

However, it is misleading to consider all Soldiers of grade E6 or above as being eligible for the WO 

position, given that they must also have fewer than 12 years of Active Federal Service (AFS). Since most 

SF Soldiers at the ranks for MSG and SGM are above this level of AFS, almost all of the eligible WOs are 

between the ranks of SSG and SFC.4

 If we consider only the SSGs and SFCs, our pool of those eligible for 

the WO position is reduced to 3350. 

Table 2 

Special Forces Population by Rank 

Rank Number of NCOs 

(% of 4206)

Staff Sergeant 29% (1207) 

Sergeant First Class 51% (2143) 

Master Sergeant 17% (717) 

Sergeant Major 3% (139) 

Although both SSGs and SFCs are eligible, focus group results suggested that many NCOs were 

hesitant to apply to become WOs while they were SSGs, given their lack of experience needed to meet the 

demands of the WO position. As such, they waited until becoming SFCs to submit their applications for the 

WOBC even though they were eligible and interested while SSGs. 

Time on ODA: Minimum of 3 Years of Rated Time 

The recruitment pool for the WO position is further reduced as we consider the impact of needing 3 

or more years on an ODA to be eligible. Ideally, we would be able to report the amount of time that each SF 

Soldier has served on an ODA (time-on-team), and determine how many have served for at least three 

years. However, we were unable to locate an SF database that records this information. As an 

approximation, however, we extrapolated from the results of the Special Forces Command Field Survey. 

According to the SF Command Field Survey, 34% (152) of SSGs and 96% (838) SFCs had at least 

3 years on an ODA. Extrapolating to the SF population at large, these percentages would translate into 413 

SSGs and 2051 SFCs, for a total of 2464 Soldiers with at least 3 years of time-on-team.

5

 

 4

 If higher ranked Soldiers wanted to apply to become a WO, they would have to have the requirement of having less

than 12 years of AFS waived. 5

 There were 1207 SF SSGs listed in the EMF, 34.2% of which is 413. 2143 SF SFCs were listed in the EMF, 95.7% 

of which is 2051. 

5
Active Federal Service (AFS) Requirement: Less Than 12 Years 

As with the time-on-team variable, we used the SF Command Field Survey to estimate how many

Soldiers would meet the 12 years of AFS requirement. We found that 44% of the SSGs and only 2% of the 

SFCs from the survey had 12 or fewer years of AFS. Because fewer than half of the SSGs had 12 or fewer 

years AFS and 80% of these Soldiers had fewer than 3 years of ODA experience, when these two 

requirements are combined, only 8% of the SSGs from the survey met both requirements. For SFCs, nearly

all (98%) had more than 12 years AFS, so even though 95% of SFCs had 3 or more years time-on-team, 

when these requirements are combined only 2% of the SFCs from the survey met both requirements. 

Extending these percentages to the SF population would yield 98 SSGs and 32 SFCs, for a total of 130 

Soldiers who meet rank, ODA time, and AFS requirements for accession to WOBC.6

 This represents 4% of

the 3350 SSG-SFC SF NCOs in the EMF as of September 2003. That is, even before additional 

requirements are taken into account (e.g., language), only a very small fraction were able to meet the 

WOBC eligibility requirements. 

Because so few Soldiers are able to meet the WOBC eligibility requirements, certain requirements 

may be waived for applicants. In particular, DSOP frequently waives the AFS requirements, so that more 

experienced Soldiers will be able to apply to be a WO. This is evident in that the average student in the 

Fall 2003 WOBC had 11.9 years of AFS. With the average AFS being essentially 12 years, it is logical that 

a number of the candidates had more than 12 years of AFS. This has important implications for expanding

the pool of eligible NCOs. For example, if a limit of 14 years AFS is set, then the number of SF NCOs who 

meet rank, ODA time, and AFS requirements would rise from 8% to 17% for SSGs and from 2% to 8% for 

SFCs (based on the SF Command Field Survey results). In the general SF population, this would translate 

into 209 SSGs and 179 SFCs, for a total of 388 (12%), who meet the criteria. 

Language Requirements: 1+/1+

The current language standard for WOs is a Defense Language Aptitude Battery (DLAB) score of 

at least 85, or a Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT) rating of at least 1+/1+. NCOs’ language skills 

are tested once a year, and they are given a rating on their speaking and listening skills. However, the 

effects of these language requirements are difficult to measure. First, DSOP indicated that candidates can 

actually request to be tested twice a year to see if they meet the minimum requirements for accession into 

the WO rank. In addition, if an otherwise suitable candidate does not meet the language requirement, he can

receive a waiver from DSOP and receive language training as part of the WOBC. However, the candidate 

must successfully achieve the minimum language requirement before he can receive his rank of WO. 

An estimate of how many NCOs meet the language requirements was made by examining data 

provided by the Defense Language Institute (DLI). DLI conducts the testing and language training for SF 

Soldiers at Ft. Bragg. Data for the years FY99-FY03 showed that approximately 51% of SSGs and 46% of 

SFCs who go through language testing/training meet the WO standards.7

 In an average year, the language 

school produces 94 SSGs and 9 SFCs (for a total of 103) who meet the WOBC language requirements. 

Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine how many Soldiers meet both the language requirements 

and rank/time-on-team/AFS requirements discussed above. We have no reliable way of estimating the 

 6

 There were 1207 SF SSGs listed in the EMF, 8.1% of which is 98. 2143 SF SFCs were listed in the EMF, 1.5% of

which is 32. 7 Looking more broadly than SSG-SFCs, DLI processed 1736 Active Duty Enlisted (SPC through MSG) SF Soldiers 

from FY99-FY03. Of these, 768 (51%) had a DLAB score of 85 or higher, and 193 (11%) had DLPT ratings of at

least 1+/1+. 863 (50%) met either the DLAB or DLPT standard. 

6
degree of relationship between the two sets of requirements, although these two factors may not be 

independent since Soldiers with more time-on-team likely have stronger language skills. On the other hand, 

if they have been working on missions in countries that do not use their trained language, they may have 

poorer skills. Nonetheless, assuming independence allows us to multiply the chances of meeting each set of 

requirements together and provides us with a lower-bound estimate of Soldiers meeting both sets. Using a 

14-year limit on AFS (instead of 12), this would yield 105 SSGs and 79 SFCs,8

 or 184 NCOs, meeting both 

sets of criteria. Thus, the language requirements reduce the pool of those who meet the rank/time-onteam/AFS requirements by approximately half. 

Figure 1 traces the path of eligibility for the NCOs, starting from all NCOs in SF and ending with 

those who meet the eligibility requirements. Note that two pathways are presented: one assuming a limit of 

12 years AFS and one assuming a limit of 14 years. Both are presented given that this requirement is 

frequently waived. If the 12-year pathway is followed, it results in 65 (2% of SSG-SFCs) NCOs being 

eligible for accession into the WO rank each year. The 14 year pathway yields 189 (6% of SSG-SFCs) 

eligible NCOs. 

SF NCOs

5300

E6-E7

3350

•Rank

•Time-on-team

•12 years AFS

131

•Rank

•Time-on-team

•14 years AFS

388

Language

65

Language

189

E6+

4206

Assuming

limit of 14

years AFS

Assuming

limit of 12 

years AFS

Assuming

independence

between criteria

Assuming

independence

between criteria

SF NCOs

5300

E6-E7

3350

•Rank

•Time-on-team

•12 years AFS

131

•Rank

•Time-on-team

•14 years AFS

388

Language

65

Language

189

E6+

4206

Assuming

limit of 14

years AFS

Assuming

limit of 12 

years AFS

Assuming

independence

between criteria

Assuming

independence

between criteria

Figure 1. NCOs eligible for the Warrant Officer position. 

 8 We are assuming that 51% of the 1207 SSGs in the EMF would meet the language requirements, and that 17% of 

those would have at least 3 years time-on-team and fewer than 14 years AFS. 1207 * .51 * .17 = 105. We are also

assuming that 46% of the 2143 SFCs in the EMF would meet the language requirements, and that 8% of those would 

have at least 3 years time-on-team and fewer than 14 years AFS. 2143 * .46 * .08 = 79. 

7
Follow up Evaluation from the SFWOIS Data 

In addition to analyzing eligibility based on existing data, we obtained information regarding the 

eligibility of the Soldiers who responded to the SFWOIS. The percentages of respondents who met the WO

accession requirements appear in Table 3. 

Table 3 

Percent of NCOs who Meet Each Warrant Officer Accession Requirement 

WO Requirement Valid Percent 

SSG or above 94% 

DLAB score of 85 or higher 80% 

Language rating of 1+/1+ or higher 29% 

Less than 12 years of AFS 43% 

3 years or more of ODA time 59% 

Completed the O & I course 33% 

Completed the 18F course 9% 

When the requirements of SSG or above, less than 12 years of AFS, and 3 or more years of ODA 

time are put together, 10% (N=32) of respondents would qualify for WO accession. When language 

requirements were included, only 7% (N=24) of respondents were eligible. These are higher than our

estimates based on existing data, which indicated that only 2% of SSG-SFCs would meet all of the criteria, 

6% if the AFS limit was 14 years. The substantial difference between the estimates could be due to 

differences between the two samples; while the SF Command Field Survey respondents are assumed to be a 

random sample of the SF population, as mentioned previously it may be that the Soldiers who chose to 

respond to the SFWOIS or were asked to respond to the SFWOIS were skewed toward those who were 

eligible and/or interested in becoming a WO. Some evidence of this can be found in that 20% of the 

respondents indicated that they were very or extremely interested in becoming WOs, whereas only about 

10% of the respondents to the SF Command Field Survey indicated an interest in pursuing a WO career. 

Summary of Requirements

Analysis of the available recruiting population for WOs indicates that although each individual 

requirement for accession does not pose a large hurdle, the combination of the requirements does 

significantly reduce the available pool of eligible NCOs. Using the criteria of 12 years AFS, only 2% of 

SSG-SFCs were eligible for the WOBC, and using a criteria of 14 years 6% of SSG-SFCs were eligible. 

Because this is a lower bound, however, the actual percentage is likely to be slightly higher. Nevertheless, 

these percentages are very small and indicate that there are not many NCOs who are eligible to become 

WOs. 

8
Interest in the WO Position 

Information regarding NCOs interest in the WO position was obtained from both the SF Command 

Field Survey and the SFWOIS. Each survey provided a somewhat different approach to examining the 

issue. On the SF Command Field Survey Soldiers were asked to select from a list of programs that they

planned to pursue in their career. One of the programs on the list was the WO program, and 10% selected it 

as a program they planned to pursue. 

On the SFWOIS, Soldiers were asked, “How interested are you in becoming a WO”? Responses 

ranged on a 5-point scale from “Not at all interested” to “Extremely interested,” and 16% of respondents 

indicated they were very or extremely interested in becoming WOs (see Table 4).

 9 Although interest 

appears somewhat higher in the SFWOIS survey, this may be partly due to the differences in the nature of 

the question format; the item on the SF Command Field Survey asks about actual pursuit of the WO 

program; whereas the SFWOIS asks only about interest in the program. It is not surprising that more

Soldiers would indicate a general interest in something than would indicate actual pursuit. It is interesting 

however, that while only 10% may have specific plans to pursue a WO career the SFWOIS suggested that 

almost 60% show at least some degree of interest in a WO career. This suggests that recruiting for WO 

positions at least has potential for being successful. 

It is important, however, to revisit the question of sample bias. As discussed in the Method section 

of this report, the SFWOIS sample is more heavily represented by SSGs and SFCs, and it is possible that 

the sample contains more Soldiers who were interested in a WO career. This would suggest that the results 

presented in Table 4 may present an exaggeration of the level of interest that exists in the general SF NCO 

population. 

Table 4 

Interest in Being a Warrant Officer (WO) – Special Forces WO Interest Survey Sample 

Frequency Percent

Extremely interested 26 8%

Very interested 26 8%

Moderately interested 67 21%

Slightly interested 69 22%

Not at all interested 131 41%

Interest and Eligibility are Related 

Results from the SFWOIS showed that Solders with a high or moderate level of interest in 

becoming a WO were more likely to be eligible for WOBC. 

 9

 Note that the item on the SF Field Command survey used a “Select all that apply” format, and asked the Soldier if he

was planning to pursue a career in the listed areas. The SFWOIS items used a standard Likert scale to measure level of

interest. With the different formats, the responses cannot be directly compared. 

9
We divided the respondents into three groups to present their responses: 

• High: those who were very or extremely interested in becoming a WO (N=52), 

• Medium: those who were moderately or slightly interested (N=136), and 

• Low: those who were not at all interested (N=131). 

In Table 5, we presented the numbers of respondents who reported meeting the SF eligibility

requirements. We were interested in whether Soldiers’ eligibility varied based on their interest level. 

Results indicated that a greater proportion of Soldiers in the High and Medium interest groups were eligible 

than those in the Low interest group (see Table 5). Using the 12 year AFS standard, we see that 15% in the 

High and 12% of the Medium interest groups met these eligibility requirements, while 5% of the Low 

interest group met them. It may be that part of the interest in becoming a WO derives from being eligible. 

Table 5 

Percent of NCOs Who Meet Each Warrant Officer Accession Requirement by Level of Interest 

Interest Level

Requirement High

(N=52)

Medium 

(N=136) 

Low

(N=131) 

(a) SSG or higher 92% (48) 92% (125) 93% (122) 

(b) 12 or less years of AFS 44% (23) 46% (62) 27% (36)

(c) 14 or less years of AFS 52% (27) 60% (82) 40% (52)

(d) 3 or more years of ODA time 65% (34) 49% (67) 54% (71)

(a), (b), (d) combined 15% (8) 12% (16) 5% (6) 

(a), (c), (d) combined 23% (12) 22% (30) 12% (15)

In addition, those Soldiers who were highly interested in being a WO were also most 

knowledgeable about the eligibility requirements, although the pattern is not completely linear. The 

SFWOIS listed all the requirements in the survey and asked the respondents whether they knew the 

requirements before having seen them in the survey. 52% of respondents indicated that they did not know 

the WO requirements. As Table 6 shows, Soldiers in the High interest group were more likely than those in 

the Medium and Low interest groups to know the requirements for accession. Interestingly, however, even 

40% of the respondents in the High interest group were not aware of the specific requirements for this 

career path. 

Motivating Factors to Become a WO 

The SFWOIS and the focus groups conducted with WOBC and WOAC graduates provided insight 

to the aspects of the WO position that were attractive to them. Responses to items on the SFWOIS can be

seen in Table 7. Soldier responses are separated into groups with High, Medium, and Low levels of interest. 

Results indicated four aspects that were most attractive about the WO position. Each of these is 

listed and discussed briefly.

10
11

1. Increased civilian job opportunities after retirement and better retirement benefits. Of all the 

potentially attractive features of the WO position that were listed in the SFWOIS, Soldiers across all three 

interest groups most strongly endorsed the expectation that they would have more civilian job opportunities 

after retirement if they became a WO. 73% of those in the High interest group, 58% in the Medium interest 

group, and 38% in the Low interest group agreed or strongly agreed that they believed they would have 

better civilian job opportunities. 

 

Table 6 

NCO Knowledge of Warrant Officer Accession Requirements by Level of Interest 

Question Asked High Interest 

(N=52) 

Medium Interest 

(N=136) 

Low Interest 

(N=131) 

Did you know the eligibility 

requirements? 

Yes 59% 42% 49% 

No 40% 58% 51% 

WOBC and WOAC candidates also reported the belief that becoming a WO provided better 

opportunities after retirement as well as better retirement benefits. They felt that they would be highly 

desirable candidates for government and industry jobs because of their specialized training (for example in 

Military Intelligence), leadership experience, and their ODA time. Moreover, they believed that both 

government and industry were actively recruiting from the WO ranks. 

2. Greater authority and responsibility of being a WO. Results of the SFWOIS showed that almost 

70% of the Soldiers in the high interest group agreed or strongly agreed that they would like the increased 

authority and responsibility of being a WO. Similarly, one of the primary attractions listed by graduates of 

the WOBC and WOAC was the opportunity for more responsibility and leadership, and holding a command 

position. 

3. Longer time on an ODA. Another driving force behind the desire to transition into the 180A MOS 

was the desire to remain on an ODA for up to five more years. As was mentioned in the introduction to this 

report, once an NCO becomes a WO he is expected to serve on an ODA at least for 5 more years, until 

reaching the grade of CW3. This is about 31⁄2 years longer than he could expect to stay on a team if he was 

promoted from an E7 to an E8. By remaining on the team for such a long period of time, WOs are able to 

provide a high degree of continuity and stability to the team. 65% of the Soldiers in the high interest group 

on the SFWOIS agreed or strongly agreed that they would spend more time on a ODA as a WO. 

From the perspective of WOBC and WOAC students, the benefit of having an experienced WO on 

a team is that he is a valuable source of experience and expertise during deployments and is able to mentor 

the newer team members. Furthermore, the WO position provides the opportunity for prior NCOs to have 

more input on the decisions being made that pertain to the mission and the team, take on the responsibility 

of commanding other soldiers, and apply long-range vision to the team. 

4. Increased civilian and military educational opportunities. SFWOIS results indicated that of the 

Soldiers in the high interest group, 56% agreed or strongly agreed that they would have more civilian 
12

Table 7 Attractive Features of the Warrant Officer (WO) Program: Opinions from the Special Forces WO Interest Survey 

High Interest 

(N=52)

Medium Interest 

(N=136) 

Low Interest 

(N=131) 

Agree/ Strongly Agree 

More Likely/ Much More Likely to Apply 

Agree/ Strongly Agree 

More Likely/ Much More Likely to Apply 

Agree/ Strongly Agree 

More Likely/ Much More Likely to Apply 

I’ll have more opportunities for promotion if I become a WO. 

50% 

(N=26)

46% 

(N=24)

31% 

(N=42)

29% 

(N=37)

19% 

(N=24)

7% 

(N=8) 

I’ll have more civilian educational opportunities if I become a WO. 

56% 

(N=29)

48% 

(N=25)

46% 

(N=63)

41% 

(N=53)

32% 

(N=41)

19% 

(N=22)

I’ll have more military educational opportunities if I become a WO. 

50% 

(N=26)

54% 

(N=28)

32% 

(N=43)

38% 

(N=48)

22% 

(N=28)

8% 

(N=10)

My fellow NCOs will probably resent my officer status if I become a WO. 

31% 

(N=16)

25% 

(N=13)

13% 

(N=18)

17% 

(N=22)

22% 

(N=28)

7% 

(N=9) 

I’ll spend a longer time on a team if I become a WO than if I don’t. 

65% 

(N=34)

54% 

(N=28)

46% 

(N=61)

47% 

(N=60)

34% 

(N=43)

16% 

(N=19)

WOs have more choice in duty assignments.

31% 

(N=16)

37% 

(N=19)

21% 

(N=28)

31% 

(N=40)

22% 

(N=28)

12% 

(N=15)

I would like the increased authority and responsibility of being a WO. 

69% 

(N=36)

58% 

(N=30)

50% 

(N=68)

41% 

(N=53)

27% 

(N=34)

11% 

(N=13)

I think I’ll have more civilian job opportunities after retirement if I become a WO. 

73% 

(N=38)

65% 

(N=34)

58% 

(N=78)

51% 

(N=64)

38% 

(N=48)

21% 

(N=25)
educational opportunities if they became a WO, and 50% agreed that they would have more military

educational opportunities if they became a WO. These percentages were lower for Soldiers in the Medium

and Low interest groups. For Soldiers in the Low interest group, there were 32% and 22%, respectively,

agreeing they would have more civilian and military educational opportunities. These items also elicited 

high percentages of respondents answering that the item would make them either more or much more 

likely to apply (30- 45%).

While SFWOIS results, completed by SF NCOs, reported educational opportunities as a 

motivational factor, current WOs from WOBC and WOAC , describe the lack of military and civilian 

educational opportunities as a problem. It is possible that, although NCOs believe they will have more 

opportunities, these do not materialize, and thus produce the negative responses of current WOs. 

Summary. In general, the increase in responsibility, time on team, and the opportunity to lead are 

the strongest factors that attract NCOs to a career as a WO. Accordingly, these are good candidates for 

themes that could be advertised when recruiting NCOs, in addition to the benefits incurred after 

retirement. However, caution must be exercised in terms of advertising increased educational 

opportunities. While these appear to be highly appealing to NCOs, there is a danger of over-promising on 

opportunities that SF may not be able to deliver. 

Overall, NCOs are interested in becoming WOs because they want to prolong the time they spend 

deployed in the field as part of an SF ODA. In addition, as a senior member of the team, the WO position 

gives them the opportunity to command and to take on more responsibilities. There seems to be a 

disparity, however, between the perceptions of NCOs and what actual WOs report with respect to military

and educational opportunities. 

The Influence of Perks on Interest in WO

The SF Command Field Survey directly asked respondents what effect Special Duty Assignment 

Pay (SDAP) for WOs, annual clothing allowance, and tougher prescreening requirements would have on 

their desire to attend the Warrant Officer program. Results were analyzed for those respondents who 

reported having 14 or fewer years of AFS on the survey. Approximately 315 NCOs in this category

responded to these questions. Results showed: 

• 63% said that SDAP would somewhat or greatly increase their desire to attend the WO program; 

36% said it would have no effect. 

• 54% said that clothing allowance would somewhat or greatly increase their desire to attend a 

WO program; 46% said it would have no effect. 

• 40% said that tougher prescreening requirements would somewhat or greatly increase their 

desire to attend WO program; 58% said that the tougher requirements would have no effect. 

These results illustrate that pay issues such as SDAP and clothing allowance played a role in 

increasing the desire to attend the WO program for about half of the respondents. However, we do not 

know the extent to which these factors would actually motivate a Soldier to pursue a WO position. That 

is, even if their interest in the WO position increased substantially with SDAP, they might not be 

motivated enough to pursue a career. As such, it makes sense to examine the responses among those who 

are already inclined to pursue a WO career, but might need an additional incentive. Among those 164 

respondents who said they were interested in pursuing a WO career, the following results were obtained: 

13
• 81% said that SDAP would somewhat or greatly increase their desire to attend the WO program; 

19% said it would have no effect. 

• 70% said that clothing allowance would somewhat or greatly increase their desire to attend a 

WO program; 30% said it would have no effect. 

• 50% said that tougher prescreening requirements would somewhat or greatly increase their 

desire to attend the WO program; 48% said that the tougher requirements would have no effect. 

These findings indicate that for Soldiers already interested in the WO Program, SDAP and clothing 

allowance could be expected to provide a strong incentive. 

SF Command Field Survey respondents were also directly asked about the importance of 

incentives for staying in SF, and the results are presented in Table 8. Results only include responses from

NCOs who reported having 14 or fewer years of AFS and they are presented separately for Soldiers 

planning and not planning to pursue a WO career. Results indicated that perks are very important to 

everyone for staying in SF, but that they are even more important to those interested in a WO career. 

NCOs interested in the WO program were much more likely to endorse the importance of the getting 

promoted on schedule, getting priority placement in advance/specialty schools, and the Selective 

Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). As such, these benefits in particular should be considered important in 

recruiting Soldiers into the WO program. 

Table 8 

Special Forces (SF) Command Field Survey: The Importance of Incentives to NCOs for Staying in 

SF 

Specific Incentives 

NCOs Not Planning To 

Pursue WO Career 

NCOs Planning To 

Pursue WO Career 

Very Important or 

Extremely Important 

Very Important or 

Extremely Important 

Proficiency/Special Duty Pay 71% (N=297) 77% (N=87) 

Authorized separate rations 

for deployments 76% (N=298) 81% (N=87) 

Getting promoted on 

schedule 78% (N=293) 86% (N=87) 

Selective Reenlistment 

Bonus 68% (N=298) 74% (N=86) 

TDY pay/bonuses for 

long/frequent deployments 82% (N=299) 89% (N=87) 

Getting priority placements in 

advanced or specialty 

schools 

81% (N=299) 88% (N=85) 

Authorized time for college

courses 65% (N=299) 64% (N=86) 

14
Barriers to Recruitment 

 

Results suggested several potential barriers to recruiting for the WO position: problems with pay,

concerns about training and educational opportunities, poor perceptions of the WO position, and lack of 

information. We will discuss each of these areas. 

Problems with Pay 

WOs in interviews and focus groups stated that the biggest obstacle in recruitment was the “WO 

pay problem.” Two primary problems were described: one was pay disparity and the other, recognition 

for work done. As reported by DSOP, Soldiers prior to FY04 experienced a loss of income moving from

E-7 to WO1 positions, and the disparity persisted until reaching the rank of CW3. (Most NCOs attending 

the WOBC at the time of this research are at least E-7s.) The pay cut stems from lost benefits such as 

SDAP, clothing allowance, and the Critical Skills Retention Bonus. In an information paper written in 

September of 2002, the author estimated that an NCO who accessed into the 180A MOS at 12 years of 

AFS and retiring as a CW3 with 22 years of service would lose $57,018.46 during his time as a WO 

(Edwards, 2002). The group of recent graduates of the WOBC stated that the monthly loss of pay 

incurred in the transition into W-1 was enough to deter many who otherwise would have been interested 

in becoming warrants. This was reported to be particularly true for those Soldiers with dependents. 

At the time of these analyses, some efforts had been made to address the issue of pay disparity,

with pay protection measures put in place starting in FY04. The pay protection measures basically

indicated that NCOs accessing to WO positions will continue to receive the higher of their NCO or WO 

pay until such a point as their WO pay is higher than their previous NCO pay. However, most of the 

warrants that provided feedback viewed this as a pay freeze until they achieve the rank of CW2, since it is 

not until then (two years after becoming WO1), that their pay will be higher than what they were earning 

as E-7s two years before. 

The WOs interpreted the pay issue as getting a promotion, without the accompanying increase in 

pay. This point addresses the second part of the “WO pay problem” which is recognition for work done. 

As WOs, they have more responsibilities, face longer working hours, but get less pay than the senior 

NCOs on the team. NCOs recognize this fundamental inequality, and as such, are hesitant to apply for the 

warrant position. 

Results from the SFWOIS also identified pay as a problem. It is important to note that the pay

changes enacted for FY04 were listed at the beginning of the survey; therefore, respondents were aware 

of the FY04 changes that have been made to the WO pay structure. 

When asked what the top two negative things would be about becoming a WO there was a 

diversity of responses, but pay was the most commonly selected response, with 26% selecting pay as a 

negative. It should be noted, however, that when asked what the top two positive things would be about 

becoming a WO, 25% selected pay as one of the choices. This suggests that some NCOs responding to

the SFWOIS may have been focused on the short-term loss of pay, while others were likely focused on 

the long-term increase that could be expected. Nonetheless, 62% of all SFWOIS respondents agreed or 

strongly agreed that they would be paid less in the short term if they became WOs, and 46% indicated that 

this made them less likely or much less likely to apply. 

Importantly, when asked what two things SF or the Army could do to encourage them to apply to 

become a WO 77% selected pay as one of the top two things, with 47% of respondents ranking issues 

with pay as the most important thing. Thus, even though efforts were being made to address pay issues 

for the WO rank, NCOs still had the perception of a pay disparity. 

15
16

Concerns about Training and Educational Opportunities 

In addition to pay issues, WOs in the focus groups indicated concerns with different aspects of 

their training and educational opportunities. WOs in the WOBC focus group expressed concerns about 

the value of the Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS) at Ft. Rucker for their training as an SF WO. 

While SF NCOs attending WOCS already had a number of years of leadership experience, Soldiers in the 

focus group indicated that the other Soldiers who attend the course have less experience. As a 

consequence, a considerable amount of time is spent in the course on topics that are review for the SF 

NCOs. Their frustration that the six weeks provided little developmental gain was compounded by the 

fact that attending the course meant additional time away from their families. 

WOs in the WOAC focused on a broader concern of not receiving sufficient career development. 

SF WOs do not attend any SF WO specific courses between the ranks of W01 and CW3 (i.e., between 

WOBC and WOAC), which is a period of 5 years. WOAC candidates stated that by the time they attend 

WOAC, the education they receive is outdated, since most of them have had to perform duties that require 

WOAC training for some time. In addition, they feel that the civilian educational opportunities afforded 

to them are unrealistic. Because of the length of time they are deployed (at the time of the interviews they 

reported being deployed at least 7 months each year), it is too difficult to attend civilian classes on their 

own time. Also, pursuing tuition reimbursement incurs signing on for 2 more years of active duty, which 

some WOs were hesitant to do. 

Responses from the SFWOIS were somewhat in contrast to the concern expressed by the WOBC 

and WOAC students. Interestingly, 37% of the respondents on the survey agreed or strongly agreed that 

WOCS would be a valuable learning experience for them. However 30% either indicated they did not 

know or that they neither agreed nor disagreed. This suggests a lack of information among NCOs 

regarding the WO training and development process. 

Similarly, while nearly all of the WOAC focus group members agreed that training and 

educational opportunities were poor for WOs, 42% of the respondents on the SFWOIS agreed or strongly 

agreed that they would have more civilian educational opportunities if they became a WO, and 31% 

agreed or strongly agreed that they would have more military educational opportunities if they became 

WOs. It may be that some NCOs expect greater training and educational opportunities as a WO, and 

when these are not realized they are highly frustrated. 

Tepid Perceptions of the WO Position 

Some of our early interviews and discussions indicated that differences of opinion existed in the 

SF community regarding the effectiveness of the WO position itself, so the SFWOIS was designed to 

capture information regarding NCOs views of the WO position. Five relevant questions were asked based 

on interviews (See Table 9). Results confirmed that there are differences of opinion in the SF community 

regarding the WO position. NCOs who were interested in a WO career were more likely to be positive 

about the position than those who indicated they were not interested in a WO career. 

When asked if the WO position was respected by NCOs, more than half of the respondents 

agreed or strongly agreed (54%). A sizable number (23%) indicated indifference – that they “neither 

agreed nor disagreed,” and the remainder disagreed, with the exception of a few respondents who said 

they did not have enough information to make a rating. When responses were examined based on level of 

interest in becoming a WO, nearly 70% of high-interest NCOs agreed or strongly agreed that the WO 
17

Table 9 Responses to the Special Forces Warrant Officer (WO) Interest Survey Regarding the Effectiveness of the WO Posi

High Interest 

(N=52)

Medium Interest 

(N=136) 

Low Interest 

(N=131) 

Agree/ Strongly Agree 

MoreLikely/ Much MoreLikely to Apply 

Agree/ Strongly Agree 

MoreLikely/ Much MoreLikely to Apply 

Agree/ Strongly Agree 

MoreLikely/ Much MoreLikely to Apply 

AgreeStronAgree 

The WO position is respected among NCOs in SF. 

69% 

(N=36)

57% 

(N=29)

62% 

(N=84)

32% 

(N=40)

38% 

(N=48)

9% 

(N=11)

54

(N=

The WO position is respected among officers inSF. 

55% 

(N=28)

44% 

(N=22)

48% 

(N=65)

21% 

(N=27)

34% 

(N=44)

8% 

(N=10)

44

(N=

To be most effective, every ODA should have a WO. 

79% 

(N=41)

57% 

(N=29)

64% 

(N=87)

33% 

(N=42)

46% 

(N=58)

11% 

(N=14)

59

(N=

WOs are particularly well suited to fill staff positions (given their experience andtraining). 

63% 

(N=32)

39% 

(N=19)

65% 

(N=88)

21% 

(N=27)

53% 

(N=67)

3% 

(N=4) 

59

(N=

I think WOs are the best suited to be Assistant Detachment Commanders. 

69% 

(N=35)

63% 

(N=32)

55% 

(N=74)

38% 

(N=47)

32% 

(N=40)

9% 

(N=10)

47

(N=
position is respected among NCOs; whereas only 38% of low-interest NCOs agreed or strongly agreed. 

When asked if the position is respected by officers responses were considerably more negative for the 

high interest group, with only 55% of high-interest and 34% of low-interest NCOs agreed or strongly

agreed. 

One of the biggest differences of opinion between high and low interest NCOs concerned whether 

WOs are best suited to be Assistant Detachment Commanders. Almost 70% of high-interest NCOs agreed

or strongly agreed that WOs are the best suited to be Assistant Detachment Commanders, but only 32%

of low-interest NCOs agreed, a difference of 37%. 

These results indicate that a wide variety of opinions, from endorsement to negative views, exist 

regarding WOs in SF. While on the average about half of the respondents indicated positive views of the 

WO position, the other half were indifferent, unsure, or negative. None of the latter would provide a 

positive recruiting environment, and suggests that one problem in recruiting WOs could be NCO 

perceptions of the usefulness of the position and of how other NCOs and officers view the position. 

Lack of Information 

One final barrier to recruitment for the WO position that emerged from these data is the lack of 

information Soldiers have about WO pay and accession requirements. As mentioned, the FY04 pay

changes were described on the first page of the SFWOIS survey to ensure that Soldiers’ responses 

reflected the pay structure at the time of the survey. When asked if they were aware of the changes, 69% 

of the respondents said they were not. Moreover, these results did not differ by level of interest. 

Many respondents were also not aware of the requirements to be a WO. The SFWOIS listed all 

the requirements in the survey and when asked, 52% of respondents indicated that they did not know the 

WO requirements before seeing them on the survey. As described previously, Soldiers in the high interest 

group were more likely than those in the medium and low interest groups to know the requirements for 

accession. Results showed 40% of the respondents in the high interest group, 58% in the medium interest 

group, and 51% in the low interest group were not aware of the specific requirements for this career path. 

Recommendations for Future WO Accessions

The following section presents recommendations for increasing the number of WO accessions. 

WOs in interviews and focus groups indicated that many of the issues that the SF WO program is facing 

are broader issues that exist Army-wide. As such, some solutions may require Army-wide fixes (e.g., 

pay). We have focused the recommendations from the perspective of actions within the control of 

USAJFKSWCS and DSOP. 

Continue to Consider Pay Changes 

As we have reported, the single biggest concern continues to be pay. While the FY04 pay change 

ensured new WOs do not have a decrease in pay, the fact that they would not get pay increases for a 

number of years remained a point of contention. In essence it represented a pay freeze for two years, just 

at a point in which they are taking on more responsibilities. 

Some may view this as a case of “whining.” But there are at least two very real consequences of 

the short-term pay loss that should be considered. First, from a purely economic standpoint, it is likely

that these Soldiers are being asked to take the salary freeze at a point in their life when for many of them

18
their family financial responsibilities are increasing; therefore, making ends meet in the short term is 

much more important and salient than the greater gain that will occur later in their career. 

The second consequence, and likely the most important, is the message it sends regarding the 

value of the WO. There is an inherent perceived relationship between money and value, such that a 

worker who is highly paid is viewed as being highly valued. So the pervading message of not providing a 

salary increase for attaining WO status is that this accomplishment and this position is not valued by SF

or Army leadership. This message then becomes part of the climate of the organization. While the 

leadership may state that they value WOs in SF, actions will typically have a greater effect on developing 

the pervading climate within an organization than words. And in fact, results from the SFWOIS showed 

half of the respondents held indifferent or negative responses regarding perceived respect for the WO 

position. While there is no way to know if a causal link exists between the pay issues and the tepid 

climate regarding the WO position, the coexistence is at least noteworthy. 

 

SF could consider possible supplements and bonuses to pay to try to raise the WO level of 

compensation upon receiving their commission. Committing money to bonuses or other supplemental pay

would provide a message to NCOs that the SF Command values the WO position and is committed to its 

continued success. 

Improve Publicity of Pay and Other Changes 

The fact that almost 70% of the respondents were not aware of the FY04 pay changes provided an 

emphatic indication that a better system is needed to publicize pay changes as well as other changes to the 

WO position or accessions process. While the pay change may well have been highly publicized in Army

and special operations news venues, this may not be a productive source to reach the eligible NCO 

population. One option might be some type of direct email or Army Knowledge Online (AKO) notice to 

the eligible NCOs. Eligible NCOs could be identified in a basic manner based on their rank and time in 

service in the Army enlisted personnel database. Once a database of the eligible population was 

identified, the direct email approach could also be used as a tool to provide general marketing and 

recruiting materials – a topic discussed in the following section. 

Develop a Marketing Pamphlet 

The SFWOIS results indicated that half of the respondents were not aware of the specific 

prerequisites to apply to be an SF WO. While NCOs in the high interest group were more likely to be 

aware of the requirements, even in that group 40% were not aware of the requirements. 

This suggests that accessions efforts could benefit greatly from a more assertive information or 

marketing campaign. One logical aspect of this would be a marketing pamphlet or booklet, available both 

in a high quality print format as well as a PDF electronic version. This booklet could provide factual 

information regarding application requirements and the application process as well as general information 

about a WO career. Feedback from the SFWOIS about reasons to apply and barriers could be used to 

market the positive aspects of a WO career, while still providing a realistic preview of the job and job 

requirements. 

Regarding the accessions requirements, it would be important to note in the booklet that certain 

accessions requirements may be subject to waivers. This might serve to minimize the potential problem

of NCOs effectively removing themselves as candidates because they did not meet certain eligibility

criteria that perhaps are often waived for other Soldiers (e.g., 12 year AFS limit). A broader pool of 

applicants could be obtained if interested candidates were instructed to contact DSOP to discuss the 

options, even if they did not meet all of the criteria. 

19
As with any marketing literature, it would be important to update the pamphlet every few years to 

ensure that it was current. An update may be required sooner, if required by substantial changes in the 

WO position or training. 

Develop an Active Plan to Improve Perceptions of the WO Position 

These results indicated that a wide variety of opinions – including endorsement, indifference, and 

negative perceptions exist regarding the WOs position in SF. While on the average about half of the 

respondents indicated positive perceptions of the WO position, the other half were indifferent, unsure, or 

negative. None of the latter provides a positive recruiting environment, and it suggests that one problem

in recruiting WOs could be NCO perceptions of the usefulness of the position and perceptions of how 

other NCOs and officers view the position. 

In order to devise an appropriate plan to improve perceptions, more information should be 

obtained regarding reasons for negative or indifferent responses. Focus groups could be conducted with 

SF NCOs to discuss any negative perceptions they have or have heard from others. Interviews and 

discussions could be held with senior WOs, NCOs and officers on the topic. An active plan to improve 

perceptions could be developed based on the feedback from these sessions. 

Consider Training and Career Path Changes 

DSOP has delineated a clear career progression for WOs once they leave an SF team. Due to the 

vast experience WOs accumulate during their team time, and their Commissioned Officer status, WOs are 

supposed to fill staff positions once they reach the CW3 grade. As such, career progression can be used 

as an incentive for NCOs to apply to the WO MOS. Similar to the issues surrounding pay and accession 

requirements, information regarding the expected career progression of a WO needs to be disseminated to 

NCOs. 

Among NCOs there is a belief that as WOs they will have more access to civilian and military

educational opportunities, and these opportunities are seen as reasons for applying to become WOs. 

However, information gathered through focus groups with current WOs seems to contradict the 

availability of these educational opportunities. Currently, WOs do not receive any military educational 

training in the 5 years between the WOBC and the WOAC. Many current WOs indicated that they would 

greatly benefit from a staff level training course before reaching the CW3 grade, since most of them had 

been required to fill staff level positions as CW2s. DSOP has indicated they are developing a course that 

would fill in this educational gap. We agree that it would be useful to review the training programs of 

instruction for the WOBC and WOAC to ensure they are aligned appropriately with the subsequent WO 

job requirements. 

Other aspects of the career training could be reviewed as well. For example, another military

training gap is that Warrant Officers are not required to attend Joint Professional Military Training. 

Although they are allowed to attend, they are admitted only if extra training slots are available. Making 

the training requirement the same for WOs as officers would ensure WOs receive Joint education when 

required and receive Joint credit for assignments. 

In addition, because of their deployments, WOs reported an absence of realistic prospects to 

pursue civilian educational opportunities. They suggested that they would benefit from the opportunity to 

take time off to pursue educational opportunities. The feasibility of this could be examined, and if 

increased educational opportunities could be provided these opportunities could also be used in marketing 

the WO program, particularly as they relate to civilian job prospects once a WO retires. 

20
Increase Active Recruiting Measures 

SFWOIS results indicated that only 31% of the respondents had ever had someone try to recruit 

them to submit a WO packet. Further, NCOs who indicated they were not interested in the WO position 

were targeted for recruitment as often as those who are. While it may be possible to talk an NCO with no 

interest into applying to the WO program, recruitment would likely yield a better rate of return if more 

attention was focused on those who have at least some degree of interest. 

Currently, WO recruiting occurs primarily through word-of-mouth. Soldiers who are currently 

serving in WO positions are expected to recruit NCOs that they feel would do well in the WO position. 

As the WO program is trying to build its ranks to full strength, however, increased active recruiting 

efforts might be more effective in meeting the accessions goals. This could involve the use of large scale 

email or mail contacts for Soldiers in the eligible population. Or, to maintain the WO involvement in the 

recruiting process, could involve programs to motivate WOs to engage in more active recruiting of 

promising NCOs. 

Recent Initiatives 

Since the time of this survey and analyses, several initiatives were approved to increase WO 

accession and retention. Addressing the pay problem, the Army approved several pay initiatives, 

including the following: (1) SDAP of $375 per month to save pay during training, (2) Critical Skill 

Accession Bonus (CSAB) of up to 60K with an Active Duty Service Oath (ADSO) of 6 years – with 

$20K currently implemented), (3) Critical Skill Retention Bonus (CSRB) to retain the SF WO with 19-25 

years active federal service providing $150K for a 6 year ADSO to $8K for a 1 year ADSO, and (4) SF 

WO Assignment Incentive Pay (AIP) of $750 a month to retain the WO with 25 years AFS or more, in 

operational positions. The CSAB, CSRB and AIP were implemented in May 2005 and approved through 

December 2007. In addition, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) proposal for 2007 includes

a targeted base pay raise up to 8.8% for warrant officers. This is currently pending congressional 

approval. 

Significant changes have also been made with regard to the WO training process. Starting in July 

2006, WO candidates will no longer attend the 4-week course at the Warrant Officer Candidate School at 

Ft. Rucker, followed by the 11-week WO Basic Course (WOBC) at Ft. Bragg. Instead, under a 2-year test 

program approved by the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army in November 2006, they will attend all training 

at Ft. Bragg. This includes one week of initial officership training, and 14 weeks of SF WOBC, totaling 

15 weeks of SF Warrant Officer Technical and Tactical Certification (WOTTC) (see Burton, 2006). 

Following the WOTTC the individual will be awarded MOS 180A and return to the force as a WO1, SF 

WO. This revision eliminates 16-38 weeks of administrative wait time, and eliminates redundant training

from the pipeline. 

Personnel are hopeful that the accession of Soldiers to the SF WO program will show 

improvements as those changes take effect. Implementation of the suggestions presented in this report 

could further help the WO program in its efforts to increase manpower to full strength. 

21
22
References

Burton, J. (2006). Army approves new SF warrant officer training. Special Warfare, 19(1), 14-

 15. 

Edwards, W. (2002, September 3). Health of MOS 180A. Special Operations Proponency Office 

Information Paper. Ft. Bragg, NC: U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center 

 and School. 

Zazanis, M. M., Sanders, M.G., & Carpenter, T.D. (2001). Special Forces 2000: A Report from 

 the Field. (ARI Technical Report 1765). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (AD B264775) 

 

23
24
A-1

APPENDIX A: SPECIAL FORCES WARRANT OFFICER INTEREST SURVEY (SFWOIS) 
ARI PT 60-58 A-2 

Informed Consent

The U.S. Army Research Institute is conducting research for the JFK Special Warfare Center and School. We 

are asking that you fill out the attached survey. The purpose of the survey is to find out SF NCO interest in and 

eligibility for the Warrant Officer (WO) position. 

Instructions 

The survey will take about 15 minutes. You can use either pen or pencil to mark your responses. When you are 

finished, place your survey back in the envelope, seal it, and return it as directed by your local point of contact. 

Protection of Privacy 

Your answers are confidential and will only be seen by the researchers conducting the survey. No one in SF will 

see your answers, so please answer openly and honestly. 

Voluntary Participation 

Your participation in this survey is completely voluntary and you can choose, without penalty, to not answer 

any or all questions on the survey. 

Contact 

If you have any questions or comments concerning this survey, you may contact the researcher, Gonzalo Ferro, 

using the contact information below. You may keep this cover sheet for later reference. 

Gonzalo Ferro 

1300 N. 17th Street, Suite 1010 

Arlington, VA 22209 

(703) 812-3055 

Gonzalo.Ferro@pdri.com 

Thank you for your participation. 

__________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

The following information may be useful to you as you go through the survey. Based on FY04 pay changes, 

below is the monthly pay of a WO1 compared to equivalent pay for an E-7 with 12 years of Active Federal 

Military Service (AFMS). Note that the Army will provide pay protection for Soldiers who become Warrant 

Officers until their WO pay exceeds their enlisted pay. 

WO1 E-7 

Basic Pay $3164 $2980 

Basic Allowance for Sustenance $175 $254 

Housing (Ft. Bragg) w/ dependents $884 $885 

SDAP 0 $300 

Total $4223 $4419 
Army Special Forces Warrant Officer Interest Survey

The goal of this survey is to find out the interest and eligibility of SF NCOs in the Warrant Officer (WO)

position, and your opinions about becoming a WO. Your answers are confidential and will be seen only by the 

researchers conducting the survey, so please answer honestly. When you are finished, seal the survey in the 

envelope provided. 

The following are the requirements to be a WO: 

• E-6 or above 

• DLAB score of 85 or higher, or current 1+/1+ language rating 

• At least 3 years on an ODA 

• Less than 12 years of Active Federal Military Service (AFMS) 

• Completed O & I / 18F 

• Letters of recommendation from Detachment, Company, Battalion, & 

Group Commanders.

1. Did you know the requirements for being a WO before you read the list above? Yes No 

2. What is your DLAB score? ________ If you don’t know, do you think it’s 85 or higher? Yes No 

3. What is your current language rating? _______ If you don’t know, do you think it’s a 1+/1+ or higher? Yes No 

4. How many years of AFMS do you have? _________ How many years have you been assigned to an ODA? ________ 

5. Current rank? ________ Years in rank? ________ 

6. Have you completed the O & I course? Yes No When? ____________ [MM/YY] 

7. Have you completed the 18F course? Yes No When? ____________ [MM/YY] 

8. Current MOS ________ 

9. Has anyone ever tried to recruit you to submit a WO application? Yes No 

10. Have you ever submitted a WO application? Yes No 

If you answered Yes, what was the outcome?

Accepted, I plan to attend. 

Accepted, but I do not plan to attend. 

Not accepted. 

Below, please rate whether you think each of the WO requirements is appropriate for the WO position.

Keep 

Requirement 

 As Is 

Lower the 

Requirement 

Raise the 

Requirement 

Drop the 

Requirement Comments 

11. DLAB of 85+ or 1+/1+ 

language rating 

12. At least 3 years on an 

ODA 

13. Less than 12 years of 

AFMS 

14. E-6 or higher 

15. Completion of O& I or 

18F N/A N/A

ARI PT 60-58 A-3
Below, read each statement on the left. For each, please give two answers: 

A. How much do you agree or disagree with the issue? 

B. Does this make you more or less likely to apply to be a WO? Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Strongly Disagree

Don’t Know 

Enough T

o Answer

Much More Likely

To Apply 

More Likely To

Apply

Less Likely To 

Apply

Much Less Likely

To Apply 

Does Not Affect

My Decisi

on

16. The WO position is respected 

among NCOs in SF. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

17. The WO position is respected 

among officers in SF. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

18. To be most effective, every 

ODA should have a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

19. WOs are particularly well 

suited to fill staff positions 

(given their experience and 

training). 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

20. I would get paid less in the 

short-term if I become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

21. I would get paid less in the 

long-term if I become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

22. I’ll have more opportunities for 

promotion if I become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

23. I’ll have more civilian 

educational opportunities if I 

become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

24. I’ll have more military 

educational opportunities if I 

become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

25. My fellow NCOs will probably 

resent my officer status if I 

become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

26. I’ll spend a longer time on a 

team if I become a WO than if 

I don’t. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

27. WOs have more choice in duty 

assignments. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

28. I would like the increased 

authority and responsibility of 

being a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

ARI PT 60-58 A-4
29. WOCS will be a valuable 

learning experience for me. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

30. My time at WOCS will be well 

spent. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

31. I think I’ll have more civilian 

job opportunities after 

retirement if I become a WO. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

32. a) I think WOs are the best 

suited to be Assistant 

Detachment Commanders. 

a. I agree/ 

disagree 

b. This makes 

me ... 

b) Please explain why or why 

not. Explanation: 

33. How interested are you in being a WO (or how interested would you be if you met the requirements)? 

Extremely 

 Interested 

Very 

Interested 

Moderately 

Interested 

Slightly 

Interested 

Not at all 

 Interested 

34. Before taking this survey, were you aware of the FY04 WO pay structure changes outlined on Page 1 of the survey? 

 Yes No 

35. What do you think would be the top two positive things about becoming a WO? 

1. 

2. 

36. What do you think would be the top two negative things about becoming a WO? 

1. 

2. 

37. What two things could SF or the Army do to encourage you to apply to become a WO (rank order by importance)? 

1. 

2. 

ARI PT 60-58 A-5
38. Please make any additional comments you may have. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Thank you for your participation! If you have any questions about this survey, please contact Gonzalo Ferro 

at (703) 812-3055 Gonzalo.Ferro@pdri.com. If you are interested in finding out more about the Warrant 

Officer program, please contact CW5 McPherson at DSN 239-1879 or Mcphersw@soc.mil.

ARI PT 60-58 A-6
APPENDIX B: SFWOIS RESULTS 

The charts on the following pages present the distribution of responses for each item of the SFWOIS. 

The numbers within the bars in the charts represent the percentage of respondents providing that answer.

B-1
What SF group does respondent belong to?

(N=325)

1st Group 3rd Group 5th Group 7th Group 10th Group

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 8

22 23 23 24

Did you know WO requirements before you

read the above list? (N=298)

yes no

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

52 48

What is your DLAB score? (N=168)

Less than 85 85 or higher

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

80

20

If you don't know, do you think

it's 85 or higher? (N=175)

yes no

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

26

74

What is your current language rating?

(N=325)

Less than a 1+/1+ 1+/1+ or higher

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

29

71

If you don't know, do you think it's a 1+/1+

or higher? (N=88)

yes no

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

57

43

B-2
How many years of AFS do you have?

(N=286)

12 years AFS or less 12 years AFS or more

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

57

43

How many years have you been

assigned to an ODA? (N=300)

Less than 3 years 3 years or more

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

70

30

Current rank? (N=319)

E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

53

38

6

Have you completed the O & I course?

(N=323)

yes no

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

67

33

Have you completed the 18F course?

(N=319)

yes no

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

91

9

Current MOS? (N=325)

18B 18C 18D 18E 18F 18Z

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 7

24

17

23 24

B-3
Has anyone ever tried to recruit you to

 submit a WO application? (N=323)

yes no

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

69

31

Have you ever submitted a WO 

application? (N=316)

yes no

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

97

If you answered Yes, what was 

the outcome? (N=14)

Accepted, I plan Accepted, I don't Not accepted

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

57

21 21

Is requirement appropriate for WO position?

DLAB of 85+ or 1+/1+ language rating (N=315)

Drop the requirement

Raise requirement

Lower requirement

Keep requirement

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

13

7 12

68

Is requirement appropriate for WO position?

At least 3 years on an ODA (N=317286)

Drop requirement

Raise requirement

Lower requirement

Keep requirement

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

30

64

Is requirement appropriate for WO position?

Less than 12 years of AFS (N=307)

Drop requirement

Raise requirement

Lower requirement

Keep requirement

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

21

12

16

50

B-4
Is requirement appropriate for WO position?

E-6 or higher (N=318)

Drop requirement

Raise requirement

Lower requirement

Keep requirement

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

11

86

Is requirement appropriate for WO position?

Completion of O&I or 18F (N=308)

Keep requirement Drop requirement

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

17

83

The WO position is respected among

NCOs in SF - agree/disagree (N=319)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6

16

23

42

12

The WO position is respected among

NCOs in SF - this makes me (N=305)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

48

10

16

21

The WO position is respected among 

officers in SF - agree/disagree (N=318)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6 8

13

30

36

8

The WO position is respected among 

officers in SF - this makes me (N=304)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

57

7

16 16

B-5
To be most effective, every ODA should 

have a WO - agree/disagree (N=319)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6

14 18

39

20

To be most effective, every ODA should 

have a WO - this makes me (N=305)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

54

7 11

21

7

WOs are particularly well suited to fill 

staff positions - agree/disagree (N=318)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6 8

22

46

13

WOs are particularly well suited to fill

staff positions - this makes me (N=302)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

49

12

22

13

I would get paid less in the short-term

if I become a WO - agree/disagree (N=319)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6

13 15

39

23

I would get paid less in the short-term if

I become a WO - this makes me (N=308)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

43

22 24

8

B-6
I would get paid less in the long-term

 if I become a WO - agree/disagree (N=319)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 10 8

38

22

15

7

I would get paid less in the long-term

if I become a WO - this makes me (N=)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

47

15 15

21

I'll have more opportunities for promotion

if I become a WO - agree/disagree (N=320)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 11 8

14

38

24

I'll have more opportunities promotion 

if I become a WO - this makes me (N=305)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

56

8

13

20

I'll have more civilian educational opportunities 

if I become a WO - agree/disagree (N=320)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

11 6

13

29 32

10

I'll have more civilian educational opportunities 

if I become a WO - this makes me (N=303)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

49

8 10

26

8

B-7
I'll have more military educational opportunities 

if I become a WO - agree/disagee (N=320)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 10 7

21

31

24

7

I'll have more military educational opportunities

if I become a WO - this makes me (N=302)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely to

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

49

7

14

23

6

My fellow NCOs will probably resent my officer

status if I become a WO - agree/disagree (N=320)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 10

34 31

17

My fellow NCOs will probably resent my officer

status if I become a WO - this makes me (N=304)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

62

6

17

12

I'll spend a longer time on a team if I become a

WO than if I don't - agree/disagree (N=317)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 9

19 23

33

11

I'll spend a longer time on a team if Ibecome a

WO than if I don't - this makes me (N=304)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

45

14

24

12

B-8
WOs have more choice in duty

assignments - agree/disagree (N=320)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

18 16

39

19

WOs have more choice in duty

assignments - this makes me (N=304)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

57

13

19

6

I would like the increased authority and responsibility

 of being a WO - agree/disagree (N=320)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 6 8

39

33

11

I would like the increased authority and responsibility

 of being a WO - this makes me (N=305)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

51

13

23

8

WOCS will be a valuable learning experience

for me - agree/disagree (N=319)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 7

15 19 23

29

8

WOCS will be a valuable learning experience

for me - this makes me (N=305)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

46

13 12

23

6

B-9
My time in WOCS will be well

spent - agree/disagree (N=318)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

12

17 17

29

19

My time in WOCS will be well spent

- this makes me (N=298)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

51

11

17 16

I think I'll have more civilian job opportunities after

 retirement if I become a WO - agree/disagree (N=318)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

12 12

21

36

15

I think I'll have more civilian job opportunities after

retirement if I become a WO - this makes me (N=298)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

45

8

27

15

I think WOs are the best suited to be Assistant

Detachment Commanders - agree/disagree (N=316)

Don't know enough

Strongly Disagree

Disagree

Neither Agree/Disagr

Agree

Strongly agree

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 8 8 10

27

35

12

I think WOs are the best suited to be Assistant

Detachment Commanders - this makes me (N=294)

Does not affect

Much less likely

Less likely to apply

More likely to apply

Much more likely

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

50

7 12

21

10

B-10
How interested are you in being a WO (or how interested

would you be if you met the requirements) (N=319)

No at all interested

Slightly interested

Moderately intereste

Very interested

Extremely interested

Percent 100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

41

21 22

8 8

Before taking this survey, were you aware of the FY04

WO pay structure changes outlined on page 1 (N=306)

Yes No

Percent 100

80

60

40

20

0

69

31

What do you think would be the top two positive

things about becoming a WO? (N=418)

Other Reasons

Civilian Job Opp

Increased Team Time

Education Opp.

Leadership

Officer Status

Pay

Percent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

17

7

20

8

17

25

What do you think would be the top two

negative things about becoming a WO? (N=417)

Rank Type of work Pay WOCS Reputation Other

Percent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

29

11 9

26

16

10

What two things could SF or the Army do to encourage you

to apply to become a WO? (Most important) (N=239)

Other ThingsNothingMore Team Time

More SchoolingChange WOCSIncrease Recruitment

Change 12 AFS

Pay

Percent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

25

11

47

What two things could SF or the Army do to encourage you

to apply to become a WO? (Second most important) (N=161)

Other Things

Nothing

More Team Time

More Schooling

Change WOCSIncrease Recruitment

Change 12 AFSPay

Percent

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

40

7 8

30

B-11