Study 

Report 

2009-05 

 

Noncommissioned Officer Education 

System (NCOES): Considerations for 

Testing-out and Awarding Equivalent 

Credit 

 Richard L. Wampler and 

 Paul N. Blankenbeckler 

Northrop Grumman Corporation 

  

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

November 2008 

 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: 

 

BARBARA A. BLACK, Ph.D. MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D. 

Research Program Manager Director 

Training and Leader Development 

 Division 

 

Technical review by 

Kenneth L. Evans, U.S. Army Research Institute 

Kathleen A. Quinkert, U.S. Army Research Institute 

NOTICES 

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Study 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-ZXM, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Study 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 Study Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
i 

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

November 2008 

2. REPORT TYPE 

 Final 

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to) 

 March - September 2008 

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER 

W74V8H-04-D-0045 (DO 0027)

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES): 

Considerations for Testing-out and Awarding Equivalent Credit 5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER 

 665803 

5c. PROJECT NUMBER 

D730

6. AUTHOR(S) 

Richard L. Wampler and Paul N. Blankenbeckler (Northrop Grumman 

Corporation) 5d. TASK NUMBER 

382

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER 

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

Northrop Grumman Corporation US Army Research Institute for the 

3565 Macon Road Behavioral and Social Sciences 

Columbus, GA 31907 ARI-Ft Benning Research Unit 

 P. O. Box 52086 

 Fort Benning, GA 31995-2086 

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-IJ 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway 

Arlington, VA 22202-3926 

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER 

 Study Report 2009-05 

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES 

Subject matter POC and Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR): Dr. Kenneth L. Evans 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): This research examined the viability of allowing noncommissioned 

officers (NCOs) to receive NCO Education System (NCOES) credit based on experience or testing-out. Surveys and 

interviews were completed with 164 participants, varying in rank from Lieutenant Colonel to Staff Sergeant. 

Participants were serving in duty positions ranging from U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command School Leaders 

and staff to actual NCO and Officer course instructors, at six Army installations representing 11 Schools. The majority 

(58%) agreed that testing-out of selected NCOES content is a viable option and 61% agreed that no credit should be 

awarded solely for experience. An overwhelming majority (90%) agreed that all NCOs should attend some resident 

NCOES classes to foster interpersonal relationships, 86% agreed that testing-out should include both hands-on and 

written components, and 85% agreed that all NCOs, active and reserve, should be handled the same concerning testingout or receiving equivalent credit. Perspectives differed by rank group and duty position. Participants identified 

numerous educational, administrative, logistical, and sociological items that could be negatively impacted by testingout. They also suggested some testing-out procedures that might mitigate potential impacts.

15. SUBJECT TERMS 

NCO Education System NCOES BNCOC ANCOC Equivalent Credit Testing 

 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 

19. LIMITATION OF 20. NUMBER 21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

16. REPORT 

Unclassified 

17. ABSTRACT 

Unclassified 

18. THIS PAGE 

Unclassified 

ABSTRACT 

Unlimited 

OF PAGES 

55 

Diane Hadjiosif 

Technical Publication 

Specialist 

703-602-8047
ii 
iii 

Study Report 2009-05 

Noncommissioned Officer Education System (NCOES): 

Considerations for Testing-out and Awarding Equivalent 

Credit 

Richard L. Wampler and Paul N. Blankenbeckler 

Northrop Grumman Corporation 

ARI – Ft Benning Research Unit 

Scott E. Graham, Chief 

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

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926 

November 2008 

Army Project Number Personnel and Training 

665803D730 Analysis Activities 

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
iv 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

 The authors wish to express their appreciation to the noncommissioned and 

commissioned officers at the six Army installations who provided their time and insights 

supporting this research project. Each offered well-reasoned recommendations based on firsthand knowledge and experience with the Army Noncommissioned Officer Education System 

(NCOES), as well as their insights from combat deployments. The results contained in this 

report would not have been possible without their participation. In addition, we express our 

thanks to Mr. Jonathan Rhodes and Mr. Dan Hubbard at U.S. Army Training and Doctrine 

Command Headquarters for clearly identifying the key questions to be addressed in this project. 
v 

NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER EDUCATION SYSTEM (NCOES): CONSIDERATIONS 

FOR TESTING-OUT AND AWARDING EQUIVALENT CREDIT 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

Research Requirement: 

 World events since September 2001 have exacerbated the ability of many 

Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) to attend institutional NCO Education System (NCOES) 

courses at the most appropriate points in their professional military careers. Additionally, the 

Army has raised its expectations of the NCO Corps, increasing its overall role and scope of 

responsibility. As a result, a growing number of NCOs are assuming duty positions for which 

they have not been formally trained. In response to these developments, the U.S. Army Training 

and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is developing a new NCO Development Strategy that will 

meet force generation time windows and will establish a train-ahead approach to providing 

NCOs with the skills they need before their duty positions call for them to be used. One possible 

component of this strategy is to award NCOES credit to NCOs based on experience or testing. 

Procedure: 

 Surveys were completed and interviews were conducted with 164 participants across six 

Army installations between May and July 2008. Participants represented 11 TRADOC Schools. 

They ranged in rank from Lieutenant Colonel to Staff Sergeant and held duty positions varying 

from TRADOC School and NCO Academy (NCOA) leadership and staff to small group 

instructors for both NCO and Officer courses. Surveys and interviews solicited opinions on 

whether some form of equivalent credit or testing-out program should be implemented in lieu of 

resident NCOES. If a program was to be implemented, what were the major areas that could be 

impacted and what procedures could be used to administer testing-out. 

Findings: 

Participants expressed strong agreement on certain aspects of testing-out and awarding 

NCOES course credit. The majority (58%) agreed that testing-out of selected NCOES content is 

a viable option, but each School Proponent must revise NCOES course content to make all 

material relevant and challenging before determining which classes should be allowed for 

testing-out. A majority (61%) agreed that no credit should be awarded solely for experience. An 

overwhelming majority (90%) agreed that all NCOs should attend some resident NCOES classes 

to foster interpersonal relationships. If testing-out is implemented, 86% agreed that testing-out 

should include both hands-on and written components. An overwhelming majority (85%) agreed 

that all NCOs, active and reserve, should be handled the same concerning testing-out or 

receiving equivalent credit. While there was general agreement for most items, perspectives 

differed by rank group and duty position. Participants identified numerous educational, 

administrative, logistical, and sociological items that could be negatively impacted by testingout. They also suggested some testing-out procedures that might mitigate potential impacts. 
vi 

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings: 

 The findings and suggestions offered by participants should help guide TRADOC efforts 

to develop a new NCO Development Strategy. Any program that involves testing-out or 

awarding equivalent credit for NCOES course content can benefit from addressing the potential 

impacts identified in this report and considering the testing recommendations provided by 

participants. The results of this research were briefed to TRADOC G-3/5/7 representatives on 

September 23, 2008.
vii 

NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER EDUCATION SYSTEM (NCOES): CONSIDERATIONS 

FOR TESTING-OUT AND AWARDING EQUIVALENT CREDIT 

CONTENTS 

Page 

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 

Purpose and Scope .....................................................................................................................2 

Related Research Concerning NCO Testing and Promotion.....................................................3 

METHOD ........................................................................................................................................4 

Participating Installations...........................................................................................................4 

Survey Instrument......................................................................................................................5 

Participants.................................................................................................................................6 

RESULTS ........................................................................................................................................8 

Testing-out of Selected NCOES Content ..................................................................................9 

Implications of Testing-out......................................................................................................18 

Best Practices for Administering Testing-out..........................................................................25 

DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................27 

SUMMARY...................................................................................................................................30 

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................33 

ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................35 

APPENDIX A. SURVEY FORM ............................................................................................. A-1 

APPENDIX B. MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD ..................................................................B-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 1. Centers and Schools that Participated in Data Collection.............................................4

TABLE 2. Number of Participants by Duty Position .....................................................................6 
viii 

CONTENTS (continued) 

Page 

TABLE 3. Number of Participants by Branch (Specialty) and Rank Groups ................................7 

TABLE 4. Experience of Participants.............................................................................................8 

TABLE 5. Percentage Who Agreed with Testing-out of Selected BNCOC Subjects by 

 Rank Group and Duty Position .....................................................................................9 

TABLE 6. Percentage Who Agreed NCOs Should Attend Portions of NCOES Courses by 

 Rank Group and Duty Position ...................................................................................11 

TABLE 7. Percentage Who Agreed All BNCOC Classes Should Be Mandatory by Rank 

 Group and Duty Position.............................................................................................12 

TABLE 8. Percentage Who Agreed with Each School Determining Classes Eligible for 

 Testing-out by Rank Group and Duty Position...........................................................12 

TABLE 9. Percentage Who Agreed with Different Options for Testing-out by Rank 

 Group and Duty Position.............................................................................................14 

TABLE 10. Percentage Who Agreed with Skill Level 1 and 2 Testing Prior to NCOES 

 Attendance by Rank Group and Duty Position..........................................................15 

TABLE 11. Percentage Who Agreed NCOs Should Receive NCOES Credit Based on 

 Experience by Rank Group and Duty Position ..........................................................16 

TABLE 12. Percentage Who Agreed with Different Options for Awarding NCOES Credit for 

Experience by Rank Group and Duty Position ...........................................................17 

TABLE 13. Items to be Considered for Experience Credit Receiving Majority Support by 

 Rank Group and Duty Position ...................................................................................18 

TABLE 14. Ten Educational Items Most Negatively Impacted by Testing-out ...........................19 

TABLE 15. Logistical and Administrative Items Most Negatively Impacted by Testing-out......21 

TABLE 16. Positive (+) or Negative (-) Impact for 16 Logistical or Administrative Items 

 by 7 Duty Positions .....................................................................................................22 

TABLE 17. Sociological Items Most Negatively Impacted by Testing-out..................................24 
1 

Introduction 

The need for training programs for Noncommissioned Officers (NCOs) to develop their 

professionalism and prepare them as leaders can be traced back to the Prussian officer von 

Steuben and General George Washington in the early days of forming the Continental Army 

(Elder, 1999). While the NCO development program has evolved throughout the Army’s 

history, the roots of the NCO Education System (NCOES) of today began in the late 1960s. 

The Army Chief of Staff directed a study be conducted to determine how best to manage the 

career progression of enlisted Soldiers. Project Proficiency recommended formal leadership 

training for NCOs which included a three-level NCO Education Development Concept, similar 

to the officer education program. The report identified that: 

The present haphazard system of career development, as opposed to skill development, 

had two bad results. First, the image of the NCO as a professional, highly trained 

individual is difficult to foster; second, the Army’s resource of intelligent enlisted men, 

anxious to develop as career Soldiers, is inefficiently managed. The Army has extended 

great effort to ensure the selected development of its officers. Analagous [sic] effort 

should be spent in the development of the noncommissioned officer. (Elder, 1999, 

Project Proficiency, para 2) 

 In 1971, as the Army was moving to an all volunteer force, General Westmoreland, then 

Chief of Staff of the Army, urged commanders of major commands to expand education for 

NCOs, to include affording them the opportunity to attend NCO academies (Elder, 1999). As the 

modern NCOES continued to form in the 1970’s the Army’s Enlisted Personnel Management 

System formally tied NCOES course attendance to pay grades and promotions (Elder, 1999). 

Army Regulation 600-200 published in February 1981 specified the linkage between NCOES 

attendance and promotion eligibility for the different NCO ranks (Department of the Army, 

1981). While NCOES course attendance was mandated for NCO promotion, units frequently 

had to balance sending NCOs to schools against their operational requirements. This system, 

with various modifications and changes, remained in effect for two decades. 

World events since September 2001, when terrorists attacked key points in the United 

States, have placed high priority demands on the Army. This situation has exacerbated the 

ability of many NCOs to attend institutional NCOES courses at the most appropriate points in 

their professional military careers. In fact, in recognition of the difficulty of having NCOs attend 

NCOES courses and the negative impact on promotions, in November 2003, the Military 

Personnel Center (MILPER) issued a message stating the NCOES requirements for promotion 

would be suspended effective January 1, 2004. The policy would continue until further notice 

(Department of the Army, 2003). Over the next few years MILPER issued other messages 

addressing waivers based on the linkage between NCOES attendance and promotions. The 

intent was to ensure “that no Soldier is otherwise disadvantaged, due to an extended deployment, 

for a promotion opportunity” (Department of the Army, 2005, paragraph 5). 

To meet deployment requirements in the post-2001 era, the Army developed a model to 

ensure sufficient units were trained and ready. The Army Force Generation (ARFORGEN) 

process outlines the structured plan for preparing trained and cohesive units for future missions 
2 

over a three-year cycle. While some variations appear, the ARFORGEN process is depicted and 

explained in an addendum to the Army Posture Statement for both 2007 and 2008 (Department 

of the Army, 2007 & 2008a). It is worth noting that each Posture Statement was signed by a 

different Secretary of the Army and Army Chief of Staff, yet both explicitly address the need and 

importance of training NCOs. The importance is very clear since leader development, including 

institutional courses for NCOs, is listed as the second priority among four in the Executive 

Summary of the 2007 Posture Statement (Department of the Army, 2007). The 2008 Posture 

Statement identifies leader training and development as one of the compelling needs for FY09. 

The document even includes an Information Paper that explains the importance of the NCOES to 

the Army (Department of the Army, 2008a). 

In April 2008, the Army published its latest guidance concerning NCOES attendance and 

promotion. Army Regulation 600-8-19 stipulates, “...Soldiers otherwise eligible for 

consideration but lacking the prerequisite level of NCOES as a direct result of operational 

deployment conflicts, or inability of the Army to schedule the course, will be granted a waiver of 

the NCOES requirement...” (Department of the Army, 2008b, section 1-27, p. 9). While the 

need to train NCOs is a recognized priority and promotion is still tied to NCOES attendance, the 

Army does not want to impede NCO promotion due to operational demands for deployment. 

 Additionally, the Army has raised its expectations of the NCO Corps, increasing the 

NCO role and scope of responsibility in world wide deployments. As a result, a growing number 

of NCOs are assuming duty positions for which they have not been formally trained. In response 

to these developments, the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is 

developing a new NCO Development Strategy that will support the ARFORGEN time windows 

and establish a train-ahead approach to providing NCOs with the skills they need before their 

duty positions call for them to be used. Even though exact words and phrases have changed over 

time, the general purpose of the NCOES remains: 

 To build NCO self confidence 

 To increase tactical and technical competence in preparation for higher levels of 

responsibility 

 To inculcate the values of the professional Army ethic. 

One potential component of the new NCO Development Strategy is to consider the prior 

experience and knowledge of individual NCOs, in order to better tailor existing institutional 

courses to an increasingly diverse set of educational needs. For example, it might prove 

worthwhile to grant credit for NCOES content that has already been mastered, based on a careful 

consideration of an individual’s prior experience and knowledge. It might also prove feasible to 

allow NCOs with significant prior experience and knowledge to reduce their time spent in 

institutional training. In any event, an investigation is needed to determine the feasibility and to 

identify the major implications of implementing these kinds of multi-track course options within 

the NCOES. 

Purpose and Scope 

In a memorandum for record, the Leader Development and Education Directorate at 

TRADOC requested that the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 
3 

Sciences (ARI) assist in investigating various methods to award NCOES credit based on an 

individual’s knowledge and experience (see Appendix B). The primary objective of the research 

was to explore the feasibility of using individuals’ prior experience and knowledge to better 

tailor NCOES training programs. If determined to be feasible, the next segment of this effort 

was to identify the major educational, logistical, and sociological implications of implementing 

multi-track course options. A major factor was to assess how implementation might impact the 

TRADOC Schools, the NCOES courses, the professionalism of NCOs, and the Army as a whole. 

Finally, based on the findings, the intent was to identify the next steps toward implementation. 

The research was to examine the implications from differing perspectives and a diverse 

population of those who might be most impacted by changes to the NCOES program. 

 As an overarching guide, TRADOC personnel identified three key questions to be 

investigated during the research and data collection. These questions served as the basis for 

determining the organization and content of the data collected for this effort. 

 Is allowing an NCO to test-out of selected NCOES content a viable option? 

 What are the implications for both the individual and other NCOs if we allow more 

experienced NCOs to test-out of parts of an NCOES course? 

 What are the best practices for administering testing-out to mitigate potential cheating? 

Related Research Concerning NCO Testing and Promotion

 In a project called Soldier Characteristics of the 21st Century (Soldier 21), ARI 

investigated the potential knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) for future Soldiers. This was 

followed by Maximizing 21st Century Noncommissioned Officers Performance (NCO 21), which 

attempted to identify and validate indicators of the KSAs that could be used in deciding junior 

NCO promotions. The major research effort continued with a 3-year program entitled 

Performance Measures for 21st Century Soldiers Assessment (PerformM21). PerformM21 

involved developing prototype assessments and a variety of assessment strategies that might be 

employed in deciding NCO promotions (Campbell, Knapp & Heffner, 2005). 

 Results of these efforts provided insights that were considered in this current research. 

Campbell, Knapp, and Heffner (2002) identified tools to measure job performance and to predict 

performance at the next higher grade level. While some measures were suggested as counseling 

tools to guide and influence NCO behavior, they suggested certain measures would best be 

applied in conjunction with NCOES. As a result of exploring the use of performance rating 

scales for NCOs, Knapp, Heffner, and Campbell (2003) noted that when commanders 

recommend NCOs for promotion, they generally award all possible points. This does not 

provide for distinction among the group of NCOs and demonstrates that commanders will show 

favoritism toward the personnel in their command. Following the PerformM21 project, Moriarty 

and Knapp (2007) offered some results and lessons learned that could be helpful in implementing 

an NCO test program. Multiple test methods (e.g., multiple choice, situational judgment, handson) provide a more comprehensive and accurate assessment of competence as compared to a 

single testing method. Parallel forms of tests would be necessary to allow for retesting and to 

help maintain test security. Finally, while Internet-delivery of tests is feasible, technology will 

remain fallible; be prepared for problems (e.g., data loss) due to imperfect Internet connections. 
4 

Method 

The initial step was to identify a representative target population so feedback obtained 

could be interpreted as applicable to the entire Army. Two key factors were considered; which 

Army installations included the variety of branches and specialties that provided a cross-section 

for the Army, and which personnel at these installations had the most relevant knowledge and 

experience to offer informed recommendations concerning the future direction of NCOES. 

A combined survey and interview method was used to obtain objective and subjective 

input from a diverse population from May through July 2008. The intent was to allow each 

participant to provide quantifiable responses in a structured survey without bias from other 

participants. Details are in the Survey Instrument section below. Following completion of the 

survey form, participants took part in an interview to discuss a selection of questions and topics 

related to testing-out and equivalent credit. These interviews provided more subjective input and 

could address details not contained in the survey. As a general rule, surveys and interviews with 

the more senior participants (e.g. Commanders and Commandants) were conducted individually 

while instructors and staff members completed the survey individually then took part in a group 

interview session. Because some interviews were conducted in a one-on-one session, the 

discussion allowed individuals to elaborate on survey responses and provide specific examples to 

substantiate their input to the survey. In some cases, a small group of two to seven participants 

completed the survey individually, then participated in a group interview together. These group 

discussions allowed all participants to offer additional input, to express differing opinions, and to 

build on points made by others. 

Participating Installations 

The six Army installations selected for participation in data collection provided a mix of 

TRADOC Centers and Schools that spanned various combat arms and support branches 

(specialties). Table 1 lists the Centers and their subordinate Schools for each of the installations. 

Table 1

Centers and Schools that Participated in Data Collection

Installation Center School 

Fort Benning, GA Infantry School 

Adjutant General School

Chaplain School 

Finance School 

Fort Jackson, SC Soldier Support Institute 

Recruiter School 

Fort Knox, KY Armor School 

Fort Lee, VA Combined Arms Support Command Quartermaster School 

Military Police School 

Engineer School 

Fort Leonard Wood, MO Maneuver Support Center 

Chemical School 

Fort Sill, OK Artillery School 
5 

Survey Instrument 

Using the focus questions provided by TRADOC, a survey instrument was developed to 

capture quantifiable individual feedback from participants. The survey is provided at Appendix 

A. In order to assess feedback from different groups of participants with varied experiences, 

biographical information collected in the survey included rank, branch or military occupational 

specialty (MOS), duty position, time in service, time in current position, previous assignments, 

prior training experience, and combat deployments. 

The initial part of the survey solicited either participant agreement or disagreement with 

several items addressing whether the Army should grant NCOES credit to NCOs based on some 

form of testing or previous experience, including credit for an entire course or selected classes. 

These questions addressed both “testing-out” and “equivalent credit” for experience, with some 

specific items concerning implementation of testing-out and various options for awarding 

equivalent credit. 

Subsequent parts of the survey focused on the potential and perceived impact, either 

positive or negative, of the Army implementing some form of testing-out or equivalent credit 

options. Questions addressed three major areas that could be impacted: 

 Educational 

o Verifying that NCOs opting out of a course or block of training possess the 

required knowledge to successfully continue their military career and to 

contribute in positions of increased responsibility 

o Ensuring that civilian education does not preclude the necessity to acquire 

military knowledge and skills addressed in NCOES courses 

o Reducing peer interaction for NCOs testing-out of resident NCOES courses 

 Logistical or Administrative 

o Administering tests at various locations throughout the Army 

o Tracking equivalent credit results in personnel records 

o Scheduling sufficient cadre and courses to train all necessary NCOs, given the 

unpredictable number of NCOs testing-out or receiving credit 

 Sociological 

o Gauging how testing-out or equivalent credit will affect esprit-de-corps 

o Determining the likelihood a testing-out failure would produce a stigma with 

other NCOs or military leaders 

o Forecasting possible impacts on promotion board members and assignment 

managers 

The final part of the survey requested participant agreement or disagreement with items 

in two major areas: factors to be considered for awarding equivalent credit and how NCOs 

should spend time that might become available if they receive credit for some NCOES content 

and are not required to attend classes. Participants could write-in additional items for each of the 

major areas. 
6 

Participants 

Participants were selected by the installation points of contact (POCs) at each installation. 

POCs were asked to select individuals within general groups of personnel who were thought to 

be most knowledgeable about the current NCOES program. Targeted personnel, whether 

military or civilian, needed to be able to assess the potential impacts of modifying NCOES 

attendance requirements and potentially awarding NCOES credit based on testing or experience. 

The general groups of personnel identified were: 

 TRADOC Center and School Leaders (e.g., Command Sergeant Major [CSM]) 

 NCO Academy (NCOA) Leaders (e.g., Commandant, Course Directors) 

 Training unit leaders (e.g., Battalion Commander [CDR] or CSM) 

 Members of the School Proponency Office 

 Schedulers, program of instruction (POI) managers, and training developers for NCOES 

courses 

 Instructors from the NCOA 

 Small-Group Instructors (SGIs) from a Captain Career Course who are former company 

commanders. 

The number of participants within each of the general groups varied between installations 

based on the availability of targeted personnel. Table 2 shows the distribution of participants by 

duty position. No NCOs currently attending the Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course 

(BNCOC) participated because it was thought that all participants needed to have successfully 

completed BNCOC in order to provide an informed assessment of testing-out implications. 

Table 2 

Number of Participants by Duty Position 

Duty Position No. of Participants

Center or School Leadership (CDR or CSM, Brigade or higher) 9 

NCOA Leadership (Commandant/Deputy or Course Director) 19 

Unit Leader (Battalion CDR or CSM) 12 

School Proponency Office 9 

School Staff (Writers, POI Managers, Training Developers) 41 

NCOA Instructor 50 

SGI (Captain Career Course - former Company CDRs) 24 

Total = 164 

Note. CDR = Commander; CSM = Command Sergeant Major; NCOA = Noncommissioned 

Officer Academy; POI = Program of instruction; SGI = Small group instructor. 

As shown in Table 3, participants were not evenly distributed across branches 

(specialties). School leaders included both School and training brigade-level CSMs. NCOA 

leaders were commandants, deputy commandants, or course directors for either BNCOC or the 

Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course (ANCOC). Unit leaders included Lieutenant 

Colonels (LTCs), battalion-level CSMs, and First Sergeants (1SGs). Proponency Office 

personnel were primarily senior NCOs. School staff included those personnel whose regular 

work supported or was impacted by the NCOES programs. Those representatives included 
7 

personnel responsible for training development, POI management, course scheduling, etc. Those 

personnel were mainly NCOs, some retired from the Army and serving as government civilians 

in the School. No participants were contractors. Instructors from the NCOA spanned all courses 

from the Warrior Leader Course to ANCOC; they included Sergeants First Class (SFC) and Staff 

Sergeants (SSG). The SGIs for the Captain Career Courses were Majors and Captains (CPTs). 

All were former company commanders who had supervised and commanded NCOs, many 

during combat deployment. Personnel from 15 different branches (specialties) participated. 

There was no intent to obtain an equal number of participants from each of the Schools, but 

rather to include a representative sample from the participating Schools. About half of the 

participants (53%) came from the three major combat arms schools: Armor, Artillery, and 

Infantry. 

Table 3 

Number on Participants by Branch (Specialty) and Rank Groups

Branch 

(Specialty) 

No. of 

Participants 

Officer 

(LTC-CPT) 

Senior 

NCO1

(CSM-1SG) 

SFC SSG CIVILIAN

Adjutant 

General 

21 3 13 4 1 0 

Armor 39 10 9 6 14 0 

Artillery 27 2 7 11 6 1 

Chaplain 8 0 2 4 1 1 

Chemical 7 2 3 2 0 0 

Engineer 11 0 4 6 1 0 

Finance 8 1 2 3 2 0 

Infantry 21 9 4 3 5 0 

Military Police 10 2 7 1 0 0 

Quartermaster 5 0 3 2 0 0 

Recruiter 6 0 1 5 0 0 

Special Forces 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Total 164 30 55 47 30 2 

Note: Civilians who were retired military were counted in military rank. 

LTC = Lieutenant Colonel; CPT = Captain; NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; CSM = 

Command Sergeant Major; 1SG = First Sergeant; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff 

Sergeant. 

 The rank groups used in Table 3 and throughout this report were determined based on 

analysis of results from participants. Most officers expressed the same views in surveys and 

interviews, regardless of their rank. The more “senior NCOs”, from 1SG through CSM, 

generally provided very similar view points and responses. In many instances, responses from 

the lower ranking NCOs, SFC and SSG, differed from the more senior NCOs. Responses from 

the SFC and SSG rank groups often differed from each other. 

 

1 While the traditional Army breakout of senior NCOs generally includes SFCs and above, for purposes of 

distinguishing the differences in responses between the various NCO ranks, the rank group of “Senior NCO” 

excludes SFCs; SFC and SSG results are reported separately.
8 

 Participants had served in leadership positions from teams, sections, and squads up 

through major commands and organizations. They served during both peacetime and combat. 

Many had previously been instructors for officer and NCO courses. All NCOs who participated 

were BNCOC graduates and many had attended higher-level NCOES courses. Table 4 

highlights participants’ time in service and time in duty position. A majority of the participants 

(77%) had experienced at least one combat deployment for Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or 

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF). More than half (53%) of the participants, including those 

with OIF or OEF deployments, had other combat deployment experience. Nearly all (91%) of 

the participants had experienced at least one combat deployment. Combat deployments spanned 

a variety of locations and conditions ranging from full combat during Operations Desert 

Shield/Desert Storm in Iraq and Operation Just Cause in Panama, to peacekeeping operations in 

war-torn locations such as Kosovo, Bosnia, the Sinai, and Somalia. 

Table 4 

Experience of Participants 

Time in Service Average (years) Max (years) Min (years) 

Military 17.4 34.2 4.5 

Civilian 6.4 31.5 1 

Time in Duty Position 1.4 8.8 1 month 

Note: N=164. Military time in service numbers exclude two civilian participants. 

Results 

The following results are organized to answer the three key questions previously 

identified in the Purpose and Scope section. While the overall majority of the participants 

responded similarly to most survey items, analysis of the input provided in the surveys and 

interviews indicated that when participants varied in their responses, the differences were 

generally based on one of two major criteria: the rank group of the participants or their duty 

position. Differential results related to rank or duty position are highlighted in the following 

sections. 

 Throughout the survey participants could choose “undecided” or “no impact”, rather than 

specifying agreement or disagreement with a particular item. For some items, all participants 

expressed a position, while other items had a large percentage of participants who selected 

undecided or no impact. Considering the total group for each item, the amount of undecided 

participants generally varied from about 5% to about 20%. When examined by rank group and 

duty position, the amount of undecided participants exceeded 50% for some items. 

 A topic of concern in the project addressed whether Reserve Component (RC) NCOs 

should be handled any differently from the Active Duty NCOs. Given that RC personnel are 

being deployed in high numbers, it is not surprising that 85% of the participants (ranging from 

73% for SSG to 89% for SFC and Senior NCOs) agreed that all NCOs, active and reserve, 

should be handled the same concerning testing-out or receiving equivalent credit. 
9 

Testing-out of Selected NCOES Content 

 As stated at the beginning of the survey form (Appendix A) and as explained to 

individuals prior to responding, testing-out refers to some form of formal testing, either written, 

hands-on or a combination of both, that must be completed to a specified level of performance. 

Questions throughout the survey and subsequent interview sessions addressed different aspects 

of testing-out. 

 The majority of the participants agreed that an NCO should be able to test-out of certain 

subjects taught in BNCOC (Appendix A, Section I, #1), however there was significant variation 

in responses from the participants. Table 5 shows the responses displayed by different rank 

groups and duty positions. Officers and School staff personnel generally favored testing-out 

more than the junior NCOs, the Proponency Office personnel, and the NCOA instructors. Also, 

even though the survey question specifically asked about testing-out of BNCOC, participants 

indicated during interviews that their position on testing-out of selected subjects applied equally 

to other NCOES courses. 

Table 5 

Percentage Who Agreed with Testing-out of Selected BNCOC Subjects by Rank Group and Duty 

Position 

Rank Group % Agree Duty Position % Agree

Officers 75% School Leaders 56% 

Senior NCO 59% NCOA Leaders 61% 

SFC 53% Unit Leaders 58% 

SSG 43% School Proponency Office 44% 

 School Staff 68% 

 NCOA Instructor 47% 

 SGI (former Co CDRs) 68% 

Total 58% Total 58% 

Note: N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff 

Sergeant; NCOA = NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company 

Commanders. 

 The only item where participants typically supported testing-out was referred to as 

“common core” material. Classes that are covered in all NCOES courses for a particular grade 

level or for which distance learning options for credit are already available or being implemented 

would fit into this item. Some NCOAs have instituted or are moving toward a “Phase I” for a 

course which includes on-line blocks of training that must be completed as a prerequisite for an 

NCO to attend the resident phases of a course. Completing these on-line courses would be 

considered as testing-out, according to a few participants. A small number of participants (less 

than 10%) suggested that certain technical skills could be considered for testing-out. The caveat 

was that each Proponent School would need to determine which technical skills could be eligible 

for testing-out and how that testing-out would be accomplished. They also suggested that an 

NCO who changed branches (e.g., reenlistment option, reclassification) should not be eligible to 

test-out of any technical skills. 
10 

 Participants who identified specific subject areas that should be mandatory for resident 

NCOES attendance generally agreed on the content for those areas. The most prevalent area was 

leadership skills. Reading a leadership manual and taking a test should not be a substitute for 

gathering with peers to discuss leadership experiences and challenges each has faced in a variety 

of situations and conditions. The second most common area for resident attendance involved 

tactical training. While most NCOs have combat deployment experience and have participated 

in field training, much of that experience is strongly influenced by their unit operating 

procedures, as well as the tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) used by the local 

commander. Most participants believed that NCOs needed to learn the most current and 

approved Army doctrine, including TTPs, from the TRADOC School. Just as with leadership 

experiences, NCOs would also be able to share their specific tactical experiences with instructors 

and other NCOs so all could benefit from each other’s collective experiences. 

 Participants who did not agree with testing-out (about 40%) offered their rationale for 

mandatory attendance for all NCOES classes. The fundamental reason was to ensure that every 

NCO has the opportunity to gain the necessary skills and knowledge from the School. 

Acquisition of the skills and knowledge would then be tested or evaluated according to Army 

doctrine and standards. Their comments generally included that Schools are established and 

operated to train NCOs. Training at the Schools is validated by high-level review processes. 

Instructors are trained and prepared to conduct the training as well as to assess NCO 

performance. This quality of training can not be replicated through unit experiences. A large 

number of participants (80%) specifically stated that the most valuable aspect of an NCOES 

course was the professional development that occurred through peer interaction. Allowing some 

NCOs to test-out would eliminate those more experienced NCOs from participating in all classes 

and subjects. Not only would they miss the contributions offered by other NCOs, but the 

resident attendees would not gain the benefit of the knowledge and experiences from the NCO 

who tested-out. More details are provided in the section on Implications for Testing-out. 

 Just as the majority agreed with testing-out of selected subjects, they were even more in 

agreement concerning the need to attend some classes and subjects for each NCOES course. 

Two specific items from the survey were: 

 Item #1 (Appendix A, Section I, #1): An NCO should NOT have the opportunity to testout of an entire course. 

 Item #2 (Appendix A, Section I, #19): Some classes are so crucial that no testing-out 

should be allowed. 

Responses to these items are shown in Table 6. 

Participants believed that for professional development, NCOs needed to attend some 

resident training for each level of NCOES. While NCOs learn and gain experiences from duty 

assignments and other NCOs, there are subjects that are best covered in face-to-face institutional 

training. Some specifically stressed during interviews that NCOES attendance was so important 

that NCOs should be released from their unit to attend a course when they are scheduled, even if 

this means allowing an NCO to return to School during a combat deployment. Even if an NCO 

is highly proficient in his duty assignment, there are always other aspects of the MOS or 

specialty that are probably not covered and learned. Several examples were routinely provided, 

such as Infantry NCOs operating in light versus mechanized or wheeled units, and Military 
11 

Police manning checkpoints versus providing convoy or route security. Attending resident 

NCOES courses allows NCOs to diversify within their specialty and learn from others’ 

experiences. 

Table 6 

Percentage Who Agreed NCOs Should Attend Portions of NCOES Courses by Rank Group and 

Duty Position 

Rank Group % Agree Duty Position % Agree 

Item #1 Item #2 Item #1 Item #2

Officers 93% 86% School Leaders 89% 78% 

Senior NCO 87% 87% NCOA Leaders 89% 100% 

SFC 79% 98% Unit Leaders 92% 75% 

SSG 83% 83% School Proponency Office 89% 100% 

 School Staff 76% 93% 

NCOA Instructor 86% 90% 

 SGI (former Co CDRs) 91% 83% 

Total 84% 90% Total 84% 90% 

Note. N = 164. Item #1: An NCO should NOT have the opportunity to test-out of an entire 

course. Item #2: Some classes are so crucial that no testing-out should be allowed. 

NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff Sergeant; NCOA = 

NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company Commanders. 

Another item on the survey (Appendix A, Section I, #10) specifically stated, “All 

BNCOC classes should be mandatory for all NCOs.” The intent of this item was to ascertain the 

participants’ emphasis on the importance of classes. Anticipated answers should be the opposite 

of the results in Table 5 (agreement to allow some testing-out) and while that general pattern can 

be seen in Table 7, there is some variation. Officers and School staff personnel, along with unit 

leaders, generally were less in agreement with all classes being mandatory than NCOs, the 

NCOA leaders, the Proponency Office personnel, and the NCOA instructors. During interviews 

some participants thought some of the current classes in NCOES courses were outdated or 

irrelevant for today’s operating environment (OE), and therefore, should not be mandatory. This 

point emphasizes that NCOES course content needs updating and still supports the majority 

position of agreement for testing-out of selected classes. Others made the point that NCOs are 

developing special skills and expertise to cope with the situations in today’s OE, but they are not 

practicing and understanding fundamental doctrine that they will need throughout the remainder 

of their career. Some explained that NCOs might have experience in certain aspects of their 

MOS, such as establishing and operating a checkpoint, but lack the skill and expertise in other 

MOS requirements. This is exacerbated for NCOs in a low density MOS. For example, some 

Signal NCOs may work with and support a unit with only selected communications systems, and 

not the full spectrum of communication systems that a completely trained signal NCO is 

expected to know. Finally, some participants stated that NCOs are taking on higher levels of 

responsibility that mandate the proper training and preparation attainable from NCOES courses, 

but not usually acquired through unit experiences. 
12 

Table 7 

Percentage Who Agreed All BNCOC Classes Should be Mandatory by Rank Group and Duty 

Position

Rank Group % Agree Duty Position % Agree

Officers 35% School Leaders 56% 

Senior NCO 61% NCOA Leaders 72% 

SFC 60% Unit Leaders 42% 

SSG 59% School Proponency Office 67% 

 School Staff 47% 

 NCOA Instructor 60% 

 SGI (former Co CDRs) 44% 

Total 55% Total 55% 

Note: N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff 

Sergeant; NCOA = NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company 

Commanders. 

 Determining what classes should allow testing-out and determining how to administer 

testing-out. The overwhelming majority of participants agreed that NCOES courses should 

include both leadership (92%) and technical (95%) skills needed for the next higher grade level 

(Appendix A, Section I, #11 & #12). They also generally agreed that some common core and 

leadership subjects were consistent across the different specialties and MOSs we examined. 

They agreed that an agency such as the U.S. Army Sergeant Major Academy would be able to 

identify these subjects, along with establishing the criteria for testing-out, if deemed appropriate. 

Participants were also very clear that skills required for different specialties and MOSs varied 

significantly. Therefore, a specific set of classes eligible for testing-out could not be identified 

for all NCOES courses. As seen in Table 8, participants believed that each TRADOC School 

should determine what specific classes should be considered for testing-out (Appendix A, 

Section I, #20). 

Table 8 

Percentage Who Agreed with Each School Determining Classes Eligible for Testing-out by Rank 

Group and Duty Position 

Rank Group % Agree Duty Position % Agree

Officers 69% School Leaders 44% 

Senior NCO 59% NCOA Leaders 67% 

SFC 83% Unit Leaders 58% 

SSG 77% School Proponency Office 67% 

 School Staff 83% 

 NCOA Instructor 78% 

 SGI (former Co CDRs) 61% 

Total 72% Total 72% 

Note: N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff 

Sergeant; NCOA = NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company 

Commanders. 
13 

More junior NCOs, as well as School staff and NCOA instructors, were generally more in 

agreement on this item than more senior personnel. The explanation of this difference came 

from survey write-in responses and points made during the interview periods with the more 

junior personnel. Recent combat deployments have shown these junior personnel that the 

evolving requirements for NCOs and the quickly changing conditions in today’s OE demand 

NCOES courses that can change to meet real-world needs in technical subjects and include 

leadership skills necessary for the challenges NCOs will face. Because personnel in the different 

MOSs are employed quite differently in the OE, each School must assess the requirements and 

adjust NCOES courses to meet the needs of their MOS within the Army. Participants provided 

some examples to clarify this point. In the current OE, Artillery and Armor units infrequently 

use their MOS technical skills of conducting fire missions and mounted gunnery. Therefore, 

NCOES courses need to emphasize these technical skills more. Likewise, NCOs are leading 

dismounted operations in proximity to local civilians and are required to interface with nonmilitary organizations on a regular basis. The leadership skills required for this environment are 

quite different from those required of a firing section or tank unit leader giving commands to 

Soldiers. Thus, these new skills need to be included in the NCOES courses. The same situation 

applies to NCOs in the support role. Much of the logistical support requirement in the OE is 

handled by contractors so Quartermaster NCOs are not executing their full scope of 

responsibilities. Likewise, Finance and Adjutant General branch NCOs might know how to 

perform selected aspects of their jobs using a local database format, but rarely experience the full 

scope of their responsibilities during a duty assignment (e.g., a Finance NCO might be 

responsible for handling pay issues such as reenlistment or bonus payments, but not be involved 

in dealing with travel payments). 

 Some items on the survey solicited input on how testing-out should be implemented 

(Appendix A, Section I, #14-17). Table 9 shows responses to various items. While about half of 

the participants agreed with conducting testing-out at home station, unit leaders and Proponency 

Office personnel did not agree. While testing-out at home station would decrease the amount of 

time the NCO would spend away from his home and unit, participants stated the major reasons 

for not allowing testing-out at home station were to avoid the potential for test compromise and 

to minimize “cheating” on the test. The more senior NCOs expressed concerns that there would 

be “command influence” and the potential for “preferential treatment” from unit leaders who 

wanted to reward their NCOs. They believed units might attempt to use any means available to 

assist their NCOs in obtaining the test-out credit necessary to allow them to remain at home 

station for a longer period of time. More details are provided in Results sections later. 

 Officers and School Proponency Office personnel were the least in agreement about 

conducting written tests. Their concern was that some very capable and experienced NCOs were 

not skilled at taking written tests and could be judged unfairly. All rank groups and duty 

positions were more in favor of hands-on testing than a written test. It was also quite evident 

that all groups of participants (86% overall) were in agreement that any testing-out should 

include both written and hands-on components. 

 While testing consisting of both written and hands-on components was deemed the 

preferred testing-out procedure by the vast majority (86%) of participants, some concerns were 
14 

apparent. For example, participants identified six items for consideration when testing is to be 

conducted at a Soldier’s home station. 

 Hands-on testing may require equipment not available at home stations. 

 Hands-on testing can require skilled evaluators, not always available at home stations. 

 Hands-on testing allows for subjective assessment, even with standardized checklists. 

 Written tests would likely need to be updated frequently to retain currency. 

 Home station leadership could be more lenient and might not enforce strict standards. 

 Both NCO and unit priorities are influenced by the mission at hand or future missions, so 

preparation for testing-out will be limited. 

Means to prevent test compromise and to minimize cheating are provided in the Results sections 

later. 

Table 9 

Percentage Who Agreed with Different Options for Testing-out by Rank Group and Duty 

Position 

 

 % Agree 

Rank Group

Home 

Station Written Hands-on

Written & 

Hands-on 

Officers 50% 24% 45% 93% 

Senior NCO 40% 51% 64% 82% 

SFC 54% 57% 66% 87% 

SSG 47% 62% 69% 87% 

Duty Position

School Leaders 56% 67% 67% 67% 

NCOA Leaders 47% 65% 75% 89% 

Unit Leaders 17% 42% 42% 92% 

School Proponency Office 22% 33% 67% 78% 

School Staff 58% 51% 63% 85% 

NCOA Instructor 50% 59% 71% 86% 

SGI (former Co CDRs) 46% 22% 39% 92% 

Total 47% 49% 62% 86% 

Note: N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff 

Sergeant; NCOA = NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company 

Commanders. 

 Testing to Verify NCO Proficiency. One additional point in the testing-out arena 

addressed whether NCOs are prepared to attend an NCOES course. NCOA leaders and 

instructors stated that some NCOs arrive for a course and are not properly prepared. Preparation 

fit into two categories: 

 Being in compliance with the Army height/weight standards and being able to pass the 

Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) 

 Being proficient in lower level (e.g., Skill Level 1 and 2) tasks, both common core and 

MOS-specific tasks. 
15 

In regards to the Army standards for height/weight and the APFT, participants expressed 

concern about the role of the NCOA in verifying compliance. Participants who expressed an 

opinion during interviews generally fit into opposite camps. One group was adamant that the 

NCOA should be the independent and unbiased agency to ensure that every NCO complied with 

the height/weight and APFT standards. Some participants suggested unit leaders might be more 

lenient on their NCOs than the NCOA in applying the Army standards. Other participants 

suggested compliance with height/weight and APFT standards should remain the responsibility 

of the operational unit. 

 Regarding the verification of lower level skill proficiency prior to NCOES attendance, 

participants varied significantly, as shown in Table 10. School leaders and Proponency Office 

personnel did not agree with this skill level testing. Their expressed opinion was that the NCOA 

should be prepared to bring each NCO up to the appropriate skill level during the NCOES 

course. In contrast, participants responsible for developing and conducting training (NCOA 

leaders and instructors, unit leaders, School staff, and SGI) strongly supported prior testing (72% 

to 88%). Instructors stated that unless the NCOA or some other independent agency tests and 

verifies an NCO’s skill and knowledge preparedness to attend a course, the NCOA would need 

to gear its training program to allow for training NCOs starting at some lower skill level. This 

requirement adds length to the course, delays progressing to higher skill level training, and can 

lead to the more skilled NCOs adopting the attitude that they should not be required to attend the 

course. 

Table 10 

Percentage Who Agreed with Skill Level 1 and 2 Testing Prior to NCOES Attendance by Rank 

Group and Duty Position

Rank Group % Agree Duty Position % Agree

Officers 83% School Leaders 11% 

Senior NCO 53% NCOA Leaders 74% 

SFC 80% Unit Leaders 83% 

SSG 73% School Proponency Office 33% 

 School Staff 72% 

 NCOA Instructor 74% 

 SGI (former Co CDRs) 88% 

Total 70% Total 70% 

Note: N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff 

Sergeant; NCOA = NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company 

Commanders. 

 Receiving “equivalent credit” based on experience. In addition to some formal testingout process, one specific option considered for obtaining equivalent NCOES credit was based on 

the NCO’s prior experience, mainly gained from duty assignments and job positions. The intent 

behind this item was to gain input concerning whether on-the-job experience should be 

considered sufficient to grant an NCO credit for some specified classes, instead of testing-out or 

course attendance. Participants offered many comments concerning the feasibility of this option. 
16 

 Because many NCOs have gained vast experience during combat deployments, the 

survey included two general items addressing credit for experience: 

 Item #1 (Appendix A, Section I, #4): An NCO should receive credit for an entire course 

based on experience. 

 Item #2 (Appendix A, Section I, #3): An NCO should receive credit for selected NCOES 

classes based on experience. 

Table 11 displays the responses for these two items. 

Table 11 

Percentage Who Agreed NCOs Should Receive NCOES Credit Based on Experience by Rank 

Group and Duty Position 

Rank Group % Agree Duty Position % Agree 

Item #1 Item #2 Item #1 Item #2

Officers 10% 57% School Leaders 11% 33% 

Senior NCO 13% 37% NCOA Leaders 21% 42% 

SFC 11% 28% Unit Leaders 8% 33% 

SSG 13% 43% School Proponency Office 0% 25% 

 School Staff 5% 32% 

NCOA Instructor 18% 38% 

 SGI (former Co CDRs) 9% 63% 

Total 12% 39% Total 12% 39% 

Note: N = 164. Item #1: An NCO should receive credit for an entire course based on experience. 

Item #2: An NCO should receive credit for selected NCOES classes based on experience. 

NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; SFC = Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff Sergeant; NCOA = 

NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = Company Commanders. 

 While responses varied somewhat among duty positions, the overwhelming majority 

(88%) agreed an NCO should not receive credit for an entire NCOES course based solely on 

experience. In this same regard, about 40% of the participants supported awarding credit for 

experience for selected classes. Officers were the only group where the majority agreed with 

credit for experience. 

 Interviews with participants and write-in responses on the survey identified reasons for 

not awarding credit for experience. Some of the more prevalent points included: 

 Serving in a duty position does not equate to gaining skills and knowledge. 

 Merely serving in a duty position does not mean the person did the job to standard. 

 Skills required in a duty position can vary drastically depending on the OE and conditions 

where the duty assignment occurred. 

 Duty positions generally do not require an NCO to use and demonstrate all skills 

specified at that skill level; an NCO might be proficient and demonstrate skills for 

selected tasks and not others. 

 Credit would need to be awarded and determined by unit leaders, which leads to 

subjective bias rather than an objective measure of skill. For example, deployed NCOs 

might be rated more on their ability to perform security patrols rather than the ability to 

successfully perform MOS-specific and other core duties. 
17 

If equivalent NCOES credit was to be awarded based on experience and not testing, the 

survey asked respondents what level of the chain-of-command (company, battalion, or brigade) 

should be allowed to award the NCOES credit. Another question asked if NCOES credit was to 

be awarded by the chain-of-command, should it be awarded as part of the NCO Evaluation 

Report (NCOER). Responses from participants on these survey items (Appendix A, Section I, 

#5-8) are provided in Table 12. 

Table 12 

Percentage Who Agreed with Different Options for Awarding NCOES Credit for Experience by 

Rank Group and Duty Position

 % Agree 

Rank Group

Company

Level 

Battalion

Level 

Brigade

Level 

NCOER 

Officers 7% 17% 23% 17% 

Senior NCO 2% 6% 11% 0% 

SFC 4% 9% 20% 6% 

SSG 7% 23% 27% 20% 

Duty Position

School Leaders 0% 11% 33% 0% 

NCOA Leaders 0% 5% 0% 0% 

Unit Leaders 8% 8% 8% 0% 

School Proponency Office 0% 0% 22% 0% 

School Staff 0% 0% 24% 2% 

NCOA Instructor 8% 14% 16% 16% 

SGI (former Co CDRs) 8% 21% 25% 20% 

Total 4% 12% 18% 9% 

Note: N = 164. NCOER = Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report; SFC = 

Sergeant First Class; SSG = Staff Sergeant; NCOA = NCO Academy; SGI = Small Group 

Instructor; Co CDRs = Company Commanders. 

 As shown in Table 12, the overwhelming majority (91%) believed awarding NCOES 

credit for experience should not be included in the NCOER. Participants who supported credit 

for experience offered that some formal procedure with objective criteria would need to be 

established and controlled at a high level (e.g., Department of the Army) in order to minimize 

abuse of this option. Otherwise, unit leaders might be inclined to award NCOES credit to NCOs 

as a “reward for a job well done” or to allow the NCO to spend more time at the unit rather than 

attending all classes at an institutional NCOES course. The concern was that some NCOs would 

receive NCOES credit without possessing the skills and knowledge taught in the NCOES course. 

 While agreement was very low in all cases, participants were more in favor of brigade 

level awarding NCOES credit (18%) than either of the lower echelons. Only 12% agreed with 

the battalion level awarding NCOES credit and 4% agreed with company level. More than 80% 

agreed that even up to the brigade level, the chain-of-command should not be allowed to award 

NCOES credit. One participant stated a position that was echoed by many others, “Army 

regulations define NCOES attendance requirements. If we allow agencies other than 
18 

instructional schools to regulate and enforce standards concerning who receives credit, we are 

headed down a hill with no return.” 

 Participants provided responses to other items that could be considered for awarding 

equivalent NCOES credit (Appendix A, Section V). Other items included: combat tours; 

leadership positions in combat, a troop unit, or a staff assignment; civilian education; awards and 

decorations; non-NCOES school attendance; duty as a Drill Sergeant/Instructor; and duty with a 

mobile training team (MTT). While the majority of some groups agreed with various items 

being considered for credit, only two items, serving in a leadership position in either combat or a 

troop unit, received a majority of agreement (60% and 56% respectively). Other items which 

received majority agreement within any rank group or duty position are shown in Table 13. 

Table 13 

Items to be Considered for Experience Credit Receiving Majority Support by Rank Group and 

Duty Position

Items Rank 

Group 

Duty Position 

Combat tours SSG School Staff 

Leadership position in 

combat 

All All except unit leaders & Proponency Office 

Leadership position in troop 

unit 

All All except NCOA leadership, unit leaders & 

Proponency Office 

Leadership position in a staff None School Staff 

Civilian education None SGI (former Co CDRs) 

Military school (nonNCOES) Officer & 

SFC 

NCOA Leadership & School Staff 

Duty as a Drill Sergeant or 

Instructor 

Officer & 

SSG

NCOA Leadership, School Staff & SGI (former 

Co CDRs) 

Duty with MTT Officer & 

SSG

SGI (former Co CDRs) 

Note: N = 164. Agreement percentages ranged from 50 to 61%. SSG = Staff Sergeant; NCOA = 

Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Academy; SGI = Small Group Instructor; Co CDRs = 

Company Commanders; NCOES = NCO Education System; SFC = Sergeant First Class; MTT = 

Mobile Training Team. 

Implications of Testing-out 

 While many aspects of NCOES courses would be impacted if the Army implements some 

form of testing-out, the most prevalent response from participants was the negative impact of 

decreasing peer interaction. All rank groups and duty positions (80% overall) agreed that the 

professional development NCOs gain from interacting with peers during resident NCOES 

courses would suffer if the more talented and experienced NCOs tested-out of some classes. One 

participant, referring to recent and the current Army slogan stated, “We are no longer an ‘Army 

of 1’, we are ‘Army Strong’ - - and we are strong because we work together as teams to learn 

and accomplish missions.” A common response was that NCOs frequently learn more from peer 
19 

interaction than from classroom presentations or lectures. Even NCOES instructors expressed 

the value of having skilled and experienced NCOs in residence, indicating they contribute to 

classroom instruction by sharing their knowledge and current information about the OE. 

 Educational impacts of testing-out. Of all areas considered, participants believed that the 

education of NCOs is the area that would have the most negative impact on the Army (Appendix 

A, Section III). Overall, at least 70% agreed that allowing testing-out would negatively impact 

all of the items listed in Table 14. 

Table 14 

Ten Educational Items Most Negatively Impacted by Testing-out 

Educational Items Negatively Impacted 

% Overall

Agreed 

Enhancing professional development through peer interaction 80% 

Collaborating among students (e.g., study groups) 80% 

Benefiting from learning in a social setting 80% 

Enhancing the learning process through peer coaching 79% 

Sharing of experience and ideas among resident students 79% 

Sharing of experience and ideas between instructors and students 78% 

Sharing of lessons learned among resident students 77% 

Verifying that NCO actually possesses required skill to skip class or course 71% 

Obtaining student ideas for improving courses or classes 70% 

Updating NCOs on latest doctrine and TTPS 70% 

Note. N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer; TTPs = tactics, techniques, and procedures. 

 Officers expressed a higher than average level of agreement with these negative impacts, 

with all of the items in Table 14 receiving 80% to 100%. While the majority of the SFC rank 

group agreed that all of these items would be negatively impacted, the group was consistently 

below the average with the level of agreement between 60% and 72%. When examined by duty 

positions, the more senior groups and the SGIs for officers provided 74% or higher agreement on 

every item. The Proponency Office personnel (67% to 89%), School staff (54% to 71%) and 

NCOA instructors (64% to 80%) expressed less than 70% agreement on a few items, principally 

the last three items in Table 14. 

 In addition to the items in Table 14, the majority of participants agreed that other 

educational items would be negatively impacted by testing-out. These included: 

 Updating NCOs on new equipment, organization changes, and new methods or 

procedures for accomplishing tasks 

 Ensuring that all NCOs attend crucial classes 

 Ensuring that civilian education does not preclude the need to acquire military skill. 

Some written responses regarding these items stated that while an NCO might be knowledgeable 

of current equipment and organizational structures, these evolve and NCOES attendance is a key 

means to disseminate such changes to the Army. Unique differences between military and 

civilian organizations were noted by some participants (e.g., military police have responsibilities 

under different conditions from civilian police, finance personnel use standard accounting 
20 

practices but rules for the military vary from civilian businesses). The ability to network and 

discuss lessons learned and individual experiences face-to-face is vital in the development of 

NCOs; merely learning book knowledge or obtaining civilian education does not provide 

necessary NCO skills. 

 During interviews participants repeatedly emphasized perceived negative impacts of 

testing-out on NCO education. Regardless of attempts to interject or suggest some potential 

positive impacts, participants routinely and strongly expressed the value of interpersonal 

relationships, learning and working among peers, and how such interaction would be hindered if 

more experienced NCOs tested-out of some classes. One BNCOC instructor stated, “Students 

teach each other as much as we teach them. We teach doctrine and many of the TTPs come from 

the students. This interaction is critical.” As stated by another School instructor, “I believe that 

most of what you learn at NCOES Schools is learned from interaction with other students and 

sharing experiences.” The major concern is that NCOs with the most experience and knowledge 

would test-out of some NCOES classes and then would not be present to share those experiences 

and knowledge with others. 

 Logistical and administrative impacts of testing-out. As with the educational area, the 

majority of participants identified several logistical or administrative items that would be 

negatively impacted by testing-out. While the items span a variety of issues, they can be 

grouped into the following categories: 

 Additional requirements for NCOA staff and instructors 

o Creating tests (hands-on and written) and objective evaluations 

o Updating tests to maintain currency with OE 

o Administering tests at different locations, controlling the tests, and maintaining 

test security 

o Scheduling courses, classes, and exercises to maximize NCO participation and 

benefit 

o Determining NCOA staffing requirements for responsibilities other than resident 

students (e.g., developing materials for and possibly conducting testing-out) 

 Complications of tracking individual NCOES class credits 

o Tracking each NCO for each class for each NCOES course 

o Determining class standing when NCOs could test-out of different classes 

 Establishing and enforcing equitable rules for testing-out 

o Who determines what classes are eligible for testing-out, what the rules are for 

testing-out, and who has approval authority across the Schools 

o Deciding common core testing-out rules and their impact on MOS-specific classes 

While many logistical and administrative items could be negatively impacted, there was 

less overall agreement by the participants in these items than were found in the educational area. 

All of the educational items shown in Table 14 received at least 70% negative agreement while 

only one administrative item exceeded the 70% negative agreement level. Table 15 provides a 

list of the logistical and administrative items (Appendix A, Section II) where at least 50% of the 

participants agreed that testing-out would cause a negative impact. 
21 

It is worth noting that generally 15% to 25% of the participants were “undecided” on 

many of these items, which contributed to the overall lower percentage of agreement. During 

interviews participants clarified their “undecided” responses by saying they could see both 

negative and positive implications of testing-out; even though there was more negative than 

positive, they wanted to indicate a dual impact. One example was utilizing NCO time when not 

attending class. About 20% of participates indicated “undecided” and the remainder were 

equally divided between positive and negative impact. On the positive side, if NCOs test-out of 

some classes and spend less time at a resident School, then units will be able to obtain better 

utilization from the NCOs. On the contrary, if an NCO tests-out of a class that occurs during a 

resident phase of a course, then the NCOA must find ways to gain utilization from the NCO 

which increases the burden on the NCOA cadre. 

Table 15 

Logistical and Administrative Items Most Negatively Impacted by Testing-out 

Logistical and Administrative Items Negatively Impacted % Overall Agreed

Determining class standing when NCO attends only part of classes 75% 

Justifying or defending testing-out decisions 68% 

Determining NCO Academy staffing requirements 62% 

Administering equivalent credit (e.g., rules, who approves, tracking) 60% 

Determining what classes can be skipped based on equivalent credit 59% 

Creating tests and grading scales 59% 

Maintaining accurate personnel records 58% 

Tracking individual NCO classes that are tested-out 58% 

Scheduling courses, classes, and exercises 57% 

Administering tests (e.g., location, control, security, time, resources) 56% 

Determining what classes can be tested-out 55% 

Awarding credit for branch or specialty-specific classes 54% 

Tracking individual NCO class attendance 52% 

Note. N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer. 

There were no logistical or administrative items where the majority of the participants 

agreed there would be a positive impact. However, 37% to 40% of the participants identified 

three items where testing-out might cause a positive impact. As mentioned previously, one item 

was utilizing NCO time when not in a resident class, which could allow the NCO to spend more 

time at home station performing duties with the operational unit. Another item was awarding 

credit for common core or common skills classes. Participants commented during interviews 

that these common classes could be completed at home station via web-based training modules 

or through arrangement of video teleconferences. Common core classes can be identified, 

developed, and maintained by the U.S. Army Sergeant Major Academy. This would allow 

certification of satisfactory completion to be tracked by a single source rather than having each 

TRADOC School accomplish the testing and tracking. A final logistical item mentioned was in 

and out processing. A negative viewpoint emphasized that NCOs could be arriving at different 

times to begin a resident course, which would require multiple in and out processing sessions. In 

contrast, a positive impact might be that fewer NCOs would be arriving at the start of each 
22 

course, so the demand on support agencies to handle the in and out processing requirements 

would be spread more evenly over time. 

Examining responses by rank group and duty position indicated some distinct differences 

worth noting. The SFC rank group had a lower level of agreement on every logistical and 

administrative item than any of the other rank groups. Only the first two items in Table 15 

received at least 50% agreement on the negative impact from the SFC rank group. In addition, 

while there were only two items that received a majority agreement as a positive impact 

(conducting in and out processing and tracking individual NCO class attendance, both 51% 

agreement), for half of the items considered, a higher percentage of SFCs indicated that the 

impact would be positive rather than negative. With the exception of two items for the officer 

rank group (utilizing NCO time when not in class and conducting in and out processing), all 

other items for the three rank groups other than SFC, provided a higher level of agreement for a 

negative impact (ranging from 46% to 87%) than a positive impact (ranging from 3% to 37%). 

 Various duty positions provided some diversity of opinion as to whether the 

aforementioned impacts might be more negative or positive. Table 16 provides an indication of 

how the responses varied. The legend for duty positions is: 

1 - School Leaders 4 - School Proponency Office 6 - NCOA Instructor 

2 - NCOA Leaders 5 - School Staff 7 - SGI (Co CDRs) 

3 - Unit Leaders 

Table 16 

Positive (+) or Negative (-) Impact for 16 Logistical or Administrative Items by 7 Duty Positions 

 Duty Positions 

Logistical or Administrative Items that Could be Impacted 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Determining class standing when NCO attends only part of classes - - - - - - - 

Justifying or defending testing-out decisions - - - - - - - 

Determining NCO Academy staffing requirements - - - - - - - 

Administering equivalent credit (e.g. rules, who approves, tracking) - - - - - - - 

Determining what classes can be skipped based on equivalent credit - - - - - - - 

Creating tests and grading scales - 0 - - - - - 

Maintaining accurate personnel records - - - - - - - 

Tracking individual NCO classes that are tested-out - - - - - - - 

Scheduling courses, classes, and exercises - - - - - - - 

Administering tests (e.g., location, control, security, time, resources) - - - - - + - 

Determining what classes can be tested-out - + - - - - - 

Awarding credit for branch or specialty-specific classes - - - - 0 - - 

Tracking individual NCO class attendance - - - - 0 - - 

Awarding credit for common core or common skills classes - - - - - - - 

Utilizing NCO time when not in class - + - - + - +

Conducting in and out processing - + + - + 0 - 

Note. “+” = more agreement as a positive than negative impact. “-“ = more agreement as a 

negative than positive impact. “0” = equal agreement between positive and negative impact. 

NCO = Noncommissioned Officer. 
23 

The items listed in Table 16 (Appendix A, Section II) are provided in the same sequence 

as Table 15 (most negative impact at top of list). Additional items identified by the participants 

are also provided at the end of the list. 

 Two items attracted the most positive agreement among three of the seven duty positions. 

The two items were utilizing NCO time when not in class and in and out processing. Participants 

provided reasons for each of the items where they indicated some degree of positive impact. 

 Tracking individual NCO class attendance: Classes eligible for testing-out could be 

centrally tracked by a single agency and automated system, allowing NCOs to be 

scheduled only for resident course attendance for selected classes. 

 Administering tests: If common core classes are eligible for testing-out, a single agency 

could be responsible for developing and updating tests, controlling test administration, 

ensuring proper security procedures are established and followed, and tracking NCO test 

results, which could reduce some testing requirements for the Schools. 

 Creating tests and grading scales: Same comments as administering tests. This group of 

participants assumed that classes eligible for testing-out would involve common core 

material and that a single agency other than the NCOAs would develop and administer 

the tests. 

 Determining what classes can be tested-out: Perceived positive impact was linked to a 

single agency identifying common core classes and administering the testing-out process. 

Positive impact was also predicated on the belief that each Proponent School would be 

allowed the flexibility to determine what, if any, MOS-specific classes would be 

considered for testing-out. 

 Awarding credit for branch or MOS-specific classes: The only positive impact agreement 

for this item was based on allowing Proponent Schools to determine which MOS-specific 

classes would be considered for testing-out and establishing the objective criteria for 

awarding credit. 

The overall majority of participants generally agreed that implementing testing-out 

would cause a negative impact, with emphasis on the items listed in Table 15. During interviews 

participants summarized this pessimistic view with some overarching observations. 

The potential exists to reduce the number of contact hours that NCOs spend in a resident NCOES 

course which, according to the current TRADOC resource model, would lead to a reduction in 

resources for the NCOAs. However, depending on how testing-out is implemented, participants 

anticipated an increased demand on NCOA assets. For example, in addition to conducting their 

regular resident courses, NCOA staff could also be required to develop and administer testing for 

NCOs at home stations. Because more capable NCOs might miss selected resident classes, 

instructors would not be able to rely on contributions and assistance from these NCOs to share 

lessons learned and experiences. Instructors would need to conduct more research in order to 

include this wider array of information in their classes. Additionally, if testing-out is 

implemented for MOS-specific subjects, each NCOA would need to establish and maintain a 

system to track individual NCO completion of each class to ensure every NCO successfully 

accomplished all course requirements. Finally, if the NCOA attempts to develop and conduct 

tailored NCOES courses for each NCO who might test-out of different classes, the burden on 

NCOA staff would increase substantially. 
24 

Participants generally agreed that if testing-out is to be implemented, it should be 

administered at the NCOs’ home station to allow the NCOs to spend more time in their unit, if 

not attending a resident class. While testing common core subjects via an Internet-based system 

seems a rather routine matter in today’s automated world, testing for MOS-specific subjects 

leads to other major concerns for some of the TRADOC Schools. The first item is developing an 

objective test that adequately and accurately assesses NCO proficiency. Participants agreed that 

the test should include both hands-on and written components. However, many installations do 

not have all of the equipment necessary to conduct the hands-on testing (e.g., a unit with armored 

scouts would have a particular vehicle, but would most likely not have the variety of vehicles 

that scouts could be required to use – Stryker, Bradley, Highly mobile multipurpose wheeled 

vehicle). Participants emphasized that having the full spectrum of equipment items available at 

home stations was even a bigger issue for low density MOSs, such as the myriad hardware, 

software and data processing systems that could be required to conduct testing-out for Signal 

MOSs. In addition to lacking the variety of equipment (which includes both hardware and 

software), skilled evaluators to conduct the objective assessment would likely need to come from 

the NCOA, again, increasing demand on the Proponent Schools. Finally, participants expressed 

concern about test compromise and the potential that standards might not be fully enforced if 

testing was decentralized to individual units or installations. 

 Sociological impacts of testing-out. Overall, participants agreed there would be more 

negative impact than positive impact for every item considered. Table 17 lists several items 

(Appendix A, Section IV) where a majority of participants agreed there would be more negative 

impact. 

Table 17 

Sociological Items Most Negatively Impacted by Testing-out 

Sociological Items Negatively Impacted % Overall Agreed

Potential stigma of an NCO who is unable to test-out of a class or course 77% 

Networking among NCOs 72% 

Rating chain perceptions of NCO technical and tactical competence 72% 

NCO professional development ribbon (modify to indicate testing-out?) 67% 

Promotion board perceptions of NCO technical and tactical competence 62% 

Esprit-de-corps among NCOs 61% 

Selection of NCOs for joint or special assignments 51% 

Note. N = 164. NCO = Noncommissioned Officer. 

 For some items up to one third of the participants were “undecided”, which generally 

meant they recognized both positive and negative impacts. Based on comments made during 

interviews and from write-ins on the surveys, they tended to view potential impacts as more 

negative than positive. For example, morale and attitude could improve for NCOs who testedout of selected classes and received recognition for that achievement. However, participants 

generally expressed that if MOS-specific tests were comprehensive, including both hands-on and 

written components that were administered to standard, very few NCOs would be able to testout. This could lead to a decrease in morale or esprit-de-corps as other NCOs might resent those 

who were able to test-out. Likewise, participants generally believed that unit leaders would 
25 

encourage NCOs to test-out so they could spend more time at the unit and that leaders would 

form perceptions of NCOs based largely on their testing-out performance. Again, this could be 

positive for NCOs who test-out, while those NCOs unable to test-out, and even those who opt 

not to test-out in favor of resident NCOES attendance, might be negatively impacted. 

 Reviewing results by rank groups showed that senior NCOs were more in agreement 

concerning perceived negative impacts than the overall average. There was only one item where 

any rank group indicated more of a positive than a negative impact. While not a majority for 

either group, both officers and SSGs responded that implementing testing-out would likely be a 

positive impact in influencing NCOs to stay in the Army. For this same item, about one third of 

all participants thought testing-out would have a negative impact, one third said there would be a 

positive impact, and one third were undecided. 

 Results by duty position clearly showed differences in responses. None of the 

Proponency Office personnel indicated any positive impact in the sociological area, except one 

person who indicated testing-out might increase the likelihood of an NCO staying in the Army. 

This is quite noteworthy, based on comments provided during interviews. Proponency Office 

personnel stated that it was their responsibility to prepare written guidance for NCO promotion 

boards. This guidance stipulated what to consider in the selection process and how to weigh 

various factors that would be encountered when reviewing NCO records. Even though the 

Proponency Office could write guidance that addressed fairness in considering testing-out, they 

believed promotion boards would not necessarily interpret testing-out in a full and fair means. 

As they stated, with limited time to review records, if an NCO does not test-out of eligible 

classes it would likely be viewed as a negative point. An NCO who could have tested-out but 

opted to attend all classes in residence would be viewed the same as a person who could not testout for some reason. Their main point was that leaders and promotion boards may form views 

and opinions based on their career experiences and expectations, without having equitable 

consideration for testing-out issues. 

While not quite as strong in their generally negative agreement, only two participants in 

the School leadership duty position expressed any potential for positive impact. When viewed 

by duty position, on average, about 20% to 30% of the participants in a duty position were 

undecided for all items, with nearly 50% undecided for a few items. 

Best Practices for Administering Testing-out 

 During our interviews with participants, they highlighted several concerns that need to be 

addressed should the Army decide to implement some form of testing-out. As these points 

emerged in interviews with groups of various sizes, a percentage of agreement could not be 

calculated. However, the items presented in this section should be considered collective 

suggestions from the majority of participants. 

 Participants expressed deep concern about implementing testing-out at home stations, 

regardless of how it might be executed. The heart of the concern centered on how unit leaders 

would react to this option. First, participants believed commanders would likely emphasize that 

NCOs test-out of the maximum possible course content. One benefit would be allowing the 
26 

NCO to spend more time at home station and less time in a resident NCOES course. A second 

benefit would be the perceived positive reflection on a unit’s competency if more NCOs are able 

to test-out of course content. In order to increase the likelihood that more NCOs could test-out 

of more classes, participants believed that units might establish their own NCOES preparation 

program and mandate that NCOs take part in these training sessions. This would be increasing 

the workload requirement for these NCOs at home station while they are still required to perform 

day-to-day tasks, a potential detriment to allowing NCOs to spend time with families. More 

senior participants, mainly NCOs, also expressed concern that placing increased emphasis on 

NCOs to test-out could be detrimental to NCO morale. They stated that when more pressure is 

applied for a program like this, the tendency is to do “whatever it takes” to get NCOs tested-out. 

Participants again expressed their concern that this pressure could lead to test compromise and 

various forms of “cheating”. While the Army could employ appropriate safeguards to minimize 

test compromise and cheating, the other important aspect is attempting to influence the mindset 

and behaviors of unit leaders to minimize this pressure for testing-out. While assisting NCOs to 

improve their skills and to prepare for tests is good, undo emphasis could create undesired 

actions by NCOs. 

 As shown in Table 9, the overwhelming majority (86%) agreed that implementation of 

testing-out should include both hands-on and written components. As previously stated, any 

written test could be administered in a similar manner to those in distance learning courses 

throughout the Army. Participants emphasized two main items in this regard: the importance of 

maintaining test security to prevent compromise, and verifying the identity of the NCO 

completing the test. Army installations typically have a testing center or test agency with trained 

personnel who administer and proctor testing for online tests. Participants generally agreed that 

any written or online testing-out for NCOES courses could be handled through these established 

procedures. Actual tests would be developed by the Proponent School, or in the case of common 

core material, by a single agency. The test materials would be provided to the testing centers at 

the installations for safeguard and administration. Test results would be forwarded to the agency 

responsible for tracking testing-out credits, as well as to the individual completing the test. 

 The item of greatest concern to participants was administering hands-on testing, as there 

is no standard established means of administration already in place. Participants had experienced 

a variety of hands-on testing situations: from a one-on-one event where an evaluator observes 

each action and records the “Go / No Go” results on a checklist, to a large group of personnel 

each completing an individual task simultaneously. While NCOES hands-on testing could vary 

its procedures depending on the tasks to be tested, participants were quite adamant about the 

following four factors. 

 Whenever possible hands-on testing was preferred to written testing. Even though handson testing is usually more complicated to develop, administer, and evaluate, they believed 

that it was more important for an NCO to demonstrate he can perform the task, rather 

than just knowing the answer to a question. 

 Test performance should be evaluated on an objective scale, to the maximum extent 

possible. While lengthy checklists similar to those contained in Mission Training Plan 

manuals can be very helpful, they are more of a prescriptive guidance aid than a tool to 

measure performance. These checklists often omit details for actually evaluating 

performance outcomes. Also, they frequently outline a set of different conditions for the 
27 

task and do not identify specific conditions for testing. Specific details and guidance 

should be provided so all evaluations are conducted identically. 

 Hands-on testing should be administered by an independent agency not under the 

influence of the units providing NCOs to be tested. This increases the likelihood the 

testing will be conducted with the least amount of bias. 

 Personnel selected to evaluate hands-on performance must be certified to ensure they 

understand proper execution of the tasks, as they assess task performance according to 

established School standards. NCOs must demonstrate they meet or exceed those 

standards to receive credit for a class. 

Participants routinely provided a common recommendation that satisfies these four requirements; 

that is, the NCOAs should send “mobile testing teams” to unit installations to conduct hands-on 

testing. 

 As mentioned previously, a necessary component for hands-on testing is to have all of the 

required equipment, both hardware and software, available. Participants suggested some 

alternative options for consideration. The most preferred procedure would be for each 

installation to provide the necessary equipment to support hands-on testing. They recognized 

some of the major drawbacks of this option: 

 Some installations will not have all of the necessary equipment. In those instances, the 

equipment could be brought from some other location, if possible and feasible. 

 Operational units are reluctant to release their equipment for “administrative” purposes. 

 Obtaining equipment from installations restricts when the testing-out could be conducted, 

depending on the availability of the equipment and unit schedules. 

Participants suggested that mobile testing teams could bring the necessary equipment 

items to administer hands-on testing at the various locations. This was identified as a remote 

possibility, perhaps feasible for some Schools and classes. However, they also recognized that in 

many instances the NCOA does not retain ownership of the equipment, but rather borrows it 

from a unit or equipment pool when it is needed for training and testing. The NCOA testers 

could borrow the needed items for remote-site testing, if possible. 

Another alternative, although potentially costly and not very effective, is to have a pool 

of equipment maintained at various test locations that would be available for use by testing 

personnel from different locations or by the installation testing agency. Given the wide array of 

potential equipment items, the limited quantity of some equipment, and the responsibility to 

store, account for, and maintain this potentially vast array of equipment, participants opined it 

was probably not an acceptable option. 

Discussion 

It is clear from participants that NCO attendance at NCOES courses is extremely 

important to the continuing professional development of the NCO Corps. This is not a new 

belief, but rather echoes the message that Army leaders recognized in the late 1960s (Elder, 

1999). The same concern expressed more than 40 years ago reverberated in interviews with 

participants. Some had experienced the post-Viet Nam War era of the Army of the 1970s and 
28 

emphasized that the Army should not regress by implementing procedures that allowed NCOs to 

skip resident NCOES courses. 

The overwhelming majority of participants clearly stated the Army should not implement 

any actions that award NCOES credit merely based on experience. While NCOs are gaining vast 

experience in challenging duty assignments in the OE, serving in a duty position does not 

provide the full complement of knowledge and skills required for future assignments. Some 

portions of NCOES are so important that resident attendance is essential. The overwhelming 

majority of participants also agreed the chain-of-command should not be allowed to award 

NCOES credit. Consistent with the findings of previous ARI research (Knapp, Heffner, and 

Campbell, 2003), they believed commanders would be prone to award the maximum credit to 

their NCOs. Without some form of testing or verification, NCOs could receive NCOES credit 

without possessing the necessary knowledge and skills. Participants were adamant that the 

NCOER should not be used to award NCOES credit. 

Even though the majority supported resident NCOES attendance, they emphasized two 

significant points. First, some NCOES content is outdated based on world events and 

operational requirements in today’s Army. Proponent Schools should revise NCOES course 

content to make all material relevant and challenging; Schools should keep courses current in 

order to be of maximum benefit to NCO professional development. One way to identify needed 

updates is through input or feedback from NCOES attendees as they share their most recent 

experiences from various assignments. Second, even when all course content is updated, NCOs 

could gain required knowledge for some classes through their assignment experiences. 

Therefore, allowing NCOs an opportunity to test-out of selected classes is a viable option. 

Participants certainly believed NCOs should be allowed to test-out of common core classes. In 

addition, Proponents should review their NCOES courses to identify other content that could be 

eligible for testing-out. 

While some form of testing-out should be allowed, participants agreed that a central 

agency would need to establish policies and procedures for administering testing-out. Guidance 

should be detailed enough to ensure a high level of consistency across TRADOC Schools and to 

assure that Army standards for skills and knowledge are not compromised. However, 

participants recognized that each Proponent School must be allowed to determine the specific 

classes eligible for testing-out; apart from the common core material, no single solution would be 

applicable to all Schools. 

If testing-out is implemented there are several items where participants expressed 

concern about a potential negative impact. At least 70% of participants agreed on 10 specific 

items in the educational area that could be negatively impacted, mainly due to the probable 

decrease in interpersonal relationships. NCOs with the most experience and knowledge are the 

ones most likely to test-out of classes. These NCOs would not attend as many classes and, 

therefore, would not be available to share with other NCOs, either NCOA cadre or other 

students. NCOA instructors acknowledged they regularly benefit from students who bring 

current experiences and lessons learned from a host of operational assignments. All officers and 

NCOs in the more senior duty positions provided the highest agreement that the educational area 

will potentially suffer the most negative impact. 
29 

Besides the educational area, the majority of participants agreed on 13 items in the 

logistical or administrative areas that could be negatively impacted. They anticipated testing-out 

would increase the workload requirements for the NCOAs. Tracking NCO attendance and class 

scheduling would likely be more complicated since NCOs who tested-out of selected classes 

might join resident courses at different points. Given the diversity of skills required among the 

different specialties, they were also concerned about establishing and enforcing equitable rules 

for testing-out. The SFC rank group had a lower level of agreement than the other rank groups 

on every item in the logistical or administrative areas. The majority of the SFC group only 

identified 2 of the 13 items as a potential negative impact. While still expressing a generally 

negative impact, the NCOA leaders and School staff were less in agreement than the other duty 

positions. 

 A final area for potential negative impact was sociological. While up to one third of the 

participants were undecided on some items in this area, a majority of participants identified 

seven items for consideration. Related to the decrease in interpersonal relationships noted in the 

educational area, participants recognized there would likely be less networking among NCOs 

since some NCOs would be spending less time at resident courses. Other items centered on the 

potential negative stigma or perception that might exist toward NCOs who do not test-out of 

eligible classes. Participants generally agreed that unit leaders and promotion boards could view 

this negatively which would adversely affect NCO careers. The combined impact could hurt the 

esprit-de-corps among NCOs. The senior NCO group and Proponency Office personnel 

expressed the highest level of agreement on the negative impact. 

Participants were very concerned that TRADOC must allocate appropriate resources to 

Schools in order for them to implement a testing-out program. TRADOC would need to review 

policies for determining manning requirements at NCOAs. Schools anticipate additional 

workload on the NCOA personnel, even though there will likely be a decreased number of days 

that NCOs attend resident courses. The current model of allocating resources based on instructor 

contact hours does not work under the expected testing-out conditions. 

Another point receiving overwhelming agreement from participants was that testing-out 

should include both written and hands-on components wherever possible. Many technical skills 

are better assessed through hands-on applications rather than answering questions. As confirmed 

in previous ARI research (Moriarty and Knapp, 2007), using multiple test methods (e.g., written 

multiple choice, situational judgment, hands-on) would also provide a more comprehensive and 

accurate assessment of competence as compared to merely a written test. Some key testing 

issues were identified by participants. 

Actions need to be taken to avoid test compromise. Participants acknowledge that distant 

learning courses are becoming more prevalent. Soldiers can receive course credit for completing 

classes and tests via the Internet. Technologies are available to provide test security. However, 

parallel forms of tests would be necessary to minimize the impact of NCOs sharing tests 

information. Additionally, testing would most likely need to be conducted in a proctored 

environment to verify NCO identity. 
30 

Just as currently being done for distance learning courses, written tests can be 

administered via the Internet. The Army must keep in mind, while Internet-delivery of tests is 

feasible, technology will remain fallible. As experienced in recent ARI research, be prepared for 

problems (e.g., data loss) due to imperfect Internet connections (Moriarty and Knapp, 2007). 

Hands-on testing, on the other hand, is not possible via the Internet; it requires that NCOs have 

access to appropriate hardware and software systems. Making all of the required systems 

available at various installations is a challenge. Also, while written tests can be computer-graded 

by a predetermined set of answers, skilled testers are required for hands-on testing. 

When Proponent Schools begin developing actual test materials to implement testing-out, 

they must consider the impacts identified by participants. They should consider the trade-offs 

between written and hands-on testing with a major challenge being to provide the required 

equipment wherever hands-on testing-out might occur. They should also keep in mind the need 

to standardize testing procedures. Schools will need to determine how they could enforce 

consistent proficiency evaluation between installations. Considerations should certainly include 

the impact on installations for providing equipment and certified testers. As participants 

suggested, the NCOA might send a “mobile testing team” from the School to the home stations 

to conduct testing. 

 Participants offered suggestions that should be considered if the Army decides to develop 

a testing-out option for NCOES classes. Either Department of the Army or TRADOC should 

establish a means to track credits for NCOES content. Establishing this tracking system at a 

single agency standardizes the process and reduces the requirements at lower levels. As an 

adjunct to testing-out, the Army should consider implementing prerequisite skill level testing and 

verification by an independent source prior to NCOES course attendance. This would ensure 

that all NCOs can begin classes at the same level, thereby minimizing the requirement for NCOA 

instructors to provide lower level skill training. In addition, a standard common core test could 

be developed and administered by the U.S. Sergeant Major Academy; successful completion of 

the test could be a prerequisite for resident NCOES attendance rather than a testing-out option. 

Today’s Army continues to recognize the value and importance of professional 

development of NCOs by explicitly linking NCO promotions to NCOES attendance (Department 

of the Army, 2008a). Participants were adamant that, even if NCOs are able to demonstrate 

knowledge or skill for some tasks, that resident attendance for portions of NCOES courses was 

still essential to ensure that the professional interpersonal relations and sharing of experiences 

needed to occur via resident attendance. The gains and successes in the NCO professional 

development program should not be compromised. Given the current OE and anticipated future 

requirements for NCOs, the proper training and education of NCOs should remain a top priority. 

Summary

 Participants expressed strong agreement on certain aspects of testing-out and awarding 

NCOES course credit to NCOs. 

 The majority (58%) agreed testing-out of selected NCOES classes, such as common core 

material, is a viable option. Each Proponent School must revise NCOES course content 
31 

to make all material relevant and challenging then determine which classes should be 

allowed for testing-out. 

 The majority (61%) agreed experience alone, a job assignment or duty position, should 

not count for NCOES credit. 

 An overwhelming majority (90%) agreed some NCOES content requires resident 

attendance to foster interpersonal relationships. 

 An overwhelming majority (86%) agreed testing-out must require the NCO to 

demonstrate knowledge and skill via both written and hands-on components. 

 An overwhelming majority (85%) agreed that all NCOs, active and reserve, should be 

handled the same concerning testing-out or receiving equivalent credit. 

While testing-out appears to be a viable option to award credit to NCOs for selected NCOES 

course content, there are potential impacts that need to be addressed prior to implementation. 

 If more experienced NCOs are allowed to test-out of selected NCOES content, the 

educational value of the courses could be negatively impacted. Cadre and resident attendees 

would not benefit from the experiences and lessons learned of these more experienced NCOs. 

The interpersonal relationships among NCOs could be reduced. 

 The logistical and administrative workload required of the NCOAs would likely increase, 

even with a potential reduction in the amount of time NCOs might attend resident courses. 

Depending on how testing-out is implemented, additional resources would need to be provided to 

the NCOAs. 

 While the majority agreed that testing-out could adversely impact NCO esprit-de-corps 

(61%) and cause potential negative stigmas (77%), perspectives differed by rank group and duty 

position on specific points. These and other sociological impacts related to perceptions and 

NCO networking need to be considered prior to implementing testing-out. 

Participants offered suggestions for administering testing-out. Written test security via 

Internet-based testing and employing test proctors was an accepted solution. They were 

concerned about having the necessary equipment and skilled testers available at home stations to 

conduct hands-on testing. One suggestion was to have NCOAs send mobile testing teams to 

installations. 

The results from this research clearly show strong support for awarding NCOES credit to 

NCOs who demonstrate acceptable knowledge and skills. Participants provided numerous 

potential items that could be negatively impacted if testing-out is implemented. They also 

offered suggestions for administering testing-out that could mitigate some of these impacts and 

increase the likelihood of a successful program. This allows decision-makers to consider these 

items and establish testing-out procedures to mitigate potential pitfalls. 
32 
33 

References

Campbell, R. C., Knapp, D. J. & Heffner, T. S. (2005). Planning for the future: Progress toward 

an NCO competency assessment program. (ARI Special Report 61). Alexandria, VA: 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. 

ADA444464) 

Campbell, R. C., Knapp, D. J. & Heffner, T. S. (2002). Selection for leadership: Transforming 

NCO promotion. (ARI Special Report 52). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research 

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. ADA407790) 

Department of the Army. (2007). 2007 US Army Posture Statement. Washington, DC: Author. 

Retrieved September 15, 2008 from, http://www.army.mil/aps/07/addendum/h.html

Department of the Army. (2008a). 2008 US Army Posture Statement. Washington, DC: Author. 

Retrieved September 15, 2008 from, 

http://www.army.mil/aps/08/addenda/addenda_e.html

Department of the Army. (1981). Personnel – General: Enlisted Personnel Management System 

(EPMS) (AR 600-200). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army. (2008b). Personnel – General: Enlisted promotions and reductions 

(AR 600-8-19). Washington, DC: Author. 

Department of the Army. (2005). Promotion eligibility and NCOES. (MILPER message 

number: 05-261). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from, 

http://www.armystudyguide.com/cgibin/moxiebin/bm_tools.cgi?print=2818;s=25_10;site=1

Department of the Army. (2003). Promotion procedural guidance for suspension of conditional 

enlisted promotions – sergeant through sergeant first class. (MILPER message number: 

04-037). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from, 

http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/MILPER_Messages_Archive/promotion_milpe

r_messages/promotion-procedural-guid.shtml

Elder, D. K. (1999). Educating Noncommissioned Officers: A chronological study on the 

development of educational programs for U.S. Army Noncommissioned Officers. Fort 

Riley, KS. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from, http://www.ncohistory.com

Knapp, D. J., Heffner, T. S. & Campbell, R. C. (2003). Recommendations for an Army NCO 

semi-centralized promotion system for the 21st century. (ARI Research Report 1807). 

Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. 

(DTIC No. ADA415686) 
34 

Moriarty, K. O. & Knapp, D. J. (2007). Army enlisted personnel competency assessment 

program: Phase III pilot tests. (ARI Technical Report 1198). Alexandria, VA: U.S. 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences. (DTIC No. 

ADA465808) 
35 

Acronyms 

1SG First Sergeant 

ANCOC Advanced Noncommissioned Officer Course 

APFT Army Physical Fitness Test 

ARFORGEN Army Force Generation 

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

BNCOC Basic Noncommissioned Officer Course 

CDR Commander 

CPT Captain 

CSM Command Sergeant Major 

KSA Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities 

LTC Lieutenant Colonel 

MILPER Military Personnel Center 

MOS Military Occupational Specialty 

MTT Mobile Training Team 

NCO Noncommissioned Officer 

NCOA NCO Academy 

NCOER NCO Evaluation Report 

NCOES Noncommissioned Officer Education System 

OE Operating Environment 

OEF Operation Enduring Freedom 

OIF Operation Iraqi Freedom 

POC Point of Contact 

POI Program of Instruction 

RC Reserve Component 

SFC Sergeant First Class 

SGI Small-Group Instructor 

SSG Staff Sergeant 

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command 

TTP Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures 
36 
A-1 

APPENDIX A 

Survey Form 
ARI PT #61-45 

Privacy Act Statement 

This project is gathering input from knowledgeable individuals to assess the possibility of awarding an NCO c

professional education courses based on testing and/or life experiences. This project is part of the official research mResearch Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) (10 U.S. Code 2358). Although individual input is b

forms, your individual responses for this project will not be reported to anyone in your chain of command, will not be 

file, and will in no way impact your Army career. All of the input gathered for this project will be combined and presto personnel at Headquarters Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC). Your individual input is anonymous and 

Only members of the research team will have access to individual input forms. While your participation is voluntarymeaningful input requires the participation of Soldiers like you. Despite the importance of your participation, you wieffect for not providing any information requested. Thank you for your participation and input. 

Purpose of Survey and Instructions

Many NCOs have not been able to attend their appropriate NCOES course at the right time in their career, due 

OPTEMPO. NCOs are also taking on increased responsibilities due to the nature of missions in the Contemporary OBased on these factors, TRADOC has asked ARI to examine the possibilities and impacts of allowing NCOs to receivtheir NCOES classes based on testing or life experiences. Your thoughts and opinions will help TRADOC develop inimproving the NCOES process. 

Throughout this survey, “testing-out” refers to some form of formal test (e.g., written or hands-on) that must b

level of performance. “Equivalent credit” means receiving NCOES academic recognition based on real life accompli(e.g., duty assignment or military performance). The term CLEP is used to imply both “testing-out” and “equivalent otherwise. [Note: In the civilian realm, CLEP traditionally stands for College Level Examination Program and CrediProgram.] 

Since BNCOC courses vary by MOS and some are under revision, as you complete this survey please conside

that could be used for any MOS. 

A-2 
ARI PT #61-45 

Biographical Information 

1. Rank (circle one; if retired military, circle rank and write RET)  COL LTC MAJ CPT CSM SGM MSG 1SG SFC SSG Civilian Other ________2. MOS/ Branch: __________________ 3. Time in Service (military and civilian): ____ years ____ mo4. Current Position: ____________________ 5. Time in Current Position: ____ years _____ months 6. Training Assignments (e.g., MCCC instructor, DS, BNCOC instructor) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 7. Personnel Management Experience (e.g., Co Cdr, 1SG, S-1) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 8. Combat Experience: 

a. Total # months in OIF/OEF _______________ months b. Duty position(s) in OIF/OEF ________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ c. Other (e.g., Kosovo, Bosnia) ________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ 

A-3 
ARI PT #61-45 

I. Please rate each of the following items – check the block that best describes your opinion. Blank lines are provid

Should the Army implement CLEP? Strongly Agree Agree Unde

ed 

1. An NCO should be able to “test-out” of certain subjects taught in BNCOC. 2. An NCO should have the opportunity to “test-out” of BNCOC. 3. An NCO should receive “equivalent credit” for certain BNCOC classes based on experience. 4. An NCO should receive “equivalent credit” for all of BNCOC based on experience. 5. The NCOER should allow raters to award NCOES credit to an NCO. 6. Company chain of command should be allowed to award NCOES credit. 7. Battalion chain of command should be allowed to award NCOES credit. 8. Brigade chain of command should be allowed to award NCOES credit. 9. Combat experience should count toward NCOES credit. 10. All BNCOC classes should be mandatory for all NCOs. 11. BNCOC should focus on leadership skills needed for higher grade level. 12. BNCOC should focus on technical skills needed for higher grade level. 13. There should be Skill Level 1 & 2 testing prior to BNCOC attendance. 14. If “testing-out” is implemented, it should be done at home-station. 15. If “testing-out” is implemented, it should be a written test. 16. If “testing-out” is implemented, it should be a hands-on test. 17. If “testing-out” is implemented, it should include both written and hands-on testing. 18. RC NCOs should be handled the same as active duty NCOs. 19. Some classes are so crucial that no CLEP should be allowed. 20. Each School should determine what can be CLEPed and how. 21. 22. Comments (please specify the item # from above): ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-4 
ARI PT #61-45 

II. Rate how much Logistical / Administrative area could be impacted by CLEP – check one block for each item 

of resources, workload, difficulties, etc.). Blank lines are provided for write-ins. 

Very 

Positive

Impact 

Impact 

Positive Negative 

Logistical / Administrative areas that could be impacted 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 

1. Tracking individual NCO class attendance 2. Utilizing student time when not in class 3. Conducting in/out processing 4. Administering tests (e.g., location/control/security/time/resources) 5. Administering equivalent credit (e.g. rules/who approves/tracking) 6. Creating CLEP tests and grading scales 7. Determining what classes can be tested-out 8. Determining what classes can be skipped based on equivalent credit 9. Awarding credit for common core / common skills classes 10. Awarding credit for branch and/or MOS-specific classes 11. Determining class standing when NCO attends only part of classes 12. Scheduling courses / classes / exercises 13. Determining NCO Academy staffing requirements 14. Tracking individual NCO classes that are CLEPed 15. Justifying or defending CLEP decisions 16. Maintaining accurate personnel records 17. 18. Comments (please specify the item # from above): ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-5 
ARI PT #61-45 

III. Rate how much Educational areas could be impacted by CLEP – check one block for each item (impact cou

workload, difficulties, etc.). Blank lines are provided for write-ins. 

Very 

Positive

Impact 

Impact 

Positive Negative 

Educational areas that could be impacted 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 

1. Verifying that NCO actually possesses required skill to skip class / course 2. Ensuring that civilian education does not preclude need to acquire military skill 3. Enhancing professional development through peer interaction 4. Ensuring that all NCOs attend crucial classes 5. Sharing of experience and ideas among resident students 6. Sharing of lessons learned among resident students 7. Sharing of experience and ideas between instructors and students 8. Collaborating among students (e.g., study groups) 9. Enhancing the learning process through peer coaching 10. Benefiting from learning in a social setting 11. Updating NCOs on latest doctrine / TTP 12. Updating NCOs on new equipment and organization changes 13. Obtaining student ideas for improving courses / classes 14. 15. Comments (please specify the item # from above): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-6 
ARI PT #61-45 

IV. Rate how much Sociological areas could be impacted by CLEP – check one block for each item (impact coul

workload, difficulties, etc.). 

Very 

Positive

Impact 

Impact 

Positive Negative 

Sociological areas that could be impacted. 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 

1. Potential stigma of an NCO who is unable to CLEP a class or course 2. NCO professional development ribbon (modify to indicate CLEP?) 3. Rating chain perceptions of NCO technical and tactical competence 4. Selection of NCOs for joint / special assignments 5. Promotion board perceptions of NCO technical and tactical competence 6. Esprit de corps among NCOs 7. Unit practices regarding utilization and retention of NCOs 8. Unit practices regarding troop or staff duty assignments 9. Networking among NCOs 10. Unit cohesion 11. NCO likelihood of staying in Army 12. 13. 14. 15. Comments (please specify the item # from above): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-7 
ARI PT #61-45 

V. Indicate your agreement with each of the following items – check the block that best describes your opinion. Bwrite-ins. 

Factors to be considered for awarding “equivalent credit” Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Dis

1. Combat tours 2. Leadership position in combat 3. Leadership position in troop unit 4. Leadership position in TDA assignment 5. Leadership position in staff assignment 6. Civilian education 7. Awards / decorations 8. NCOER evaluation 9. Recommendation by company-level chain of command 10. Recommendation by battalion-level chain of command 11. Recommendation by brigade-level chain of command 12. Military school attendance (non-NCOES) 13. Duty as a Drill Sergeant / Instructor 14. Short tour / duty with Mobile Training Team (MTT) 15. 16. 17. 18. Comments (please specify the item # from above): ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-8 
ARI PT #61-45 

VI. Indicate your agreement with each of the following items – check the block that best describes your opinion. for write-ins. 

If an NCO CLEPs a class, he/she should spend that time: Strongly Agree Agree Undecided Dis

1. Completing on-line classes 2. Off / free to do as preferred (as a reward) 3. Coaching / assisting peers 4. Participating in professional development sessions with others who CLEPed out 5. Completing additional work/research (class rank consideration) 6. Assisting instructors in class presentation 7. Observing other training events on post (BCT range ops, simulations) 8. Participating in activities determined by each School 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Comments (please specify the item # from above): __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

A-9 
A-10 
B-1 

APPENDIX B 

Memorandum for Record 
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES 

INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING RESEARCH UNIT 

POST OFFICE BOX 52086 

FORT BENNING, GA 31995-2086 

A-3 

DAPE-ARI-IJ 10 December 2007 

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 

SUBJECT: Execution of FY 2008 Investigation of the Importance of Individual Experience and 

Knowledge as Part of an Overall Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) Development Strategy 

1. The purpose of this memorandum for record (MFR) is to specify the roles and functions of 

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

Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Leader Development and Education 

Directorate (LDD), in the execution of an approved research investigation of the importance of 

individual experience and knowledge as part of an overall NCO development strategy. 

2. TRADOC, LDD will sponsor the analysis and will have overall oversight in its execution. 

ARI, ITRU will conduct the investigation and provide a report of its findings. 

3. The reference for this investigation is a TRADOC (ODCSOPS&T) 2007 Request for an ARI 

Research-Based Personnel and Training Study or Analysis, entitled Evaluating the best practices 

to account for individual experience and knowledge as part of an overall NCO Development 

Strategy. 

4. TRADOC requested ARI’s assistance in investigating the viability of various methods to test 

out of, or provide constructive credit for, selected institutional course content, based on an 

individual’s knowledge and experience. 

5. Understandings, agreements, support, and resources. 

a. TRADOC, LDD will: 

(1) Approve the Research Plan. 

(2) As outlined in the Research Plan, notify selected TRADOC Schools that ARI 

will conduct an investigation and request their assistance in support of the subject 

research above. 

(3) Provide access to course managers, program of instruction (POI) materials, 

and other instructional personnel as specified in the Research Plan. 

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF 
B-3 

DAPE-ARI-IJ 

SUBJECT: Execution of FY 2008 Investigation of the Importance of Individual Experience and 

Knowledge as Part of an Overall NCO Development Strategy 

(4) Provide comments on government data collection instruments, research 

products, and interim findings as required or requested. 

(5) Ensure ARI is informed of, or included in, relevant TRADOC meetings and 

briefings on the subject topic and related TRADOC initiatives (e.g., test security 

in Army Career Tracker). 

(6) Appoint Mr. Jonathan F. Rhodes, TRADOC, LDD, (DSN 680-5744 or 

commercial 757-788-5744) as principal point of contact for this investigation. 

b. ARI, will: 

(1) Develop and execute a Research Plan. 

(2) Conduct all data collection and analysis activities in accordance with the 

Research Plan. 

(3) Provide periodic updates of research progress to TRADOC, LDD. 

(4) Document research results in briefings and provide a final written report. The 

final ARI report will identify the advantages and disadvantages, both individual 

and institutional, of using knowledge and experience criteria as part of an overall 

NCO development strategy and make recommendations for the way ahead. 

(5) Appoint Dr. Kenneth L. Evans, ARI, ITRU (DSN 835-2565 or commercial 

706-545-2565) as principal ARI point of contact for this investigation and Dr. 

Kathy Quinkert, ARI, TRADOC (DSN 680-5623 or commercial 757-788-5623) 

as alternate. 

6. The agreements in this MFR become effective on the date it is signed by the parties below 

and will terminate on 31 December 08, unless modified by mutual agreement. 

 signed signed 

CHARLES V. ROGERSON SCOTT E. GRAHAM, Ph.D. 

COL, FA Chief, ARI Institutional Training 

Director, Leader Development Research Unit 

and Education (LDD) 

 11 December 2007 12 December 2007 

Date Date
B-4 
B-4