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 

61–633 2010

[H.A.S.C. No. 111–175] 

TRANSFORMATION IN PROGRESS: 

THE SERVICES’ ENLISTED PROFESSIONAL 

MILITARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

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 

JULY 28, 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 

LORRY FENNER, Professional Staff Member 

THOMAS HAWLEY, Professional Staff Member 

TREY HOWARD, Staff Assistant 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2010 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Transformation in Progress: The Services’ Enlisted 

Professional Military Education Programs ........................................................ 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, July 28, 2010 ....................................................................................... 35 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010 

TRANSFORMATION IN PROGRESS: THE SERVICES’ ENLISTED 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION PROGRAMS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

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

on Armed Services ................................................................................................ 11 

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

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

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

WITNESSES 

Lutterloh, Scott, Director, Total Force Requirements Division, U.S. Navy ........ 7 

Minick, Col. James J., USMC, Director, Enlisted Professional Military Education, Marine Corps University, U.S. Marine Corps ....................................... 4 

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

Manpower and Personnel, U.S. Air Force .......................................................... 9 

Sparks, John D., Director, Institute for Noncommissioned Officer Professional 

Development, Training and Doctrine Command, U.S. Army ........................... 5 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Lutterloh, Scott ................................................................................................. 81 

Minick, Col. James J. ....................................................................................... 42 

Sitterly, Daniel R. ............................................................................................. 86 

Sparks, John D. ................................................................................................ 63 

Wittman, Hon. Rob ........................................................................................... 39 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

[There were no Documents submitted.] 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 95 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Snyder ......................................................................................................... 99 

(1) 

TRANSFORMATION IN PROGRESS: THE SERVICES’ 

ENLISTED PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION 

PROGRAMS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 28, 2010. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:36 p.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

Dr. SNYDER. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing on the services’ progress in transforming the 

enlisted professional military education or EPME [enlisted professional military education]. 

I would also like to welcome Chairman Ike Skelton, who is from 

Missouri, who is a longtime supporter and friend of the military, 

but has taken a special interest over several decades now in military education. 

We appreciate you being here today, Mr. Chairman. 

This subcommittee spent over a year studying officer professional 

military education that culminated in our April report. Education 

for our enlisted force is just as important. Noncommissioned officers, NCOs, are the backbone of the military. 

I can’t emphasize enough how much things have changed and 

are still changing. Until the last three decades, our military consisted of a very small core of professionals augmented in times of 

crisis by large numbers of volunteers and conscripts. NCOs have 

always been the core of the professional part of our military, but 

they were primarily expected to maintain discipline and train their 

juniors. 

Enlisted personnel often came in with barely a high school education, and the bulk of them only served one enlistment. They 

needed a lot of technical training and military training. 

Over time our enlisted force is growing to be a much better educated group of professionals that enter the military much more 

technically astute than their superiors, but still requiring training 

and military leadership development and now further education in 

everything from national security strategy to resource management 

to cultural environments. 

In the post-Cold War era and with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have seen an even greater transition in the role of NCOs. 
2 

Officers are expected to perform generally their same historic roles 

in a vastly different environment, but our NCOs are now called 

upon to perform significantly different roles in a vastly different 

environment. 

NCOs are now expected to be full partners with mid-level and 

senior officers in planning and executing operations and in managing and leading the force. They are called upon more than ever 

to participate in joint interagency and multinational operations and 

staff work, as well as to understand and contribute to strategies. 

Because demands on our enlisted personnel have changed dramatically, our training and education systems must change dramatically. The services have to start the preparation of enlisted 

personnel during their first enlistment, if they are to have the tools 

necessary to perform as NCOs a mere 4 years later. 

The services have in fact all embarked in transitioning their 

training and education systems. Some are drastically transforming 

their systems. This is what we will explore today. How far and how 

fast have the services advanced their systems, and how much farther do they need to go? And what can this Congress and the 

American people do to help? 

The Congress does have a role to play in this effort. At least as 

much as with the officer corps, we should provide the oversight and 

support our enlisted personnel require—and the support our enlisted personnel require to succeed in their important profession, 

providing for our defense and security. 

We ask much of them; they should expect much from us. And 

this hearing is just the beginning of what will be a longer conversation, which is a metaphor for ‘‘congressional oversight.’’ 

We have four witnesses today. Before I introduce them, I would 

like Mr. Wittman to make any comments he would like to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROB WITTMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM VIRGINIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

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

for your leadership on the whole issue of professional military education. 

And good afternoon to our witnesses. Thank you so much for 

joining us today. 

As the chairman noted, over the past year this committee has 

conducted an extensive review of the officer professional military 

education system and recently published a lengthy report on our 

findings and our observations. Of necessity, that effort could not review all aspects of professional military education and focused on 

the rapidly evolving joint and interagency officer education requirements. 

Today, though, we turn our attention to one of those gaps—enlisted professional military education. It will come as no surprise 

to a professional noncommissioned officer corps that the demands 

on the enlisted force to skillfully interact in complex interagency 

and international settings have greatly increased. 

In fact, many, if not most Army and Marine Corps patrols into 

Afghan villages are led by sergeants, not officers. Nor will it sur-
3 

prise our superb NCOs to find that officers seem to require formal 

education to get it right—that is, when compared to NCOs. 

As an example, we needed no fewer than six hearings on officer 

PME [professional military education] to sift through the complexities of the officer system, and we find we can address enlisted 

PME in a single hearing. That is good news for the enlisted force. 

After today’s hearing you can confidently go about your business of 

training sergeants, chiefs and master chiefs largely unimpeded by 

Congress. 

Even so, the Congress does have a critical role to play. Our review in this hearing will establish a baseline from which future development will be judged, and I know that the Marine Corps is embarking on a much-needed and ambitious upgrade to its enlisted 

professional military education program. And if realized, the Marine Corps will have an excellent PME system for our enlisted personnel. 

And while I am optimistic, issues of course availability and resource allocation remain, and we stand ready to assist you wherever we can. We realize that it takes those resources to make enlisted PME happen. And I am gratified to see that each service has 

developed a series of noncommissioned officer courses that noncommissioned officers attend as they progress in rank. 

The services all have different approaches on timing requirements for promotion, course learning and distance learning components. While these differences are necessary to support the needs 

of a particular service, they should be supported. Where there are 

outliers from the other services and work to the disadvantage of 

noncommissioned officer corps of that military service, the practice 

should be reviewed by the service and changed as needed. 

And we on this subcommittee want to support our enlisted as 

much as possible, and we look forward to hearing of the many ways 

that we can help. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you so much for your leadership on 

this. And it was great for us to have the opportunity to learn the 

efforts that are going on out there with enlisted PME, where the 

challenges remain, and where we can be there to help. And again, 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wittman can be found in the Appendix on page 39.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

I want to acknowledge the presence of Dr. Lorry Fenner, who 

normally doesn’t sit in the staff seat with us, but since she is here, 

the presence of her mother and sister back here, too, Mrs. Fenner, 

who had an encounter with a dog a few days ago, I think, and 

tripped and fell, we appreciate you all being here today. 

Chairman Skelton is here with us. 

You know, the report we have been talking about we entitled 

‘‘Another Crossroads? Professional Military Education Two Decades 

After the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the Skelton Panel.’’ So we put 

your name down here in posterity. Mr. Chairman, do you have any 

opening comments? [No.] 

Let me introduce our witnesses today. We are joined by Colonel 

James Minick, United States Marine Corps, Director of Enlisted 

PME at the Marine Corps University; Mr. John Sparks, Director of 
4 

Institute for NCO Professional Development, Training and Doctrine 

Command, U.S. Army; Mr. Scott Lutterloh, Director, Total Force 

Requirements Division, U.S. Navy; Dr. Dan Sitterly, Director of 

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

We have your written statements. They will be made part of the 

written record. We will turn the clock on that wall—the red light 

will go off in about 5 minutes, but if you have other things you 

need to tell us, you go ahead and do that. 

And we will begin with you, Colonel Minick. 

STATEMENT OF COL. JAMES J. MINICK, USMC, DIRECTOR, ENLISTED PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION, MARINE 

CORPS UNIVERSITY, U.S. MARINE CORPS 

Colonel MINICK. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, and 

Ranking Member Wittman, I really do appreciate the opportunity 

to tell the Marine Corps story on enlisted PME—not only what we 

are developing, but what we have accomplished. 

I will say early in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, it became evident that the United States Marine Corps enlisted education program was not evolving to meet the challenges 

of a dynamic and changing battlefield. To ensure our enlisted Marines could meet the challenges of distributed operations and hybrid warfare, we knew we had to make some changes. 

We empowered our Marines to be able to adapt and think critically and move on a changing battlefield, at the same time being 

able to act decisively. We believe developing and executing a professional education program provides a means to achieve that strategic corporal that our 31st commandant, General Krulak, envisioned in the late 1990s. 

In the history of the Marine Corps, the commitment to enlisted 

education has never been stronger. And as an example, I will tell 

you about my branch, enlisted PME, within the Marine Corps University. 

Just 4 years ago, enlisted PME was three Marines, three enlisted 

Marines, in the basement of Marine Corps University, with virtually no officer oversight. Today enlisted PME is 43 personnel, 

both civilian and military education specialists, led by a Marine 

colonel. 

I will have to tell you that the vision of the president of Marine 

Corps University in concert with the commandant, our current 

commandant, Vision 2025, established enlisted PME as the number 

one priority in 2009 in Marine Corps University. 

Every summer between classes, between academic years, we reassess and we reevaluate the strategic plan. Again, 2 weeks ago 

General Neller established enlisted PME to remain the top priority 

within the university. 

The Marine Corps University is committed to the intellectual and 

professional development of our enlisted force. We believe that the 

dynamics of the current battlefield require it, and we are prepared 

to support it. 

The transformation of EPME I believe is a good news story. However, we believe there is a long ways to go. For exactly the comments that we have already heard from members of the sub-
5 

committee, we are prepared to make those challenges, and we feel 

confident we can move in that direction. 

I thank you for the opportunity to speak this afternoon, and I 

look forward to your questions. 

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

Appendix on page 42.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Colonel. 

Mr. Sparks. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. SPARKS, DIRECTOR, INSTITUTE FOR 

NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, TRAINING AND DOCTRINE COMMAND, U.S. ARMY 

Mr. SPARKS. Chairman Skelton, Chairman Snyder, Congressman 

Wittman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

My name is John Sparks. I am the director of the Institute for 

Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development at the U.S. 

Army Training and Doctrine Command at Fort Monroe, Virginia. 

On behalf of General Dempsey, the commanding general, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you today about Army’s enlisted professional military education. 

Today’s noncommissioned officer system is much different than 

the one I attended during my 30-year career in the Army. It has 

evolved into a dynamic system that plays a significant role in preparing and further developing noncommissioned officers through 

the continuum of their career. 

The richness and depth of that development is rooted in the 

knowledge and the experience not gained in the classroom, but 

gained while deployed in the training environment and practical 

exercises with Army joint and multinational engagement partners. 

Noncommissioned officers are the driving force behind the Army. 

They are the ones that carry out the orders given by commanders, 

direct and train our troops, and usually have the most experience. 

We are proud of our NCOs. We are so proud that in 2009 the Army 

declared that the Year of the NCO. 

It is therefore an honor for me to testify before the subcommittee 

on the Army’s enlisted professional military education program and 

share with you a sense of the Army’s way ahead. I will present two 

themes, the Army noncommissioned officer system of governance 

and structure and the noncommissioned officer leader development 

curriculum. 

The Army views enlisted professional military education as a 

subset of a larger system we call the noncommissioned officer education system, or NCOES. It is important to make that distinction, 

because the Army views education as holistic, sequential, and progressive. The reason for this is simple. The noncommissioned officer leader development model requires a balanced commitment to 

the three pillars of leader development—training, education, and 

experience. 

TRADOC [U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command] recently 

created the Institute for the Noncommissioned Officer Professional 

Development, a special activity that reports to the commanding 

general of TRADOC, to serve as the NCO cohort lead responsible 
6 

for coordinating vertically and horizontally across the Army, the 

Army Reserve and the Army National Guard. 

The second area I would like to discuss is our noncommissioned 

officer leader development curriculum. Our education has transformed significantly since its creation in 1972. In its early years it 

was characterized as a singular, focused schoolhouse delivery training program, which delivered training to approximately 299 soldiers. Today we deliver training in a tiered, progressive education 

manner to nearly 160,000 NCOs annually. 

We deliver this training through various mediums to include 

resident, Web-based and mobile training teams. The new regimen 

is continuous and starts when a soldier completes his initial entry 

training. It continues with that iterative construct of courses which 

progressively build upon education, experience, and training 

throughout a soldier’s career. 

Course curriculum for Warrior Advanced Senior Leader Courses 

includes topics such as leadership, creative thinking, squad, platoon and company operations, conflict management, solving complex problems, resiliency, and developing subordinates. 

The Sergeants Major Course is overhauled and upgraded to include topics that officers study at the Command and General Staff 

College. The resident and non-resident Sergeants Major Course has 

some similar content to the intermediate-level education courses attended by captains and majors. The course is primarily designed to 

prepare our most senior noncommissioned officers for duty at the 

battalion and brigade level. 

Finally, the Army recognized the value and necessity of joint 

education throughout the continuum of professional development. 

Some joint professional military education is delivered through selfdevelopment modules and complements the Warrior Advanced Senior Leader Courses. 

In addition to the self-development and resident instruction 

given at the senior level, soldiers receive assignment-oriented 

training prior to assignment to joint positions at the grade of sergeant through sergeant major. 

In summation, the Army’s enlisted professional military education program remains adapted to the needs of the current and future fighter. And we will continue to solicit feedback from the field, 

combatant commanders, and sister services, as we shape and transform our curriculum. 

Our assessment of the Army enlisted personnel education system 

is vetted and is healthy and achieving its objectives. We have developed an organization with a solid assessment and evaluation resource to ensure growth. Army leadership has emphasized the 

value of leader development and has made it priority number one. 

Recognizing the need to adapt, noncommissioned officer education has transformed from a singular focus, somewhat disparate 

program into a holistic, progressive system of sequential learning. 

We recognize, however, that the program is not without challenges. 

Education is an adaptive process, one which will require continuous adjustment, alignment, and assessment to ensure we are getting it right. 
7 

Our NCOs deserve nothing less than our absolute full commitment to ensuring their ability to execute full-spectrum operations 

in an area of persistent conflict. 

Thank you for the opportunity. I look forward to the committee’s 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sparks can be found in the Appendix on page 63.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mr. Lutterloh. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT LUTTERLOH, DIRECTOR, TOTAL 

FORCE REQUIREMENTS DIVISION, U.S. NAVY 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Good afternoon, Chairman Skelton, Chairman 

Snyder, Representative Wittman, Representative Davis, Dr. 

Fenner, and distinguished members of the Oversight and Investigation Subcommittee. 

I am honored to have the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the U.S. Navy’s approach to enlisted professional military education. Our Navy enlisted force numbers over 273,000 active and 

over 50,000 reserve sailors. These sailors serve in 72 ratings or career fields, and man ships, squadrons, and shore stations around 

the world. 

They are the foundation of an expeditionary Navy as they operate and maintain the systems that allow us to complete a wide 

spectrum of missions. Demands on their skills and dedication are 

high. We rely on them not only to support rotation and deployments that enable Navy’s global presence, but to maintain their 

proficiency through training exercises and to meet emergent requirements that support combatant commanders and joint 

warfighters. 

The latter is highlighted by the fact that more than 8,600 enlisted sailors are currently on the ground in an individual 

augmentee role supporting Navy, the joint force, and coalition operations. 

Navy has long invested in enlisted professional development 

through extensive initial and advanced skills training and a formal 

leadership development program. 

In 2008 we enhanced enlisted professional development opportunities through the implementation of a complete continuum of enlisted professional military education that spans a career from E– 

1 through E–9. This continuum contains progressive Navy professional military education designed to foster professionalism, Naval 

warfighting skills through military studies, and a deeper understanding of national and global security through a maritime lens, 

and the joint PME requirements established by the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

Our continuum includes four Navy PME courses under the purview of the Naval War College, the same institution that oversees 

our officer development. Introductory, basic, primary-level NPME 

[Navy PME] are available to sailors through our Navy knowledge 

online portal. This provides learners with 24-hour, 7-day-a-week access to this valuable professional military education. 

Senior-level Navy professional military education is accomplished 

through a 6-week long resident course, as well as a nonresident al-
8 

ternative that blends several months of online work with 2 weeks 

in residence. 

At the executive level, our E–9s serving in or being assigned to 

join our combined headquarters or task forces in component operational and strategic level leadership positions may attend the 

Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Keystone Course. 

Navy PME complements the Navy’s enlisted leadership development program that provides targeted leadership training for individual sailors at pivotal career points. Successive and progressive 

leadership training is conducted as unit training using standardized content. Members selected for E–4, E–5, E–6, and E–7 must 

complete the appropriate leadership course prior to advancement to 

those grades. 

For senior enlisted leaders, leadership development and EPME 

merge at the Senior Enlisted Academy, which is a prerequisite for 

the Command Master Chief and Chief of the Boat Leadership 

Course. 

Over the last decade, Navy end-strength has decreased, while 

our operational demands have grown. And even when the combat 

forces draw down in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Navy’s high operating tempo will likely continue for the foreseeable future. Our enabling forces will remain in CENTCOM [U.S. Central Command] to 

provide protection, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance. 

Additionally, we will maintain a forward deployed force of about 

100 ships worldwide. 

The Navy successfully develops highly-regarded enlisted leaders, 

who serve in key assignments throughout DOD [Department of Defense]. While the Navy rapidly implemented our EPME continuum, 

it is largely in its infancy and is changing on 3-year periodic. 

We expect the application of incremental EPME across a career 

will ultimately result in senior enlisted leaders who are not only 

technical experts in their career fields, but effective deck plate 

leaders, who also have the much greater perspective on the Navy 

and the joint force. 

The use of NKO [Navy knowledge online] to deliver Navy professional military education courses has been advantageous. It has allowed us to provide unlimited access to the education that enlisted 

sailors have not had before. Electronic delivery is cost-effective, 

convenient for today’s Internet savvy sailors, and has enabled quick 

course revision to address topical concern and areas of interest. 

Our sailors are performing brilliantly, providing incredible service in the maritime, land, air, space, and cyberspace domains 

around the world today. EPME is producing better educated and 

more informed senior enlisted leaders and junior sailors. 

We appreciate the flexibility provided by the chairman to allow 

us to manage the content, quality, and conduct of our program. We 

are confident we have provided a balanced approach to sailor development that allows our skilled and innovative sailors to turn ships, 

aircraft, and technology into capabilities that can prevent conflict 

and win wars while enabling an appropriate work-life balance in 

the face of many demands. 

On behalf of the CNO [Chief of Naval Operations], Admiral 

Roughead, thank you for your continuing support for our professional development of our force. 
9 

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

Appendix on page 81.] 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Lutterloh. 

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, Chairman Skelton, 

Ranking Member Wittman, members of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, for the opportunity for Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Roy and me to highlight our Air Force enlisted professional military education programs and policies. 

I’m very happy to have Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force 

Roy here with me today. 

Chief Roy spends, I would guess, upward of 300 days out of the 

year on the road visiting our airmen, combatant commanders, and 

families in the field. We have a very close relationship where he 

gets direct feedback from the airmen and from the supervisors, and 

our airmen are not shy these days to let us know where the gaps 

in training and education are. We bring that back into our corporate process and sort of transform our systems as we work. 

General Steve Lorenz, the commander of Air Education and 

Training Command, and Lieutenant General Dick Newton, the 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Personnel (A–1), also 

thank the subcommittee, and specifically Dr. Lorry Fenner and Mr. 

Tom Hawley and your professional staff, for the work that you did 

reviewing officer PME. 

As you well know, Secretary Donnelly and Chief of Staff 

Schwartz make developing talented and diverse airmen, all airmen, 

officers, enlisted and civilians, at the tactical, at the operational, at 

the strategic levels a top priority for the Air Force. We are working 

with Air University, with AETC [Air Education and Training Command] and the A–1 staff to implement the recommendations of this 

committee in your officer ‘‘Crossroads’’ review. And we thank you 

for that. 

Our airmen are indeed our most important critical weapon system and our most important link to building partnerships across 

the globe. And this professional military education provides that 

relevant and responsive military education at the appropriate time 

in an airman’s career to prepare our airman to lead and fight in 

airspace and cyberspace. 

Specifically, enlisted PME integrates the principles of sound 

leadership, communication skills, and military studies across the 

learning continuum to expand an airman’s leadership ability and 

to strengthen their commitment to the profession of arms. 

To the integration of the Air Force institutional competencies, 

which I hope to talk a little bit more in detail when we get to questions and answers, and also directed by the Chairman of the Joint 

Chiefs of Staff, Air Force enlisted PME ensures a solid link between the capabilities and the mission needs across our entire enlisted career continuum. 

Ultimately, we deliver the right education at the right time 

throughout the careers of our airmen to ensure deliberate develop-
10 

ment of these vital tactical, operational, and strategic warfighters 

and thinkers. The enlisted PME continuum is tied to the level and 

scope of leader and manager responsibilities commensurate with 

promotions. 

And specifically for us in the Air Force, the timing of Airman 

Leadership School, Senior NCO Academy, and the Chief Master 

Sergeant Leadership Course attendance is tied to promotion to 

staff sergeant, senior master sergeant, and chief master sergeant, 

respectively. 

Selection of the faculty and senior staff is also key to the successful implementation of enlisted PME. The school commandants ensure that our faculty meet the qualifications and achieve the right 

balance of academic rigor and diversity. Although our operations 

tempo makes faculty manning an ongoing challenge at all levels of 

enlisted PME, we meet mission requirements. 

The Air Force maintains currency and relevance of EPME 

through a number of guiding apparati. Curricula incorporate current doctrine to ensure students are exposed to the very latest Air 

Force and joint lessons learned. In addition, the curriculum is influenced by the faculty, the students, and, as I mentioned, external 

feedback from the airmen, from supervisors, and from combatant 

commanders, as well as other inputs. 

Operational experiences also provide the necessary insight needed to inform the curricula. The Air Force Learning Committee, 

which I chair, is comprised of air staff functionals, major commands, and Air University. And that is the gatekeeping body that 

we use to maintain the balance and to validate the requests for 

curriculum change along with senior leadership priorities, functional requirements, and policy. 

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Roy and I also co-chair 

an enlisted force development panel, which looks to the future of 

the enlisted force development and anticipates changing requirements. 

To ensure enlisted PME is aligned with our priorities and force 

development strategies, we also conduct an enlisted PME triennial 

review, which we have just recently completed with our senior enlisted leadership and our subject matter experts. This exercise then 

ensures that the curriculum meets the applicable joint and force 

development policy and guidance, and it also considers things such 

as educational technologies, as well as the resources needed to 

make the future mission challenges. 

In the most recent review, we validated that our EPME programs are delivering the required education with the right breadth 

and depth to our enlisted airmen at the appropriate career points, 

but we also identified some improvement areas such as the earlier 

development, as we mentioned here—as, Mr. Chairman, you mentioned—as the changing role of our NCO requires us to move our 

timing of that deliberate development of education forward. 

And we also found some improvements in areas of our curriculum that we can modify in order to better meet our learning 

outcomes. And yes, the role of our enlisted airmen, and specifically 

the role of our NCOs, is constantly changing. 

In response, PME is continuously evolving to meet the demand 

for critical thinkers as well as for problem solvers with a broadened 
11 

total force, joint, coalition, and global perspective so that we can 

more effectively operate in the dynamic and often uncertain environments in which we engage. 

The continued efforts of this committee and your initiatives to 

grow and develop highly qualified airmen is most appreciated. And 

it also ensures our ability to continue to fly, and fight in air, space, 

and cyberspace. Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sitterly can be found in the Appendix on page 86.] 

Dr. SNYDER. I’m pleased to recognize Chairman Skelton. 

STATEMENT OF HON. IKE SKELTON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MISSOURI, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON ARMED 

SERVICES 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you. And I compliment you on calling this 

hearing. It is very, very important. 

Three weeks ago I attended a promotion ceremony for a young 

soldier who had been promoted to colonel. In the obligatory thank 

you message that always accompanies a promotion, the young colonel first off thanked all of the sergeants he had worked with. 

And I thought that was a telling thing, because without the advice and mentorship in his case, as well as in other cases, the 

young lieutenants and captains might very well just leave the military without the encouragement of someone who has more experience. 

I think it is important that the education of your NCOs, particularly those who reach the rank of senior NCOs, be very high. I 

have been an advocate that all military leaders be historians. 

There are some that have had a whole career that have never been 

in a position to walk on the battlefield, and yet there are those that 

have. But in the military you don’t get to practice your profession 

every day or every week. You have to do a lot of training. 

A good trial lawyer, a good surgeon will have the opportunity on 

many, many occasions during a year to practice his or her profession. Not so with those in uniform. And of course, that is good. But 

when called upon to enter the battlefield or the sea space, you 

move to a victorious encounter. And you do that by outstanding 

leadership. 

And that is why it is important that noncommissioned officers, 

and particularly senior ranks, be steeped in military history, so 

that when situations arise that they have not experienced themselves, they will be in a position to consciously or subconsciously 

apply the lessons that they learned in the study of their profession. 

So I compliment you on this. I believe it is important. I mean, 

as Mr. Sitterly said—so very, very necessary. And as long as you 

have high-caliber—high-caliber—senior enlisted that play the role 

of advisors, leaders, and in many cases mentors, I think we will 

have a great set of young upcoming leaders in our country. 

I compliment you on your work. Keep it up. You can never have 

enough history courses, though. Thank you. And let me thank you 

again for this opportunity to join you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Wittman for 5 minutes. 
12 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the members of the panel for joining us today. I wanted 

to look across the board about what each of your enlisted PME programs brings to the table. I know that you are probably, through 

this hearing, aware not only of what your service branch does, but 

also what the other service branches do as far as enlisted PME. 

Let me ask you this. I want to kind of put those strengths and 

weaknesses into perspective so we can all use this as an experience 

where we learn from the other service branches. Tell me then from 

your perspective what you see from another service branch. And 

what is a strength in that program that you might like to reflect 

in your program? 

And, Colonel, let us begin with you. And we will just go down 

the table and get your perspective there. 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. I will say that if you look at our program and success that we have had in the last 4 years, I would 

look at it almost in four phases. First, we started with the content 

and refreshed that. The second is the delivery. The third would be 

the evaluation side of it, and then the last is the expansion. 

The Marine Corps was primarily focused on the sergeant, the Career Course, which is for our E–6, and the Advanced Course. But 

now we have expanded on both ends of the continuum so that we 

have exposed more Marines to education earlier. 

In regards to what we see at the other services, I have already 

been down to Fort Bliss. I have a chance to go down in September 

to Maxwell, and as well as up to Newport. 

What we found that we particularly liked, and I was just talking 

with Mr. Sparks about this, but went out and met a gentleman by 

the name of Dr. Boyle, former Marine, but was working at the Sergeants Major Academy out in El Paso. 

The delivery part that we are changing in the Marine Corps, I 

think that the Army already has it. And that is the Socratic teaching, the small breakouts, peer-to-peer learning, and the opportunity 

for that faculty advisor to be that critical link to the education experience. 

So I guess that—I hope that answers the question. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Sparks. 

Mr. SPARKS. Sir, thank you. In the United States Army, we have 

really been getting at NCO education for quite some time. In the 

near history, we did a study in 2006 on exactly where we were 

going with it, the noncommissioned officer education system. What 

were the things that we felt like we could do better? 

We looked at delivery mechanisms and that sort of thing. As a 

matter fact, the Institute that I work with has actually emerged 

from that study. As a part of that study, we looked at all the services. We actually visited with the services to see what they actually 

do for NCO education. 

And I think the thing that I would take away as valuable from 

all, at least in my experience, is they are all in a degree of providing a higher level of education for noncommissioned officers. So 

there is something interesting, or it is an interesting perspective at 

least, to entertain the idea of how they present their instruction. 

We, certainly inside of my organization, have determined what 

we think is best for the Army. But with what is sort of the interest 
13 

going on in the other services, it gives us the ability to kind of 

bounce our ideas against their ideas and what they do and how 

they see things. 

As a matter of fact, we have a program called College of the 

American Soldier that we established for the benefit of the advancement of enlisted soldiers in college degrees. One of the things 

we did at the beginning of that process is met with the Air Force 

and looked at their Community College of the Air Force effort. 

So I could go on, and there are many efforts. I think it is good 

to have some mutual collaboration and understand what the other 

services are doing. It is certainly helpful for us and the United 

States Army. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Representative Wittman, thank you for the opportunity to address this issue. I think the biggest single benefit 

we have with respect to the other services is the inclusion of other 

service staff members as our instructional force. So we include 

other service members. In fact, we are now in the business of shipping our own instructors down to Fort Bliss to participate in that. 

So we get tremendous feedback from that interaction. 

Our continuum is relatively new. We started that process of visiting the other schools. We have taken away some nuggets, some 

of them associated with technology. The use of ‘‘Blackboard’’ we are 

implementing now, but primarily the use of other service instructors to focus on that connectivity across DOD and the inclusion of 

the other service students in our classes. 

At Navy we also have some international students, as you are 

probably aware. So that helps to round out that discussion within 

our courses. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Dr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you for the question. Let me start by saying I am a graduate of the first three levels of our Air Force enlisted PME as an NCO, and then I became an actual PME instructor in it. And I have to say I was always jealous of the other services. I don’t think that at that point in my career that I thought 

we spent enough time over a 20- or 30-year career in the classroom 

learning education. Some of the other services had a little bit more 

time in the classroom. 

That said, now that I am in the position that I am in now and 

have a better understanding of the Air Force institutional competency model and our continuum of learning, and that is we look 

at a building block approach from the eight Air Force institutional 

competencies and sub-competencies throughout all of our PME—officer PME, enlisted PME, education, training, the Air Force Academy—the same core institutional competencies, and we build upon 

them as an officer, airman, enlisted, civilian for that matter, go forward. 

And so through this continuum of learning, I think that we are 

doing it at the right time in the right places, and the experiential 

part is important as well. And we also have about 27 percent of our 

enlisted force that obtain a college degree while they are in through 

the Community College of the Air Force. 

And so now looking at the amount of time we spend in the classroom, I think we have it about right through the continuum, the 
14 

training piece, our five-level, seven-level, nine-level skill level training, the education piece, and the Leadership School, NCO Academy, Senior NCO Academy, and our recently added Chief’s Leadership Course. I think we have it about right. 

Now, one of the gaps that we found recently as we looked at our 

institutional competencies, and because of the changing role of the 

NCO and how they are actually fighting wars today, if you will, in 

small groups, in decision-making, in problem solving, in critical 

thinking, we have determined that we probably need to move the 

time to the left. 

And so Chief Master Sergeant Roy has just implemented at the 

Barnes Center, where we do our enlisted PME, all folks who will 

now go before their senior master sergeant to the Senior NCO 

Academy, and we are now sort of fighting the resource battle to do 

the same thing for our NCO Academy so that they get it closer to 

the 10-year point than at the 12- or 13-year point. So thank you 

for the question. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Wittman. 

I will start with you, Mr. Sitterly, so we will go the other way 

this time. And I think you all are getting at this question, but as 

you look ahead over the next 6 months to 1-year timeframe—and 

I won’t be here, so whatever you say I won’t be able to follow up 

on, but Mrs. Davis and Mr. Skelton and Mr. Wittman will be here, 

so they can. 

But what things are you working on that you hope will be different 6 months or a year from now? And what things are you 

working on that you have a fear it won’t be as far along as you 

would like it to be 6 months or a year from now? 

Mr. Sitterly. 

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

When we did our triennial review recently, we looked at top to 

bottom of everything that we are presenting in our education in our 

classrooms, and so as we moved into the cyber missions, as we 

have more of a need to address things like cross-cultural competencies, things like the social media, resource management, so on 

and so forth, those are curricula that we need to add to our enlisted 

PME across the force. And we will do that in the next 6 months. 

Most of that is being done right now. 

We will also fight the resource battle to move our NCO Academy 

to the left. That will require some additional faculty, probably require some additional resources. I don’t think we will have that 

done in the next 6 months, but I will fight that battle. 

Long-term—distance learning and technology and the application 

of how we actually teach people. Information technology, infrastructure is very, very expensive. And to make sure that we have 

integrated it through all of our various learning platforms and to 

get it right so that we can build upon that, we need to work very 

serious in that direction. And we are. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. I think the 

things that I am pretty confident about—we have a 3-year cycle of 

updating our curricula, so we stood up the Primary Course focused 
15 

on our chief petty officers in 2006. We upgraded that in 2009. I 

think it reflects totally relevant content for the time. 

We implemented our Primary, our Introductory Course and our 

Basic Course a little later than that. They are due for revision now. 

As a matter fact, we are undergoing revision now. That will come 

online in 2011. That content refresh is on track and working. So 

I think maintaining the relevance of our content is right on track. 

I mentioned before the joint instructors, the joint student load. 

I think that is continuing to increase. 

The things I worry about are balancing the educational and 

training workload of our enlisted force across their career from the 

career transition from civilian to sailor in boot camp, leader-follower discussions that we go through, how that relates to the development of technically savvy professional mariners, how we develop 

them into leaders, how we focus them on then naval leadership and 

being able to represent the Navy. 

Furthermore, into the joint environment there are a lot of knowledge, skills, and abilities to translate over a career, a lot of competing requirements. And right now, I am thinking about the policy 

associated with enlisted professional military education. 

Currently, it is not mandated for any specific pay grade. It is recommended. We have provided commands the flexibility to identify 

individually when that is most appropriate for an individual sailor. 

But we have got to clearly think about the policy ramifications of 

that in the future. So that is the thing I am most concerned about. 

I think the one other aspect would be bandwidth. Much of our 

enlisted professional military education is done over a distance. I 

worry about that bandwidth in an expeditionary force. So I think 

it is going to take us a couple of years, if not more, to completely 

resolve any bandwidth issues to completely make that training 

available, that education available to our force. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Sparks. 

Mr. SPARKS. Thank you, sir. I spent 30 years as a noncommissioned officer, you know, I mean, up through almost senior courses, 

and as any NCO or former NCO would tell you, the strength of our 

education system is our ability to change, our ability to react to the 

needs of the force. 

I would submit that our reevaluation cycles of our curricula and 

programs of instruction are constant. There probably won’t be a 

time when you can singularly say that every single program is correct. But what we can say is that it meets the needs of the force 

at that particular time, but we have to revise it or upgrade it to 

meet whatever we think the potential needs may be. 

So in respect to your question of what things do we think we will 

have done and what things are we concerned about, in the noncommissioned officer education system in the Army, we have just 

several programs now that we are moving forward in this next 

year. I will give you just a couple of examples. 

One of them is a structured self-development program, where the 

United States Army determines what areas are not covered in our 

professional military education system that should be covered 

across some sort of a lifelong learning continuum. We will implement that structured self-development system this year. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Give me some examples. 
16 

Mr. SPARKS. As Chairman Skelton mentioned, we believe there 

should be more of a relationship with military history and history 

of the noncommissioned officer corps early on in a soldier’s career. 

Today in our noncommissioned officer education system, they experience those subjects, but we think they should experience them 

much earlier. So in a structured self-development program, we 

would incorporate those tasks that we think are important but 

didn’t make it into our PME structure. 

To support that idea, we have created a lifelong learning continuum, where a soldier enters the Army, and he is always in a 

construct of learning. He never leaves the training model. He attends his advanced individual training, begins a structured self-development program that carries him into his first level of professional military education. 

We will start that program this year, and it is a fantastic program. It is very interesting. It is well received by the soldiers. We 

have had it through all of its testing phases, and we are ready to 

implement. 

We have a number of programs under the College of the American Soldier arena that we look to implement this year in the next 

12 months. We have a program now that is called the Noncommissioned Officer Degree Program that has been up and running for 

a number of years. We are working on an enlisted degree program 

and a graduate program as well. 

I just met last week with our senior NCOs, some at the Sergeants Major Academy, to solicit their feedback. They are greatly 

excited about the program. As a matter of fact, in just our last Sergeants Major Course, we had about 34 soldiers graduate with a 

graduate degree. So we will look forward to implementing that program in the next year. 

Additionally, we have a whole series of ideas and thoughts we 

are experimenting now with mobile learning. Over the past several 

years, we found that most soldiers are very savvy when it comes 

to Internet tech connectivity and Internet education, so we have 

taken some of our courseware and looked at how we can deliver 

that on a mobile learning platform. Soldiers can literally learn from 

any direction. 

And sir, I realize I am over my time. The things that we worry 

about, quite frankly, are our ability to keep pace with the needs of 

the Army. We constantly evaluate our programs. We do a critical 

task selection for every single skill level and every single job in the 

Army. And what we want to do is constantly meet the needs of the 

force. 

We do that currently with rapid assessments and critique of our 

schools. We have accreditation teams that go out and visit with 

units coming back from combat, units that are going. We have two 

combat units that just finished our education processes that soldiers have just attended. 

So I am comfortable that we are doing everything possible we 

can to collect that data, but in my view that is the most paramount 

mission in our force is to keep up, keep pace with the needs of the 

United States Army. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Colonel. 
17 

Colonel MINICK. Sir, the near-term success that we are going to 

have is our faculty advisors course, which we just developed. We 

will pilot this fall. 

Dr. SNYDER. Did you say faculty advisors? 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. Faculty advisors course where, like all 

services here, our schoolhouses are scattered around the globe. 

What I found in my first year on the job is that the critical piece 

is that faculty advisor, the one that is kneecap-to-kneecap with the 

student that is making a difference. 

We don’t believe that in the past we have done enough to develop 

them, so we are piloting a new program that we believe will be 

proof of concept. We will do it this fall. But every faculty advisor 

now, when you get assigned to an academy, you will come to 

Quantico, and we will put you through a 2-week course. 

Now, what we say is, ‘‘it is not a 2-week course, it is a 3-year 

program.’’ The start is the most important part. We get them early 

within the first 2 months in the billet, and then we develop that, 

and we continue to develop them all the way through a master instructor program while they are with us. So that is the near-term. 

The long-term—this year we got Training and Education Command (TECOM) to make an agreement that the same folks who do 

distance education for the officer corps are now going to do it for 

the enlisted Marines. There are two advantages to that. 

One, they have tremendous experience in how they have developed the officer program over the last 20 years. We can tap into 

that. And the second thing is you are now melding officer and enlisted education, which I think is a critical part of our success in 

the way forward to make sure that, just like you said, that lieutenant and that sergeant are all talking the same language. 

That by design—I shouldn’t say by design—that is just going to 

take a long time. Developing distance education and using all the 

technologies, which will be Blackboard and everything else mentioned, we have a Program Objective Memorandum (POM) that is 

going to take us all the way out. 

When we are completely finished, it will be a seminar program 

so that, for example, in the Career Course they will do some online, 

but we will pull them together with adjunct faculty, and they will 

actually have peer-to-peer instructor to student seminars wherever 

we have an academy. So that is going to be a long-term project. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Thank you all for being here. I think you have touched a little 

bit on assessment, but I wanted to go back and perhaps have you 

speak to student assessment and how you monitor that and whether or not you are able to follow up with, you know, bosses in the 

field, essentially, to see whether or not the lessons were received. 

How do you do that? And what role does it play in the adaptive 

learning atmosphere that you have been reaching for? And I know 

in most cases, you know, we are not necessarily there yet finally, 

but how do you do that? 

Colonel MINICK. What we have done in the past is that we find 

out from the student how we are doing, and we realize now that 

that is not the best metric. So just like you said, we truly believe 
18 

our final customer is that commander and that senior enlisted 

leader that Marine is going back to. 

So we have developed, or we are in the process of developing, a 

survey assessment so that when that Marine returns, 6 months 

after he has left our schoolhouse, we are getting feedback. Was 

that time he spent with us beneficial towards his development? 

Mr. SPARKS. Thank you, ma’am, for the question. In the Army we 

have a very aggressive assessment feedback system. The first assessment, of course, occurs with the student in a particular course, 

and we are able to assess how he progresses through the course. 

But relative to, I think, your comment about how do we evaluate 

our courses, each student when he graduates from the course, he 

goes through a series of feedback mechanisms. One, he does interviews and assessments with folks like me, where I sit down with 

actual students in the class and talk to them about what they 

thought. 

Then we look at a written feedback form that they provide us on 

what the strengths and weaknesses of the course were from individual classes to instructors, for instance. We get at things like 

how should this course be presented. Would this class be hosted 

better in a mobile learning environment? Is it best in a residence 

environment, and that sort of thing. 

We have a very arduous certification program inside of TRADOC 

where we have an accreditation team that visits each one of our 

academies, and takes feedback from the students and feedback 

from the field in a mechanism to look at the academy to ensure 

they are doing the right thing. 

Sergeant Major Camacho sitting behind me is my representative 

on that accreditation team. He physically visits our academies, 

each one of them, looks at their program of instruction, and talks 

to the instructors and their students. 

To go on just a little further on the things that we do, we have 

a survey process that when a student graduates from any one of 

our courses, he has to indicate who his supervisor was or currently 

is. We send a product to that supervisor via the Internet, and the 

supervisor has a requirement to fill out the survey, return it to us, 

and tell him what his customer satisfaction—tell us what his customer satisfaction was with his soldier when he received him. 

And we do that about the 6-month mark after the course has 

been completed so we can ascertain how the soldiers perform back 

in their unit. 

Lastly, ma’am, all of our leaders, whether the sergeants major in 

the Army, the command sergeants major across the force, the general officers, as they visit soldiers and they visit units, they provide 

information back to us on what commanders say in the field about 

the things that they would want their soldiers to receive or the 

things that their soldiers are receiving that are working very well. 

We do that in a number of visit kind of methodologies, and we 

also have a group of teams that visits with each unit when they 

come out of theater to assess what their strengths or weaknesses 

were, and all of that information comes back to the Army Center 

for Lessons Learned, that gets distributed to the schools and centers to provide an accurate assessment of what we need to do better in each one of our schools. 
19 

Mrs. DAVIS. Is there anything consistently that you find that you 

are falling short on? 

Mr. SPARKS. Not consistently, ma’am. There are ideas, you know. 

Recently, we implemented resiliency training at the charge of the 

Chief of Staff. When we go out and query the field, they say, ‘‘Yes, 

you know, that is the right thing to do. We should bring a higher 

level of resiliency training.’’ 

So we tend to get his concurrence. In some cases there will be 

some adjustment to the battle space that will require us to make 

a degree of adjustment inside of the course. 

But we firmly believe in our Institute and across the Army that 

we should be willing to change immediately. So if we can find a 

specific change for a particular branch of a soldier at a particular 

grade, we will make the adjustment in that course. Sometimes 

those particular suggestions make their way totally across the 

force. But you can be sure we look at each and every one of them 

to make sure that they are provided to the right soldier at the right 

time. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Anything particularly different that you 

would like to add in your assessment? Is it quite different in the 

Navy or the Air Force? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Yes, ma’am. I would say that we are a lot similar to the other services, as you have heard. I would say that internal to our courses, especially the Senior Enlisted Academy, there 

are assessments done by our instructors. 

And coupled with the War College—the great thing about being 

up there with the War College is we utilize the professors at the 

War College to help our instructional faculty at the Senior Enlisted 

Academy understand the differences between training, which they 

have had a lot of experience in, and education, which has been 

somewhat limited in their careers. 

So that seminar style of educational approach and the assessments in papers and in projects and in roles in the class are something that we focus on. 

Beyond that, what I would say is a core thing that hasn’t been 

discussed. Our enlisted board of advisors led by the Master Chief 

Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON) and all of the fleet and force 

master chiefs are the Chiefs Messes that get together and regularly 

address what gets put forth in our enlisted professional military 

education continuum as well as our Senior Enlisted Academy. 

And I don’t believe there is any stronger communication mechanisms than that Chiefs Mess. It is tremendously valuable in the 

feedback that it provides to our institutions. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. One area that I think that 

we have done well in recently is on the input side of what goes into 

curriculum through what we call our Air Force Learning Council. 

And because we have captured students in all of our PME, there 

is a tendency for our functional areas to want to sort of give input 

to the curricula, whether it is a safety message of the day and so 

on and so forth. 

So through this learning committee, we now vet every new functional input, no matter what it is, to first assess where it is that 
20 

we are teaching it as important—that is, at what level are we 

teaching. Are we teaching it at the cognitive domain of knowledge, 

understanding? Or are we more at the affective domain where we 

are more interested in attitude and so on and so forth? 

So that has really helped us to keep the curriculum from sort of 

getting everybody’s inputs and making sure that we are going back, 

looking at all of the institutional competencies. 

And then the other thing that I think that we have done recently 

that is very helpful is our just-in-time joint lessons learned. And 

we always have the discussion—Dr. Fenner had the discussion 

when she visited our Barnes Center—is what is the difference between education and training, like Mr. Lutterloh said. 

And sometimes you need to do some just-in-time training that 

you didn’t capture because somebody has come back from an AOR 

[area of responsibility]. And so we have an E–9 shop that looks at 

both Air Force lessons learned and joint lessons learned. We have 

a joint PME, enlisted joint PME committee. And we will go and 

look at them and find out when is the appropriate time to put them 

in, and should we do it in our just-in-time training at our Expeditionary Center, or should we put it into a PME program. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate everybody’s perspective on where you see your service branches now with enlisted PME, where the challenges are. Let 

me ask in this context. It seems like to me there are a lot of great 

efforts that are going on out there. I want to get you to kind of talk 

about what additional changes you might see in the future. 

And I just put it in perspective in the realm of do you think 

courses maybe need to be shortened or lengthened? I know you 

have probably a valuation process, as some mentioned, with your 

students, but also obviously with the commands that they go back 

to make sure that you are serving their needs. 

Another component there was offering it to more NCOs, maybe 

at an earlier stage, and I think that is a component that is interesting, looking how we make sure the scope of education is there 

for NCOs. Looking at a direct link to promotion, is there a component there where there should be a direct link to promotion? I want 

to get your thoughts on that. 

Should there also be, as we look at on the officer side, should 

there be a Capstone element there, too, to folks that are there at 

very advanced stages of their careers as an NCO? 

So I just wanted to get it in—just put that in the perspective of 

within that list of things, and you don’t have to address each one 

of those, but just looking in the context of are there things out 

there left to be done that we can do better? 

And I know each of you have talked a little bit about the 

strengths of your programs, where you see things going, but I 

would like for us to maybe take the next step within those contexts 

and say are there still things that we can do better to make sure 

that we are meeting the needs of our NCOs and making sure that 

they have the best educational opportunity out there? 
21 

And the one thing—I would just wax philosophical here for a second—one thing that really impressed me was the percentage of 

NCOs in each of the service branches that have either bachelors’ 

degrees or advanced degrees. And that to me is very, very telling 

that you have an NCO corps with a strong desire to get that advanced element of education. 

So I just want to know are there additional things that we can 

do better, that we can change to make sure that we are doing all 

we can to make sure that our NCO corps is getting what they 

need? 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. I guess what I would say from a pragmatic view with the op [operations] tempo and what we perceive 

to be the continued ops tempo, we believe we have it about right 

for the duration. 

We understand that adding our senior enlisted course, which is 

on the far end of the continuum, is going to cause another education hurdle, but we think it is well worth their time and the organization’s time. And we are very comfortable with that. 

As you mentioned earlier, we have one course, and that is the 

Advanced Course. It is for our E–7s. It is for our gunnery sergeants. That is the only resident course that is a resident attendance requirement for promotion. We are currently running about 

62 percent of the force through that. 

Now, what I will tell you is it is a bit of a math problem. You 

look at time and grade, you look at the amount that we promote 

every year to E–8, and then you look at the opportunities to go to 

school. Every E–7, the target population for that Advanced Course, 

has about 15 opportunities to get to school. 

And we have looked at the numbers hard, and we are confident 

that that is a reasonable expectation, and we have never had an 

individual that said, ‘‘I couldn’t get there,’’ and there wasn’t a justification to say, ‘‘Well, you could have gone at this time.’’ 

So I do think we have the time right. I do think that for us now 

we are at the Advanced Course we are putting a significant marker 

down. If you want to continue up and be a senior enlisted, you are 

going to go to that resident course. 

But the last thing that I would add is one of the ways we are 

looking to mitigate the quality time when we do get them in the 

resident course is by the prerequisites that we do with the new online, which again, we are doing with CDET, College of Distance 

Education and Training, for the Marine Corps. 

So we believe that, you know, through prerequisite work, we can 

get much more effective time when we have them—probably work 

on the lower and cognitive skills, and then when they get them together, we are working on the higher end professional education 

skills. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Sparks. 

Mr. SPARKS. Thank you, sir. That is a great question. The first 

point relative to your comment on college degrees, just for a point 

of reference, 38 percent of the sergeants major class that graduated 

this year graduated with a degree. Civilian education is extremely 

important to the noncommissioned officers population of the Army. 

To get it at—I think your first question was attendance. We believe in the United States Army that all noncommissioned officers 
22 

will attend every level of the required noncommissioned officer education. The way that we go about ensuring that attendance is possible is we have looked at every—and we have done it for a number 

of years now—we have looked at every possible way to deliver the 

course and how the course could be delivered. 

For instance, since 2008, when we had occasions where soldiers 

had quick turnaround times and were able to come to our resident 

course, in most cases we picked up the resident course and actually 

moved it to the installation. We refer to those courses as mobile 

training teams. 

So our perspective inside of our organization and inside of the 

greater United States Army is that the soldiers—we have to determine what the soldiers’ needs actually are, and we will deliver the 

education anywhere possible to reach that need. 

Relative to promotion, noncommissioned officer education is a requirement for promotion. We continually look at ways and how we 

should deliver that requirement. Should we move it earlier in the 

soldier’s learning continuum or in his career lifespan? But it is a 

requirement, and all soldiers must attend NCOES. 

The lengths of the courses are something that we look at constantly. One of the divisions inside of my organization looks at 

lengths and delivery mechanisms. Every one of our military occupational specialties at each particular skill level one through five 

is required to complete a task list of the required tasks across the 

spectrum of the Army for that particular soldier in the area of 

what his requirements of learning are. 

We take those tests, and we look at all the ways that we can deliver them in an effort to set the course length in the right way. 

In some cases a course may be too short. As we re-look each one 

of those MOSs [Military Occupational Specialties], we may determine that a course needs to be longer. We have just recently done 

that. It is important to do that very frequently, because we don’t 

want to miss the opportunity to train a soldier when he has got a 

short ‘‘boots on the ground’’ time. 

Technology is an area that we need to constantly improve on. 

The idea that most soldiers today carry a personal device that is 

accessible to the Internet should tell us that there are ways that 

we can get at education that we haven’t traditionally thought of. 

We have delivered and we do deliver a number of courses online, 

but only if we think that course delivery online is representative 

of the required learning continuum. 

Lastly, sir, we have engaged a process now this year—where I 

really want to be in 2015—at the direction of our commanding general, General Dempsey, we are looking hard at what technologies 

we think will be available in 2015, what the young learner will expect in 2015, and how we will get it. 

So not only are we engaged every day in what we think our 

courses should look like, we are engaged in the future as well. And 

we want to make sure we got it right. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you, sir. I agree with my colleagues relative to the length of the courses. I think they are about right. Our 

senior enlisted leadership feels they are about right. In a pressur-
23 

ized fiscal environment, I think it is what we can afford right now, 

given the value that we see coming out of it. 

I appreciate the flexibility that leadership has given us relative 

to policy decisions on mandating enlisted professional military education accomplishment prior to advancement. I will continue to 

take a very deliberate approach for that and make sure that we 

balance those requirements across a career and that we don’t jeopardize anybody’s chances for advancement, because they may not 

have the bandwidth available to gain access to our courses as an 

expeditionary force. 

We do believe in the Keystone project, the capstone event for the 

enlisted force. As a matter of fact, Force Snyder, our Naval Education and Training Command’s Force Master Chief, is not here 

today because he is involved in Keystone. So we are very proud of 

the fact that he is there. 

We do believe that it is a fairly limited event. It should be tied 

to requirements, key positions on joint staffs, and it should be provided to highly potential candidates that would fill those positions, 

and Force Snyder is an excellent candidate for that. So I think we 

have got to do that. 

Where I think we have got to focus some attention, though, relative to your question, is perhaps on tailoring. We are taking advantage of quite a bit of the technology already in our courses. 

What I don’t think we are doing quite effectively yet is perhaps tailoring some of our instruction. 

For example, specific regional and cultural areas—how should we 

be addressing that and folding it in—not only understanding Navy 

and joint capabilities, warfighting capabilities and orders of battle, 

but also understanding those of our international partners a little 

bit better and perhaps threats within regions to which they may 

be assigned. So some continued focus on perhaps some of those aspects would be appropriate. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Mr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you for the question. I agree. I think we 

have the content and timing about right, or we have the processes 

for review in place where we can adjust those. And we, too, require 

100 percent attendance at all four levels of our PME for promotion. 

Now, there are some waiver processes in place for medical reasons 

or deployment reasons, but we track those to completion as well. 

And we also have some executive level courses for folks who are 

going out to be command chiefs or career field managers and so on 

to sort of go beyond what everybody else gets. 

But I think what keeps me awake at night is our competency to 

employ military capability and from the 2010 Quadrennial Defense 

Review in the building partnership capacity piece. And we have 

some very robust officer programs in our regional affairs specialists, our political affairs specialists, FAO [foreign affairs officer] 

programs and so on and so forth. But I don’t think that is going 

to get to that mission requirement. 

I think that our enlisted force is going to do more and more— 

they are doing more and more of that. And we have recently 

formed partnerships with eight coalition countries at this point, 
24 

where we have exchange programs with both our faculty and instructors, as well as our joint partners. 

But I think we need to do more of that both in the interagency 

and the multinational arena, and I think the opportunity is here. 

I think some of the best relationship building is done, you know, 

with the young airmen, mil-to-mil sort of thing in a classroom. So 

we are going to continue to reach out and build that capacity to 

build partnership within our PME programs. And the cultural, 

cross-cultural capacity that that gives us is tremendous. 

So thank you for the question. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yield back. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Sitterly, a couple of times this afternoon you 

mentioned resources as an issue. I think in one context it was 

pushing—in your words—to the left, I think, in the 10-year range 

rather than the 12-, 13-year range. You thought it would take additional faculty, which required additional resources. 

In the grand scheme of the Air Force budget, that must be a fairly small amount of money for a concept that we think is the essence of the military, which is the people. Why are you having 

problems with resources, if you think that is an important part of 

getting the personnel up to where everyone thinks they ought to 

be? 

Mr. SITTERLY. I think us putting together a solid business case 

for the requirement and then picking the right sort of—does it require additional infrastructure, can we expand upon the facilities 

that we have now? So that burden is on me to put together—— 

Dr. SNYDER. But you haven’t actually been turned down on anything you asked for? 

Mr. SITTERLY. No, sir. In fact, at 1330 today over in the building 

on the other side of the river, we are making our pitch to our Force 

Management and Development Council, so I suspect we will be successful, and then it has to get it into the budget process. So the 

burden is on my shoulders, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. And the issue you mentioned, the technology, because you still send out, mail out a ‘‘box of books’’ to folks, don’t 

you, and you are trying to get away from that? That is also a resource issue so it can all be done—— 

Mr. SITTERLY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. SNYDER. IT [information technology]. 

Mr. SITTERLY. It certainly is. And we have recently stood up the 

Barnes Center, named after the fourth chief master sergeant of the 

Air Force, in order to synergize all of the resources, Community 

College of the Air Force, all of our enlisted PME, our Enlisted Heritage Research Institute, so that we can synergize all of our IT systems, our officer systems, build upon the same platform. 

So at the same time because our requirements are moving quickly and what we are putting into our curriculum is moving quickly, 

the need to be able to build a distance learning program and to 

keep our resident programs current at the same time becomes challenging for us. 

Additionally, as we look at some of the issues—irregular warfare, 

you know, cyber—we don’t necessarily have the expertise on the 

staff, so we need to look at bringing in subject matter experts in 
25 

order to build both our distance learning program and our resident 

courses. 

So we have acknowledged that. We are updating the ‘‘box of 

books,’’ if you will, to make sure that we are meeting our educational learning outcomes, which we certainly will, and at the 

same time we are pursuing the distance learning as well. 

Dr. SNYDER. Thank you. 

Colonel Minick, I want to follow up with you on this issue of the 

advanced course requirement for promotion of E–7 to E–8. And I 

believe you said that you thought people by the time they reached 

E–7 had had 15 opportunities on average in their career to take 

that. And yet isn’t it correct that of those E–7s that are eligible for 

promotion to E–8, almost 30 percent of them have not completed 

the advanced course? 

I mean, regardless of what they might say in some survey, you 

would just think that if I was an E–7—it shows a certain commitment to the Marine Corps—I would like to be an E–8, why would 

you have almost 30 percent of the people who would say, ‘‘No, I 

know that is required for promotion to E–8, but I am not going to 

take the course.’’ 

It seems to be inconsistent with human behavior that they would 

pass on an opportunity that would mean more money for them, 

more money for their family, you know, moving up in their career. 

It seems like there—and it may well be ops tempo, sort of. It just 

doesn’t seem—I mean, I would be questioning if people said, ‘‘No, 

I am going to pass on this,’’ once again, because they really don’t 

want to be an E–8. That doesn’t make sense to me. 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. It doesn’t make sense to me either, 

but—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, then we are in agreement. I bet there is a mistake with the information you have been getting. 

Colonel MINICK. No. No, no, the information is accurate. What I 

provided in the pre-brief, we are running about 63 percent of our 

E–7s are attending the resident course. 

Now, what you have to consider, and I will look at it from an officer’s side—I know a number of lieutenant colonels that are going 

to get out at 20 and don’t have a desire to be a colonel in the Marine Corps. It could be for personal reasons, professional reasons. 

I am not saying that we have 30 percent that do that, but the 

data that we provided in the pre-brief is accurate. Now, we have 

only been running the requirement for one year, so we believe that, 

you know, that number will go up, the amount of E–7s attending 

the Advanced Course, because we do believe it is important. 

Dr. SNYDER. Well, so then, it is not probably fair to those folks 

to say, ‘‘You have had 15 opportunities,’’ if they have only known 

for a year that they would—that that requirement would count for 

promotion, because those opportunities would have come at times— 

the overwhelming majority of their career when they did not know. 

In fact, it may have meant for them that they would be taken 

from their unit at a time it was deploying or something, and they 

got—— 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. And what we did is we grandfathered 

that, so—— 

Dr. SNYDER. Right. 
26 

Colonel MINICK [continuing]. If it started. When the clock started 

on the prerequisite part, one, we did 2 years of advance notice, and 

then when we started the clock, it was all those people that had 

15 opportunities from when the policy changed. So we are very 

comfortable and confident that those who want to pursue advancement in the enlisted force and in higher education will get the opportunity to do so. 

Dr. SNYDER. Generally, how long is somebody in the Marine 

Corps at the time they become an E–7? 

Colonel MINICK. It depends on MOSs, sir, because every MOS 

promotes differently. But it is typically right around the 15-year 

mark that we are seeing promotion to E–7, E–7 to E–8, so—— 

Dr. SNYDER. From E–7 to E–8. 

Colonel MINICK. And then we have—yes, sir—and then we have 

the enlisted force controls, which will—an E–7 can stay 22 years 

in the Marine Corps before he is required to get out. And I can’t 

answer for you, you know, what percent of our enlisted population 

does not desire to go for E–8. That could very well be a metric in 

there. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do any of you have any comment about the Title 

10? I think several services would like to have expanded Title 10 

authority. And I will start with you, Colonel Minick, and you all 

give your opinion. That is actually something that we have control 

over—— 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER [continuing]. Because we would have to do it. But go 

ahead. 

Colonel MINICK. Thank you for asking, sir. You know, if you were 

to ask me what could I do to help enlisted PME in the Marine 

Corps, I would say Title 10 authority. As you well know, it stipulates that Title 10 can be in support of 10-month curriculum. 

And we understand the unintended consequences of policy. That 

was to make sure nobody would shorten courses. The problem with 

it for enlisted education in the Marine Corps is our curriculum 

doesn’t go 10 months. 

What Title 10 affords the president of Marine Corps University, 

who has Title 10 hiring authority, is that we can get that subject 

matter expert, and we don’t have the same—I don’t want to say 

constraints, but the same policies that you have on the GS [General Services] hiring system, where there is merit preference, and 

you may not be able to get exactly to the individual or the cohort 

that you want to try and hire. 

So, yes, we would welcome any support in getting a change to 

that law, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Sparks. 

Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir. Thank you. As I am sure you know, the 

United States Army War College and the Commanding General of 

Staff College both have Title 10 authority. Noncommissioned officer 

education systems that hire civilian employees are, of course, Title 

5 employees. 

The United States Army Sergeants Major Academy is a 10- 

month course, so we have actually begun discussion with Department of the Army, and hopefully, as it moves through the Depart-
27 

ment, they will approve it for your review. So we do have a course 

that is represented above a Title 10 length. 

Dr. SNYDER. Mr. Lutterloh. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Chairman, thanks for the opportunity to comment. I would like to do a little bit further analysis on that. I am 

not sure that we have run into any problems, any issues relative 

to our enlisted professional military education pipeline so far with 

Title 10, so I would like to take that one for the record. 

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

page 95.] 

Dr. SNYDER. In fact, I will use that as an opportunity to say that 

if over the next couple of weeks, any of you have things that you 

would like to add or amplify or correct, if you will just get it to the 

staff, and we will make it not only part of our education, but also 

part of the formal written record of the hearing. 

So, Mr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Dr. Snyder, thank you for the question. I don’t 

have anything specifically. I do know that there is an initiative, 

legislative initiative, out there regarding the Community College of 

the Air Force and expanding that to other services. 

I would just ask as we go forward with that, of course, we are 

very proud the Community College of the Air Force has been 

issuing, I think, 350,000 degrees over their lifetime since 1977, 

when we started degrees. And so I would just ask that we sort of 

use it as a template and look at the lessons learned as we go forward. 

I think if it were to become a Defense-wide program, it would 

probably go from about 300-and-some-thousand people enrolled to 

1.9 million people enrolled, so we need to look at the ramifications 

of that. I would just ask that we deliberately go about that. Thank 

you, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to ask—you all have had association with 

the military for some years now, and it always is an easy thing 

when there is some new topic or some new scandal or something 

to say, ‘‘Oh, we need to include that in the course, just include 

that,’’ and as if, ‘‘Oh, let us make it instead of a 24-hour day, we 

now have a 25-hour day, because you just have to add something.’’ 

But we also know that there are things that come along that 

take on more emphasis as society changes and as we learn. One 

of the ones over the last probably couple of decades now has been 

primarily the treatment of women, but really respect for each other 

when it comes to sexual assault and sexual mores. 

Where do those kinds of interpersonal relationships and ethical 

kinds of issues, whether its treatment of each other or treatment 

of your government credit card, what change have you seen in the 

time you have been associated with these programs? And are you— 

is that an ongoing issue with you—or you think you are where you 

ought to be? 

Start with you, Mr. Sitterly. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Dr. Snyder. In fact, we just came back, 

Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force Roy and I, from the triennial review, basic military training review, and those sorts of 

questions were discussion items that we had. 
28 

I think we are where we always have been, and that is in terms 

of treating people with dignity and respect. Now, how we go about 

the lesson and how, you know, maybe it is treating people with dignity and respect today in terms of sexual assault versus racial, you 

know, issues as it was when I went through in the 1970s, as it 

might be suicide awareness and so on and so forth. 

But we tend to put those issues, those social issues in context 

throughout all of our PME, insert scenarios but building upon respect for people. So I don’t think it has changed a lot. The subjects 

just change a little bit as we go forward. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. That is an excellent question, Chairman Snyder, 

and it is something that we have struggled a little bit with in the 

Navy. We have got a corollary program—— 

Dr. SNYDER. I hear you have some changes coming on. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Yes, sir, we are continually changing that, not 

only the curricula, but what we focus on. And today’s focus is exactly on some of the topics you mentioned, sexual assault and violence, especially with respect to women, suicide and suicide prevention, and operational stress control. And there is another one that 

escapes me right at the moment. I will think of it in a second. 

We have refocused on our general military training. Instead of 

requiring 12 subjects once a month, we have limited that to about 

6 very important topics, including the ones I mentioned, including 

alcohol abuse and understanding that drive these pertinent issues. 

We focus them, and the beauty about Senior Enlisted Academy, 

the beauty about our enlisted professional military continuum, the 

beauty about our leadership development continuum and our officer training continuum is that we are able to adjust on the fly and 

treat these topics as they need to be treated. 

So these are some of the ones—sexual assault and violence and 

suicide prevention particularly—that we are dealing with today 

and overall in DOD, but primarily in the Navy. And so we will address these topics in the Senior Enlisted Academy. They will 

change over time, I predict, and we have got to be flexible enough. 

We have delegated the remainder of the 54 topics or so down to 

the commands. They understand what statutory requirements are, 

what policy requirements are to get those done in required timeframes, but we are focused on the ones that are driving key issues 

within the Navy today that can be addressed by leadership. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SPARKS. Thank you, sir. I took that as two parts to the question. In the first part you mentioned what do we do to react to 

changes and things that come up? And sometimes it could be the 

idea or the opportunity for that sort of to get pushed into the institution. 

First, that when it comes to the noncommissioned officer corps 

inside of the United States Army, that is singularly within my 

focus. For an example, if there is an issue that is going on today 

that is deemed critical by the senior leadership of the Army, that 

issue may come up, and we would begin to look at it from a number of different perspectives. 

Number one is why did it occur? What education can we provide? 

At what part of that lifelong learning continuum that we envelope 

in the United States Army is that particular education given? 
29 

If it is given at a certain point, we may need to take a look to 

evaluate if it needs to be given earlier. Or do we need to enrich 

that education somewhat? Or do we need to reinforce that education later on? 

The worst thing that we could do is just take something and 

stick it in and not understand how it is going to unfold later on. 

So we really need to take a very deliberate approach. We do that 

every day. We have done that with topics like resiliency training, 

like prevention of sexual harassment, consideration of others, and 

I could give you more and more. 

But typically, for all those topics or all those topic areas, we don’t 

look at those in the United States Army as something that we just 

stick into a course, necessarily. 

We look at what is relative? What is a relative knowledge level 

for a skill level one soldier? And what does he need to have? And 

what can we deliver into his courseware? And then when a soldier 

becomes a skill level two soldier, what kind of courseware do we 

need to deliver to him? So we built up on that first appreciation 

of knowledge. 

And then finally, by the time he reaches our Senior Enlisted 

Academy, which for us is the Sergeants Major Course, he has been 

trained at the executive level, senior enlisted leader advising senior 

officers on ways to encourage or discourage performance. 

So at our five skill levels in the United States Army, there may 

be a totally different representation of that knowledge or understanding required at that particular course. 

For instance, for us in security, we deliver security education in 

the initial entry training experience. It is a unit requirement to be 

delivered annually. And we reinforce that security education in the 

common core training that occurs at the sergeant or staff sergeant 

level. 

Colonel MINICK. Mr. Chairman, we have a program we have 

had—I can’t tell you the exact date it started, but it is about 8 

years old now. But it is Mentors and Violence Protection. It is a 

formalized program we run throughout our academies to where we 

actually contract folks to come out and certify our instructors to be 

able to teach this material. 

And we tie that into, you know, the importance of the bystander—not so much the abuser, although that is obviously the 

problem, but to make sure that there is active involvement with 

every Marine in that dynamic. 

One of the things that we have been tracking, like I am sure all 

the services, looking at stress on the force, one of the things we 

haven’t seen is any significant increase in that area. One incident 

is too many, but the trend lines have been holding. 

The one that has not been holding for the Marine Corps is suicide. And this last winter our three-star generals got together, and 

one of the topics was that issue. 

And we don’t normally do this. It is unusual, because we have 

a regular formal process on how we adjust curriculum, but we decided that we needed to put more suicide prevention, particularly 

into our Sergeants Course. We believe they were the closest to the 

problem, and we have that throughout every academy now. 
30 

One of the things we have to balance that we look at as we started to change curriculum is focusing not on those annual training 

skills, but trying to continue to focus on the professionalism side. 

This is probably the suicide prevention—it is one that is a little bit 

blurred, but probably closer to an annual training. We thought it 

was important enough that we put it into the Academy, and it 

stays there. 

Dr. SNYDER. Obviously, you all four are part of very, very large 

organizations, and as you are training in leadership skills and how 

to train one person to lead others in what at times are going to be 

very difficult environments, they also are training people and leading people, but they don’t have any control. They don’t do the hiring. I mean, recruiters do the hiring. 

You know, we know that clearly some people end up in the military that we wish hadn’t been there, that have—they are 

sociopaths or, you know, just, I mean, really clearly there are some 

bad actors that shouldn’t have come in, and then don’t do well in 

a combat situation. 

Has your curriculum evolved over the last years in terms of 

training people to look for men and women who have mental health 

problems, and they have come in with mental health problems that 

we may just need to accept the reality they need to not be in the 

military and certainly don’t need to put in the situation of life and 

death decision-making in a combat zone? 

Colonel Minick. 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. Thank you for the question. Combat 

Operational Stress Controls is a module that we put together a 

year ago, and it is going to be progressive across the continuum. 

I would tell you that it focuses mainly on that individual that is 

struggling with PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder] or is having the dynamics of the stress of either ops tempo or a combat situation. 

But, you know, we have put that into our curriculum. We will 

continue to grow it. Does it specifically focus on someone that may 

be suffering from some type of mental instability? I would say no. 

It focuses more on that individual that might be hurting from operational tempo, sir. 

Mr. SPARKS. Sir, thank you for the question. I think that that is 

a system in the Army that really begins at the initial entry phase 

when soldiers are paired up with a buddy or wingman that would 

sort of progress through with him. 

The reason I bring that up is because it is important to understand the Army operates as teams. And even if it is a two-man 

team, where one man is always assessing another man to get an 

idea of how he is doing. Our men and women in uniform within the 

United States Army should feel like they have always got someone 

to turn to. 

The way we go about that in professional military education is 

we begin with our very earliest course, the Warrior Leader Course 

that is designed to move a soldier from the grade of specialist or 

E–4 to sergeant. 

Inside of that course, we devote a lot of time to individual counseling, where soldiers sit down one-on-one, do mock sessions, learn 

all of the sort of junior leader attributes to help counsel their sol-
31 

diers. And one would hope that initially they would find anything 

that they thought to be a problem inside of those sessions so they 

could report them to more senior levels of leadership. 

In addition to that, the chief of staff of the army has directed resiliency training. There are many blocks of resiliency training that 

get to how soldiers are feeling, how soldiers are reacting to incidents, how soldiers would react to an incident. 

So I think within the spectrum of professional military education 

for the Army, we have been at it for quite some time through leadership and counseling skills. We are redoubling those efforts with 

our resiliency training, and we are going to continue to employ 

characteristics like our lifelong learning continuum to look at ways 

to supplement that training later on. We believe in our Structured 

Self-Development Program that we may find ourselves requiring 

some additional education as we move through that continuum. 

And lastly, sir, we spent great effort to look at how higher level 

civilian institutions like colleges and universities are going about 

that education. And we have done some work with the University 

of Pennsylvania to define how to employ and how to assess resiliency skills. 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Thank you for the question. I would agree with 

my colleagues and add a couple of things. Number one, recruiting 

and retention are at record levels, no doubt affected by the economy. But our force is as highly qualified as ever before in history. 

Our delayed entry program quarters are completely filled. We may 

have a few issues in a couple of niche areas—medical corps as an 

example—tough to find the right kinds of doctors all the time. 

But our training continuums, whether it be the leadership continuum across the enlisted ranks, whether it be the command leadership school for all officers or our chiefs of the boat and command 

master chiefs, whether it be the Senior Enlisted Academy, whether 

it be specific initiatives relative to resiliency training and operational stress control, we focus on these aspects—these very aspects. 

A lot of it has to do with counseling. Our covenant counseling 

that is provided by our Chiefs Mess to all of our enlisted sailors 

focuses very closely on some of these attributes that you describe. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SITTERLY. Thank you, Dr. Snyder. We spend a lot of attention training our military training instructors and some of our seasoned instructors, the people that will see primarily the new recruits, on what to look for behaviorally. In terms of the curriculum, 

the focus is on referral resources and being able to refer the airman 

to those medical facilities or to a community action situation. 

We also have a formal ‘‘wingman concept’’ in the Air Force. For 

instance, with our suicide prevention program, the Chief just directed a half-day stand down to focus on suicide awareness 

throughout the Air Force, so every agency, every wing did that. We 

brought in our expertise from our medical services, from our community services to make sure that supervisors understood what resources were available to identify people that needed that assistance as well. Thank you. 

Dr. SNYDER. I wanted to ask—the issue has come up before the 

subcommittee and before the Congress, the whole broad topic of 
32 

foreign language skills and training folks to navigate in cultures 

other than their own. That is really not what you all have been 

talking about today. Where do you see that whole topic fitting in 

to what you all do? 

Colonel MINICK. What we have done throughout, sir, is we have 

threaded it throughout the curriculum when we talk about culture 

and we talk about understanding of the environment, so do we put 

together foreign language skills? No. But it is more along the lines 

of a cultural understanding throughout. 

On the officer side there is survival language skills at the Command and Staff College in EWS [Expeditionary Warfare School], 

but because of the short duration of the enlisted courses, we do not 

have any type of language beyond cultural understanding and the 

importance of it in an asymmetric hybrid fight. 

Mr. SPARKS. Thank you, sir. Obviously, with the number of soldiers deployed from the United States Army, we require a degree 

of cultural awareness sorts of training. In professional military 

education, it is embedded throughout our courses. 

Additionally, the commanding general of Training and Doctrine 

Command, General Dempsey, has instituted a culture and language study that is completed with recommendations. In my Institute, for instance, I will gain a culture and language expert that 

will continue to look at those programs to ensure that we have got 

them right. 

We have a number of schools and centers inside of the United 

States Army that are led by commanding generals that are experts 

in each one of their branch and proficiency areas. In most cases, 

cultural awareness training is determined by what are the requirements for that particular branch and soldier and particular theater 

of operation. So the long answer to the culture question is yes, we 

have it embedded in our training. 

We are continuing to look at language training as well. We are 

not certain that there is a place at this point in professional military education for language training for sergeants. We simply do 

not know, but we are continuing to evaluate that possibility, with 

the understanding of, if it becomes a necessity, how we would apply 

it inside of our PME system. 

Dr. SNYDER. I can understand how you might have concluded it 

is not a necessity. Whether it would be a helpful attribute, though, 

that would be a different story. There certainly have been an abundance of examples of some extraordinary positive things that have 

occurred because of somebody’s ability to speak Arabic or Japanese 

or something like that. 

Now, is it worth the investment of time to get, you know, a significant portion of E–4s or E–5s or NCOs speaking languages? That 

is a different topic. But it seems like it would be a very positive 

attribute. 

I think we were talking about our friend, Jim Lively, who was 

able to—was my Marine fellow a couple of cycles ago, I think, who 

was able to go out with Iraqi units without an interpreter because 

of his Arabic skills that he picked up outside of the military. 

Mr. SPARKS. Yes, sir, if I may, the necessity for the language 

training I know from myself from personal deployments in Iraq 
33 

that it is very helpful. I would not in any way believe that it is not 

a value. 

Relative to the professional military education system, I am just 

simply not certain if it should be placed inside of that system. I am 

sure you are well aware that the United States Army has many 

language programs, and all of our soldiers in pre-deployment training go through language exercises for terms and things like that 

that they may need inside of their area of operation. 

I also would submit that we have a very robust program out at 

Monterey that when the United States Army relative to deployments feels that we need a higher level of specificity in a language, 

that we are able to get that sort of training if we need to. But I 

think we will continue to look at it from an all-soldier, all-hands 

professional military education perspective. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes. Well, I have been asking for probably a decade 

now with very poor results, but I have resisted the temptation to 

try to impose something, that I have always thought foreign language skills should begin in boot camp, where again, it is supposing a 25-hour instead of a 24-hour day, but you would end up 

with a group of people who had some minimal exposure to it, and 

you would stumble onto those people who really have some aptitude for it. 

I just think there are too many examples of extraordinary things 

that have happened in combat with people who had language skills 

that weren’t really required to do so. Probably the most—— 

What was the fellow’s name, Lorry? Gabaldon? 

Gabaldon. You may be familiar with him from World War II, who 

grew up with a bunch of Japanese kids in California and was in— 

I think he was a Marine, wasn’t he, Colonel? 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, sir. 

Dr. SNYDER. And—— 

Colonel MINICK. Pied Piper of Saipan. 

Dr. SNYDER. Yes, and he would sneak out away from his unit on 

his own, because he just didn’t like to see all these Japanese soldiers getting killed, and in Japanese he would—I think he basically 

said, ‘‘If you don’t surrender, we are going to blow up your cave’’ 

or something, but he was probably a little more moderate in tone 

than that, but he was able to do it in Japanese, and even stumbled 

into a regiment one day and had—I don’t know—600 or 700 surrender at one time after he negotiated in Japanese with the unit. 

And remember, this is at a time when the mystique amongst the 

military was a Japanese soldier would never surrender. 

But you think about how many Marines’ lives were saved because an additional 800 or 900 Japanese troops did not have to be 

killed or captured, and yet that was a kid who learned those skills 

by picking fruit, I think, in California when he was in high school. 

I don’t think I have any further questions. I appreciate you all’s 

attentiveness today. I have found these materials hard for me to 

get a handle on. I mean, I take your statements at what they say. 

We have had the staff go out. I don’t know if I have a sense yet 

of if all the schools should be getting A-pluses or B-minuses or Cpluses, but I certainly give you all A-plus for effort and commitment to the program. 
34 

I noticed the topic that Mr. Skelton is interested in and has been 

for years, and we have had some discussions, and I feel a bit like 

we neglected you all. And perhaps your resource issue wouldn’t be 

such a big one, if we had been paying a little bit more attention 

to enlisted PME through the years. And I think you will see this 

committee do that under Mr. Skelton’s leadership. 

So we appreciate you being here today. I certainly appreciate 

your service. And we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
A P P E N D I X 

JULY 28, 2010 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 28, 2010 

(39) 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JULY 28, 2010 

(95) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The Senior Enlisted Academy is under the purview of and colocated with the Naval War College. The Senior Enlisted Academy currently has active duty military faculty. The Naval War College provides additional faculty support as required. Accordingly, the need for Title 10 hiring flexibility for classes less 

than ten months in length, such as those at the Senior Enlisted Academy, is not 

currently an issue for Navy. However, we do support such flexibility to employ civilian faculty members as future needs arise. [See page 27.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 28, 2010 

(99) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. SNYDER 

Dr. SNYDER. When we studied Officer PME, we discovered a pretty big disconnect 

between the personnel systems and the PME systems. Specifically, we addressed 

who gets selected to attend and when, what course they go to, and where they go 

afterward as far as putting the education to good use. Does the enlisted PME system have similar challenges? 

Colonel MINICK. The construct of EPME is different than that for OPME in that 

the EPME courses are temporary additional duty (TAD) whereas the OPME courses 

are permanent change of station (PCS) courses. This is possible due to the shorter 

duration of the EPME courses. This permits more flexibility in scheduling Marines 

to attend courses. The more frequent shorter duration also mean a higher percentage of enlisted Marines are afforded resident EPME seats. Also, quotas for the 

EPME courses are distributed to the operating forces where unit commanders make 

the selections rather than the board selection process administered by Manpower 

and Reserve Affairs for OPME. Therefore, we do not face the challenges faced on 

the OPME side concerning selection, attendance, and post-PME utilization. 

Dr. SNYDER. Virtually all the officer PME education venues offer a master’s degree along with PME. Other than the Community College of the Air Force and the 

College of the American Soldier programs, does your Service’s enlisted PME system 

provide for degrees or accredited college hours to apply to a degree? How important 

(or is it required) for enlisted members to have an Associate’s Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, or Master’s Degree at some point in their career for promotion? 

Colonel MINICK. It is not required for an enlisted Marine to have a degree for promotion. It should also be pointed out, that while some resident OPME schools are 

accredited and do grant degrees, those degrees are not required for promotion and 

Marine OPME distance education programs are not accredited to grant degrees. Although our EPME schools are not accredited to grant degrees, our courses have 

been validated by the American Council on Education (ACE) and graduates can receive transcripts through the Sailor/Marine American Council on Education Registry 

(SMART). Students may use these credit hours to apply for degrees at accredited 

colleges. It is not feasible to grant enlisted Marines a degree based solely on PME 

curricula due to the relative short duration of EPME courses. However, there are 

educational programs outside of the purview of EPME, such as the SNCO Degree 

Completion Program that allow enlisted Marines to earn bachelor’s degrees in specific fields. Much like similar officer advanced degree programs, these programs are 

not considered PME. The Marine Corps is also currently studying the benefits of 

a program similar to the officer Advanced Degree Program (ADP) where senior enlisted Marines who already have a bachelor’s degree could obtain master’s degrees 

in certain fields. 

Dr. SNYDER. How is the Reserve Component (RC) included in your enlisted PME 

program? Do reservists and Guardsmen have the opportunity to attend or take the 

PME they require for promotion? How has the transition from a strategic to an 

operational reserve (with increased deployments and length of deployments) affected 

RC opportunities to complete EPME? 

Colonel MINICK. The Reserve Component has separate two-week long resident 

Sergeants, Career (Staff Sgt) and Advanced (Gunnery Sergeant) Courses conducted 

at the Staff NCO Academy in Quantico. Each summer, one Advanced, one Career, 

and two Sergeants Courses are conducted. The opportunity does exist for Reservists 

to attend these courses. Since 2005, the number of Reserve students has increased 

by 61 percent. Marine Forces Reserves reports that the transition from Strategic to 

Operational has created a significant gap with their senior enlisted leaders. Because 

of this, they believe they now have a backlog of enlisted leaders who need to complete PME and be eligible for selection to the next higher grade. Enlisted PME will 

be meeting with the Marine Forces Reserve G–3 to discuss increasing courses of action to increase both the number of courses and locations for resident Reserve 

Courses. 

Dr. SNYDER. There is quite a disparity between the length of time an officer 

spends in a career on education and the time an enlisted person spends on education. Can you explain this disparity? Do the Services need to invest more time 
100 

and money in NCO education? Why or why not? Where would you focus any increases? 

Colonel MINICK. While there is a disparity between the amount of time that an 

enlisted Marine spends at PME schools compared to what officers, OPME courses 

are episodic whereas EPME courses are continual during a career. We believe the 

duration is appropriate due to the increased frequency of our courses and the additionally time our enlisted Marines spend in MOS specific curriculum. The amount 

of MOS curriculum varies by occupational field. 

The Marine Corps is continually investing more time and money in NCO education. The President of Marine Corps University has made EPME his number one 

priority; all resident and non-resident EPME courses are undergoing major changes 

to construct and curricula. In the past five years, the staff of the Enlisted PME has 

increased from just three Marines to nearly 40 Marines and civilians, and we have 

improved the content while simultaneously adding to expanding the EPME continuum on both directions—in the form of a command-sponsored Corporals Course 

and a Senior Enlisted PME Course for master sergeants, first sergeants, sergeants 

major and master gunnery sergeants. The non-resident courses are becoming more 

robust as well with the College of Distance Education and Training taking on the 

task of distance learning. The biggest change will be the creation of a seminar Career Course—similar to the officer non-resident PME courses. The EPME budget 

has increased from just $10,500 in 2005 to more than $2.67 million in FY 2011. 

Dr. SNYDER. In exploring the most effective organizational structures we observed 

that two of you (Navy and Army) have NCO leaders of their NCO schools and two 

of you have colonels as leaders (Marine Corps and Air Force). Can each of you address why your school systems are organized the way they are and if they/you get 

enough support from your higher headquarters. For instance, the Navy (Naval War 

College), Air Force (Air University), and Marine Corps (Marine Corps University) 

schools are subordinated to your officer universities or colleges? [Note: Army enlisted education is directed by the Institute at Training and Doctrine Command 

rather than Army War College or Command and General Staff School.] 

a. How should PME commanders, commandants, and presidents be chosen? What 

are the plusses and minuses of having enlisted leadership at the enlisted 

schools? Officer leadership? 

Colonel MINICK. Although the director of the overall EPME program is a colonel, 

the Academies are indeed run by senior SNCOs, usually a sergeant major. Rather 

than being subordinate to the officer colleges, the EPME directorate has equal 

standing to the directors of the officer PME schools (Expeditionary Warfare School, 

Command and Staff College, the Marine Corps War College, and the School of Advanced Warfighting) within the Marine Corps University. We view the Marine 

Corps model as the best of both worlds with enlisted leadership at the Academies 

and an officer at EPME. Rather than segregating officer and enlisted PME, we are 

working on integrating and melding the two to ensure the two groups have commonalities and feedback from the two groups. Doing so prevents ‘‘groupthink’’ and 

allows for new ideas and collaboration. 

Dr. SNYDER. Would you be in favor of a Goldwater-Nichols Reform for Enlisted 

personnel management and PME? Given that calls for jointness and ‘‘whole of government approaches’’ from Congress and the Executive Branch have been increasing, how extensively should the EPME system be more consciously shifting its 

sights to the joint, interagency, and multinational realms? 

a. Is joint, interagency, and multinational integration curriculum being extended 

down to the enlisted ranks, in a conscious and programmed way, given that 

they find themselves increasingly in that environment whether that is in engagement, combat, or reconstruction and stabilization operations? 

Colonel MINICK. EPME curriculum currently has the right mix of joint, interagency, and multinational instruction (JIM). As with OPME, the amount of PME 

(and jointness in particular) should increase as Marines increase in rank. The 

EPME processes are coming more in line with the OPME processes and there are 

appropriate Joint Learning Areas (JLAs) in the Enlisted Professional Military Educations Policy (EPMEP). The EPMEP rightfully recognizes that lower levels of PME 

should focus on service specific education. Each service has unique PME requirements for junior service members. The EPMEP and the associated councils ensure 

that EPME curricula maintains appropriate levels of jointness. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does diversity matter in the assignment of faculty and staff within 

EPME? How can EPME institutions increase the diversity of their leadership and 

faculty? 

Colonel MINICK. Diversity does matter in the assignment of faculty and staff within EPME. The faculty and staff should mirror the enlisted population as a whole, 
101 

and not just by race and gender. When we recruit for positions within the academies, we also want diversity in military occupational specialties to ensure that we 

are not too ground or too aviation heavy. Further, the criteria we have identified 

as the most desirable traits for our faculty include operational experience, education, previous teaching or curriculum development experience, and superior performance. While we do not formally track race and gender; however, we work with 

Manpower Enlisted Assignments to recruit potential faculty advisors, as needed, to 

attain an equitable mix of races, gender, B Billet, operational and MOS diversity 

at all academies. 

Dr. SNYDER. How much of your EPME curriculum is focused on critical thinking, 

communication, and resource management? Should emphasis in any or all of these 

areas be increased? At what levels? 

Colonel MINICK. Critical thinking and communication and resource management 

are woven throughout the EPME curriculum. We assess each learning outcome to 

ensure that they included in both the content and the evaluation. The ability of Marines to think critically, to be agile and adaptive in rapidly changing environs is 

critical in current contingency operations in which the enemy is also evolving. We 

are currently studying ways to further increase these skills for both our faculty advisors and our students; an OSD-funded study is exploring ways to enhance adaptability in our curriculum. Communication skills continue to be a top priority for us. 

We will be pursuing a POM initiative to place communications experts in each of 

our academies so that we can improve oral and written communication. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should senior NCOs attend officer PME courses? 

Colonel MINICK. Yes, senior NCOs should be able to attend officer PME courses 

space permitting. Senior NCOs are eligible to enroll in appropriate Marine Corps 

officer distance education programs if they have completed the PME requirements 

for their ranks. For resident schools, there are not enough seats to accommodate all 

officers, so it would not be feasible to offer seats to enlisted Marines. 

Dr. SNYDER. I understand all the other Services offer each other exchange instructors which really advances jointness except that the Marine Corps has not decided 

to send an exchange instructor to the Navy senior enlisted course. Given that the 

Marine Corps and Navy interact so much on ships and on shore, can you explain 

that decision and if it’s likely to change? 

Colonel MINICK. We currently send a small number of Marine students to attend 

the Navy Senior Enlisted Academy (Navy SEA) and Army Sergeant Major Academy 

(USASMA). In addition, we are developing plans to send Marines to attend the Air 

Force Senior SNCO Academy (AFSSNCOA). Questions/requests have surfaced in the 

past, through unofficial channels, from the Navy SEA and USASMA regarding the 

possibility of Marines being assigned as instructors at their respective school 

houses. As a result of our plans to have Marines attend the AFSSNCOA in the near 

future, questions have also surfaced about future opportunities for Marines to be assigned as instructors at that school house. While we would most welcome an instructor exchange with any of these school houses, formal manpower requests of this 

nature are filled by our Manpower and Reserve Affairs branch. 

Dr. SNYDER. Do you have enough seats to get everyone who requires a course for 

promotion through and if not, with the pace of deployments and opstempo do you 

have a waiver system? 

a. Does the waiver system work, not to exempt personnel from school, but to get 

it for them as soon as they’re able to go, and not to disadvantage them for promotion? 

Colonel MINICK. The only resident course required for promotion in the enlisted 

ranks is the Advanced Course which is required for promotion from gunnery sergeant to first sergeant or master sergeant. We do have enough seats for every gunnery sergeant to attend the Resident Advanced Course. There are a total of 1,915 

seats available in 19 courses that begin roughly every eight weeks. In FY 2010, 

1,855 Marines were selected for promotion to the rank of gunnery sergeants, so 

there are clearly enough seats. There is not a waiver system in place for attendance 

at the Advanced Course due to deployments/operational tempo. We are currently reviewing whether a waiver or a board precept should be adopted. It will need to be 

vetted with the Marine Corps Promotion Branch. 

Dr. SNYDER. When we studied Officer PME, we discovered a pretty big disconnect 

between the personnel systems and the PME systems. Specifically, we addressed 

who gets selected to attend and when, what course they go to, and where they go 

afterward as far as putting the education to good use. Does the enlisted PME system have similar challenges? 

Mr. SPARKS. A significant asymmetrical advantage we have over our enemies has 

been the quality of our leaders. This advantage is a result of our institutional com-
102 

mitment to leader development. The Army’s enlisted PME is the Noncommissioned 

Officer Education System (NCOES). It is designed to prepare NCOs to lead and 

train Soldiers who work and fight under their direct leadership, and to assist their 

assigned leaders to execute unit missions. Ideally, NCOES and NCO promotions 

should be sequential and progressive. Although currently challenged, NCOES remains sequentially linked to NCO promotions and we continue with our commitment to ensure our systems and programs develop leaders for the 21st Century. 

Generally, selection of Soldiers to attend NCOES is based on both their availability 

and a unique developmental career map that varies depending on each Soldier’s 

Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). The training process for the NCO starts 

with the basic, branch-immaterial, leadership training stage and continues in 

schools through the basic, branch-specific level; advanced, branch-specific level; and 

senior, branch-immaterial level. Each course is designed to be delivered prior to the 

Soldier being promoted and assuming the duties required of the next rank. 

The initial course a Soldier attends occurs on average within 36 to 48 months of 

service or when they become Specialist (SPC/E4) promotable although highly motivated Privates First Class identified by their leadership as future leaders and is the 

Warrior Leader Course (WLC). Due to the high operational rotation of previous 

years, Sergeants (SGTs/E5) and Staff Sergeants (SSG/E6) who are promoted while 

deployed also attend the course. This course is a branch-immaterial, field-oriented 

leadership course built on warrior leader tasks. The WLC trains Soldiers at NCO 

Academies throughout the Army and focuses on values, attributes, leader skills, and 

actions needed to lead team/squad size units and serves as the critical institutional 

course for making a transformation from Soldier to NCO. 

The next level of PME an NCO will attend occurs on average at the five to seven 

year time in service mark and is the Advanced Leader Course (ALC). This course 

focuses on leadership and technical skills required to prepare Soldiers to effectively 

lead squad/platoon size units. The ALC is delivered in two phases and consists of 

a 90-day, highly facilitated, web-based common core program that teaches the theories and principles of battle-focused common core training, leadership, and war 

fighting skills required to lead a squad-sized element in combat. The course also includes ‘‘hands-on’’ performance-oriented technical resident training specific to the 

Soldier’s MOS. Although the course is a prerequisite for selection to Sergeant First 

Class (SFC/E7), due to the operational environment, select Soldiers (who are or have 

recently deployed) may end up attending the course after having already been promoted or selected for promotion to SFC. 

Between the ten to fifteen year time in service mark, an NCO will be scheduled 

for and attend, the Senior Leader Course (SLC). This course, like the preceding ALC 

course is a branch-specific course that provides an opportunity for Soldiers selected 

for promotion to SFC to acquire the leader, technical, and tactical skills, knowledge, 

and experience needed to lead platoon/company size units. Although the course is 

a prerequisite for selection to Master Sergeant (MSG/E8), due to the operational environment, select Soldiers (who are or have recently deployed) may end up attending 

the course after having already been promoted or selected for promotion to MSG. 

The final level of enlisted PME is the Sergeants Major Course (SMC); the capstone of enlisted training for NCOs. It prepares NCOs for both troop and staff assignments. This course is task based and performance oriented and focuses on leadership, combat operations, sustainment operations, team building, communication 

skills, training management, and professional development electives. It prepares the 

NCO for responsibility at the Battalion and Brigade level. The Army selects eligible 

MSG to attend the SMC for the purpose of promotion to Sergeant Major (SGM/E9). 

Available inventory, Army requirements, and priorities established by HQDA to 

meet Army readiness drives assignments of the enlisted force. The Proponent for 

each Career Management Field provides a professional developmental timeline designed to maximize a Soldier’s skills in both operational and generating force assignments while concurrently establishing an occupational/leader development career map for Soldiers, leaders, and personnel managers to use to shape the NCO’s 

professional development. The Enlisted Personnel Management System has a requirement to resource both operational and institutional assignments with the bestqualified, available Soldiers and NCOs. Operational assignments are based on a Soldier’s MOS and specialized skills and, even with the high operational tempo in recent years, the Army continues to leverage operational experience in special duty 

assignments such as Drill Sergeant/AIT Platoon Sergeant, Recruiter, Active/Reserve 

Component support, and Observer/Controller. 

Dr. SNYDER. Virtually all the officer PME education venues offer a master’s degree along with PME. Other than the Community College of the Air Force and the 

College of the American Soldier programs, does your Service’s enlisted PME system 

provide for degrees or accredited college hours to apply to a degree? How important 
103 

(or is it required) for enlisted members to have an Associate’s Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, or Master’s Degree at some point in their career for promotion? 

Mr. SPARKS. In today’s operational Army, it is extremely critical for enlisted Soldiers to achieve their educational goals. Our Educational programs enhance mission 

readiness, contribute to recruiting, assist in retention and support the career transitions of enlisted Soldiers. Traditional NCO roles are becoming more complex with 

integrating information, resources, and understanding strategic implications of tactical decisions. The Army requires well-trained, educated and professional noncommissioned officers prepared to meet current and future leadership, managerial 

and technological challenges of an increasingly sophisticated, complex and expeditionary Army. We believe personal and professional growth through collegiate programs is essential and beneficial to the Army mission, enlisted force development 

and the nation. 

The Army maximizes the utilization of the American Council on Education College Credit Recommendation Service whereas, a team of faculty evaluators from relevant academic disciplines review Army courses, and if appropriate, make recommendations for the amount of college credit they may be equivalent to for transfer into degree programs. The Army Career Degrees (ACD) are occupation-based 

associate- and bachelor-level college degrees that uniquely relate to MOS skills, contain specific college courses that match MOS/CMF competencies, and maximize 

credit for military experience and training in order to minimize additional college 

study. 

CAS approach to tying NCOES Courses accreditation with specific degree requirements allows a Soldier to quickly see what NCOES courses will transfer as equivalent credit at any point in his or her career from basic training through the Sergeant Major Course. This streamlines degree completion by listing precisely what 

the college will grant for each credit source, and provides a list of other guaranteed 

ways to meet degree requirements. By linking civilian education to military training, the Army will provide an optimum balance of training and education that accelerates the development of adaptive and innovative leaders. Education, whether 

PME or Civilian Education provides the tools leaders require has they move forward 

in their career. We will continue to assess new programs and to determine methods 

to infuse civilian education into our PME. We should approach education for our soldiers from the perspective of what is best for our NCO leaders. Possibly, a Civilian 

College course may be more advantageous than a course presented in our NCOES 

construct. 

Civilian education and a military profession are mutually supporting. Many selfdevelopment activities recommended in professional development career maps come 

from programs and services offered through the Army Continuing Education System 

(ACES) which operates education and learning centers throughout the Army. College level courses are available through installation education centers who work 

with participating colleges to provide on-post programs that lead to award of a degree. Many academic institutions take part in the Service Members Opportunity 

Army Degree (SOCAD) program, which guarantees Soldiers’ transfer of credits and 

acceptance of nontraditional credits such as military experience towards degree completion. NCO developmental career maps recommend undergraduate degree completion but the Army does not required degree completion as a promotion eligibility requirement. Because the quality of our Army’s NCO Corps is extremely high, selection for promotion is highly competitive. In the promotion selection process, the pursuit of civilian education above the high school level concurrent with military duty 

is indicative of dedication to self-improvement, effective time management, and potential for academic success. 

Dr. SNYDER. How is the Reserve Component (RC) included in your enlisted PME 

program? Do reservists and Guardsmen have the opportunity to attend or take the 

PME they require for promotion? How has the transition from a strategic to an 

operational reserve (with increased deployments and length of deployments) affected 

RC opportunities to complete EPME? 

Mr. SPARKS. PME for the Army Reserve Component (RC) has matured and transformed along with the PME provided the Active Component (AC). Both RC and AC 

use the same Warrior Leader Course (formerly the Primary Leader Development 

Course) program of instruction, with the AC executing over a longer period and the 

RC executing in their traditional 15 day format. Because of the operations tempo 

everyone has been using the 15 day format. A new Warrior Leader Course was developed to provide better educational outcomes across the force and will begin 1 October 10. Initially, the new course will be executed in 17 days in the AC and 15 

days for the RC, but the RC stands ready to adjust to the 17 format when resources 

become available. 
104 

For NCOES requirements after WLC, it is broken up into two phases, a common 

core and a technical phase developed by a Soldiers proponent. Soon, all Soldiers regardless of component, will take the web based, highly facilitated, Advanced Leader 

Course Common Core, with the resident RC format being eliminated. The technical 

tracks for the Advanced and Senior Leader Courses have been more problematic because of their length. On 1 October 10 most of these courses were transformed and 

reduced to no more than eight weeks, but the conversion of the courses to a format 

that fits the RC training environment has been daunting. Most will be available to 

the RC inside the 15 month window we require, but, as in those courses that provide extensive technical skills, require extremely expensive equipment, or have a 

low RC personnel density will not be converted. For those courses, RC Soldiers are 

scheduled to attend the longer AC course whenever possible dependant on RC funding and Soldiers availability. To mitigate that, the RC promotion system allows 

NCOES waivers to be requested by individual Soldiers who have not been afforded 

the opportunity to attend the required level of NCOES due to operational obligations or conflicts with their civilian career. A review of historical data reveals that 

no significant increases in NCOES waiver requests have been received. 

The capstone Sergeants Major Course is provided in two formats. The 10 month 

resident course provides an optimum classroom experience for many AC Soldiers, 

some RC Soldiers, and a few sister service and foreign nation personnel. Most RC 

Soldiers and many AC Soldiers attend the course in an RC friendly format of an 

extensive distance learning module followed by a two week resident phase. When 

fully deployed, the new online Structured Self Development will be taken by all Soldiers, AC and RC, throughout their careers. As indicated above, we take the training of the RC seriously. The Army is one expeditionary force and we cannot afford 

to educate some, and not others. 

Dr. SNYDER. There is quite a disparity between the length of time an officer 

spends in a career on education and the time an enlisted person spends on education. Can you explain this disparity? Do the Services need to invest more time 

and money in NCO education? Why or why not? Where would you focus any increases? 

Mr. SPARKS. The Noncommissioned Officers Education System (NCOES) is designed to commence when a Soldier makes that transformation of becoming a leader 

at about the three year time in service milestone with the Warrior Leader Course 

(WLC). After that initial course, an NCO would then attend the Advanced Leaders 

Course (ALC) and Senior Leader Course (SLC) on average every three to four years 

tied with his or her rank culminating in the pinnacle NCOES course, the United 

States Army Sergeant Majors Academy (USASMA). Both the initial course of WLC 

and the final course at USASMA are non-military occupational specialty which 

means that regardless the job a Soldier does in the Army; all attend these levels 

of NCOES together in one class. The Soldiers job skill proponent teaches ALC and 

SLC and Soldiers from within the same job field attend the class together learning 

both leadership techniques and technical competencies. 

Since 2003, NCOES has transformed into providing a Soldier the right training 

at the right time by approaching their needs from a strategy of lifelong learning. 

While, certain institutional gates such as WLC, ALC and SLC must be passed 

through, lessons from the past 6 years combined with technological advances have 

demonstrated that learning can occur anywhere at any time. Today’s NCO is a selfdirected/motivated learner who creates an environment of continuous learning and 

demands both NCOs and subordinates exceed their comfort zones. The NCO is 

skilled at adapting their mentoring approach to encourage and guide subordinates 

in setting and achieving goals. As a mentor, the NCO has open and honest discussions with their Soldiers, and provides a proper mix of opportunities at the right 

time for them to grow. 

The Army has made a considerable investment in NCO PME. We believe the time 

allotted supports our current deployment situation. To continue to succeed down a 

path of transformation through lifelong learning, resources should be applied towards continued development and eventual application of the 2015 NCO learning 

environment. The time an NCO spends engaged in PME will likely change, some 

Soldiers may require a longer course. The NCO learning environment in 2015 recognizes that individual needs are important, that learning occurs across the career, 

and that there are multiple supporting actors and capabilities required to create an 

immersive and engaging lifelong learning solution focused on the Soldier. The environment will provide job experiences, training and education, and self-development 

opportunities that are tailored to the NCO throughout their profession. Formal 

classroom training and education currently provide individuals with roughly 20 to 

30 percent of what they learn, with most competencies acquired within the work environment through a blend of informal social networks, formal learning commu-
105 

nities, coaching and mentorships, and independent study. The 2015 environment 

will equip NCOs to learn more deeply in all of these contexts. 

Dr. SNYDER. In exploring the most effective organizational structures we observed 

that two of you (Navy and Army) have NCO leaders of their NCO schools and two 

of you have colonels as leaders (Marine Corps and Air Force). Can each of you address why your school systems are organized the way they are and if they/you get 

enough support from your higher headquarters. For instance, the Navy (Naval War 

College), Air Force (Air University), and Marine Corps (Marine Corps University) 

schools are subordinated to your officer universities or colleges? [Note: Army enlisted education is directed by the Institute at Training and Doctrine Command 

rather than Army War College or Command and General Staff School.] 

a. How should PME commanders, commandants, and presidents be chosen? What 

are the plusses and minuses of having enlisted leadership at the enlisted 

schools? Officer leadership? 

Mr. SPARKS. The Noncommissioned Officer Education System has several course 

delivered in multiple sites around the world. These sites are referred to as NCO 

Academies. NCO Academies are typically small organizations that are led by a Command Sergeant Major that has usually served at the Brigade level. NCO Academies 

are usually aligned under the Headquarters and report through the Command Sergeant Major to the General Officer in charge. 

There are several reasons that his system works best for the U.S. Army. First, 

from an educational perspective all members of the NCO Academy have completed 

the requisite education required. The leader of the organization, typically referred 

to as the Commandant must have successfully completed all levels of Professional 

Military Education and served successfully as a Battalion, Squadron or Brigade 

Command Sergeant Major. Typically our Commandants have multiple deployment 

experiences in various units. This situation makes the Commandant relevant immediately. In the NCO Corps, we live by the saying Be, Know, Do. It would be difficult 

to achieve this standard if you had not ever participated in NCOES. With this consideration in mind the Commanding General of TRADOC established the Institute 

for Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development (INCOPD). INCOPD’s mission is primarily to manage this education across a career. 

The selection of the Commandant should be focused on the aforementioned qualifications. The United States Army has recently developed a board system to select 

the right leader for this important position. The potential minuses in this situation 

are that currently there are some actions that require a Commissioned Officer, 

UCMJ for instance. Generally, this sort of activity is covered with a memorandum 

of agreement with whomever the Commanding General on the specific installation 

directs to support the NCO Academy. The instance of UCMJ is relatively low, primarily due to the length of the courses and the quality of the students. 

Dr. SNYDER. Would you be in favor of a Goldwater-Nichols Reform for Enlisted 

personnel management and PME? Given that calls for jointness and ‘‘whole of government approaches’’ from Congress and the Executive Branch have been increasing, how extensively should the EPME system be more consciously shifting its 

sights to the joint, interagency, and multinational realms? 

a. Is joint, interagency, and multinational integration curriculum being extended 

down to the enlisted ranks, in a conscious and programmed way, given that 

they find themselves increasingly in that environment whether that is in engagement, combat, or reconstruction and stabilization operations? 

Mr. SPARKS. Enlisted Professional Military Education (EPME) revisions were 

made to prepare Soldiers to work in operating environments where they collaborate 

with Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational (JIIM) teammates. 

Soldiers are exposed to joint education throughout the continuum of professional development starting with an introductory block of instruction at the beginning of 

their service. They continue to grow their knowledge and skills related to operating 

with JIIM partners through self-development and institutional learning. Learning 

content appropriate to a Soldier’s level of experience and responsibility has been incorporated into each level of structured self-development. Recent revisions to the 

Sergeants Major Course have included more emphasis on planning and executing 

operations with JIIM partners. Additionally, proponents for the Advanced Leader 

Courses and Senior Leaders Courses are able to include JIIM content in the curriculum that is necessary to prepare Soldiers for JIIM operations related to an individual military occupational specialty. This approach allows each school to prepare 

Soldiers for JIIM requirements that are unique to the role those Soldiers play in 

the JIIM environment. In addition to the self-development and resident instruction 

at the senior and Executive levels, Soldiers receive assignment oriented training 

prior to reporting to joint positions at the sergeant through sergeant major levels. 
106 

While I would not rule out future changes similar to the Goldwater-Nichols Reform, I believe the current approach allows us to integrate JIIM content in the current curriculum in meaningful ways without significant changes to course lengths 

or resource requirements. Any mandated change to the current approach will affect 

other areas such as school attendance backlogs, promotions, Army Force Generation 

(ARFORGEN), and comprehensive fitness; therefore, I recommend continuing the 

current integration of JIIM into the existing curriculum until we have data that 

shows that method is not meeting the needs of the force. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does diversity matter in the assignment of faculty and staff within 

EPME? How can EPME institutions increase the diversity of their leadership and 

faculty? 

Mr. SPARKS. Our Army is a diverse organization and our EMPE staff and faculty 

is representative of a diverse Army. The importance of having a diverse educational 

setting also includes the student population as well as a diversity of ideas. We understand the value of tapping into the unique abilities and talents of people from 

different backgrounds and the need for faculty and staff to promote free thinking, 

selflessness, and resourcefulness. 

The selection of staff and faculty for our EPME, it is about ‘‘who is best qualified’’ 

to teach and support the development of our future NCO leaders. The diversity of 

both faculty and students contributes directly to the quality of instruction and educational outcomes. The learning environment within EPME must be a representation of the Army and its culture. The more diverse faculty and staff are, the more 

likely it is that all Soldiers will be exposed to a wider range of perspectives and 

to ideas drawn from a variety of life experiences. In a diverse learning environment, 

the enlisted Soldier will find comfort and motivation from faculty, staff members, 

and peers who he or she perceives have shared similar experiences. A diversified 

faculty and staff create a climate supportive of Equal Opportunity, where students 

can aspire to grow and foster the Army values while in the institution. Above all, 

Diversity produces Soldiers who are more complex thinkers, more confident in traversing cultural differences and provide the Army with NCO leaders capable of full 

spectrum operations. 

Today’s EPME staff and faculty do represent a diverse Army and serve as role 

models for our future NCO Corps. While we are confident that our EMPE provides 

a diverse learning environment, there is always room for improvement and we continue to evaluate the structure and quality of our EMPE staff and faculty. 

Dr. SNYDER. How much of your EPME curriculum is focused on critical thinking, 

communication, and resource management? Should emphasis in any or all of these 

areas be increased? At what levels? 

Mr. SPARKS. We have identified communication, critical thinking, and resource 

management to be key attributes required of our Noncommissioned Officers (NCO). 

Each is addressed extensively in the NCO Annex to the Army’s Leader Development 

Strategy and is sequentially and progressively integrated into our PME. 

Oral and written communication skills are fundamental to succeed as a leader. 

Beginning with Writing in the Army Style and Prepare a Presentation in the Structured Self Development (SSD1) that begins shortly after a Soldier graduates from 

Initial Entry Training, through Army Correspondence, Developmental Counseling, 

and oral presentation of History of the NCO in the Warrior Leader Course (WLC), 

communication skills are sequentially and progressively addressed through the Advanced Leader, Senior Leader, and Sergeants Major Courses. Basic communications 

subjects exist at each level of PME, but the bulk of the communication skills are 

developed through their use in almost every subject covered. 

In SSD1 Soldiers are introduced to the Military Decision Making Process and 

Lean Six Sigma fundamentals, but beginning in WLC Soldiers begin the actual development of critical thinking skills. In subjects as diverse as Composite Risk Management and Tactical Operations in Warrior Leader Course, and throughout PME, 

NCOs are trained and educated in the process to conceptualize, synthesize, and 

apply information from a broad spectrum of sources to develop optimum and effective decisions. Although the emphasis is on the ability of NCOs to use their critical 

thinking skills in military operations we also provide opportunities for them to exercise their abilities in making personal, individual decisions. 

As with communication and critical thinking skills, training and education on resource management begins in SSD1 with an introduction to Supply Activities in a 

Unit. In WLC NCOs are introduced to Supply Procedures and the care of our number one resource, Soldiers, through Resiliency Training and the Prevention of Suicide. This training progresses through each level of PME and culminates in subjects 

such as Military Contracting in Support of Army Operations and Managing Organizational Stress in the Sergeants Major Course. 
107 

Given that each of the subjects discussed above is identified as a core skill required of our NCOs and that each is covered extensively throughout PME no added 

emphasis on any of them is necessary at this time. The Institute for NCO Professional Development continues to monitor requirements and will adjust courses as 

necessary. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should senior NCOs attend officer PME courses? 

Mr. SPARKS. A recent revision and upgrade of the Sergeants Major Course was 

done to include topics that field-grade officers study at the Command and General 

Staff College. The resident and nonresident Sergeants Major Courses will have content that is similar to the Intermediate Level Education courses attended by captains and majors; however, the material is tailored to prepare our most senior NCOs 

to serve primarily at the Battalion and Brigade levels. The goal of this effort is not 

to make senior noncommissioned officers more like officers; however, the changes 

do prepare senior NCOs to become more involved the process of planning and executing operations. To that end, the revised course of instruction includes several 

modules that are similar to material taught at CGSC. Moreover, the Academy no 

longer administers objective tests with multiple-choice answers; rather, it requires 

use of the progressive and sequential training, education and experience Soldiers 

have gained, to develop comprehensive solutions that are doctrinally accurate to 

complex problems from the operational environment. 

The role of NCOs in planning and executing complex operations has expanded at 

all levels; however, changes to EPME have occurred, and will continue to be made 

in order to prepare NCOs to succeed at all levels. Although recent operations have 

expanded the responsibilities of NCOs into areas that were previously only the domain of the officer corps, I believe the special relationship between officers and 

NCOs is enhanced by the current structure of EPME and PME with one exception. 

Select senior NCOs that serve in senior strategic leadership positions may benefit 

from attending a senior service school but should only attend if a direct benefit relative to the requirements of their position or development of the NCO can be identified. Currently, War College enrollment is restricted to officers and civilians. A policy change would permit attendance in the event the education is considered important for either the position or development of the NCO. A Senior service school may 

enhance those NCOs ability to advise leaders of strategic national defense missions. 

Future revisions to EPME will continue to examine content from joint and officer 

PME that may be integrated into EPME in ways that are meaningful to how NCOs 

support current and future operations. 

Dr. SNYDER. Some of the Services requested expanded Title 10 authority during 

the officer PME study. This came up again during the staff’s EPME research. With 

the changes in your EPME courses, it appears that expanded authority might be 

necessary. Can you briefly explain if you need it and what you’d do with it? 

a. How will EPME institutions attract top-tier civilian faculty if they receive Title 

10 authority? 

Mr. SPARKS. EPME has undergone a complete change in course content that now 

delivers a more challenging educational curriculum that requires instructional skills 

that higher level educators provide. Title 10 provides the means to hire civilian instructors and professors who conform to a performance based education model and 

to balance military and civilian perspectives in the EPME educational mission. 

There is no provision for this under Title 5. Unlike Title 5, Title 10 provides the 

flexibility to attract qualified faculty and to ensure continuous professional development within the faculty. Title 10 Authority provides the flexibility to employ based 

on a 1–5 year, renewable term basis supporting the requirement for continuous improvement and the ability to reduce staff based on requirements. Using Title 10 is 

definitely not part time employment. 

We will attract top tier civilian faculty members through Title 10 by a robust and 

innovative faculty development program and student curriculum. This dynamic approach through Title 10 provides more flexibility in not only attracting but also retaining those individuals who are ‘‘the best of the best’’ across industry, academia 

and the services. Title 5 does not lend itself to this concept of rapid change in requirements or educational concepts when compared to the flexibility of Title 10. 

Dr. SNYDER. When we studied Officer PME, we discovered a pretty big disconnect 

between the personnel systems and the PME systems. Specifically, we addressed 

who gets selected to attend and when, what course they go to, and where they go 

afterward as far as putting the education to good use. Does the enlisted PME system have similar challenges? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy’s personnel and Enlisted PME systems are well aligned. 

The Enlisted PME system is structured to prepare senior enlisted leaders for a 

breadth of increasing responsibilities. The educational baseline for senior enlisted 
108 

across the spectrum of PME ensures that they are versed in essentials of naval 

power, effective maritime spokespersons, and versed in service capabilities and the 

fundamentals of joint warfare. Our most sought after senior enlisted leadership positions are Chiefs of the Boat and Command Master Chiefs (COB/CMC). The Navy 

requires that all COB/CMCs be graduates of the Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA), 

with completion of Primary PME as a prerequisite to attend SEA. Accordingly, our 

best performers with the greatest potential are seeking and planning both to attend 

SEA and assume the most challenging assignments. 

Dr. SNYDER. Virtually all the officer PME education venues offer a master’s degree along with PME. Other than the Community College of the Air Force and the 

College of the American Soldier programs, does your Service’s enlisted PME system 

provide for degrees or accredited college hours to apply to a degree? How important 

(or is it required) for enlisted members to have an Associate’s Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, or Master’s Degree at some point in their career for promotion? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Graduates of the Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA) Resident 

Course are recommended for 18 credit hours (3 lower divisional, 15 upper divisional) 

by the American Council on Education (ACE) and graduates of the SEA Non-Resident course are ACE-recommended for 6 credit hours (all lower divisional). Demographic data reflect the following highest levels of education for SEA graduates: 6% 

have a Masters or Doctorate Degree, 24% have a Bachelor’s Degree, 26% have an 

Associate’s Degree, and 44% have a high school diploma. Over two-thirds of SEA 

graduates reported on their exit survey that they intend to pursue higher education 

in the next two to three years. 

The Navy clearly recognizes the benefit of advanced education and highly encourages all Sailors and civilians in the workforce to strive to reach their full potential. 

While an advanced degree is not required for an enlisted Sailor’s promotion, promotion boards may give special consideration for an advanced degree. The Navy provides tuition assistance to military members to support attainment of degrees. 

Dr. SNYDER. How is the Reserve Component (RC) included in your enlisted PME 

program? Do reservists and Guardsmen have the opportunity to attend or take the 

PME they require for promotion? How has the transition from a strategic to an 

operational reserve (with increased deployments and length of deployments) affected 

RC opportunities to complete EPME? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Active (AC) and reserve component (RC) personnel maintain the 

same opportunities to attend PME. For the enlisted force (active and reserves), all 

PME requirements through the grade of chief petty officer can be accomplished via 

NKO. One of the key reasons that the Navy decided to field the significant elements 

of the PME Continuum online through Navy Knowledge Online (NKO) was to ensure its availability to the total force—active duty, reservists, and motivated DON 

Civilians. 

Both AC and RC components share requirements for Primary PME to attend the 

Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA). The SEA resident course is available to the Navy’s 

reserve component which has produced 17 graduates over the last three years. The 

SEA Non-Resident course was designed specifically for reservists, allowing them to 

use their two-week Annual Training to fulfill the 12-day resident portion of the 

course. 

The Navy has been mobilizing RC members since 2001. There has been no decrement for RC EPME opportunities as a result of transition from a strategic to an 

operational status. 

Dr. SNYDER. There is quite a disparity between the length of time an officer 

spends in a career on education and the time an enlisted person spends on education. Can you explain this disparity? Do the Services need to invest more time 

and money in NCO education? Why or why not? Where would you focus any increases? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Our priorities for all Sailors are clear—mastery of their technical 

ratings, warfare qualification, and progressive development of leadership skills. 

Each enlisted rating has its unique professional requirements and operational 

rhythm in terms of time spent in assignments at sea or ashore. The Navy has taken 

a broad approach to this issue, providing increased opportunity for education in a 

number of venues as well as setting a required baseline of knowledge. Requirements 

for officer education have been developed over an extended period of time. They include considerable strategic, operational, scientific and analytical subjects generally 

considered part of the education domain. Navy’s goal is to facilitate all Sailors, officer and enlisted, to reach their full potential. 

The Navy believes this broad approach to be the best one and would not at this 

point endorse a focus on increasing education for Non-Commissioned Officers 

(NCOs). Navy fielded a full continuum of Professional Military Education for officer 
109 

and enlisted members in January 2008. Learning objectives are consistent with 

changing roles and responsibilities across a career. 

Dr. SNYDER. In exploring the most effective organizational structures we observed 

that two of you (Navy and Army) have NCO leaders of their NCO schools and two 

of you have colonels as leaders (Marine Corps and Air Force). Can each of you address why your school systems are organized the way they are and if they/you get 

enough support from your higher headquarters. For instance, the Navy (Naval War 

College), Air Force (Air University), and Marine Corps (Marine Corps University) 

schools are subordinated to your officer universities or colleges? [Note: Army enlisted education is directed by the Institute at Training and Doctrine Command 

rather than Army War College or Command and General Staff School.] 

a. How should PME commanders, commandants, and presidents be chosen? What 

are the plusses and minuses of having enlisted leadership at the enlisted 

schools? Officer leadership? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. In October 2008, overall command of Senior Enlisted Academy 

(SEA) shifted from the Naval Education and Training Command to the Naval War 

College (NWC). This shift was conducted to emphasize the educational aspects of 

the SEA experience. The SEA is now optimally aligned with NWC with a Senior 

Enlisted member as its Director. The relationship and co-location with NWC allows 

the SEA to leverage the educational expertise of the NWC professors and infrastructure to enhance the Enlisted PME experience. The SEA Enlisted Director receives 

outstanding support from the dedicated military and civilians at the NWC in its 

educational mission and the mission supporting functions. This Expertise has 

brought measurable progress to SEA and permitted the SEA faculty to focus on 

their teaching requirements. Additionally, PME content is the responsibility of NWC 

and provides additional value to the SEA. 

The selection of post-major command tour Command Master Chiefs (CMCs) has 

been very successful in maintaining the highest caliber of Enlisted Directors at the 

SEA. The strongest point of maintaining a senior enlisted leader as the Director is 

in maintaining a deck plate leader emphasis on curriculum content and focus. Senior Enlisted Directors facilitate peer-to-peer conversations among SEA graduates 

serving throughout the Fleet. The Navy culture promotes a strong Chief Petty Officer Mess with the CMC as its leader. The SEA is a reflection of that culture and 

epitomizes the idea that the SEA is for ‘‘senior enlisted leaders’’ and ‘‘run by senior 

enlisted leaders’’ which increases the validity of the education that the SEA provides 

to the force. 

Dr. SNYDER. Would you be in favor of a Goldwater-Nichols Reform for Enlisted 

personnel management and PME? Given that calls for jointness and ‘‘whole of government approaches’’ from Congress and the Executive Branch have been increasing, how extensively should the EPME system be more consciously shifting its 

sights to the joint, interagency, and multinational realms? 

a. Is joint, interagency, and multinational integration curriculum being extended 

down to the enlisted ranks, in a conscious and programmed way, given that 

they find themselves increasingly in that environment whether that is in engagement, combat, or reconstruction and stabilization operations? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Navy believes the current overarching guidance and curricula 

framework to be satisfactory. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has established policy to ensure education of joint matters permeates the Navy’s PME Continuum. Navy EPME curriculum content is current and relevant, and addresses 

multi-Service and multinational topics in its programs. The primary focus of EPME 

remains to ensure that enlisted Sailors learn about their own Service’s responsibilities, capabilities, and Navy’s role as a key element of a multiservice force within 

an interagency and multinational environment. The requirements within the Navy’s 

PME Continuum were developed within the context of the contemporary operating 

environment and extend elements of joint matters throughout the Continuum. 

The Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA) curriculum covers Joint and Multinational 

topics through briefs, lectures, and research projects. Students from other services 

and international navies are enrolled in every SEA Resident class. Students from 

international navies give regional briefs as part of their communications curriculum. 

Additionally, the SEA currently has an Army sergeant major, an Air Force master 

sergeant, a Coast Guard master chief, and a German Navy master chief equivalent 

on staff as classroom facilitators. An increase of an international partner facilitator 

from the Pacific Fleet region is being reviewed. 

The SEA is currently reviewing proposed lecture topics to enhance its interagency 

subject matter coverage. Beyond the SEA, Navy Senior Enlisted Leaders (SEL) selected for Joint Command SEL billets attend the National Defense University’s 
110 

KEYSTONE course which covers Joint, Interagency, and Multinational Integration 

curriculum. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does diversity matter in the assignment of faculty and staff within 

EPME? How can EPME institutions increase the diversity of their leadership and 

faculty? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Yes, diversity does matter in the assignment of faculty, staff, and 

students at the Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA). Ensuring the resident SEA class 

has representatives from the other US military services and, whenever possible, representatives from partner nations are key elements in achieving diversity. The SEA 

uses the ‘‘9 Dimensions of Diversity’’ when assigning facilitators and students to 

classroom groups. The SEA ensures that race, gender, ethnicity, service (Army/ 

Navy/Marines/Air Force/Coast Guard), component (Active/Reserve), nationality 

(International students), rating, warfare community/specialty, and geographic area 

of operations/homeport are taken into account when organizing the group makeup 

to ensure the group has as many diverse opinions as possible to enhance the classroom discussion and dynamics. Similarly, the educational theme of diversity and effectively dealing with it to achieve a unit’s true potential permeates the course of 

instruction for these proven enlisted leaders. 

Dr. SNYDER. How much of your EPME curriculum is focused on critical thinking, 

communication, and resource management? Should emphasis in any or all of these 

areas be increased? At what levels? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Critical thinking and communication topics are a focus of the 

Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA) curriculum and highlighted in the Diplomacy, Information/intelligence, Military, and Economics (DIME) capstone event termed ‘‘Wargames.’’ War-games is an interactive role-play session based on DIME concepts that 

each group participates in as different countries with different objectives. Communication, an essential element of successful leadership especially critical at the higher levels, is embedded throughout the educational outcomes and the SEA curricula. 

Communication topics include effective writing, extemporaneous speaking, impromptu speaking, organizational communications, five oral presentations, and four 

written essays. SEA curriculum provides adequate emphasis on all three areas with 

communications receiving the highest emphasis. Resource management is covered 

in the Defense Resource Allocation topic. ‘‘Capable of Critical Thought with an Operational-level Perspective’’ is one of the four educational outcomes required for graduation from the SEA. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should senior NCOs attend officer PME courses? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. The Navy has a program in which senior enlisted leaders with 

exceptional potential, who have earned a Bachelor’s Degree, may attend the College 

of Naval Warfare at the Naval War College. This educational opportunity is for 

leaders with the potential to become advisors to the Navy and the nation’s senior 

military leadership. The program is highly selective with a limit of not more than 

four enlisted leaders attending in an academic year. To date, graduates have gone 

on to billets such as Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON), the senior 

enlisted leader for Naval Forces Europe, the Director of Chief of the Boat/Command 

Master Chief (COB/CMC) School and Senior Enlisted Advisors (SEA) to several joint 

task force commanders. Additionally, senior chiefs and master chiefs on a selected 

basis are permitted to participate in the Intermediate-level, non-resident PME programs at the Naval War College. 

Dr. SNYDER. During our Officer PME study, the Army, Air Force, and Marine 

Corps asked for expanded Title 10 hiring authority so they could hire professional 

educators rather than trainers. The Navy supported that position for others although they didn’t think they required for themselves because they’re organized differently. 

a. With the changes in your EPME courses, it appears that expanded authority 

might be necessary except that you can capitalize on the collocation of Naval 

War College Faculty. Can you briefly explain if you need it and what you’d do 

with it? 

b. How will EPME institutions attract top-tier civilian faculty if they receive Title 

10 authority? 

Mr. LUTTERLOH. Traditionally, the Senior Enlisted Academy (SEA) faculty has 

been composed of enlisted leaders on active duty or reservists on extended tours of 

active service. The importance of using Active Duty Senior Enlisted Facilitator Staff 

cannot be understated. The deck plate experiences that the Senior Enlisted 

Facilitators bring to the classroom are vital to the education process at the SEA. 

The Navy intends to continue to follow that model and, at this point, does not plan 

to add civilians to its faculty. One of the important elements in the realignment of 

command which brought SEA under the purview of Naval War College was to make 
111 

more effective use of the NWC faculty’s expertise in support of SEA faculty and curriculum. While NWC had for years provided support in the form of subject matter 

experts and visiting lecturers in support of SEA, the closer bond facilitates faculty 

development and curriculum development at SEA. Since the Naval War College’s 

academic programs remain the College of Naval Warfare and the College of Naval 

Command and Staff, both of which are ten month programs, the College fully meets 

the statutory criteria for hiring faculty under Title 10 authority. For decades, NWC 

has hired a number of research faculty members under this Title 10 authority. 

Therefore, if the requirement arose to add Title 10 faculty positions at SEA, the law 

currently provides that authority. 

Dr. SNYDER. When we studied Officer PME, we discovered a pretty big disconnect 

between the personnel systems and the PME systems. Specifically, we addressed 

who gets selected to attend and when, what course they go to, and where they go 

afterward as far as putting the education to good use. Does the enlisted PME system have similar challenges? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air Force (AF) enlisted assignment system is designed to distribute Airmen equitably among major commands (MAJCOM) based on manning 

levels to meet mission requirements. Although certain special duty assignments 

have specific training/education requirements, there are none specifically for EPME. 

The AF EPME system is managed separately using a deliberate process that identifies Airmen to attend EPME based on priority of need (i.e., projected promotion to 

the next higher grade, current grade, time in current grade) to meet required grade 

appropriate competency development in Joint and Air Force guidance. Thus, the Air 

Force does not link the two systems and both systems are working as designed to 

meet AF mission and development requirements. 

Although we currently do not have an official AF-wide system or process in place, 

the Air Force Enlisted Force Development Panel is exploring various options to deliberately develop our SNCOs via sister service and international EPME with a goal 

of linking AF graduates of sister service or international EPME to specific locations 

where the experience will be beneficial to the member and the mission. 

Dr. SNYDER. Virtually all the officer PME education venues offer a master’s degree along with PME. Other than the Community College of the Air Force and the 

College of the American Soldier programs, does your Service’s enlisted PME system 

provide for degrees or accredited college hours to apply to a degree? How important 

(or is it required) for enlisted members to have an Associate’s Degree, Bachelor’s Degree, or Master’s Degree at some point in their career for promotion? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Community College of the Air Force (CCAF) awards lower-division college credit to graduates of EPME courses. These credits can be applied to 

the member’s CCAF Associate of Applied Science Degree program, or the transcript 

credit can be applied to another college program at their discretion. 

In addition, Air University offers the Associate to Baccalaureate Cooperative 

(ABC) which links CCAF graduates with colleges that offer 4-year degree programs 

related to the member’s CCAF 2-yr degree. Participating schools have agreed to 

allow students to transfer CCAF degree credits and only complete an additional 60 

semester hours to earn a bachelor’s degree. 

The Air Force requires an associate’s level degree for the more than 6,000 technical training and EPME faculty at CCAF-affiliated schools AF-wide. 

Although not a requirement for promotion, current Air Force guidance requires 

active duty E7—E–8 to complete a CCAF degree in order to be eligible for Senior 

Rater Endorsement on their annual performance report. This is important for favorable promotion consideration as the member’s likelihood of getting promoted without 

it is significantly hampered. 

Additionally, in regard to degree requirements, the Air Force has a program that 

permits selected enlisted personnel to attend the Air Force Institute of Technology 

(AFIT) to receive a graduate (Master’s) degree. The program’s purpose is to enhance 

combat capability to provide the Air Force highly proficient NCOs technically experienced in their career field and highly educated through AFIT graduate. 

Dr. SNYDER. How is the Reserve Component (RC) included in your enlisted PME 

program? Do reservists and Guardsmen have the opportunity to attend or take the 

PME they require for promotion? How has the transition from a strategic to an 

operational reserve (with increased deployments and length of deployments) affected 

RC opportunities to complete EPME? 

Mr. SITTERLY. About 97.5% Air National Guard (ANG) and Air Force Reserve 

(AFR) participate in EPME distance learning (DL) courses. According to current policy, reservists and Guardsmen must complete resident or DL required EPME to be 

promoted. The ARC Airmen are permitted and do attend resident courses for each 

level of EPME on a limited basis due to capacity limitations. 
112 

This transition has not affected the ARC since most enlisted Airmen complete 

their EPME requirements through DL. Though it is a challenge for AFRC Airmen 

to attend lengthy resident EPME courses since they have full-time civilian jobs (not 

so for ANG), both the ANG and AFRC would like to fill additional seats at resident 

PME schools if more allocations were provided. 

Dr. SNYDER. There is quite a disparity between the length of time an officer 

spends in a career on education and the time an enlisted person spends on education. Can you explain this disparity? Do the Services need to invest more time 

and money in NCO education? Why or why not? Where would you focus any increases? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Some caution is needed in trying to do a direct comparison between 

time spent in education for officer and enlisted personnel. The two populations are 

different in significant ways and OPME and EPME are developed to meet the 

unique developmental needs of their respective populations. For example, enlisted 

personnel primarily function at the tactical to operational levels across the Air Force 

while officers range from the tactical to strategic. Moreover, educational needs are 

based on Air Force requirements. We recently completed a comprehensive review of 

enlisted development across the continuum of learning to ensure that Air Force requirements are being satisfactorily addressed. From this enlisted continuum review, 

we confirmed that the number of educational requirements have more than doubled 

over the last 10 years. In addition, the complexity of these requirements has also 

significantly increased while the time allocated for EPME courses has remained the 

same. Hence, more time could be proportionately allocated to all EPME levels to 

varying degrees based on increased requirements. 

The Air Force wants to invest more time and money in NCO education to keep 

pace with Joint and Air Force requirements; however, it is difficult given competing 

priorities in a financially constrained environment. Additional personnel, funds, and 

expertise are needed to develop and sustain both resident and distance learning 

(DL) courses to keep pace with emerging education requirements. 

Dr. SNYDER. In exploring the most effective organizational structures we observed 

that two of you (Navy and Army) have NCO leaders of their NCO schools and two 

of you have colonels as leaders (Marine Corps and Air Force). Can each of you address why your school systems are organized the way they are and if they/you get 

enough support from your higher headquarters. For instance, the Navy (Naval War 

College), Air Force (Air University), and Marine Corps (Marine Corps University) 

schools are subordinated to your officer universities or colleges? [Note: Army enlisted education is directed by the Institute at Training and Doctrine Command 

rather than Army War College or Command and General Staff School.] 

a. How should PME commanders, commandants, and presidents be chosen? What 

are the plusses and minuses of having enlisted leadership at the enlisted 

schools? Officer leadership? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Unlike the other services, the Air Force has established Air University (AU) as a centralized location for the oversight of all education programs. Within the AU organizational structure, the Barnes Center for EPME holds the same 

level of status as the other AU centers that report to the AU Commander. These 

include the Spaatz Center (officer PME), the LeMay Center (doctrine development 

and doctrine education), the Eaker Center (professional continuing education), the 

Holm Center (pre-commissioning and citizenship programs), and the Barnes Center 

(enlisted PME and other education programs). 

The Commander of the Barnes Center for Enlisted Education is an O–6. Senior 

enlisted personnel serve in significant leadership positions across the Barnes Center 

and each EPME school. Chief Master Sergeants serve as commandants (the top 

leader) for each of the 11 Air Force NCO Academies (worldwide), the Senior NCO 

Academy, and First Sergeant Academy. Additionally, within the Barnes Center, a 

CMSgt serves as the senior enlisted leader for all enlisted education programs. To 

select these senior enlisted leaders, there is a rigorous and highly competitive ‘‘nominative’’ process. For other school commandant positions, the Commander’s Involvement Program (CIP) is used whereby chief master sergeants are carefully screened 

and selected. Furthermore, at the 69 Airman Leadership Schools located Air Force 

wide, top performing Master Sergeants are screened and selected as Commandants 

to lead and manage the faculty of their school. Each of these ALSs fall under the 

Force Development Flight within the Force Support Squadron at each Wing and 

Major Command. 

The current process for selecting AF EPME commandants is working well. As 

with other special duty assignments that require superior performers, EPME personnel are screened and evaluated based on merit by other senior enlisted personnel 

and ultimately hired by their commander. 
113 

Having enlisted commandants leading EPME schools is working superbly and provides the first hand enlisted subject matter expertise, experience, and guidance to 

other enlisted personnel. The officer oversight provides the additional leadership 

and support to elevate and address issues as needed to appropriate leadership levels 

and AF corporate structure. 

Dr. SNYDER. Would you be in favor of a Goldwater-Nichols Reform for Enlisted 

personnel management and PME? Given that calls for jointness and ‘‘whole of government approaches’’ from Congress and the Executive Branch have been increasing, how extensively should the EPME system be more consciously shifting its 

sights to the joint, interagency, and multinational realms? 

a. Is joint, interagency, and multinational integration curriculum being extended 

down to the enlisted ranks, in a conscious and programmed way, given that 

they find themselves increasingly in that environment whether that is in engagement, combat, or reconstruction and stabilization operations? 

Mr. SITTERLY. No, we do not believe that a Goldwater-Nichols Reform for enlisted 

personnel management and PME is needed at this time. The Air Force does recognize that there needs to be a balance between Air Force centric and Joint curricula 

requirements. Air Force EPME courses have been and should continue to increase 

jointness, interagency, and multinational coverage but not to the extent that core 

curriculum areas for Air Force Leadership, Profession of Arms, and Communication 

are reduced while meeting the Joint, interagency, and multinational education requirements prescribed in AFPD 36–26, Total Force Development, Institutional Competencies and CJCS 1805.1, Enlisted Professional Military Education Policy. In fact, 

all resident EPME academic programs were updated or they are being updated to 

meet the requirements prescribed in the Joint and Air Force guidance. 

The Air Force is continually working on additional ‘‘Joint’’ deliberate development 

initiatives. One such initiative is to require AF SNCOs to attend a Joint Service 

EPME school prior to be assigned to a joint billet. This will help build ‘‘Joint’’ partnerships/relationships and will help utilize/align education opportunities with valid 

mission requirements. 

Dr. SNYDER. Does diversity matter in the assignment of faculty and staff within 

EPME? How can EPME institutions increase the diversity of their leadership and 

faculty? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Yes, diversity matters in the assignment of EPME faculty and staff. 

The Air Force has a strong track record in leveraging diversity throughout the force 

and Enlisted PME is no different. Hiring authorities balance the need to maintain 

a diverse faculty with respect to gender and race, as well as key demographic variables such as Air Force Specialty Code or AFSC. It’s vital that our students in the 

classroom are able to see a faculty that represents the richness of our diverse force, 

especially in academic discussions and case studies involving complex people issues. 

The Air Force will continue to ensure integrity in the hiring process and procedures 

and monitor faculty diversity. 

Dr. SNYDER. How much of your EPME curriculum is focused on critical thinking, 

communication, and resource management? Should emphasis in any or all of these 

areas be increased? At what levels? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The following breakouts estimate the number of hours dedicated 

to each topic area as each relates to resident courses: 

Course Total 

Course 

Hours 

Critical 

Thinking 

Communication Resource 

Management 

Airman Leadership School (ALS) 192 125 54 1 

NCO Academy (NCOA) 134 134 56 1 

AF SNCO Academy (AFSNCOA) 240 157 45 1 

CMSgt Leadership Course (CLC) 64 0 0 3 

Yes, the Air Force is increasing emphasis in these areas. The ALS recently incorporated more emphasis on communication through reflecting thinking, writing, and 

journaling aimed at developing a personal leadership philosophy with peer review. 

Additionally, we are revising AFSNCOA and NCOA programs to increase emphasis 

on resource management, cross cultural communication, and negotiation. Through 
114 

reflective thinking essays on leadership topics and reflective journaling exercises, 

students will link their own strengths and improvement opportunities in order to 

author a professional development plan. 

Critical Thinking: Each course is designed using instructional teaching methodologies of guided discussion (Socratic Debate) and case analysis where students are 

confronted with leadership issues and required to apply principles learned to determine courses of action necessary to resolve the issue. 

Communication: Students write papers, give briefings, counsel subordinates, provide performance feedback plans and execute meetings, and perform group projects 

under practice and testing conditions. 

Resource Management: The AFSNCOA (Oct 10) and the NCOA (Jan 11) will adjust curricula to address the prescribed resource management competencies. Students will develop Financial Execution Plans, prepare unfunded requests, develop 

Authorization Change Requests, and use Unit Management Documents (UMD) to 

solve manpower problems associated with daily operations. 

Dr. SNYDER. Should senior NCOs attend officer PME courses? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Although the Air Force recognizes that there is value in enlisted 

Airmen partnering with officers during PME, we are not convinced that enlisted 

Airmen need to attend officer PME. Since 2006, we have paired junior officers at 

the Air and Space Basic Course (ASBC) with senior NCOs attending the AF SNCO 

Academy for 3 days. Additionally, for the first time, we sent two AF SNCOs to officer Joint PME; one to the 13 week Joint Combined Warfighting School and one to 

the 40 week Advanced Joint Professional Military Education course at the Joint 

Forces Staff College. We plan to continue this practice since both officer and enlisted 

Airmen benefit tremendously from a better understanding of each other’s role, responsibilities and challenges from this partnership. 

Dr. SNYDER. The Air Force’s distance learning program is predominately if not exclusively done by ‘‘boxes of books’’. Obviously, you can’t update those courses very 

easily and the cost for updating, printing, storing, and shipping is significant. When 

does the Air Force plan to transition to a web-based or internet based computer distance learning model, or a ‘‘blackboard’’ system through which students can more 

readily interact with other students and faculty? What resources would you need to 

transition the courses? 

Mr. SITTERLY. The Air Force has made great strides in leveraging technology to 

facilitate PME learning. As an example, the Air Command and Staff College Online Master’s Degree Program (OLMP) launched in 2007 has been extremely successful in accomplishing desired learning outcomes via a distance learning (DL) 

model. We are currently exploring ways to extend the lessons learned from the 

OLMP to other PME programs. In fact, the Air Force conducted preliminary research to move all of enlisted DL on-line. To this end, we are developing a business 

case that examines various DL models as well as their learning and cost implications to determine the best course of action to deliver robust PME DL for Total 

Force Airmen. The analysis will ascertain the resources required to implement, and 

the long term efficiencies that can be gained for such transition. At this juncture, 

the analysis is not complete and it would be premature to attempt to articulate the 

exact investment, and long term efficiencies to be gained. 

Dr. SNYDER. Air University requested expanded Title 10 authority during the officer PME study. This came up again at the Barnes Center. With the changes in your 

EPME courses, it appears that expanded authority might be necessary. Can you 

briefly explain if you need it and what you’d do with it? 

a. How will EPME institutions attract top-tier civilian faculty if they receive 

Title 10 authority? 

Mr. SITTERLY. Prior to the last 10 years, enlisted education focused primarily on 

traditional enlisted core competencies such as leadership, communication skills, profession of arms, and management. Since these are enlisted competencies, they can 

be developed in EPME curriculum with enlisted expertise. However, with recent AF 

mandates such as nuclear surety, cyber operations, irregular warfare, etc., enlisted 

personnel do not have the core expertise needed to address these more complex topics. Using Title 10 hiring authority is vital to addressing these complex, ever-changing demands for rapid curriculum innovation to meet AF needs. 

Enlisted education doesn’t result in the award of a graduate degree, thus there 

is not a compelling case for Administratively Directed (AD) teaching faculty. However, there is a significant need for AD personnel in administrative faculty and curriculum development and we have identified notional positions within enlisted education where the placement of AD faculty might be appropriate. We identified seven 

positions that include the senior Education Advisor at the Barnes Center Headquarters, three deans of academics from across the Center, and three within EPME 
115 

curriculum development requiring specific academic subject matter expertise to 

meet the complex educational challenges. The very nature of Title 10 positions 

would facilitate the hiring of qualified civilian faculty. Given that enlisted education 

programs are offered under the Air University umbrella, a regionally accredited institution, we’re confident we’ll be able to secure the faculty with the right credentials. 

Æ