U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

62–592 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–178] 

A QUESTION OF QUALITY AND VALUE: 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OVERSIGHT 

OF TUITION ASSISTANCE USED FOR 

DISTANCE LEARNING AND FOR-PROFIT 

COLLEGES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas, Chairman 

JOHN SPRATT, South Carolina 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

JIM COOPER, Tennessee 

JOE SESTAK, Pennsylvania 

GLENN NYE, Virginia 

CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

ROB WITTMAN, Virginia 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

JOHN OPPENHEIM, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

FAMID SINHA, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2009 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, September 22, 2010, A Question of Quality and Value: Department of Defense Oversight of Tuition Assistance Used for Distance Learning and For-Profit Colleges ................................................................................. 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, September 22, 2010 ............................................................................ 29 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

A QUESTION OF QUALITY AND VALUE: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

OVERSIGHT OF TUITION ASSISTANCE USED FOR DISTANCE LEARNING AND FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

on Oversight and Investigations ......................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES 

Gordon, Robert L., III, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) ......................................................................................... 3 

Larsen, Timothy R., Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department, U.S. Marine Corps ........................... 9 

Lutterloh, Scott, Director, Total Force Training and Education Division, U.S. 

Navy ...................................................................................................................... 5 

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

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

Stamilio, Anthony J., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Civilian Personnel and 

Quality of Life, U.S. Army ................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Gordon, Robert L., III ....................................................................................... 33 

Larsen, Timothy R. ........................................................................................... 66 

Lutterloh, Scott ................................................................................................. 52 

Sitterly, Daniel R. ............................................................................................. 57 

Stamilio, Anthony J. ......................................................................................... 42 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Jones ........................................................................................................... 79 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 83 

(1) 

A QUESTION OF QUALITY AND VALUE: DEPARTMENT OF 

DEFENSE OVERSIGHT OF TUITION ASSISTANCE USED 

FOR DISTANCE LEARNING AND FOR-PROFIT COLLEGES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 22, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 8:04 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VIC SNYDER, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM ARKANSAS, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Dr. SNYDER. Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations hearing on the Defense Department’s 

oversight of the quality of college education programs available to 

active duty servicemembers. 

I understand there are many representatives in attendance here 

today from the National Association of Institutions for Military 

Education Services and others interested in college education for 

military members. 

Since World War II, the Department of Defense has offered 

servicemembers opportunities to pursue a college education during 

off-duty time. Education is important to servicemembers and is 

often identified as a key factor in recruiting and retention. Also, in 

today’s complex national security environment, a more highly educated force is important for the military and its ability to carry out 

missions. Congress is supportive of these kinds of programs. 

Traditionally, the Defense Department has provided opportunities by, one, allowing qualified colleges and universities to establish 

programs on military installations and, two, providing tuition assistance funding to help members afford the cost. Participation in 

the program has remained high for many years. In fiscal year 2010, 

the Services programmed about $580 million for tuition assistance, 

and even with high operations tempo and deployments, more than 

380,000 servicemembers will use tuition assistance. 

Over the past decade, however, there has been a dramatic shift 

in the way in which college programs are provided to military personnel. Colleges are still an important presence on military installations, but distance learning has recently become the predominant 

method of taking courses. Approximately 70 percent of tuition assistance goes to distance learning. Distance learning provides military personnel flexibility and portability. With a laptop and access 
2 

to the Internet, courses can be taken virtually anywhere and anytime. 

There has also been a proliferation of for-profit colleges which 

cater to military students. DOD estimates that more than 40 percent of its tuition assistance now goes to these for-profit schools. 

While most for-profit colleges adhere to the same standards as nonprofit and public schools, a variety of government and public interest organizations have raised concerns that some provide a lower 

quality of education, use overly aggressive marketing and recruiting practices, and have poor student outcomes. 

DOD and the Services have had policies and processes in place 

to manage and oversee voluntary education programs for many 

years. However, the structure that exists is largely oriented towards college programs located on military installations. Since 

2005, DOD and the Services have recognized the need to adapt 

their management and oversight structure to include distance 

learning programs, but progress has been slow. 

The purpose of this hearing is to examine how the military’s voluntary college education programs have evolved over time and 

learn what steps DOD and the Services are planning to oversee the 

emergence of distance learning and for-profit schools, and when. 

Ultimately, the subcommittee wants to ensure that military 

servicemembers are receiving a quality education for the resources 

invested in these programs and to determine if Congress can help. 

Mr. Wittman commutes in from Virginia, and we understand he 

has hit some traffic this morning and will be delayed. 

Mr. Jones, I will be glad to recognize you for any opening comments you may want to make. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, I will be very brief. I want to hear 

from each of the witnesses. 

I want to thank you. I have three bases in my district. This is 

becoming an issue and I want to thank you and the staff. We need 

to look seriously at the quality of education for our men and 

women in uniform, and that is why I am here. And I look forward 

to hearing our witnesses, and I will have questions. 

Mr. Chairman, since Mr. Wittman cannot be here, I ask unanimous consent that his statement be put in the record. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes, without objection. 

We will also give him an opportunity to make a statement when 

he arrives. 

Our witnesses today are Mr. Robert L. Gordon, III, Deputy 

Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family 

Policy; Mr. Anthony Stamilio—is that the correct pronunciation, 

‘‘Stamilio’’? 

Secretary STAMILIO. ‘‘Stamilio.’’ 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army 

for Civilian Personnel and Quality of Life; Mr. Scott Lutterloh, Director, Total Force Training and Education Division, U.S. Navy; 

Mr. Dan Sitterly, Director of Force Development, Deputy Chief of 

Staff for Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force; and Mr. Timothy Larsen, Director, Personal and Family Readiness Division, 

U.S. Marine Corps. 

We appreciate you all being here. Your written statements will 

be made part of the record. 
3 

Since we don’t have votes until six o’clock tonight, we are not anticipating any interruptions. But we will turn the clock on, and so 

the light will go on at the end of five minutes. Don’t feel like it is 

a hard stop if you have other things you need to tell us, but just 

to give you an idea where you are at. 

So we will begin with Mr. Gordon and go right down the line. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. GORDON III, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MILITARY COMMUNITY AND FAMILY POLICY, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PERSONNEL AND READINESS) 

Secretary GORDON. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Snyder, Representative Jones, distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, the Secretary of Defense and the men and 

women of the Armed Forces, as well as their families and I thank 

you for your support. My role today is to focus on what the Department is doing to provide lifelong learning opportunities through our 

off-duty volunteer education programs. 

I am humbled to know that we are continuing the vision of our 

first President, George Washington, who began the first voluntary 

education program in 1778 when he directed his chaplain to provide reading, writing, and arithmetic instruction to his soldiers 

while encamped at Valley Forge. He recognized the importance of 

literacy and instilling the quest of lifelong learning in our nation’s 

citizens, which is as important today as it was over two hundred 

years ago. 

Each year, a third of our servicemembers enroll in post-secondary education courses, leading to associate’s, bachelor’s, and advanced degrees. This past year alone, there were more than 

834,000 course enrollments, and over 46,000 servicemembers 

earned degrees and certifications. For the past two years, we have 

held graduation ceremonies in Iraq and Afghanistan for 432 

servicemembers. 

Servicemembers enrolled in voluntary education programs are 

non-traditional students, as we know. They attend school during 

off-duty and part-time, taking one or two classes per term. When 

the military mission, deployments, transfers, or family obligations 

impinge upon the continuation of education, this can result in an 

interruption of studies and breaks of months or even years between 

taking courses and completing degrees. 

The military is keeping pace with the civilian Millennial Generation’s expectations to access information through technology. To facilitate education in today’s high-operations-tempo environment, 

colleges and universities deliver classroom instruction via the 

Internet and on military installations around the world. There are 

no geographical confines. Courses are offered aboard ships, submarines, and at deployed locations. 

All for-profit, non-profit, and public post-secondary institutions 

participating in military tuition assistance programs must be accredited by an accrediting body recognized by the U.S. Department 

of Education. Also, colleges and universities on our installations adhere to additional criteria set by commanders. 

To support these efforts, the Department contracted with the 

American Council on Education to develop a process called the 
4 

Military Installation Voluntary Education Review, or MIVER, 

which provides a third-party, independent review of our on-installation programs. 

DOD is proactively striving to ensure quality of our education 

programs by implementing a new policy currently on the Federal 

Register for public review. The policy states that every institution 

participating in the tuition assistance program will have a memorandum of understanding with the Department, which includes an 

agreement to participate in the MIVER process. 

The Department provides incentives for recruitment, readiness, 

and retention of the total force. One of the reasons recruits join the 

military, as we know, is because of educational opportunities, and 

they remain because of them. 

For example, retired Air Force Senior Master Sergeant Eric 

Combs entered the military with a GED, earned his Community 

College of the Air Force associate’s degree and his bachelor’s degree 

with tuition assistance, then went on to participate in the Troops 

to Teachers Program. In 2005, he was selected as the Ohio teacher 

of the year and is now a principal in the public school system. The 

skills he earned while serving in the Air Force had no boundaries. 

Our nation benefited in the long run and continues to benefit. 

Thank you again for your support of military families and our 

military servicemembers. None of this could have been possible 

without congressional support and funding designated for off-duty 

and voluntary education. 

I will be happy to respond to any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Gordon can be found in the 

Appendix on page 33.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Stamilio. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY J. STAMILIO, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL AND QUALITY OF 

LIFE, U.S. ARMY 

Secretary STAMILIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Jones, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Army’s voluntary education programs and 

Services which afford lifelong learning opportunities for soldiers 

and their families. The knowledge, skills, and abilities acquired 

from such opportunities help to sustain the all-volunteer force and 

assist the Army in retaining its position as the world’s premier 

land force. As a result of their educational experiences, soldiers become better critical thinkers and decisionmakers, which is absolutely vital to success in the world today, both on and off the battlefield. 

Army VOLED [voluntary education] programs cover the education spectrum, beginning with basic skills, professional certificates, associate’s, bachelor’s, and master’s degrees, meeting soldiers 

where they are, allowing soldiers to learn as they choose, thereby 

educating them for the Army’s present and future needs. The Army 

has consistently maintained voluntary education as a priority by 

fully funding the tuition assistance program and executing the program in accordance with the Department’s uniform tuition assistance policy. 
5 

The Army commitment to voluntary education extends to the 

theater of operation. We have education centers, counseling staff, 

and classroom instruction that is ongoing in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

Despite the high operational tempo of the past nine years, soldier 

participation in education programs, especially college programs, 

continues to grow. During the past two years alone, Army college 

course enrollments have increased nine percent. To date this fiscal 

year, nearly 250,000 Army active, reserve, and National Guard soldiers have enrolled in over 500,000 courses at 2,500 institutions 

across the nation. 

Even more telling is the growth in soldier participation in distance learning and online courses. In fiscal year 2005, our enrollments were about evenly split between the traditional classroom 

and online courses. This year to date, more than 76 percent of all 

of our enrollments have been in online courses. 

Clearly, access to quality courses online enables our warfighters 

to continue their progress toward degree completion, regardless of 

deployment, duty location, work schedule, or other commitments. 

In fiscal year 2009, over 4,000 soldiers received post-secondary education degrees. That number has climbed to 4,500 so far this year 

in 2010. 

We have in place a robust oversight program, beginning with the 

over 200 members of our education center staffs, that are required 

to provide information and counseling to soldiers even before they 

apply for tuition assistance. 

The GoArmyEd Portal is the Army’s virtual gateway for soldiers 

to request educational services and obtain tuition assistance anytime or anywhere. Our education counselors use the portal to track 

soldier progress and institution performance, respond to issues and 

complaints, and provide virtual educational counseling 24/7 around 

the globe. 

Additionally, our partnership with Servicemembers Opportunity 

Colleges, SOC, is critical to monitor the performance of our academic partner institutions, including for-profit schools, to ensure 

they comply with established SOC guidelines and principles. 

In conclusion, we are confident that our VOLED program provides every soldier the opportunity to first identify and then meet 

their professional and personal educational goals. The Army provides a balanced approach that enables success on the job and in 

the college arena, helping to ensure soldiers are fully prepared to 

meet the challenges in the global environment. 

We thank you for your continued support of Army Continuing 

Education Programs, and I would be happy to respond to your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Secretary Stamilio can be found in 

the Appendix on page 42.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Lutterloh. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT LUTTERLOH, DIRECTOR, TOTAL 

FORCE TRAINING AND EDUCATION DIVISION, U.S. NAVY 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you, Chairman Snyder, Representative 

Jones, and distinguished members of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee. I am honored to have the opportunity to ap-
6 

pear before you today to discuss the Navy’s approach to voluntary 

education. Our success is only possible through your continued support, and we are deeply appreciative. 

We are very proud of the program, which is compromised of two 

key components: tuition assistance and the Navy College Program 

for Afloat College Education, or NCPACE. 

Tuition assistance offers funding to sailors to attend courses from accredited institutions, providing up to $250 per credit hour. 

NCPACE is a Navy-specific program providing similar opportunities to our sailors at sea. Nearly 60,000 sailors and 4,000 officers 

participated in these two programs in fiscal year 2009. 

Program benefits are managed consistent with the individual 

sailor’s need to balance the pursuit of education with other professional development priorities, such as mastery of rating skills, obtainment of warfare qualifications, and progressive refinement of 

leadership skills. 

We have very effectively leveraged our investment in VOLED 

through memberships and associations, such as the 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges and the American Council 

on Education. Through these programs, sailors are best positioned 

to successfully overcome challenges to degree completion, gain complete transferability of college credit, and maximize the educational 

value of their military training and operational experience, while 

doing so within the funding limits of our programs. 

Recognizing the advancing technological and communication 

skills of our force and leveraging our solid foundation and advancements in distance learning, we established the Navy College Program Distance Learning Partners. These partners develop ratingrelevant associate and bachelor degree programs for the 72 ratings 

and numerous career fields used by our enlisted sailors worldwide. 

Partners agree to keep residency requirements at a minimum and 

transfer credits from other regionally accredited institutions, while 

striving to remain within the DOD-established cap of $250 per 

credit hour. 

In 2007, we established Enlisted Learning and Development Career Roadmaps, integrating all learning, whether obtained from 

training, education, or experience, across a career. These roadmaps 

lay the foundation for sailor success in each rating. 

In the case of the Legalman rating, we have advanced the integration of training and education to the point where an associate 

degree in paralegal studies from an American Bar Association-accredited institution is now granted at completion of the accession 

development process and is part of the job requirement. Educational opportunities like this offer potential to offset paths traditionally performed by officers. 

We strive to ensure that every sailor who elects to enroll in offduty education courses has a positive learning experience and satisfactorily completes those courses, regardless of duty assignment. 

We are proud that we have provided sailors a means to complete 

their degrees, regardless of location, and to offer options that maximize their credits through training and job experience. 

We are confident that our voluntary education program provides 

every sailor the opportunity to take college courses in an environment where success is the norm. We provide a balanced approach 
7 

that ensures success as a professional mariner and achievement of 

all their college goals. 

On behalf of the chief of naval operations, Admiral Roughead, 

and our entire Navy, I thank you for your continuing support for 

the professional development of this fine force. 

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

Appendix on page 52.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Sitterly. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL R. SITTERLY, DIRECTOR OF FORCE 

DEVELOPMENT, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, MANPOWER AND 

PERSONNEL, U.S. AIR FORCE 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Jones, 

Dr. Fenner, for the opportunity to discuss college education opportunities and the quality of education available to airmen. 

We face extraordinary challenges today, from growing our economy to transforming our energy supply, improving our children’s 

education, safeguarding our nation, and more. We pride ourselves 

in promoting a culture of lifelong learning not only as a way to attract and develop diverse top talent but as a way to enhance our 

airmen’s military careers. In fact, we can map the voluntary education courses our airmen take directly to our Air Force institutional competencies. Simply put, voluntary education has a direct 

mission impact. Equally important, we return our airmen to society 

and to the nation better prepared to face the extraordinary challenges I mentioned. 

Every Air Force base has an education and training office where 

airmen are counseled on military and civilian education. Each office also provides a college-level examination program that enables 

airmen to take advantage of lifelong learning and possibly shorten 

degree completion time. In addition, the Air Force Voluntary Education Center is an online resource tool. 

Air Force policy regarding military tuition assistance receives its 

authority from Title 10 and policy guidance from DOD instructions. 

In fiscal year 2003, the Air Force implemented the DOD military 

tuition assistance uniform caps and ceilings, resulting in a 44 percent increase in enrollments. Even with decreased Air Force endstrength and increased operations tempo, the number of enrollments has remained relatively stable. 

One reason, as Dr. Snyder pointed out, is the high participation 

rate in the ever-growing distance-learning delivery methods of education. This allows airmen with demanding work schedules and frequent moves and deployments to learn and to progress toward degree completion more easily. 

When it comes to quality, the key decision point for authorization 

of tuition assistance is the accreditation of the school. If the school 

is accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the Department of Education, tuition assistance can be authorized when other 

eligibility is met. 

Air Force policy provides specific guidance regarding access to 

Air Force bases by school representatives. Specifically, guidelines 

impacting the voluntary education community are in an Air Force 

instruction on commercial solicitation on DOD installations. The 
8 

Air Force has a policy of neutrality regarding schools. We neither 

endorse nor discount any accredited school. The diversity of 

thought that comes from learning across a wide range of schools is 

valued. Ultimately, the airman, with proper counseling and degree 

planning, makes the final decision of the specific school and program to pursue. 

The Community College of the Air Force (CCAF), my alma 

mater, is the jewel of the Air Force education opportunities for enlisted personnel. It is a regionally accredited school, and 75 percent 

of the degree can be earned through Air Force training. Twentyfive percent needs to be earned from an accredited civilian college. 

Each year, more than 1.6 million credit-hours are awarded through 

the Community College of the Air Force, and more than 335,000 

airmen have graduated from the Community College of the Air 

Force. Many airmen are able to transfer CCAF [Community College of the Air Force] credits toward civilian college bachelor degrees. 

Quality education is a valued part of our Air Force culture. You 

heard from Mr. Gordon about Sergeant Combs, the Ohio teacher of 

the year. We have hundreds of similar success stories. NASA astrophysicist Dr. Richard Barry and Arthur Tyler, former president of 

Sacramento City College and now the COO of the Houston, Texas 

Community College system, are both former airmen and CCAF 

graduates. 

Any small successes I might have enjoyed in my 34 years in the 

Air Force is because of tuition assistance and a very motivated, 

dedicated, and perhaps persistent education services officer, Mr. 

Neil Parasot from Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana. He 

mentored me through eight colleges and universities, some nonprofit, some for-profit, some public, including the Community College of the Air Force, and 15 hours of distance learning on the way 

to a master’s degree in education, all using military tuition assistance. 

Looking back, I suppose the quality of the eight schools did differ, depending on how one measures quality. But the real measure 

of my learning was probably more closely aligned to my effort, my 

concentration, my focus, my commitment, and the goals at the time 

that I took each of these classes. 

Our airmen are committed to learning. The culture of education 

and the passion for learning comes from the many Neil Parasots; 

Anne Smith, who is here with me today; the Jeff Allens ; the Shelly 

Owczarskis; and our Air Force education offices around the world 

today. 

Airmen do have more education options than ever before. The Air 

Force believes that personal and professional growth through collegiate programs is essential and beneficial to the Air Force mission 

and the nation. I have an obligation to educate our airmen about 

all of the options that they can make, so that they can make a wise 

and informed choice of schools and degree programs and to assure 

that every airman receives the best education possible for the time, 

effort, and resources that they and our nation invest. 

As the education landscape continues to change, we must continue to partner with you, with the Department of Education, and 
9 

with America’s educational institutions and others to make sure 

that we have this right. 

Thank you for the opportunity to work together. I look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sitterly can be found in the Appendix on page 57.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Larsen. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R. LARSEN, DIRECTOR, PERSONAL 

AND FAMILY READINESS DIVISION, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT, U.S. MARINE CORPS 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Snyder, Representative Jones, thank you for the interest in the military tuition assistance program and the quality of 

education opportunities for marines. It is my privilege today to represent the Commandant of the Marine Corps to discuss this important issue. 

Education opportunities are extremely valuable in growing and 

maintaining the high quality of the Marine Corps. Tuition assistance has a profound impact through the lifecycle of a marine: from 

recruiting, where it is an incentive to assist in the enlistment process; through career progression, to things like discriminators for 

promotion of enlisted marines, and to the reintegration to civilian 

life, to assist in preparing marines for life beyond the Marine 

Corps. 

Our goal is for every marine to have a quality education experience, and there are three elements to that. The first is a partnership between the student and the institution. The student must be 

committed to the pursuit of education. The second is relying on the 

Department of Education to ensure institutions meet accreditation 

standards. And third, the Marine Corps is focused on student success, particularly new students. 

Before tuition assistance is authorized, a mandatory College 101 

brief and an initial counseling session with a qualified counselor 

occur. Eligibility for first time tuition assistance is based on their 

general technical skills score. A GT [general technical] of 100 or 

higher authorizes them to use the program. Scoring 99 or below, 

we refer people to an academic skills enhancement program to prepare them for college-level work. Once they achieve a minimum 

standard, they are allowed to use tuition assistance. 

And the program has been very effective and has achieved very 

positive results for new students. About 82 percent of the Marines 

successfully complete their first course. And a request for waivers 

due to failure or incomplete coursework decreased about 40 percent, from about 1,100 in 2005 to about 700 in 2009. 

Protecting marines from aggressive marketing is important to 

unit commanders. The installation commanders have the primary 

responsibility, and they take that responsibility very seriously. 

Issues that are raised are given a critical review, and then, if warranted, a local IG investigation is conducted. 

What is important is the opportunity for marines to opt out of 

the program or unsubscribe when they are no longer interested in 

the program. 
10 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s interest in tuition assistance 

and quality education opportunities for marines, and we look forward to your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Larsen can be found in the Appendix on page 66.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you all for your testimony. 

We will put ourselves on the five-minute clock here. And we will 

do several rounds, I think, before the morning is over. 

Who is controlling the clock here, Dr. Fenner? There you go. 

Is there more to the fairly rapid increase in online learning than 

just convenience? Are there any factors out there that concern you 

that it may be more than convenience, in terms of quality issues 

of the education? 

Maybe we will start with you, Mr. Larsen, and just go the other 

way this time. 

Mr. LARSEN. I would offer that many times for-profit institutions 

would probably market themselves very well. We don’t discriminate 

between any of the types of either for-profit, non-profit, or traditional institutions. As long as they are accredited, we support marines participating in those programs. But I would offer that, if it 

is a for-profit institution, they are probably very interested in marketing themselves. 

Dr. SNYDER. No, I wasn’t asking about for-profit versus not-forprofit. I was asking about online learning—— 

Mr. LARSEN. Oh, I am sorry. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Because traditional schools do offer online distance learning also. 

Mr. LARSEN. Right. We actually have about 25 percent of our students in traditional schools and the rest of them are in distance 

learning programs. 

So I think just the convenience, as you said before, and the flexibility it gives the student to participate in the program, particularly when they are deployed, allow them the latitude to make the 

course fit to their schedule or when they are available. 

Dr. SNYDER. Anybody have anything else to add to that? 

Yes, Mr. Gordon. 

Secretary GORDON. Actually, I do. 

You know, this is the Millennial Generation. I think our force is 

really a reflection of our larger society. And we have Millennials 

who look at this, I think, not only in terms of convenience but in 

terms of comfort. They are very comfortable with consuming education in a different sort of environment. I taught at the Academy, 

the Military Academy, for about 11 years. And I was thinking back, 

in terms of our 40 courses, 50 to 55 minutes per class, we had a 

structure, and that is how we teach our cadets. Things have 

changed in terms of this younger generation now, which is much 

more comfortable in a different sort of space. 

I think the other thing is education is becoming student-centric. 

You know, our education heretofore has been very focused on our 

curricula and how we then instructed in class. And with studentcentric education, students can go at different speeds. 

So I think it does go beyond convenience because of, first of all, 

the technology, but also the generation is much more used to con-
11 

suming education and other different sorts of phenomena on the 

Internet and online. 

Dr. SNYDER. But you don’t see any potential downsides? 

Secretary GORDON. Well, one of the keys, I think for our business 

is ensuring that we have got systems in place to both monitor and 

oversee it and ensure a quality education for our servicemembers. 

And I think the first step to that is what we have been doing in 

the past, which is ensuring that any institution, whether they be 

online or brick-and-mortar, be accredited by the Department of 

Education. 

One of the differences today, though, is we used to have the 

MIVER process, which was Military Installation Voluntary Education Reviews. And what is up for public comment now is MVER, 

but we took the ‘‘installation’’ out. So the key now is a review process that will include not only those educational institutions on our 

posts and bases across the world but also online institutions and 

off-base institutions, as well. It is key. 

Dr. SNYDER. We had a lot of discussion about the size of the defense budget, always looking for savings. And we are all in agreement with that. 

Where are you at with—well, maybe we will start with you, Mr. 

Gordon—for generally each Service, what is the number of your 

counselors and your funding for education counselors? Where has 

it been over the last several years and where do you see it going 

in the future, in terms of the numbers? Have there been reductions? 

Secretary GORDON. Good question. I think we still need our counselors on our facilities and our installations across the country. 

But, as some of my colleagues mentioned as well, more online counseling is available. The perfect example is our Military OneSource 

system, where our servicemembers can go and our family members 

can go to get some counseling, basically, on things such as education. 

But I think it is absolutely essential that we have the face-to-face 

counseling, as well, on our installations. The advantage, of course, 

to face-to-face is also those counselors on installations have the 

records of our servicemembers. So, while we can start and we will 

see, I think, an increase of online counseling services available, 

face-to-face is still very important. And I think we need to be consistent with that. 

And I would like my colleagues to comment. 

Secretary STAMILIO. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, when the Army launched the GoArmyEd Portal, 

it provided an opportunity to free up the education center staffs 

from a bunch of administrative duty. As a result of that, the Army 

took the opportunity to reduce the overall education center staffing 

somewhat. We probably went, perhaps, a little far in that regard, 

because our educational staff—education center staff is stretched 

right now. We still have coverage. 

But we have come to reaffirm the commitment that face-to-face 

counseling is absolutely important. And we are working within the 

Army to figure out how best to restore the right balance between 

automation, efficiency, and face-to-face counseling for our 

servicemembers. 
12 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Actually, both questions, I think, are pretty important. 

I would like to just go back for a second. While I agree with my 

colleagues, I would like to add that what we are focused on primarily is sailor success. And that comes to pass in several different 

measures. 

First off, I would like them to successfully complete that course. 

So we insist that they all have a college plan and that they all talk 

to a counselor, whether that be face to face or over the phone, before they engage in any educational opportunity. We have laid in 

some requirements for them to have completed some of their professional work before they embark on an education plan. We want 

them to successfully complete that course. 

Relative to distance learning, the initial indications are that the 

completion rates for traditional learning, traditional education in a 

brick-and-mortar schoolhouse, are a little bit higher, about 90 percent, compared to the lower number in distance learning, 80 percent. We are still trying to understand exactly what that means, 

but that is one of the things that we look at and try and measure 

to understand the effectiveness of those programs. 

Dr. SNYDER. Would you repeat that for me again? Ninety—— 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Roughly 90 percent for our enlisted undergraduate degree programs, about 90 percent of our enlisted sailors, 

are completing those courses. It is roughly 80 percent for distance 

learning. So we see a little bit of a difference initially in the numbers that we are measuring there. So we are keeping a pretty close 

eye on that to understand how that happens. 

Again, regarding success, another measure is transferability. We 

want sailors to be able to get their associate degree and go on to 

a bachelor’s degree, transferring all of those credits that they have 

engaged in for their associate degree at the bachelor level and beyond that. So accredited institutions are important to us. 

Those are a couple of the measures that we have. 

We have carefully reviewed our counseling staff across the nation 

and around the world, keeping in mind that technology has advanced over the last decade or so to the point that virtual counseling is now well within the realm of possibility. We have established just this past year the Navy’s first virtual education counseling center. Twenty-seven employees, split between education 

technicians, who are there to make sure all of the records are kept 

current, and eight counselors, who operate from 6:00 in the morning until 9:00 at night, offering counseling services to sailors 

around the world. 

That workload is picking up. We have about—we average about 

150 counseling sessions per week. And that is keeping up. We have 

in-sourced our contractor workforce to civilians, so we are moving 

those contractors into the government service at our Navy college 

offices around the world. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Dr. Snyder. I would also like to respond to the distance learning question for just a moment. 

In fact, we in the Air Force have embraced that in our own professional military education courses, recognizing that that is sort of 

what the Millennials are looking for. And our educational outcomes 

can be very closely measured to success. 
13 

For instance, at Air University, we now have an online master’s 

program that we offer, accredited with the rest of our Air University courses. By law, our first-time supervisors for civilians are required to do first-time supervisory training. That is offered online 

with a facilitator around the world through Air University. We find 

that that gives us a very standardized opportunity versus having 

different people address it differently. We ensure that all of our civilian supervisors get that same quality of education. 

That said, I don’t know that I would want to go see a physician 

who only has ever done distance-learning schools. So I think there 

are some opportunities to do things the traditional way. But most 

of our students that are enrolled in voluntary education are taking 

business degrees, management degrees, computers, and psychology. 

And I am comfortable that the quality of that education through 

accredited schools is very high. 

The counselors—we do have 82 education offices throughout the 

Air Force, and we have two or three counselors at each installation, 

depending upon the size. And we have taken some reductions, but 

we have offset that with our online voluntary education office, as 

well. And then we can synergize with the Community College of 

the Air Force, so if they have specific questions, once they get the 

degree, then they can call into the Community College of the Air 

Force to get direction there, as well. 

So I think we are doing fine. 

Dr. SNYDER. Any further comments? 

Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, sir. Regarding counselors, you know, they are 

very important to us. We have counselors at every one of our installations. 

I would offer that about 60 percent of our participation in the 

program is the junior enlisted marines. And those people, many of 

them are getting out at the end of their initial enlistment and not 

making the Marine Corps a career. So those people—it is very important to connect with them, to make sure they have a good experience and make sure that they are prepared for college-level work. 

They are the preponderance of the work that is done by the counselors. And every one of those individuals, when they begin the program, have a face-to-face counseling session with a counselor that 

lasts for about an hour. So—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I apologize for my coughing here. 

It would probably be helpful—let’s take it as a question for the 

record—to see the numbers and your evaluation of the number of 

counselors and availability of counseling, online or however you do 

it, over the last several years and as you go forward. 

Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

And, gentlemen, thank you for your presentation. 

I would like to start my question with a statement and a reading 

from Bloomberg Business Week, ‘‘For-Profit Colleges Targeting the 

Military.’’ Let me start here. ‘‘Some Active Duty personnel can earn 

an associate degree, which typically takes two years of study, in 

five weeks.’’ 

I am just going to throw out two or three points, and I would like 

for you to respond. 
14 

‘‘Three—American Military University, Phoenix, and closely held Grantham—charge $250 a credit, or $750 a course, which allowed 

them to receive the maximum reimbursement by U.S. taxpayers 

without servicemembers having to pay any out-of-pocket tuition. 

Publicly funded community colleges offer classes on military bases 

for as little as $50 a credit.’’ 

As the chairman said, we are in a terrible financial situation as 

a nation. And there are many aspects to government. That we all 

know. 

I have had the opportunity to talk to several people in the Third 

District of North Carolina. And we know that the military deserves 

every opportunity that the taxpayer can give him or her, especially 

in education. But when you see articles like the one in 

Bloomberg—and Wall Street Journal has done a couple, I think— 

it does not help the program, because the taxpayer who is picking 

up the bill is looking at this and saying, ‘‘Is the soldier getting 

equal education?’’ If he or she can get education at a community 

college that offers courses for $50 versus a for-profit university that 

is charging $250 and $750, then something is not right. 

My question to start is, how do you keep the good and weed out 

the bad? Where is that check and balance that they report to you 

or to DOD, Mr. Gordon? How can the taxpayer be assured that the 

military is getting a quality education and really not an education 

in being taken advantage of? 

Secretary GORDON. Thank you, sir, for allowing me to respond to 

that. It is a very good question. 

I think, first of all, we have to ensure that we adhere to the accreditation process, and we do. I did see that article and read it. 

It made me think about, first of all, accreditation. And we do; we 

adhere to the accreditation process. So what we do is we ensure, 

regardless of the type of educational institution, that they are accredited by the Department of Education. 

The second piece is oversight, I think. And we had the MIVER 

process. We are changing that. That MIVER process was focused 

on the educational institutions on installations, and we are expanding that now. And our expectation is, if successful, we will be able 

to use that basically to review and monitor and oversee these educational institutions, regardless if they are online, off-post, or onpost. 

Now, the MIVER process is a process where—it is run by the 

American Council on Education. They will send four to five, basically, members in to take a look at curricula. They will take a look 

at teachers. They will conduct interviews with commanders and 

with students. 

So I think, by expanding that process to all institutions, we will 

assist once again in ensuring a quality education. Because it gets 

down to quality, first of all, but also adaptiveness, I think. You 

know, we have a very mobile workforce. That is in society writ 

large. Multiple deployments, of course, occur in the military Services now. 

And I understand what you are saying about the $50 versus 

$250, but at the same time, having the sort of flexibility and agility 

in a system where individuals can have a choice among a menu of 

different types of academic institutions that really do suit them 
15 

and will end up eventually in an education for them, where they 

can complete it, I think that is absolutely key. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Gordon, that has been one of the problems with 

education, is that—I am talking about not the military—instead of 

giving the child the challenge along the way to the 12th grade, if 

we have made it easy for him or her, then when they get that high 

school diploma, it doesn’t have the quality because the person really was not challenged to receive that. 

I appreciate your comment about, you know, more oversight and 

trying to weed out, I guess, the good and the bad, if I could phrase 

it that way. But the American Council on Education that will—that 

does report back, how many universities, online or not online, just 

not-for-profit, have been delisted in the last five or six years? 

Secretary GORDON. Good question. I do not know the answer to 

that. 

I don’t know if the Services know, delisting at all? 

I don’t know. We will have to—I will have to get back to you on 

that. 

Mr. JONES. Well, I wish, Mr. Chairman, we would get that for 

the record because I think that will tell us a whole lot. And again, 

I have great respect for the military. But we need to know for the 

taxpayer and the military that those universities that are in it just 

to make money from the taxpayer and not give the quality education, that they don’t exist any longer, as it relates to the military. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 79.] 

Mr. JONES. I will yield back at this time. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Jones. 

The issue of for-profit schools, this full committee and this subcommittee are not trying to solve and will not solve this whole 

issue of for-profit versus not-for-profit schools or private colleges. 

That is not what we are about. We are talking here about how you 

all provide oversight of the substantial amount of money that is 

going to your military personnel and making sure they are getting 

what they want out of it, and your help. So that is what angle we 

are coming from. 

But in terms of looking at quality, following on what Mr. Jones 

talked about, I don’t think we have good employability numbers, 

but my guess is you couldn’t really tell us, well we had a higher 

officer promotion rate if somebody went to a for-profit school versus 

a non-profit or private college, you know, down the road, or versus 

online. I mean, I suspect you don’t have the ability of throwing out 

any numbers in terms of employability. In the private sector, that 

can be hard to get at, too. 

But in terms of loan default rates, there are some numbers there. 

In 2009, students, within three years after leaving for-profit 

schools, that had an associate degree had a default rate of about 

23 percent, compared to 15 percent at a public or non-profit school. 

And when you look at students at for-profit schools that offered a 

bachelor’s or higher degree, they had a default rate of about 18 percent, compared to 6 percent from public or private schools. 

Now, I don’t know exactly what all that means, but I think it 

means we ought to be asking some questions. What it says is, in 

the private sector, the non-military world, is that, for whatever rea-
16 

sons, the students that are going to for-profit schools for an associate degree and the higher degree levels are ending up with higher 

default rates. And one implication could be they are not making as 

much money, that their investment was higher than the payoff for 

it. 

But those are,—in addition to anecdotal stuff, I mean, some of 

the things that concern us as we see this fairly rapid increase in 

the amount of money, federal dollars, that is going to for-profit 

schools. 

Do any of you have any comment about the default rate issue? 

Maybe that is not anything you have thought about. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you, Chairman Snyder. It is an interesting question. 

And our Navy college offices, in particular our counselors, are 

there to counsel sailors in the development of an education plan 

that does not depend on loans. So we are counseling them and directing them to colleges and universities accredited by the Department of Education who are in our consortiums, more often than 

not, and who are offering courses, fully accredited, fully transferable, to these sailors within the constraints of the tuition assistance limits that we have. 

So, in my view, sailors should not be embarking in loans. So I 

don’t have data that would indicate default rates on these loans. 

Dr. SNYDER. No, I recognize that. But that is not the issue. The 

issue is, why is there a higher default rate in the private sector for 

for-profit schools? Does it imply that there is something qualitatively different with the quality of product that these mostly 

young people are ending up with? That is the issue. 

And my guess, as I said before, that you can’t analyze officer promotion rates, for example, and say, oh, we are seeing that the forprofit schools are doing better than the not-for-profit schools. I 

think that would be tough for you, other than anecdotally. But 

there is information out there that says maybe we ought to be looking at this, maybe the quality isn’t as good. 

I think I will curtail my time here. I notice we have been joined 

by Mr. Wittman, who survived yet another commute. In fairness to 

Mr. Wittman, there is really not a lot that goes on in this town at 

eight o’clock in the morning, and so he doesn’t have to get going 

this early very often. He is one of those few blessed Members that 

gets to live at home. 

Mr. Wittman, if you would like to do your opening statement, 

you are welcome to. We will give you as much time as you want 

right now. Or if you just want to progress to some questions, whatever you would like to do. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Well, folks, thank you so much for joining us 

today. And I am sure you have been quizzed on a number of these 

issues, so I hope that my questions aren’t going to be repetitive. 

But, you know, in looking at this whole scope of issues that our 

men and women in uniform are dealing with, obviously we want 

them to be pursuing higher levels of education. We also want to 

make sure that it is convenient to their deployment schedules. 

So, trying to mix that in with all of the other issues here and 

making sure that what they are paying for is truly the value that 

they are getting and that that value translates through their ca-
17 

reers, I am just going to ask you in general: Do you see the current 

opportunities in distance learning and integrating that in with deployment schedules to make sure that our men and women in uniform get those educational opportunities? 

Do you think the current system is doing all that it can to do two 

things: to make sure that our men and women have access and, 

secondly, to make sure that they are getting maximum value for 

the opportunities that are out there? 

And, Mr. Lutterloh, I will begin with you. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

I think the distance learning offers tremendous access. And, 

judging by the numbers, the increased utilization of distance learning in the force, I would say there is some value, from the sailor’s 

perspective. Whether or not that is providing maximum value is 

very difficult for me to tell. 

The value—when I talk to sailors, the value that they get out of 

education is, more often than not, linked to degree completion. A 

degree from an accredited institution is what they are looking for, 

more often than not. It gives them greater range of job opportunity 

if they are to get out of the Service. It means more money in their 

salary, more than likely, in the future. All of these things are of 

value to the sailor. 

So I would say a degree from an accredited university is the 

value that they are looking for. And, judging by the fact that all 

of our courses and institutions are accredited by the Department 

of Education, I would say that there is quite a bit of a foundational 

value to those sailors. 

When we get into the value of the content, the curricula, depending on where that sailor is in his or her life, what kind of pressures 

they have on them, how eager to learn they are, how much time 

they are able to put into that, I would say some of that impinges 

on the value, as well. 

But I couldn’t comment on the content value other than to say 

they are accredited or not by the Department of Education. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Congressman. 

And I agree. Access, absolutely, everyone has it, as indicated by 

the number of folks taking distance-learning courses, upwards of 

70 percent for us now, with military tuition assistance, as well. 

Also, in those rare cases where an airman doesn’t have access 

perhaps to a laptop to get an online course, we can do streaming 

video. There are other distance-learning opportunities, you know, 

‘‘box of books’’ that Chairman Snyder loves so much in our PME 

[professional military education] schools. 

But distance learning comes in many forms. And so, absolutely, 

yes. 

And I think the goal of accreditation, of course, is to ensure that 

the education provided meets a level of acceptance. And the Department of Education recognizes certain accrediting institutions 

that have the ability to evaluate those schools. And so, I think, to 

the degree that the rigor and the discipline of those agencies is acceptable, then I feel that our airmen get a quality and valued education, as well. 

I did want to go back, if I may, sir—and I recognize I am on your 

time—to Congressman Jones’s point. And, sir, I recognize the cost, 
18 

and I see your point exactly. But I did want to make the point that 

we do have a cap on the annual amount of tuition assistance that 

a military member can take. So, even though the semester hours 

might be more expensive—and they are capped. We have a $4,500- 

per-year maximum that a military person can use. 

So, when I was using my military tuition assistance, I sort of 

shopped around and got a little more aggressive toward finishing 

my degree. So I looked for a cheaper school, so I didn’t exceed the 

cap—the caps back then were, obviously, a lot less. So there is a 

little bit of that, as well, sir. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, sir. The short answer is, in the Marine Corps, 

not all of those that want to participate in the tuition assistance 

program get the opportunity, primarily for operational reasons or 

OPTEMPO [operations tempo] deployments. 

Being a former recruiting station commander, I would tell you 

that, if not the number-one reason, one of the very most important 

reasons why people join the military and join the Marine Corps is 

for off-duty education, the opportunity to participate in that. They 

don’t all get that because of the deployment schedule right now, 

but I would offer that there is somewhere around 31,000 marines 

that are participating in tuition assistance right now. 

If you look at those that get off active duty, there is about 55,000 

of them, or about that number, that are participating in the Montgomery GI Bill, which tells me that there is a lot more that would 

participate in tuition assistance if the opportunity were there. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gordon. 

Secretary GORDON. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

I agree with my colleagues. I think, first of all, when we take a 

look at distance learning, you know, it is the delivery of education 

and training through electronic media, mediated instruction. So it 

is expansive. And I think what we have is the architecture, basically, in the military to provide that. 

I agree with Mr. Larsen. The opportunities might not exist as 

much as they could in an environment where we would not have 

as many deployments. But we do; that is a fact of life. And I think 

we do have that access. 

In terms of maximizing effectiveness, though, I think it behooves 

us to continue to be proactive in looking at how we can provide the 

kind of oversight to ensure a quality education. We do have the fact 

that, you know, these programs are accredited by the Department 

of Education, but we are very hopeful, with the new MIVER that 

I have discussed earlier, that we will have the kind of oversight we 

need for all of those institutions. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Stamilio. 

Secretary STAMILIO. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

Clearly, the issue of access to distance learning is absolutely 

vital, and 76 percent of Army enrollments are through the distance-learning mode. And that is very important to an organization 

as busy and as far-reaching as the United States Army. And so we 

certainly—our soldiers certainly take advantage of that. 

In terms of the value, in the context of the overall growth of technology, as the Army has launched its integrated portal to administer the Tuition Assistance Program, it also provides soldiers an 
19 

opportunity to look at a course catalog, or actually multiple course 

catalogs, from the 2,500 institutions that have committed to the 

Army that they will administer their programs in accordance with 

our needs and consistent with the SOC standards. So soldiers have 

a wide array of opportunities that they can pursue and do some 

cost comparison, as well. 

And so, in terms of value, we had set up the architecture in the 

system so that a soldier can plot out his or her collegiate future 

and then do the appropriate shopping, recognizing that the courses 

that will be taken, if he or she is choosing the right ones that are 

consistent with our overall program, that those courses will be 

transferrable. And so a soldier could have the opportunity to take 

a course from this institution or that institution and it would be 

transferrable, and maximize his or her value for the Tuition Assistance dollar. And so there are some advantages to all of this. 

The other point that I would mention is, many of our in-classroom instructions—in fact, much of our in-classroom instruction relies on adjunct professors that come from the surrounding area. 

Now, in the case of a military base that has universities nearby, 

those adjunct professors are sometimes very easy to come by. In 

other locations, they rely on other adjunct professors. What distance learning provides is an opportunity for the institution to go 

find the best professor, the best instructor, and remote that instructor in a distant-learning environment. And so the potential exists, whether the institution takes advantage of it or not, but the 

potential exists to actually get the higher-quality instructor for the 

particular program that is being offered. 

Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Jones. 

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the answers 

from the panel to each, the chairman as well as the ranking member. 

I want to go back and read a couple points, and then I am going 

to make a statement and listen to you, and then I need to leave. 

We are going to have a classified hearing on rules of engagement 

today. 

Mike Shields, a retired Marine Corps colonel and human resource director of U.S. field operations for Schindler Elevator, the 

North American arm of the Swiss Schindler Group, says he rejects 

about 50 military candidates each year—50 military candidates 

each year—for the company’s management development program. 

‘‘Because their graduate degrees came from online for-profits, we 

don’t even consider them.’’ 

That is a tragedy. I mean, this is a man, like yourselves, who has 

served in the military. I am sure he would rather hire a military 

retiree than not hire one. I don’t know that because I don’t know 

the man. 

Then another comment, made I guess by a counselor: ‘‘Some of 

these schools prey on marines,’’ he says. ‘‘Day and night, they call 

you, they e-mail you. These servicemen get caught up in that. Nobody in their family ever went to college. They don’t know about 

college.’’ 

I hope you are asking—I guess, again, for this recommendation 

as to how we move forward—meaning we, the American people— 
20 

it seems like to me that we have had a system—and this does not 

blame anybody sitting at the table—but we have had a system that 

really seems like it is not as well-controlled as it needs to be. Because I cannot imagine, if I was a marine or soldier, sailor, airman, 

whatever, and I decided I wanted to better myself and go get online—and I don’t know Phoenix University from Duke University; 

let’s say that is the type of person, okay? And I don’t know a thing 

about Phoenix. I just happen to see their ads all the time. That is 

the only reason I am using them. They might be the best in the 

world. 

But anyway, so I decide that I am going to go—I keep getting 

these calls, I get these e-mails. And, you know, I am just going to 

take one course, that is all, from this for-profit. And then I find out, 

if I do complete the course, that I don’t have an equal opportunity 

to that person that went maybe to a small school. Now, I am not 

talking about the big schools, but a small school. 

And I hope that the Congress of next year, whomever is sitting 

here next year, that we will work with the Department of Defense. 

Because, in my humble opinion—now, I am basing a lot of this on 

conversation back on some of the bases that I represent. We have 

a situation here that the taxpayers’ dollar is not being well-spent. 

And even more seriously than that, to me, is that person in the 

military is not getting a quality education. And when they get out 

of the military, they are going to find out that what they thought 

they had that would help them open a door will not open a door. 

That is a tragedy. 

Mr. Chairman, I guess nobody is going to answer. I would 

just—— 

Secretary GORDON. I would be happy. Thank you, Congressman 

Jones. 

You know, it is interesting, looking at society writ large right 

now and the emergence of online education. As I said, I read that 

article before—— 

Mr. JONES. Right. 

Secretary GORDON [continuing]. And I looked at that comment, 

and I think you are right: We have to ensure a quality education 

for our servicemembers. 

What we don’t know right now is the degree to which our society, 

our commercial sector, values an online education. So I am not sure 

if that comment is a result of, ‘‘It was an online education; therefore, we don’t hire them,’’ or, you know, ‘‘The quality was not sufficient, and, therefore, we don’t hire them.’’ I think it is a new day, 

that we are still growing in terms of this online education process. 

I do know that what we are better understanding is that we all 

learn differently, even in this room. And whether the delivery system is a brick-and-mortar system or an online system, I think, for 

our servicemembers, being able to map out a certain sort of educational delivery system that better matches how they learn is 

something we can give them and a great opportunity to do. 

But, as you said, the key is ensuring that sort of quality. And 

I think first with accreditation, but with this change in MIVER, we 

can take a look at all those institutions and ensure our commanders and our installations also have a part of the process, we 

can ensure that quality education for our servicemembers. 
21 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, sir, if I could, Congressman Jones, one of the 

Marine Corps installations that is in your district, we have an example of where we have one of the educational institutions that 

was considered not of value by the local commander. We have 

barred them from the base, from conducting business on-base. 

So it is very difficult when you put the onus on the individual 

installation, on the individual education services officer to make a 

determination to bar somebody, and then that is done at one installation and not done across the board at other installations. 

So I think we need not only to put it at the local level, but also 

we need to make sure that those institutions are accredited and are 

of value and make sure that they do provide the marine or whatever servicemember the value of education that they are looking 

for. 

But we do have a couple of examples where we have shown that 

it is not of value and we have taken action to prevent them from 

conducting business on installations. 

Mr. JONES. Good. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Aren’t there about 7,000 schools that participate somehow in the 

tuition assistance program? I mean, it would be a very difficult 

challenge to expect you all to somehow analyze all the coursework. 

And I am sure the departments vary from within the same school. 

And I think you all are having to grapple with a societal issue here 

on this topic, but you have a special niche. 

I want to ask about the 90/10 rule, which I didn’t really know 

much about. I thought the 90/10 rule had to do with how much a 

local government had to put up after a tornado to get FEMA cleanup moneys, but this is a different 90/10 rule. 

But I think it was while Mr. Jones and I have been in Congress, 

at some point we said that, okay, let’s at least say that these forprofit schools have to have at least 10 percent of their students actually pay their own money. The quality is so good there is at least 

10 percent of the student body that is paying their own money. And 

so up to 90 percent could be title IV Federal dollars. 

But here is where you all come in: military tuition assistance 

doesn’t count in the 90 percent. It counts in the 10 percent. So— 

I will make this up—theoretically, there could be a school out there 

that has, you know, 89 percent of its students getting title IV moneys through Stafford loans or Pell Grants and 11 percent tuition 

assistance, so they would be 100 percent federally funded, because 

your students count in the private side of things. 

Now, that is concerning. That is concerning because then you 

would have a school that every taxpayer in America is paying into, 

and yet they may not have any or just very, very few students that 

actually have looked at the quality and think it is worth me putting up my own money for. 

And I don’t know how we grapple with that. I guess—I don’t 

know if that is an oversight or what, but it seems like if the 90/ 

10 rule means anything—and maybe it doesn’t; it is kind of a 

roundabout way of getting at quality, I think—but if it means any-
22 

thing, then it just doesn’t make any sense to me why federal military tuition assistance isn’t counted as part of the 90 percent. 

Do you all have any comments on that? Is that something that 

you all are familiar with? 

It got real quiet here. 

Secretary GORDON. I am not real familiar with it, but it needs 

to be taken a look at, yeah. 

Dr. SNYDER. And, frankly, that is not your responsibility. I mean, 

these are issues we are dealing with that are really not the job of 

the Secretary of Defense to sort out or, you know, the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs, but they are issues that you all are involved 

in. 

And that may be one of the reasons why you are seeing such 

predatory—some predatory behavior out there or what you describe, Mr. Larsen, as very aggressive techniques. It may be that, 

you know, some schools need to keep these numbers up, otherwise 

their balance is thrown off under the 90/10 rule. 

The issue came back, Mr. Larsen, when we were talking about 

loans versus tuition assistance, and we all know—we are talking 

about the tuition assistance program. I remember, this was in my 

olden days, right after I got out of the Marine Corps. And I had 

dropped out of college after two years to join the Marine Corps. 

And while I didn’t smoke, somehow I ended up with a matchbook 

with an offering for a heavy-equipment operator school. Sadly, I 

probably got it in a bar. But anyway, I ended up with this matchbook, and I called them up. And I thought, ‘‘I could drive a Road 

Bear.’’ 

And so, this guy calls me back right away. He gets a hold of me, 

and he is going to meet with me. Well, we ended up meeting, like, 

in the parking lot right out of a motel room. I think he was from 

out of town somewhere, and had come down there. There was a— 

it looked like a girlfriend with him. I think they thought this was 

going to be a big killing. 

And you talk about aggressive sales techniques, I mean, he was 

just saying, ‘‘You know, you can always change your mind. It is not 

going to cost you anything.’’ He used the phrase ‘‘Uncle Sugar’’ several times. ‘‘Uncle Sugar, no problem’’—well, I didn’t sign up for it. 

But later on I realized that—and this was the GI Bill—that I only 

had, I think, at that time, like, two opportunities to change my program. Well, if I had signed up for that and dropped out, that would 

have been one. So if I had decided to change my mind and not be 

a medical student—I mean, it was taking away an option, and yet 

it was like it was a free ride. 

But I would have had no skin in the game. That is the difference—that is one of the differences here. I could have signed up 

for anything. Your tuition assistance to students, you know, whether it is $250 or $50, they have no skin in the game. And I don’t 

think they should. But that does put more responsibility on you all 

to monitor the quality. I mean, nobody is—I suspect you don’t get 

many complaints of people coming back and saying, ‘‘I was really 

hoping I would study more,’’ you know, ‘‘I was really hoping I 

would have to stay up later at night and do my homework because 

of the rigor of the tests that were coming up.’’ 

Secretary GORDON. Uh-huh. 
23 

Dr. SNYDER. I suspect most people don’t come to you and say, 

‘‘We were lacking rigor.’’ 

Secretary GORDON. Well, Mr. Chairman, they actually do have 

skin in the game. We provide them the money for tuition, but they 

must provide all the support in terms of computers, books. So they 

do get skin in the game through the fact that we do have a tuition 

piece but they have to provide the other support system, basically, 

to take the course. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well—— 

Secretary STAMILIO. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to offer 

a comment with regard to that. 

The Army has a program that focuses on credentialing and licensing, a program much like what you discussed off the matchbook cover. And the focus on this is for the soldier who is probably 

not going to pursue a bachelor’s or a master’s degree but needs a 

professional certification, perhaps as a heavy-equipment operator, 

perhaps as some other certificate program. 

And through the Army Education Center, the soldier can come 

in, get the appropriate counseling, get the appropriate credit for 

the training that he or she already has toward this particular certification, and then links the soldier with the appropriate institutions that are fully accredited, that have the same kinds of controls 

as the rest of the tuition assistance program. So it is not, ‘‘Write us a check for $5,000, and we will send your 

certificate later.’’ It provides for credit-hour checks and balances, 

that the education counselor can check progress, but also provides 

for the appropriate credit for the training that the soldier has received, with the ultimate goal for the institution, the educational 

institution, to fill in the gaps with that required training that will 

allow the soldier to get the certificate that he or she deserves. 

So we have a program in place that works that—the management controls are in place so that—so it is pretty effective, in terms 

of both outcome and investment. 

Dr. SNYDER. One comment, and it will go to Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. Gordon, in response to your thoughts about books, as you 

know, there is no requirement that the schools charge for books. 

And, as you probably know, some for-profit schools waive book 

fees—— 

Secretary GORDON. Yes, I do. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yeah, so—in the spirit of completeness. 

Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Just one overall question. I know as these for-profit universities obviously expand into meeting this need, I think the 

concern is that there is a diversity of opportunities there, and if the 

not-profit, publicly supported institutions begin to wane in their activity in supporting our men and women pursuing degrees, if that 

opportunity wanes, my concern is, where does that leave us in the 

future? Does that actually create less access because it is getting 

focused into a smaller number of universities and institutions? 

So I just was wondering if any of you all have a comment about 

how do you make sure, going into the future, that we still have the 

variety of opportunities, including a very robust opportunity within 

our public institutions for our men and women in uniform to pursue degrees there. 
24 

Mr. Gordon. 

Secretary GORDON. Thanks, Congressman Wittman. 

I think, you know, as I had mentioned earlier, this is a new day, 

with real opportunities, potentially, online with our society writ 

large. So, as long as that demand, I suspect, is out there, we will 

continue to see the expansion of those sorts of opportunities. 

And I really think the key is ensuring, you know, of those sorts 

of academic institutions that are available, that our 

servicemembers have access to the ones that provide them that valued education. 

You know, we have been talking a lot, I think, about almost silos 

of, you know, online versus brick-and-mortar, but a number of institutions have both, so that our servicemembers can combine an 

online and a brick-and-mortar education, as well. They can actually 

go to some classrooms. We have some downrange education centers, as well, that are both brick-and-mortar and online. 

So I think we are seeing these trends. I suspect that they will 

continue. I think the key for us, though, is ensuring that quality 

education. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Larsen. 

Mr. LARSEN. Sir, if I could offer, in the Marine Corps, from 2005 

to 2009, the for-profit enrollment has increased from about 6,500 

to about—almost to 11,000. So it hasn’t quite doubled, but it has 

significantly increased. 

The not-for-profit population has remained constant at about 

5,600, 5,700. And the traditional public universities have decreased, actually, from about 10,000 to about 8,000. 

So there has been a marked increase in for-profit in the Marine 

Corps in the last five years, and the others have remained somewhat constant. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Representative Wittman, from a Navy perspective, the for-profit schools certainly have increased, distance learning has increased, but our not-for-profit institutions have also increased. 

And I would say that, across the board, distance learning in all 

three segments, whether it be for-profit, not-for-profit, and public, 

distance learning continues to increase as a segment of those populations. So we are seeing distance learning on the rise across the 

board. 

And it is not just for-profit schools that are increasing. Not-forprofit schools, as a percentage of our population, is also increasing. 

It is the public that has had a little bit of a decrease. And it is only 

marginal. Depending on how long you look at that, you see that 

data going up and down. 

And we are looking at the top 50 institutions, which comprise 

about 85 percent or so of our tuition assistance expenditures. When 

we look at the rest of the schools, most of those are public institutions, down below there. And when you add those in, I think the 

numbers might be a little bit more normalized. 

Secretary STAMILIO. Mr. Wittman, if I may—thank you. Our 

trends are really pretty consistent with what my colleague in the 

Navy said. 

I guess, if I understood your question correctly, the real thought 

is, strategically or societally, where does the nation plan to be with 
25 

regard to our mix of for-profit, non-profit, and private institutions? 

And, clearly, the investment that the federal government makes 

through the tuition assistance program is a component of that, but 

we are just less than 1 percent of the overall population. 

And so, I believe that a big, important question of this is, obviously, the quality that we monitor very carefully through our accreditation process, but then the overall societal acceptability of institutions is really one that is at issue here. 

We certainly want soldiers to have the appropriate opportunities 

to pursue whatever educational goals that they have, but, as you 

and Mr. Jones have stated, it is critical that all of that work and 

all of that investment translates to a credential that is acceptable 

by society and by the private sector. 

I am not sure how the Services can attack that, other than to absolutely stay tuned, absolutely be vigilant with regard to our pursuit of quality controls, but also to make sure that we are, within 

all of those parameters, providing soldiers opportunities so that 

they can pursue the educational goals that they are looking for. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you for the question, Mr. Wittman. 

We are so proud of the Community College of the Air Force. And 

it gives us that diversity of thought, that diversity of education 

that you mentioned. 

The Community College of the Air Force is, in fact, the largest 

community college in the Air Force: as I mentioned earlier, 1.6 million credit-hours per year. If an airman goes to an aircraft-maintenance technical training, those instructors there are all certified. 

They have CCAF—or 90 percent of them have CCAF degrees; the 

other 10 percent are working on them. And so they get a certain 

number of hours for that. 

If you go to the NCO Leadership School, that is accredited. If you 

go to any other enlisted training—I think we have 104, now, various facilities around the world that are accredited through the 

Community College of the Air Force. So 75 percent of the requirements to get an associate degree can be done directly through the 

Community College of the Air Force. 

So I am confident that we will continue to have that diversity in 

education in the Air Force for many years to come. They were just 

recently recertified, reaccredited, and I think we have nine years 

until we do it again. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, gentlemen. 

I think the challenge for all of you all is making sure that folks 

across the Service branches develop a greater understanding of the 

academic rigor throughout all of these opportunities so they can 

make a choice and then they understand the investment that they 

make, not only in the dollars they receive through the GI Bill but 

also their own personal investment in time, and what that is going 

to result in. So I think that is the challenge, going forward, is making sure that they understand the differences between those institutions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

As I think some of you know, this issue of what you all have 

been discussing here for some time now, the issue of how do you 
26 

measure quality when it is not—it is going to be difficult for you 

all to do that with 7,000 schools out there, unless there are really 

some big problems. 

But, as you all may know, I think there has been some for-profit 

schools that have bought small, financially distressed community 

colleges that have regional accreditation, and then they use that as 

the tail to wag the dog. And they are now regionally accredited, 

and then they can offer these courses, saying they are a regionally 

accredited school. 

I don’t think that is what people hoped would happen by getting 

regional accreditation. I think we hoped that the quality would be 

going up, not just somebody found a shrewd opportunity to buy a 

school that was probably going under or was about to go under. 

But it does make it a challenge for you all. 

It also seems to me—I am struck a bit by—we have spent a year 

or so longer than we actually planned on looking at professional 

military education. And we looked at it in a lot of different ways. 

And Chairman Skelton was very repetitive in his use of the word 

‘‘rigor.’’ That we do not see PME—if we see PME as ticket-punching, we are in trouble as a military. That we actually think that 

this stuff, with a good PME course, good professional military education, it will help the individual, help our military education. 

It seems like sometimes the tone here is about getting that degree, getting that associate degree, getting that credential. Well, we 

actually, I think—ultimately, the credential only means something 

if there is an education that goes along with it, and a quality education and one that helps you all in the military, helps us be safer. 

And in our discussion about professional military education, we 

had this discussion: Do we think there is an advantage to coming 

to the National Defense University and the Army War College and 

spending 10 months there and having a seminar group that meets 

for several hours a day, you know, several days a week? And I 

think the conclusion is, yes, we think there is value in that. 

And so I think we shouldn’t be so—perhaps so quick to say, ‘‘Boy, 

these young kids are computer-oriented. It is great that they can 

sit at home and crank these things out on a, you know, 20-hour 

caffeinated weekend,’’ when they don’t get the experience of what 

we—I think we are, as a military, saying we really value. We are 

putting a lot of money in these seminar classes, so we have a little 

bit of a conflict, I think. It gets back to this issue of how do you 

determine quality when it should be more than just ticket-punching, that the academic rigor needs to be there. 

Mr. Stamilio, I think you captured this whole issue in your written statement where you said, ‘‘Since the Army complies with DOD 

tuition assistance policy and authorizes tuition assistance for all regionally and nationally accredited schools, we are’’—and this is an 

understatement—‘‘we are somewhat limited in our oversight of the 

non-SOC member schools and their delivery of quality educational 

programs to soldiers.’’ 

I think that gets at it. I acknowledge it is not your responsibility, 

but you have been very clear, you don’t discriminate amongst 

schools, and that may be a problem. 

Mr. Sitterly, you may be familiar with what is going on at the 

Little Rock Air Force Base in Jacksonville, Arkansas, but several 
27 

years ago—well, the whole issue came about after September 11th. 

They have a very robust educational program on-base, with both 

national for-profit schools and then Arkansas State University and 

some others. But when September 11th occurred and the base was 

shut down, it really interfered with faculty—this happened at bases 

all over the country. 

The community responded by passing a bond issue, after discussion with the leadership of the base, and taxed themselves and 

raised $5 million, which they put in a bank account, to build the 

facility there in partnership with the Air Force, to build it outside 

the perimeter, on Federal property land, on Air Force base land, 

but outside the perimeter, so it could be accessible both to community people, community students, community faculty, but also air 

base personnel. 

It took a bit to convince the Air Force how to accept the check 

for $5 million, but we were finally able to do that, I think partly 

through the congressional insert process. And that building is 

about done. 

So there is a heck of an investment in these facilities, a heck of 

an investment of the community of Jacksonville in these facilities. 

And I think, ultimately, when we see a college, we want good 

things to happen there. We want it to be a rigorous academic environment that will help young people and not-so-young people and 

help our military. And, you know, when you see that kind of very 

obvious investment of both local and federal dollars, like in this facility at Jacksonville, that really does put some responsibilities on 

you all to sort out this quality thing. 

And I don’t want to pick on the for-profits; I think there are some 

good for-profit schools out there. But it is an issue that has flared 

up over the last several years. It is not going to go away, and you 

all are inheriting some of those issues. And for whatever reasons, 

I think it is very important that our military personnel not somehow get a false sense of security about their credential or a sense 

that all schools are equal because they are all accredited. Well, that 

is not—we all know that is not true. They are not all equal, and 

nobody here is saying that. 

But I think there are some ongoing issues for the military to sort 

out. I won’t be here to help you sort them out, but I am sure you 

are going to do just fine. 

Anything further, Mr. Wittman? 

Mr. WITTMAN. No. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Let me give you an open invitation. If you all have 

any additional statements that you would like to be included as 

part of the record, feel free to respond to this question. 

And I think you all are going to get me the numbers on counseling and where you see the numbers of counselors and counseling 

services having gone up in the last several years and where you see 

it going in the future. 

We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 9:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

(33) 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

(79) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. JONES 

Secretary GORDON. The American Council on Education (ACE) has conducted 60 

Military Installation Voluntary Education Reviews (MIVERs) on behalf of the Department of Defense during the past five years. A MIVER visit evaluates at least 

three colleges/universities at each military site and often involves multiple installations located in close proximity. No colleges/universities have been delisted as a result of these reviews. 

The purpose of the MIVER is to: 1) assess the quality of selected on-base voluntary education programs; and 2) assist in improving the programs by providing 

recommendations to institutions, installations, and the military Services. The five 

principle program areas that the MIVER assesses are mission statement and command support, program management and leadership, student services, resources, 

and voluntary education program plan. These principles were developed with the intent of establishing and maintaining servicemember access to higher education programs on military installations that are equivalent to programs on traditional campuses. More specifically, the principles are intended to: 

• help define the parameters of excellence in voluntary higher education programs on military installations; 

• stimulate dialogue on how to strengthen and improve the quality of these programs and services; and 

• ensure that these programs continue to evolve as part of the mainstream of 

adult and higher education. 

When a MIVER is conducted, the review team provides findings and recommendations to the college/university and the installation commander. Historically, the institutions are generally receptive to findings and take the required measures to address program issues that would otherwise lead the program to be considered for 

‘‘delisting.’’ Findings address such areas as adequacy of office space, key staff vacancies, disparities in resources, and inadequate library resources, connectivity and/or 

customer support. The Department of Education is responsible for curriculum accreditation; therefore, curriculum is not assessed during MIVERs. 

The current MIVER contract will end on December 31, 2010. DOD is in the process of soliciting for a new third-party review that will begin in 2011. The new review 

expands the scope of the MIVER to include all institutions participating in the Department of Defense (DOD) Tuition Assistance Program and not just those institutions operating on a military base. [See page 15.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2010 

(83) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. What counseling support is provided to servicemembers? What are 

the qualifications of educational counselors? To what extent have the number of 

counselors on military installations been reduced over the past five years? If so, 

why? Is counseling being replaced by Web-based services or other methods? 

Secretary GORDON. DOD provides counseling support and information on educational topics such as: • Schools and admissions requirements • School curriculum • Accreditation and transferability of courses and credits • Non-traditional credit for college courses through testing, such as: the CollegeLevel Examination Program or CLEP tests; the Prometric DSST Exams (formally known as the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support 

(DANTES) Subject Standardized Tests); and the American Council on Education (ACE) Military credit recommendations 

• School tuition costs and financial assistance to include military tuition assistance (TA), loans, and grants 

• Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Benefits: GI BILL and Post-9/11 GI BILL 

Counseling and education technicians provide support at Services’ Education Centers on military installations. Counseling support is also provided to servicemembers 

via the Services’ Web portals and call centers. 

Counselors have at least a bachelor’s degree with appropriate standard education 

requirements* and a counseling practicum. Grade levels range from General Schedule (GS)–9 through GS–12 for counselors and education technicians range from GS 

7–9. 

DOD policy prescribes that educational counseling shall be provided to 

servicemembers, but does not specify the method. The Services each manage their 

manpower and implement the DOD policy on counseling services. The Services’ reductions in manpower and methods of delivering counseling services are attached. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does DOD have a system in place to alert military installation education center directors about any Department of Education or other government reviews, investigations, or regulatory actions pending that pertain to institutions of 

higher education? What about if accrediting organizations place schools on probation? 

Secretary GORDON. No, DOD does not have a formal notification system to alert 

education centers about federal reviews, investigations, or regulatory actions pending that pertain to institutions of higher education. However, DOD has a contract 

with the American Association of State Colleges and Universities and the American 

Association of Community Colleges for the Servicemembers Opportunity College 

(SOC). SOC advocates for and communicates the needs of the military community 

with the higher education community. SOC is a consortium of more than 1,900 colleges and universities that provide educational opportunities for servicemembers 

around the world. SOC monitors these schools, which could include their accreditation status, and serves as the DOD liaison to resolve concerns and share program 

information to strengthen education relationships with DOD. If a school loses their 

accreditation status, they will also lose their SOC membership. When this occurs, 

SOC notifies OSD, the Services, and the Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES). The Services inform the installations so they can make 

adjustments to their tuition assistance management system. DANTES informs the 

installations through their monthly newsletter, the DANTES Information Bulletin. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you please describe how the proposed Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) process will be implemented? How many reviews do you plan 

to conduct each year? When will reviews begin? How will installations and colleges 

be selected? How frequently will installations and colleges be reviewed? What criteria will be used in reviewing the quality of distance learning programs? 

Secretary GORDON. The process will be implemented in a manner similar to the 

current process of Military Installation Voluntary Education Review (MIVER). 

MIVER is a contracted program, conducted by the American Council on Education 

(ACE) since 1991. The Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support 
84 

(DANTES) manages the contract for DOD. The current contract expires December 

2010 and a new Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) contract will be obtained through the DOD acquisition process and awarded during Fiscal Year 2011. 

As per the current MIVER process the new MVER will assess the quality of voluntary education programs received by the servicemembers using tuition assistance 

and assist in the improvement of voluntary education programs through appropriate 

recommendations to institutions. However, the new review process will be expanded 

to three types of reviews: an installation with multiple institutions on the base; distance learning institutions; and off-base traditional institutions. Sites and schools 

will be nominated by the Services and provided to the contractor. Currently there 

is an on-going competitive solicitation for the new third-party review. Due to contract sensitivity and non-release of the Request for Proposal, details of the process 

to include frequency of reviews, type of review and specific criteria cannot be disclosed. 

Dr. SNYDER. A key component of the Department’s proposed policy change for the 

Voluntary Education Program is to require institutions that receive tuition assistance to agree to certain commitments and sign a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD. The Department has indicated that allegations of not 

following the agreements in an MOU will be submitted and handled through the 

Defense Activity for Non-traditional Education Support (DANTES) and 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) organizations. How will the Department and Services identify potential ‘‘allegations’’ of not following the agreements 

in MOUs? What procedures and mechanisms will the Department and the Services 

implement to monitor adherence to MOUs? 

Secretary GORDON. The Department and the Services will identify potential ‘‘allegations’’ of not following the agreements in the MOUs through two methods. The 

non-compliance relating to the MOU could be disclosed during the new review process, the Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) or reported by a servicemember to an educational official at the installation Education Office. For example, if 

a servicemember makes an allegation to a guidance counselor or the education services specialist at the education center on a military base, the government employee 

would assist the servicemember in first resolving the issue with the school. If the 

counselor cannot resolve the issue, it would be brought to the attention of the Education Services Officer (ESO). The ESO would contact the school or the accrediting 

agency. If need be, the ESO would raise the issue to their higher headquarters and 

Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC). 

All MOU non-compliance issues will be further investigated and handled as described below. The following steps will be taken if a potential allegation is made 

against an institution with a signed MOU with DOD that is on the published list 

of institutions in good standing participating in the Military Tuition Assistance (TA) 

program. 

a) The installation and/or Service will confirm violations or complaints and attempt to resolve. If a resolution cannot be reached, the issue will be elevated to the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Voluntary Education Office. 

b) OSD will contact an appropriate authority within the institution to attempt to 

rectify the situation. 

c) If agreement between the offending institution and OSD can be resolved and 

the alleged violation is corrected, the matter is recorded and filed for record. 

d) If resolution cannot be achieved or violations appear major in scope, then OSD 

will request the Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC) to assist. 

e) OSD will request SOC to send a letter addressed to the institution’s president 

or chief executive officer with detailed information regarding the alleged violation 

or violations and request that the institution investigate the situation and respond 

to the SOC regarding ways to resolve the allegation. 

f) If the violation or violations appear major in scope, the SOC may consult with 

the institution’s accrediting agency and receive that agency’s advice on appropriate 

resolution of the offending situation. 

g) A reasonable response time will be specified with an alleged offending institution to allow for sufficient investigation and resolution of the situation. 

h) If satisfactory resolution can be achieved, correspondence involving the situation will be filed with the SOC with a copy sent to OSD. 

i) If attempts to resolve a violation, as outlined above, have failed and the member 

institution remains in violation, OSD will take action to terminate the MOU with 

the institution. 

Termination of an institutional MOU will result in its being removed from the 

‘‘list’’ of institutions in good standing and placed on a ‘‘delist’’. Notification will go 

to the Services and installations. Delisted schools will not be allowed to participate 

in the tuition assistance program. 
85 

Dr. SNYDER. What plans, if any, do you have to begin collecting data and monitoring servicemembers’ enrollment in for-profit schools? 

Secretary GORDON. Currently, DOD does not have plans to collect data and monitor servicemembers’ enrollment in for-profit schools. All institutions are treated 

equally; Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) does not identify schools as statesupported (public), independent (non-profit) or proprietary (for-profit). Currently, the 

Services are analyzing the list of colleges that are authorized tuition assistance for 

our servicemembers to identify the type of school. 

All servicemember participation, course enrollments, and course completions are 

monitored by the OSD and the Services. The Voluntary Education Management Information System (VEMIS) electronically consolidates servicemember participation 

into one annual report. The VEMIS report rolls up Service-specific data on items 

such as: number of participants, number of enrollments, number of completions, 

types of degrees, certifications, foreign languages, personnel data, and related costs 

associated with providing education opportunities on installations worldwide. The 

system also includes tailored queries and reports using either current or historical 

VEMIS data to monitor the tuition assistance. 

Dr. SNYDER. Data provided by the Army and Navy suggest that completion rates 

are lower for distance learning courses. Are completion rates lower for distance 

learning courses? Why is this? Are you seeing any decrease in completion rates over 

the past several years? 

Secretary GORDON. Yes, completion rates are lower for distance learning courses. 

Our military students face very different challenges than civilian counterparts enrolled in postsecondary courses. Interruptions such as the military mission, deployments, and transfers make course completions very difficult. There is increased participation in distance learning courses and online education programs. DOD recognizes the importance of successful completion rates. 

The Army and the Navy completion rates for the distance learning courses are 

attached. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the Department of Defense and the Services do more to monitor the recruiting practices of colleges that target servicemembers? If so, what steps 

will you take to increase monitoring efforts? 

Secretary GORDON. Currently, the monitoring of college recruitment practices is 

done at every level in the Department of Defense (DOD): the installation education 

center, education officers, installation base commanders, the Services, and the Office 

of the Secretary of Defense. 

As it stands now, the only schools that are invited onto the base (i.e. to conduct 

education fairs or to counsel their current students), or have memorandums of understanding with the base commander to operate on the base, are permitted to market their programs on base. If aggressive recruiting practices occur on a military 

base, the commander of the installation may ban the institution or recruiter from 

the base. In addition, DOD will then request the servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC) provide the institution the ‘‘Military Student Bill of Rights’’ containing 

the standards of good practice for educational recruitment and enrollment of 

servicemembers. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the impact, if any, of Joint basing on installation education 

centers? 

Secretary GORDON. There is no impact of Joint basing on installation education 

centers. This is due to the fact that Voluntary Education funding is not a base operating supply (BOS) funded function nor is it considered a community service. Consequently, education centers are not included in the Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) 2005 Joint Base implementation. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent, if any, are servicemembers taking out education 

loans or using their own funds to pay for college education expenses? Do you have 

a means of checking on this? 

Secretary GORDON. Currently, there is no tracking mechanism in the case that 

servicemembers take out education loans or use their own funds to pay for college 

education expenses. DOD policy sets uniform tuition assistance levels and periodically reviews these levels to ensure the assistance provides ample tuition, limiting 

the need for servicemembers to have to pay for their off-duty education with their 

own funds. 

Under the current uniform Tuition Assistance (TA) policy, which commenced in 

Fiscal Year 2003, all servicemember participants may receive up to $4,500 of assistance per fiscal year with an individual course cost cap of $250 per semester hour. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are complaints about higher education institutions tracked and 

shared across the Services and education centers? 

Secretary GORDON. Yes, they are tracked and shared across the Service and the 

education centers. We have three approaches in handling the allegations: 
86 

• Contacting the school and/or accrediting agency for resolution and requesting 

the school/agency provide a formal response to the allegations and corrective actions taken. • Providing Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC) with documentation and 

requesting they contact the institution for resolution. All investigations are recorded in the SOC Quarterly Report. A copy of the report is sent to OSD and 

the Services. • Presenting the allegations to the Department of Education. 

Depending on the nature of the complaint or allegation, the following parties 

could be involved in resolving the issue: • Guidance counselor: If a servicemember complains and/or makes an allegation 

to a guidance counselor or education officer on a military base the government 

employee assists the servicemember in resolving the issues with the schools. 

Depending on the allegation the counselor may contact the school, registrar, 

and/or accounting office of the school for the student. If the counselor cannot 

resolve the issue it would be brought to the attention of the Education Service 

Officer. • Education Service Officer (ESO): The ESO communicates with the school and/ 

or accrediting agency. If need be, the ESO raises the issue to their higher headquarters and Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC). • Installation commander: The commander has the authority to deny access to 

the base and control marketing initiatives. All institutions operating on a base 

must be invited (i.e. for an education fair) or have an MOU with the base. If 

aggressive marketing allegations towards a school are founded the commander 

will demand immediate removal from the base. 

SOC advocates for and communicates the needs of the military community with 

the higher education community. SOC ensures institutions are responsive to the 

special needs of the servicemembers; assists the higher education community to understand the requirements of the military; and serves as the DOD liaison with institutions to resolve concerns and share program information to strengthen education 

relationships with DOD. School allegations brought to the attention of SOC are investigated and resolved. 

Dr. SNYDER. What counseling support is provided to servicemembers? What are 

the qualifications of educational counselors? To what extent have the number of 

counselors on military installations been reduced over the past five years? If so, 

why? Is counseling being replaced by Web-based services or other methods? 

Secretary STAMILIO. Counselors are responsible for assisting soldiers to establish 

their long- and short-range educational goals. Once goals have been established and 

documented, and the soldier and ACES counselor agree on the appropriate programs 

and services needed to attain those goals, follow-on counseling is provided as necessary or as requested by the soldier. Tuition Assistance (TA) is authorized for 

courses offered by institutions that are accredited by regional or national accrediting 

agencies recognized by the Department of Education. Counseling information is provided via several means: face-to-face, virtually through the GoArmyEd Web portal, 

telephonic, and email. Army counselors attempt to meet the counseling and information needs of soldiers through any and all means possible. Electronic communication 

is an effective tool in keeping soldiers informed and up-to-date on benefits, services 

and their individual progress. 

Counselors are Department of the Army civilians in the GS–1740 career field, 

with a minimum educational requirement of a BA/BS Degree in counseling or a degree with a curriculum containing 24 semester hours of adult education courses. A 

practicum in counseling is required or a two-year Department of the Army approved 

intern program. Most careerists in the series have earned a master’s degree. 

As a result of significant budgetary constraints that led to major staffing cuts 

within Army Education centers worldwide, starting in 2005, Army decided to centralize a number of administrative functions and operations (e.g., tuition assistance) 

as well as leverage technology and the efficiencies that could be gained thereby. The 

goal has been to create a more modern and holistic approach to providing counseling 

and educational support services; one that enhances soldiers’ access to educational 

tools and information resources that are available 24/7/365. Since 2005, 233 counseling and other staff/support positions have been eliminated in installation Army 

Education Centers. Currently there are 269 authorized Department of Army Civilian Employee Education Center staff (counselors, education specialists, education officers and administrative assistants), supported by approximately 390 contractors, 

working in Army’s 116 Army Education Centers around the world. Counseling is not 

being replaced by technology and Web-based services in Army Education Centers; 

rather counseling is supported by these tools to help ensure access for all soldiers 

regardless of location of assignment or time of day. The need for education coun-
87 

seling is more important than ever as soldiers are faced with a tremendous amount 

of online and other detailed and confusing advertising information regarding educational opportunities. Senior Army leaders and subject matter experts are currently 

analyzing data and resources in detail, with the express purpose of coming up with 

a comprehensive solution for ‘‘right-sizing’’ the counseling staffs for all Army Education Centers. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does DOD have a system in place to alert military installation education center directors about any Department of Education or other government reviews, investigations, or regulatory actions pending that pertain to institutions of 

higher education? What about if accrediting organizations place schools on probation? 

Secretary STAMILIO. The Army, through its GoArmyEd portal, has established an 

interface with the U.S. Department of Education to receive a data feed of school information called the Postsecondary Education Participants System (PEPS). Contained in the PEPS data are the institution’s accrediting agency and an indicator 

as to whether the school’s accreditation is still active. The U.S. Department of Education updates the PEPS data weekly. 

The Army closely monitors the accreditation status of any institution that has 

been placed on probation by its accrediting agency. Additionally, if the school is a 

member of Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC), Army would request that 

SOC conduct an inquiry as to the reasons for the school’s probationary status in 

order to ensure that no potential harm would come to soldiers and/or to prevent any 

violations of tuition assistance policies and procedures. Should the institution lose 

its accreditation, the school would be immediately deactivated and removed from the 

GoArmyEd portal. Once removed, soldiers would no longer be able to access information about the school through the GoArmyEd portal nor would they be able to 

receive tuition assistance funds in order to attend any deactivated school. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you please describe how the proposed Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) process will be implemented? How many reviews do you plan 

to conduct each year? When will reviews begin? How will installations and colleges 

be selected? How frequently will installations and colleges be reviewed? What criteria will be used in reviewing the quality of distance learning programs? 

Secretary STAMILIO. The current process, Military Installation Voluntary Education Review (MIVER), is a contracted program, conducted by the American Council on Education since 1991. The Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education 

Support (DANTES) manages the contract for DOD. The current contract expires December 2010. A new Military Voluntary Review contract will be obtained through 

the DOD Acquisition process and awarded during Fiscal Year 2011. 

We expect the function of the new Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) 

to be similar to the MIVER function. However, since DOD is currently going 

through the acquisition process, details of the new review are not finalized. The new 

process will assess the quality of voluntary education programs received by the 

servicemembers using tuition assistance and assist in the improvement of voluntary 

education programs through appropriate recommendations to institutions. There 

will be three types of reviews: installation with multiple institutions operating on 

the base; distance learning; and off-base traditional institutions. Sites and schools 

will be nominated by the Services and provided to the contractor. 

The number of MVERs to be conducted annually will be based upon available 

funding. 

Dr. SNYDER. A key component of the Department’s proposed policy change for the 

Voluntary Education Program is to require institutions that receive tuition assistance to agree to certain commitments and sign a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD. The Department has indicated that allegations of not 

following the agreements in an MOU will be submitted and handled through the 

Defense Activity for Non-traditional Education Support (DANTES) and 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) organizations. How will the Department and Services identify potential ‘‘allegations’’ of not following the agreements 

in MOUs? What procedures and mechanisms will the Department and the Services 

implement to monitor adherence to MOUs? 

Secretary STAMILIO. Feedback provided by soldiers and Education Center personnel will be the primary means for identifying allegations. The following steps will 

be taken if an allegation is made against an institution that has a signed MOU with 

DOD: 

1. Installation and/or Service will investigate and confirm violations/complaints 

and attempt to resolve. If resolution cannot be resolved at this level, the issue will 

be elevated to Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), Voluntary Education Office. 

2. OSD will consult with Office of General Counsel for advice and contact an appropriate authority within the institution and attempt to rectify the situation. 
88 

3. If agreement between the offending institution and OSD can be resolved, and 

the alleged violation corrected, the matter is documented for record. 

4. If resolution cannot be achieved or violations appear to be major in scope, then 

OSD will request Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC) to assist. 

5. OSD will request that SOC send a letter that is addressed to the institution’s 

president or chief executive officer with detailed information regarding the alleged 

violation or violations and request that the institution investigate the situation and 

respond to SOC regarding ways to resolve the allegation. 

6. If the violation or violations appear to be major in scope, the SOC may consult 

with the institution’s accrediting agency and receive that agency’s advice on appropriate resolution of the offending situation. 

7. A reasonable response time will be specified with an alleged offending institution to allow for sufficient investigation and resolution of the situation. 

8. If satisfactory resolution can be achieved, correspondence involving the situation will be filed with the SOC with a copy sent to OSD. 

9. If the attempts, as outlined above, fail to bring about a satisfactory resolution 

to the alleged violation(s), and if the member institution continues to remain in violation, OSD will take action to terminate the institution’s MOU after consulting 

with OGC. 

10. Termination of an institutional MOU will result in the school being removed 

from the ‘‘list’’ of institutions in ‘‘good standing.’’ This institution will then be placed 

on the ‘‘de-listed’’ notification report that will be promptly distributed to the Services and installations. De-listed schools will not be allowed to participate in the Tuition Assistance program. 

Dr. SNYDER. What plans, if any, do you have to begin collecting data and monitoring servicemembers’ enrollment in for-profit schools? 

Secretary STAMILIO. Currently, the Army monitors soldiers’ participation, course 

enrollments, and course completions through the GoArmyEd portal. This automated 

system has the functionality to provide enrollment, expenditures, and completion 

rates by school. In FY 2011, Army will begin to regularly monitor these categories 

of data in order to identify trends and patterns that pertain to for profit, non-profit, 

classroom based as well as distance learning schools. Trends and patterns will then 

be analyzed and the results of these analyses will be incorporated in our ongoing 

program improvement plans. 

Dr. SNYDER. Data provided by the Army and Navy suggest that completion rates 

are lower for distance learning courses. Are completion rates lower for distance 

learning courses? Why is this? Are you seeing any decrease in completion rates over 

the past several years? 

Secretary STAMILIO. The completion rates for distance learning are slightly lower 

for distance learning courses when compared to traditional classroom-based courses. 

During FY07–09, the completion rate for distance learning courses was 86%, compared to the 89% for traditional courses during the same time period. 

The reason for a lower completion rate can be attributed to the fact that distance 

learning courses require a more disciplined student to be successful. Individual student factors may include the lack of academic preparedness, student support not 

readily available, and the student’s learning style may not be conducive for distance 

learning courses. Other factors may include interruptions such as the military mission, deployments, transfers, or family obligations which make course completions 

very difficult. During the last ten years, the Army’s operational tempo has increased 

and soldiers have been deployed multiple times. 

The completion rates for distance learning have remained steady during FY07– 

09 (FY07—87%, FY08—85%, FY09—86%). 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the Department of Defense and the Services do more to monitor the recruiting practices of colleges that target servicemembers? If so, what steps 

will you take to increase monitoring efforts? 

Secretary STAMILIO. The monitoring of institutions is worked diligently throughout the Army, especially in the installation education centers through Guidance 

Counselors, Education Services Officers, other education center personnel, and the 

Installation Commanders. Feedback from soldiers regarding potential overly aggressive/marketing efforts by a school would also be followed up. 

There are occasional instances where institutions may exceed their bounds in 

marketing and recruiting. It is made clear that institutions may only market and 

recruit for their programs by invitation of the Installation Commander. An overly 

aggressive institution may make offers to Education Services Officers (ESO) in exchange for use of education center space to market their program and recruit soldiers and Family Members. In those instances, ESOs must decline any requests by 

these institutions to access their education centers for the purpose of marketing/recruiting. The institutions may however, by invitation of the ESO, leave approved in-
89 

formational brochures, flyers, pamphlets, and even school applications in the education center. Identified questionable marketing practices committed by online institutions will be reported up through the Education Center chain of command to 

Army and DOD Headquarters. SOC will be asked for assistance in instances in 

which the offending school is a SOC member. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the impact, if any, of Joint basing on installation education 

centers? 

Secretary STAMILIO. No impact. Voluntary Education remains service based because it was not considered a common installation management function. The Army 

and each of the other Services maintain responsibility for support and management 

of their own respective education centers on Joint bases. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent, if any, are servicemembers taking out education 

loans or using their own funds to pay for college education expenses? Do you have 

a means of checking on this? 

Secretary STAMILIO. The Army does not track whether soldiers take out education 

loans or use their own funds to pay for tuition. The Army does, however, review 

the Uniform Tuition Assistance (TA) Policy periodically to ensure that the assistance provided is sufficient so that the majority of servicemembers do not have to 

pay for their off-duty education out of their own pocket. 

Under the current uniform Tuition Assistance (TA) policy all soldiers may receive up to $4,500 of TA per fiscal year; individual course costs have a $250 per semester 

hour cap. 

In 2009, an all-Service task force led by OSD reviewed the cost of attending school 

and the tuition assistance policy. The outcome of the review revealed that: • 80% of all students were attending schools that charged at or under the semester hour cap. The other 20% of the servicemembers have other options (including combining TA and GI Bill and/or Pell Grants); they select the institution 

they attend. There are ample institutions offering similar degree programs at 

institutions that are within the cap. • The $250 per semester hour cap covers the cost of almost all undergraduate tuition expenses. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are complaints about higher education institutions tracked and 

shared across the Services and education centers? 

Secretary STAMILIO. Servicemembers Opportunity College (SOC) ensures that institutions are responsive to the special needs of the servicemembers; assists the 

higher education community to understand the requirements of the military; and 

serves as the Army/DOD liaison with institutions to resolve concerns and share program information to strengthen education relationships with the Army/DOD. School 

allegations brought to the attention of SOC are investigated and resolved. All investigations are recorded in the SOC Quarterly Report. A copy of the report is sent to 

the OSD and the Services. 

Dr. SNYDER. What counseling support is provided to servicemembers? What are 

the qualifications of educational counselors? To what extent have the number of 

counselors on military installations been reduced over the past five years? If so, 

why? Is counseling being replaced by Web-based services or other methods? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy College Offices provide face-to-face counseling support and 

information to sailors on 36 major Navy installations. Counselors, classified in the 

federal civilian General Schedule 1740 series, a professional series for education administration and counseling, provide information on which programs meet sailors’ 

educational goals, cost and time to complete degree requirements and transferability 

of course and program credits to higher level degree programs. In FY2009, 217,000 

counseling sessions were recorded by Navy College Counselors. They processed 

125,000 Tuition Assistance (TA) requests for 57,400 sailors. Navy’s Virtual Education Center (VEC), established in July 2010, conducts virtual counseling sessions, 

processes all Web-based TA applications, updates Sailor/Marine American Council 

on Education Registry Transcripts (SMART), authenticates degrees and communicates general information. 

Our approach to counseling services has changed, but the importance we place on 

counseling has not. Our Navy College Office and VEC counselors remain the single 

most valuable asset to the Navy College Program. Between FY 2005 and 2009, the 

number of Voluntary Education (VOLED) counselors on installations ranged between 167 in FY05 and 179 in FY09. On the average, two-thirds of counseling support was provided by contract counselors. However, in FY 2010, Navy took a holistic 

approach in transforming our voluntary education program that eliminated contractors, increasing federal employees to support counseling and testing requirements, 

and leveraged technology to enhance sailor access to educational support tools and 

information. This resulted in a net reduction of 57 counselors. Overall, the capability to support sailors was enhanced. One key feature of our transformation was 
90 

opening a state-of-the-art VEC. This allowed Navy to centralize support functions, 

such as processing TA and updating SMART, authenticating college transcripts for 

military personnel and providing additional time for counseling at the installation 

level. The VEC is staffed by 8 counselors and 18 education technicians who provide 

easy access to a one-stop-shopping for virtual counseling and educational information and currently operates 15 hours/day (0600–2100) to accommodate the different 

time zones around the world. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does DOD have a system in place to alert military installation education center directors about any Department of Education or other government reviews, investigations, or regulatory actions pending that pertain to institutions of 

higher education? What about if accrediting organizations place schools on probation? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC), a consortium of approximately 1900 colleges and universities, monitors its member academic institutions. When allegations are levied against an institution, or if an institution loses 

its accreditation, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Military Services 

are notified. The Services meet regularly with SOC to address such issues and SOC 

submits a quarterly report detailing any actions they have taken with regard to academic institutions. This information is shared through the chain of command. 

DOD also sponsors a quarterly Inter-Service Working Group in which the Services 

share pertinent information on a variety of issues. If there are academic institutions 

not adhering to the rules, the Services discuss the matter to determine whether the 

concerns are DOD-wide or limited to a single Service or location. Prior to authorizing Tuition Assistance (TA), Virtual Education Center (VEC) and Navy College Office (NCO) staffs routinely check the Department of Education Web site to verify 

the accreditation status of academic institutions. SOC or Navy’s Center for Personal 

and Professional Development (CPPD) Distance Learning program manager notify 

the VEC/NCO of an institution’s loss of accreditation for MOU/on-based schools or 

Navy Distance Learning Partners. Once loss of accreditation is confirmed, the school 

is not permitted to receive TA or conduct classes on the installation. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you please describe how the proposed Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) process will be implemented? How many reviews do you plan 

to conduct each year? When will reviews begin? How will installations and colleges 

be selected? How frequently will installations and colleges be reviewed? What criteria will be used in reviewing the quality of distance learning programs? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The proposed Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER), like 

the current Military Installation Voluntary Education Review (MIVER), is a contracted program. However, since the MVER statement of work has not yet been finalized, I am currently unable to share specific detail on the criteria for reviews. 

The MVER contract start date is planned for January 2012, and Navy, as the 

DANTES DOD Executive Agent, will fund the reviews, with the number of reviews 

dependent upon funding availability. Three types of reviews will be conducted: onbase, off-base, and distance learning programs. On-base MVERs will be Service specific with the individual Service identifying installations selected for review. Offbase and distance learning reviews will be conducted on a DOD-wide basis, with institutions selected by a DOD Inter-Service Working Group. 

Dr. SNYDER. A key component of the Department’s proposed policy change for the 

Voluntary Education Program is to require institutions that receive tuition assistance to agree to certain commitments and sign a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD. The Department has indicated that allegations of not 

following the agreements in an MOU will be submitted and handled through the 

Defense Activity for Non-traditional Education Support (DANTES) and 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) organizations. How will the Department and Services identify potential ‘‘allegations’’ of not following the agreements 

in MOUs? What procedures and mechanisms will the Department and the Services 

implement to monitor adherence to MOUs? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy receives formal announcements from Department of Education (DOE), DANTES, SOC, and other accrediting boards. Additionally, adherence 

is monitored at the execution level by the Navy College Offices. Institutions that do 

not comply with the MOUs are either asked to leave the base or no longer remain 

part of the Navy College Program Distance Learning Partnership. 

Dr. SNYDER. What plans, if any, do you have to begin collecting data and monitoring servicemembers’ enrollment in for-profit schools? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy already tracks education data through the Navy College 

Management Information System (NCMIS). It is a management tool that provides 

a complete history of courses funded through Tuition Assistance (TA). This includes 

grades and degrees earned, completion rates, rank/rate, pay grade, academic institution(s) attended, type of course (distance learning or traditional), level of degree (AS/ 
91 

BS/MS/PHD), expenditures, credits earned and approved education plans. NCMIS 

has the functionality to provide these same performance measures for public, nonprofit and for-profit institutions. Navy is currently analyzing the list of colleges that 

are authorized TA for our sailors to identify the type of school (public, non-profit, 

or for-profit). Once this list is complete, NCMIS will be updated. Targeted completion date is Jan 2011. 

Navy is actively engaged in the review of VOLED performance indicators. Costs, 

participation and enrollment are assessed monthly. Course completion rates are reviewed semiannually. Academic institutional data is presented annually at a variety 

of forums to include the Council of Colleges and Military Educators (CCME) conference, Academic Council on Military Education (ACME) at the state levels and to 

DOD as a component of the annual voluntary education report. Academic institutional data is also available to the colleges upon request. Trends are investigated 

for possible lessons learned or improvements. 

Dr. SNYDER. Data provided by the Army and Navy suggest that completion rates 

are lower for distance learning courses. Are completion rates lower for distance 

learning courses? Why is this? Are you seeing any decrease in completion rates over 

the past several years? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The completion rate for instructor-led courses is higher than for 

distance learning. In FY09, enlisted sailors took 48,875 undergraduate courses with 

43,478 completions recorded. During the same time frame, enlisted sailors took 

93,685 distance learning courses with 75,011 completions recorded. 

Studies of non-completion rates for courses taken on board ship indicated a variety of causes. Results showed that not all courses should be delivered via distance 

learning, not all professors are effective at teaching distance learning and some sailors were not disciplined enough to take distance learning courses. For example, 

highly technical subjects that required the sailor to have a strong background in the 

material had the highest non-completion rate. Junior sailors were more likely to be 

unsuccessful than senior sailors. Junior sailors, new to shipboard life, are challenged with acclimation and qualifications for their role on the ship. To help increase the likelihood of success, Navy implemented a new policy that restricts sailors who are within the first year of their first permanent duty station from participating in Navy-funded TA courses. Navy also implemented a distance learning 

screening tool designed to indicate those sailors who are self-disciplined and have 

good time management skills. 

Because of the increased participation in distance learning courses, Navy continues to pay particular attention to the course completion rates and will implement 

policy and guidelines as needed to improve every sailors’ chance for success. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the Department of Defense and the Services do more to monitor the recruiting practices of colleges that target servicemembers? If so, what steps 

will you take to increase monitoring efforts? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. We do not believe that additional monitoring steps are required 

at this time. Current procedures for monitoring recruiting practices for programs offered on Navy installations are considered adequate. We will, however, continue to 

monitor recruiting practices closely through feedback from the Navy College Office 

and sailors. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the impact, if any, of Joint basing on installation education 

centers? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. We have not observed any impact on installation education centers as a result of Joint basing. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent, if any, are servicemembers taking out education 

loans or using their own funds to pay for college education expenses? Do you have 

a means of checking on this? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy does not track how sailors pay for expenses above what 

Navy Tuition Assistance payments cover. Sailors that elect to take graduate degrees 

and undergraduate courses that exceed the DOD cap of $250 per credit hour are 

responsible for payment that exceeds Tuition Assistance thresholds. Additionally, 

sailors electing to exceed the 16 semester hour cap established by the Navy are responsible for any additional tuition costs. Sailors who voluntarily choose to attend 

these programs or exceed the funded TA cap, seek additional funding in a variety 

of ways to include GI Bill, Pell Grants, personal loans and personal resources. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are complaints about higher education institutions tracked and 

shared across the Services and education centers? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) organization 

does provide a quarterly report to the Services if any allegations are addressed at 

the SOC level. However, complaints are not tracked or shared formally between 

DOD and the Services. 
92 

Dr. SNYDER. Do the other Services have an official transcript service like the 

Army’s American Council on Education Registry Transcript Service (AARTS)? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy has the Sailor/Marine American Council on Education Registry Transcript (SMART) that supports all the sea Services (Navy, USMC and US 

Coast Guard). SMART is an automated system that documents successfully completed training, grades for completed college courses, scores on academic exams such 

as College Level Examination Program (CLEP) and Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) and American Council on Education (ACE) recommended credits for successfully completed military training. SMART is the 

Navy’s official transcript and bears ACE’s official seal. SMART is available online 

and can be accessed by the active duty, SELRES or veteran. servicemembers and 

veterans may request an official transcript be provided to academic institutions 

through our Virtual Education Center at no cost to the member or the veteran. 

Dr. SNYDER. What counseling support is provided to servicemembers? What are 

the qualifications of educational counselors? To what extent have the number of 

counselors on military installations been reduced over the past five years? If so, 

why? Is counseling being replaced by Web-based services or other methods? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Counseling is provided at every Air Force Base (AFB) in the world. 

Qualifications for counselors meet the Office of Personnel Management standard for 

1740 series positions—a minimum bachelor’s degree and 24 semester hours of credit 

in education/psychology courses within that degree or beyond. The number of counselors at AFBs has remained relatively stable over the last five years. Air Force is 

not replacing counseling with computer tools; however, those tools are assisting with 

information dissemination. Web-based tools are used for general information purposes. Counseling is used to assist airmen with college and degree decisions. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does DOD have a system in place to alert military installation education center directors about any Department of Education or other government reviews, investigations, or regulatory actions pending that pertain to institutions of 

higher education? What about if accrediting organizations place schools on probation? 

Mr. SITTERLY. As far as Air Force knows, there is no specific DOD system in place 

for this kind of alert. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you please describe how the proposed Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) process will be implemented? How many reviews do you plan 

to conduct each year? When will reviews begin? How will installations and colleges 

be selected? How frequently will installations and colleges be reviewed? What criteria will be used in reviewing the quality of distance learning programs? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The AF does not have this information. Suggest this question be 

directed to the DOD office of Continuing Education Programs, OUSD (P&R) Military 

Community and Family Policy, that is working the next contract proposal. 

Dr. SNYDER. A key component of the Department’s proposed policy change for the 

Voluntary Education Program is to require institutions that receive tuition assistance to agree to certain commitments and sign a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD. The Department has indicated that allegations of not 

following the agreements in an MOU will be submitted and handled through the 

Defense Activity for Non-traditional Education Support (DANTES) and 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) organizations. How will the Department and Services identify potential ‘‘allegations’’ of not following the agreements 

in MOUs? What procedures and mechanisms will the Department and the Services 

implement to monitor adherence to MOUs? 

Mr. SITTERLY. This will be a DOD-wide MOU after DODI 1322.25, Voluntary Education Program, is published. Since it is still in the coordination stage there could 

be changes made to the existing draft that will impact the way this could be monitored. Air Force believes the best way to handle this is for the Services and DOD 

to sit down and work out a standard process for all the Services to follow after it 

is finalized. 

Dr. SNYDER. What plans, if any, do you have to begin collecting data and monitoring servicemembers’ enrollment in for-profit schools? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Air Force (AF) has never had a need to identify schools in this 

manner. We have begun this identification (ID) process and are loading additional 

data fields in the online system as we work with schools. Any changes like this for 

the nearly 3,000 civilian schools AF has contact with, takes time to implement. 

When all schools have an ID loaded into the computer system (estimate one fiscal 

year), then data can be pulled by this new ID field. 

Dr. SNYDER. Data provided by the Army and Navy suggest that completion rates 

are lower for distance learning courses. Are completion rates lower for distance 

learning courses? Why is this? Are you seeing any decrease in completion rates over 

the past several years? 
93 

Mr. SITTERLY. Air Force has noted a minimal difference in course completions dependent on course delivery methods: 92% for traditional; 89% for distance learning. 

Completion rates for college courses in the AF has traditionally been high no matter 

the delivery system – 90% or above over the last five years. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the Department of Defense and the Services do more to monitor the recruiting practices of colleges that target servicemembers? If so, what steps 

will you take to increase monitoring efforts? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Most recruiting takes place off-base, online or through other methods not within the sight or control of the Services. All on-base recruiting falls under 

the requirements of DODI 1344.07lAFI 36–2702, Personal Commercial Solicitation 

on Air Force Installations (the Air Force’s published implementation and supplementation of the DODI 1344.07, Personal Commercial Solicitation on DOD Installations). This Air Force publication provides notice of the Department of Defense 

and Air Force controls regarding on-base solicitation and includes request, approval, 

evaluation and complaint processes. The publication will be provided to all schools 

using the Servicemembers Opportunities College (SOC) communication network, 

and we will offer to provide clarification upon request. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the impact, if any, of Joint basing on installation education 

centers? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Air Force is not aware of any impacts at this time. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent, if any, are servicemembers taking out education 

loans or using their own funds to pay for college education expenses? Do you have 

a means of checking on this? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air Force has no current means of determining whether airmen are using education loans and/or their own funds to pay for education expenses. 

Dr. SNYDER. Are complaints about higher education institutions tracked and 

shared across the Services and education centers? 

Mr. SITTERLY. There is no formal process for this. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do the other Services have an official transcript service like the 

Army’s American Council on Education Registry Transcript Service (AARTS)? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air Force has an official transcript service within the Community College of the Air Force (CCAF). CCAF transcripts enlisted training, evaluated 

for college credit by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) that 

applies toward CCAF degrees. This service is at no cost to airmen. 

Dr. SNYDER. What counseling support is provided to servicemembers? What are 

the qualifications of educational counselors? To what extent have the number of 

counselors on military installations been reduced over the past five years? If so, 

why? Is counseling being replaced by Web-based services or other methods? 

Mr. LARSEN. Corps Education Center counselors provide information about college 

education opportunities to servicemembers during in-person counseling sessions and 

briefs. Counseling sessions contain additional information about the tuition assistance program, the process involved, and the types of schools that can receive assistance funding. All Education Service Officers (ESOs) have a Bachelor’s Degree, 

eighty-one percent have a Masters degree, and six percent have a Ph.D. Three percent of Education Service Specialists (ESSs) have their Associate’s Degree, ninetyseven percent have a Bachelor’s Degree, and fifty-six percent have a Master’s Degree. The Marine Corps counseling resources have not been reduced in recent years. 

The Marine Corps has no plans to replace counseling with Web-based services or 

other methods. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does DOD have a system in place to alert military installation education center directors about any Department of Education or other government reviews, investigations, or regulatory actions pending that pertain to institutions of 

higher education? What about if accrediting organizations place schools on probation? 

Mr. LARSEN. OSD will answer this question. 

Dr. SNYDER. Can you please describe how the proposed Military Voluntary Education Review (MVER) process will be implemented? How many reviews do you plan 

to conduct each year? When will reviews begin? How will installations and colleges 

be selected? How frequently will installations and colleges be reviewed? What criteria will be used in reviewing the quality of distance learning programs? 

Mr. LARSEN. OSD will answer this question. 

Dr. SNYDER. A key component of the Department’s proposed policy change for the 

Voluntary Education Program is to require institutions that receive tuition assistance to agree to certain commitments and sign a formal memorandum of understanding (MOU) with DOD. The Department has indicated that allegations of not 

following the agreements in an MOU will be submitted and handled through the 

Defense Activity for Non-traditional Education Support (DANTES) and 

Servicemembers Opportunity Colleges (SOC) organizations. How will the Depart-
94 

ment and Services identify potential ‘‘allegations’’ of not following the agreements 

in MOUs? What procedures and mechanisms will the Department and the Services 

implement to monitor adherence to MOUs? 

Mr. LARSEN. OSD will answer this question. 

Dr. SNYDER. What plans, if any, do you have to begin collecting data and monitoring servicemembers’ enrollment in for-profit schools? 

Mr. LARSEN. Marine Corps currently collects data on servicemembers’ participation, enrollments, and course completions. We do not specifically identify institutions of higher learning as for-profit, non-profit, or state supported. 

Dr. SNYDER. Data provided by the Army and Navy suggest that completion rates 

are lower for distance learning courses. Are completion rates lower for distance 

learning courses? Why is this? Are you seeing any decrease in completion rates over 

the past several years? 

Mr. LARSEN. The Marine Corps has not seen a decrease in completion rates for 

distance learning courses over the past several years. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should the Department of Defense and the Services do more to monitor the recruiting practices of colleges that target servicemembers? If so, what steps 

will you take to increase monitoring efforts? 

Mr. LARSEN. The Marine Corps monitors colleges’ recruiting practices by requiring 

all educational institutions that come on to the base to meet with the Education 

Service Officers (ESOs) and establish an agreement prior to contacting potential 

students. The installation commander has primacy over any incidents of aggressive 

marketing. Actions to address this issue include referring the issue to the command’s Inspector General and/or restricting an educational institution’s access to 

the installation and marines. 

Dr. SNYDER. What is the impact, if any, of Joint basing on installation education 

centers? 

Mr. LARSEN. There has not been an impact on the Marine Corps since we do not 

participate in any Joint basing of installation education centers. 

Dr. SNYDER. To what extent, if any, are servicemembers taking out education 

loans or using their own funds to pay for college education expenses? Do you have 

a means of checking on this? 

Mr. LARSEN. Using personal loans or personal funds for education expenses is not 

tracked by the Marine Corps since it is considered to be a personal matter. However, the USMC will continue to make our servicemembers aware of our Tuition Assistance Program (TA). 

Dr. SNYDER. Are complaints about higher education institutions tracked and 

shared across the Services and education centers? 

Mr. LARSEN. OSD will answer this question. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do the other Services have an official transcript service like the 

Army’s American Council on Education Registry Transcript Service (AARTS)? 

Mr. LARSEN. The Marine Corps and the Navy developed the Sailor and Marine 

American Council on Education Registry Transcript (SMART) to document military 

education and experience. 

SMART records recommend college credit for military occupational skills, formal 

military schools, Marine Corps Institute courses, Defense Language Proficiency 

Tests, DANTES Standardized Subject Tests, and College Level Examination Program examinations. Validated by the American Council on Education, SMART may 

be submitted directly to a college or university for recommended college credits. 

Æ