.AD-A273 111

U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences i0

Research Report 1646

Prior Service Soldiers in the Special

Forces Assessment and Selection

Program: Recruitment Issues

Elizabeth J. Brady and Judith E. Brooks * 0

U.S. Army Research Institute

~<LI

• 93-28854

October 1993 kf 93-28854

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

93 11 24 036

0
U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES )

A Field Operating Agency Under the Jurisdiction

of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

EDGAR M. JOHNSON

Director

Technical review by

Henry H. Busciglio Acce;iori For

Martha L. Teplitzky

fTI•, ALI' T 1N. N3PECTZD 5 LU

12,

D-t

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ART Please address correspondence

concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

ATT'N: PERI-P)X, 5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it is no longer needed. Please do not return it to

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

NOTE: The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position,

unless so designated by other authorized documents.

i J ' "•:•0

0 0 0 00 0 0!
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE [ FCrrn Approved

%oa~~~~~~~~~~~~c~h 0 ~C0(~Io Caltqfj~ .t..~.~,wmtot .. q hou nor heboe WI~'* fuW.IqI" the un tor re...W. AI rur..zos searching.. ot 'rg OSL *I sitnqO 

I a~~l 1 It~~.adtmlln ~ t nn t to - ".. ftorm~aton, wad Com ad ;4f4U19n 11" burdenR "toat or frstOte 4 %00"~e o~fl( tlhis

C~oue nw of ontormalIoI. Min iudrn Iugmici~flt for reducing We~f h.cco. to Wa ~fqon stiaresI~f aoiVces. Dhrectoraefoa In ratt0.i.o., Owor-tm and statonsi. 2 S Jqfieson

D. iavos Suite 1204, AdiinqIOn. VA 122020430Z. and to the C-0 of Ili 9.R Sn udig". 1`401owofts ItatE dOPfotert(0704-O1111)A. to ýaIR.Rtqofl. DC 20503

I AGENCY USE ONLY (t.Cdvt 004M)a 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED

11993, October Final Jan 92 - Jun 92 U,

4, TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Prior Service Soldiers in the Special Forces Assessment 63007A

and Selection Program: Recruitment Issues 792 4

1223

6. AUTHOR(S) HO01

Brady, Elizabeth J.; and Brooks, Judith E_

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADORESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and REPORT NUMBER

Social Sciences ARI Research Report

ATTN: PERI-RS 1646 4 5001 Eisenhower Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22333-5600

9. SPONSORING /MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND AODRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING, MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

4 I~a. DISTRIBUTION~ AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE 

*

Approved for public release;

distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (MAzemum 200 word!Sj

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

requested assistance from the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI) to examine the performance of Prior Service candidates in the

Special Forces Assessment and Selection (SFAS) program, The purpose of the research

was to inform decisions about the future recruitment of Prior Service soldiers for

SFAS. In particular, USAJFKSWCS was interested in the likely impact of three pro- S

posed eligibility restrictions on the market of available candidates and on select

rates in SFAS. Researchers analyzed data from enlisted candidates who participated

in SFAS classes between January 1991 and March 1992..

The findings showed that Prior Service candidates generally performed as well as

Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve in SFAS, but had a higher rate of prerequisite

swim failures. The data supported a proposed restriction on Prior Service soldiers S

with no combat arms experience, but other proposed restrictions concerning former

branch of service and length of separation from Active Duty were not supported by

performance data,

(Continued)

14. SUBJECT TERMS I5. NUMBER OF PAGES

Special Forces 18x program 36 0

Prior Service program Recruiting 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY 43ASSIFICATiON 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT OF REPORT QFnlssfe ?~nTMsIi PAI A STA e Uncasifedlasas sie Unlimited

NSN 540O1-80.SOOStandard Form 298 (Rev Z-89)

i Q.rod boy ANISI $10 IW9IS

0~~~M 0 00200
ARI Research Report 1646

13. ABSTRACT (Continued)

Application of all of the proposed restrictions would have eliminated

about two thirds of all Prior Service candidates in the sample. These findings

and other considerations, such as Special Forces manpower requirements and

Prior Service program administrative costs, will help Army leaders make

informed decisions about the future of the program as a recruitment tool for

Special Forces.

ii S

"4 0 • " ""'"
o

Research Report 1646

Prior Service Soldiers in the Special Forces

Assessment and Selection Program:

Recruitment Issues

Elizabeth J. Brady and Judith E. Brooks S

U.S. Army Research Institute

Selection and Classification Technical Area

Michael G. Rumsey, Chief

Manpower and Personnel Research Division

Zita M. Simutis, Director

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

5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600 5

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

Department of the Army

October 1993 •

Army Project Number Manpower and Personnel

20263007A792

Approved for public release; disiribubon is unlimited.

iii

• • • •• • •

I 0 " mm n n m nm m mna ,m ..... ...... im0"i 0 0 0 0 0 i
FOREWORD

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and

Social Sciences (ARI) and the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School (USAJFKSWCS) are engaged in a cooper- ative research program to identify, recruit, assess, select,

train, and utilize Special Forces personnel. The research

described in this report is part of that ongoing program. This

particular effort, which was conducted at the request of the

USAJFKSWCS, examines recruitment issues for personnel who enter

Special Forces through the Prior Service (18X) program.

The Leadership and Organizational Change and the Selection

and Classification Technical Areas of ARI's Manpower and Person- 0

nel Research Division conducted the research as part of the

advanced development program. Support for this and other efforts

to help meet Special Forces' need for highly qualified personnel is documented in a June 1991 Memorandum of Agreement between the

U.S. Army Special Operations Command and the ARI.

This research compared the characteristics and performance

outcomes of Prior Service candidates in the Special Forces

Assessment and Selection program (SFAS) to those of soldiers ftzm

the Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve components. It also

assessed the likely impact of recently proposed restrictions on

Prior Service eligibility. The findings were briefed, in part, *

to the USAJFKSWCS and the U.S. Army Recruiting Command in March

1992.

EDGAR M. JO SON

Director

v

0 0 0 00 0S 0 0
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

U)

The authors wish to thank Martha L. Teplitzky of the U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

(ARI) for her database expertise, time, and support for this

project. Special thanks also go to Michelle M. Zazanis of ARI

for her time in working with the database. The authors partic- ularly wish to thank Sergeant First Class Michael C. Curtis, S

Special Forces Recruiting Liaison, Fort Bragg, North Carolina,

for his support, encouragement, and devotion to this project.

v i

vi

• • • •• • •

0J u0mmmmmmlmmm.m 0numlmm ,- , 0 0 0
PRIOR SERVICE SOLDIERS IN THE SPECIAL FORCES ASSESSMENT AND

SELECTION PROGRAM: RECRUITMENT ISSUES

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Requirement:

The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and

School (USAJFKSWCS) conducts the Special Forces Assessment and

Selection (SFAS) program and Special Forces (SF) qualification

training. The USAJFKSWCS staff requested an analysis of data on

Prior Service candidates to assess their background characteristics and SFAS performance outcomes. The findings were to be 0

used to make decisions about the recruitment and eligibility of

Prior Service soldiers for SFAS.

Procedure:

ARI researchers analyzed data from two samples of enlisted

candidates from SFAS classes conducted between January 1991 and

March 1992. The first sample allowed comparisons between Prior

Service soldiers and soldiers from the Active Duty, National

Guard, and Reserve components. Researchers obtained additional

background data on Prior Service soldiers for the second sample.

This sample was used to assess the impact of proposed Prior

Service eligibility restrictions on the potential market and

select rates of Prior Service candidates.

Findings:

Prior Service candidates generally performed as well as

their Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve counterparts in

SFAS, although they had a higher rate of prerequisite swim

failures. Application of all proposed eligibility restrictions

to our sample eliminated about two thirds of all Prior Service

candidates. SFAS performance data did not support all of the

proposed restrictions on Prior Service program eligibility,

namely, restrictions on Air Force and Navy candidates and on

soldiers with more than 2 years of separation from Active Duty.

The restrictions were proposed primarily because it was anticipated that these people would have trouble in the Special Forces

Qualification Course. The data did, however, support the proposed restriction on soldiers with no combat arms experience because these candidates were less likely to be selected.

vii

• • • •• • •
Utilization of Findings:

The research findings help to inform decisions about the

future of the Prior Service program as a recruitment mechanism

for Special Forces. They provide information about the performance of Prior Service soldiers in SFAS relative to other candidates. Additionally, they help assess specific eligibility

restrictions that could affect the market of available Prior

Service candidates and their success rates in SFAS.

viii

• • • •• • •
PRIOR SERVICE SOLDIERS IN THE SPECIAL FORCES ASSESSMENT AND

SELECTION PROGRAM: RECRUITMENT ISSUES

CONTENTS

Page

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

Background ..................... ...................... 1

Purpose ....................... ........................ 2

RESEARCH APPROACH .................... ..................... 2

Description of Samples ............................... 2

Data and Analyses .................. ................... 4

RESULTS ......................... .......................... 5

Prior Service Compared to Active/Guard/Reserve . . .. 5 •

Prior Service Candidate Backgrounds and SFAS

Outcomes ..................... ...................... 10

DISCUSSION ................... ........................ 19

REFERENCES ................... ........................ 21 *

APPENDIX A. PRIOR SERVICE INPROCESSING FORM ......... .. A-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Enlisted Prior Service Candidates in SFAS

Classes 3-91 Through 502-91 ... ........... 3

2. Enlisted Prior Service Candidates in SFAS

Classes 502-91 Through 501-92 .. ........... 3

3. Number and Percent of Prior Service Candidates

by Former Branch of Service in SFAS Classes

502-91 Through 501-92, Enlisted Only ...... .. 10

4. Hypothetical Impact of Proposed Restrictions

on Prior Service Market and Number of Prior * Service Selectees (SPAS Classes 502-91 Through

501-92, Enlisted Only) .......... ............. 18

ix

*
CONTENTS (Continued)

U,

Page ,

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Percent Ranger-qualified in each component

(SFAS classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted

on.L ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2. Select rate by component and class (SFAS

classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted

only) ................... .................... 6

3. Percent of prerequisite drops, nongraduates,

and graduates in each component (SFAS classes

3-91 through 502-91, enlisted only) ..... 7

4. Percent failing APFT and swim test within

component (SFAS classes 3-91 through 502-91,

enlisted only) ........ ............... 8

5. Percent nonselected by reason within component

(SFAS classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted

only) ................... .................... 9

6. Percent of Prior Service Army and Marine

Corps soldiers with combat arms experience S

(SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92, enlisted

only) ............. .................... 11

7. Percent of Army Prior Service candidates

by type of MOS experience (SFAS classes 502-91

through 501-92, enlisted only) ....... 12

8. Percent of Prior Service candidates at each

separation interval (SFAS classes 502-91

through 501-92, enlisted only) ....... 13

9. Percent of prerequisite drops, nongraduates,

and graduates within each service (SFAS classes

502-91 through 501-92, enlisted only) . . . . 14

10. Prior Service Army and Marine Corps select

rate by combat arms experience (SFAS classes

502-91 through 501-92, enlisted only) . . . . 15

11. Percent of Prior Service selected by months

separated (SFAS classes 502-91 through

501-92, enlisted only) .... ........... 16

x

S

0 0 0 S 0 0 • 0 0 * 4
CONTENTS (Continuedn

Page

Figure 12. Percent of Pr., A. Service selected using

progressively strict criteria (SFAS classes

502-91 through 501-92, enlisted only) .... 17

0

x

xiS
A

PRIOR SERVICE SOLDIERS IN THE SPECIAL FORCES 0

ASSESSMENT AND SELECTiON PROGRAM:

RECRUITMENT ISSUES

Introduction U

Background~

The Special Forces Pricr Service program, also known as the

18X Program, was established in 1990 by the U.S. Army Recruiting

Command (USAREC). Under this program, Prior Service soldiers who

have separated from any of the armed services and who meet

certain qualifications are eligible for incentives to reenlist in 0

Army Special Forces (SF). USAREC proposed the program as a means

of expanding the potential SF market. The SF recruiting mission

increased from 1989 to 1991, while simultaneous downsizing in the

rest of the Army reduced the active-duty eligible pool for SF.

Thus, there was a perceived need for market expansion to meet the

SF recruiting mission. 0

The U.S. Army John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and

School (USAJFKSWCS) agreed to the program on a temporary basis

with the understanding that USAREC would limit Prior Service

recruitment to no more than 20% of the year's mission for the

Special Forces Assessment, and Selection (SFAS) program. USAREC 0

also agreed to support Prior Service soldiers who attend a 2-week

Pre-SFAS training program.' In Fiscal Year (FY) 91, 15% of all

enlisted SFAS candidates were Prior Service, and the percentage

grew to about 20% in FY92.

Recently, USAJFKSWCS and USAREC began to reconsider the * 4

Prior Service program in view of current recruitment needs.

After a period of expansion, SF authorizations are now

approaching sustainment levels. As a result, the recruiting

mission is being reduced (Herd & Teplitzky, 1992), allowing

USAJFKSWCS and USAREC to be more selective about personnel

applying for SF. USAJFKSWCS has suggested reducing the number of S

19X soldiers recruited and imposing more selective prerequisites for Prior Service soldiers (as well as for other applicants).

Several relevant factors influence decisions about the

recruitment of 18X soldiers for SFAS. Some factors are

administrative, such as the availability of funding for Pre-SFAS. S

Other factors have more to do with the characteristics of Prior

Service personnel that affect their suitability for SFAS and the

qualification course. Prior Service soldiers come to SFAS with

diverse backgrounds and experiences that make them a unique

asset. On the other hand, those who were never in the Army or

ISFAS is a 21-day program designed to select soldiers for SF

qualification training. It assesses individuals for physical

fitness, effort, ability to cope with stress, leadership

qualities, and ability to work in teams. Pre-SFAS covers the

basic skills (e.g., ruckmarching techniques), attitude

development, and physical fitness needed for success in SFAS.

1
were separated years ago lack the basic Army skills (e.g., land

navigation, rucksack marching) that are required of all

candidates for success in SFAS and the qualification course. The a)

challenge for decision makers is to weigh the advantages and S

disadvantages of Prior Service recruiting.

The purpose of this report is to provide information that

USAJFKSWCS and USAREC can use to make policy decisions about S

Prior Service program participation. The information is based on

descriptive analyses that ARI performed on data from Prior

Service and other candidates who participated in the SFAS program

in FY91 and FY92. An initial set of analyses help document how

Prior Service soldiers compare with their Active Duty and

National Guard/Reserve counterparts on background characteristics S

and SFAS outcomes. These analyses are based on data from the

first eight classes in which Prior Service soldiers were -llowed

to participate. A second set of analyses focus on the impact of

specific proposed restrictions on Prior Service soldiers that

would limit eligibility for SFAS. The restrictions, proposed in

Spring 1992, would: S

limit participation to former Army and Marine Corps

soldiers, considering Air Force and Navy applicants

only on a case-by-case basis.

limit participation to Combat Arms Military 0

Occupational Specialties (MOS), Career Management

Field (CMF) 31 (Signal Operations), and CMF 91

(Medical); consider non-combat arms applicaticns only

if the individual is Ranger-qualified.

limit the amount of time separated from Active Duty to •

24 months.

ARI researchers projected the impact of these restrictions

on the market of eligible Prior Service SFAS candidates using

data from five recent classes. We also examined whether the

restrictions would, as intended, have increased the success rate

of Prior Service SFAS candidates, had they been imposed on these

classes. We were not able to assess the impact of the proposed

restriction on the second outcome of interest, success in the

Special Forces Qualification Course.

Research Approach

Description of Samples

There were two research samples drawn from SFAS classes

conducted in FY91 and FY92. Both samples included enlisted

soldiers only. The first consisted of eight classes that were

2

S••• 50000 ••• 0 0 0 6
conducted in FY91. This sample allowed us to compare Prior

Service to Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve components for

the first full year in which Prior Service soldiers attended

SFAS. The eight FY91 classes, 3-91 through 502-91, included a

total of 2,364 enlisted candidates. There were 1,625 Active Duty

candidates, 410 National Guard/Reserve, and 329 Prior Service.

Table 1 shows the breakdown of Prior Service candidates by class.

Table 1

Enlisted Prior Service Candidates in SFAS Classes 3-91 Through

502-91

MONTH

JAN 3-91 11

FEB 4-91 11

MAR 501-91 21

APR 5-91 51

MAY 6-91 85

JUN 7-91 74 0

SEP 8-91 22

SEP/OCT 502-91 54

TOTAL 329

The second sample included only enlisted Prior Service

candidates from five SFAS classes, 502-91 through 501-92. For

these five classes, we had obtained additional background data on

the Prior Service candidates that allowed us to analyze the

impact of the proposed 18X eligibility restrictions. This sample

consisted of 307 Prior Service candidates in all, and Table 2 S

shows their breakdown by class.

Table 2

Enlisted Prior Service Candidates in SFAS Classes 502-91 Through

501-92 S

MONTH CLASSN

SEP/OCT 502-91 54

NOV 2-92 64 S

JAN 3-92 39

FEB 4-92 73

MAR 501-92 77

TOTAL 307

3

!S

•!L•Ii i~m m |li~~i mmmm ....
Data and Analyses

The first set of analyses compared Prior Service candidates

to Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve candidates on

background characteristics and SFAS outcomes. The data used in

these analyses came from the ARI-USAJFKSWCS FY91 SFAS database

(classes 3-91 through 502-91) which contains military and

personal demographic information plus SFAS performance and

outcome data on all candidates.

The second set of analyses addressed only Prior Service

candidates in SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92. For these

candidates, we had information on the background variables that

corresponded to the eligibility requirements being considered by USAJFKSWCS and USAREC. The data for these analyses came from the

ARI-USAJFKSWCS FY91 and FY92 SFAS databases, class rosters, and 0

Prior Service Inprocessing Forms. We used the SFAS databases and

class rosters to determine SFAS outcomes (e.g., prerequisite drop, selected, voluntary withdrawal, board-nonselected). Using the Prior Service Inprocessing Form, we determined the

candidate's former branch of service, former MOS, and length of

separation from Active Duty (see Appendix A for a copy of this form).

* .

0

0

4

@ • •• • • •• •

Smmm 0 m i l nN0 | I0 0 0 *0n
Results

Prior Service ConDared to Active/Guard/Reserve 3)

Backaround Characteristics. For the FY91 classes, we

compared Prior Service candidates to Active Duty and National

Guard/Reserve an demographic and background variables such as

age, General Technical (GT) score, Wonderlic score, and years of

education. The differences across groups on these variables were

negligible.

In particular, we examined the number of Ranger-qualified candidates in each component, since USAJFKSWCS and USAREC have

considered Ranger qualification as a potential screening variable

for Prior Service personnel. Figure 1 shows that 9% of Prior

Service candidates were Ranger-qualified compared to 12% for

Active Duty and 9% for National Guard/Reserve.

PERCENT RANGER-QUALIFIED e

IN EACH COMPONENT

14%

12%1*-

10%"

a%-

6% •

4%-

2%0

0..

ACTIVE DUTY PRIOR SERVICE NG & RESERVE

N-1.626 N-329 N-410

ARI FY91 rARASE

WFAS CLASES 8-91 THRU 502-91

Figure 1. Percent Ranger-qualified in each component (SFAS

classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted only).

5

i • •• • • •• •

- 0nnmm m0 nnmlnmnm 0 I0 "0 0 n 0 ,
SFAS Outcomes. We next compared the three groups on SFAS

outcomes. A major outcome of interest is the percent of

candidates selected for Special Forces training. Figure 2 shows X/ $ the select rates for Prior Service, Active Duty, and National

Guard/Reserve across the FY91 classes. These rates are based on

the number of candidates reporting to Camp Mackall, excluding prerequisite failures who are typically not counted in SFAS official statistics. As shown in the figure, Prior Service

select rates varied considerably across classes from a low of about 27% in class 3-91 to a high of about 54% in 502-91. The Prior Service select rates were neither consistently higher nor consistently lower than the select rates for Active Duty and

National Guard/Reserve.

SELECT RATE BY COMPONENT & CLASS

70%

60%"

40%-

30%:

20%-

391 491 60191 691 691 791 891 80291

S- 4

-AD PS ENG& RESERVE]

ARI FY91 DATABASE

WAS CLASSES 3-90 I4U 602-91

Figure 2. Select rate by component and class (SPAS classes 3-91

through 502-91, enlisted only).

6

S

0 0 5 0 • 0 0 * 0
O

We then combined all classes to examine differences across

components in the percent of prerequisite drops, nongraduates, and graduates. The data are shown in Figure 3. All of the

percentages are based on the total number of soldiers reporting S

to Fort Bragg for SFAS. A prerequisite drop is defined as a

failure on the Army Physical Fitness Test (AnFT), or the swim

test, or a failure on both. Nongraduates are defined as soldiers

who passed the prerequisites but were otherwise not selected, and

graduates are those selected for training.

Figure 3 shows that Prior Service had the highest prerequisite drop rate at 20% compared to Active Duty (11%) and National Guard/Reserve (17%). Their high prerequisite drop rate

partly offsets their relatively low percent of nongraduates. Over all classes, the select rate for Prior Service was lower than for Active Duty but higher than for National Guard/Reserve. s

PERCENT PRE-REQ DROPS, NONGRADS, AND

GRADS WITHIN COMPONENT

60%

50% 49% 49%

40% 42%

40% 38%

34%

30%2

20% 20% 17

10%

0%

ACTIVE DUTY PRIOR SERVICE NG A RESERVE

N-1.626 N-329 N-410

MPRE-REQ DROP NONGRAD GRAD

ARI FY91 DATABASE

SFAS CLASSES 3-91 THRU 602-91

Figure 3. Percent of prerequisite drops, nongraduates, and

graduates in each component (SFAS classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted only). S

7

S0 5 0 S 0 0 0 S
-j

We examined the prerequisite drop rates further by

separately analyzing APFT and swim test failures. Figure 4 shows

the breakdown by component. Prior Service candidates clearly had X)

the highest rate of swim test failures (6%). Their 12% failure •

rate on the APFT was also high compared to Active Duty (7%) but

somewhat lower than the APFT failure rate for National

Guard/Reserve candidates (14%). The percent of candidates who

failed both the APFT and the swim test was equal across

components.

PERCENT FAILING APFT AND SWIM TEST e

WITHIN COMPONENT

16%

1 -% 14 % .. . .... . . .

12% C

12%-

10%.

6%- -% .

4%-

2% 2% 2% 2%

2%-

0%diI I

ACTIVE DUTY PRIOR SERVICE NG & RESERVE

N-1,626 NW2 N-410

[MAPFT ED SWIM APFT & SWIM

ARI FY01 DATABASE

SFAS CLASSES 3-91 THRU 802-91

Figure 4. Percent failing APFT and swim test within component

(SFAS classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted only).

8C

C

S@

m .,. . •Ill
S

Next, we compared the reasons for nonselection across

groups. Figure 5 shows the percent of candidates by component

who were nonselected for specific reasons. The data are based U,

only on those candidates who were nonselected, excluding e

candidates who graduated and those who failed prerequisites.

Board drops reflect the combined number of drops by both the

first and second SFAS boards. The percent of voluntary

withdrawals is the percent of candidates who voluntarily withdrew

from SFAS after day four. The percent of drops due to injury

reflects the percent of candidates who sustained an injury at any e

point during SPAS and dropped for that reason. Miscellaneous

reasons (e.g., medically disqualified) are represented by "other".

Figure 5 shows that Prior Service candidates had the lowest

percent of board drops (24%) and reported injuries (12%) compared

to Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve. Prior Service

candidates had a higher percent of voluntary withdrawals than

National Guard/Reserve but lower than Active Duty. Sixteen

percent of Prior Service candidates were not selected due to

miscellaneous reasons as compared to 6% of Active Duty and 10% of

National Guard/Reserve candidates.

PERCENT NONSELECTED BY REASON

WITHIN COMPONENT

60%- S *

54%

0•o% 48%

40%

40%-

30%- 27% 24 1

20%- 8

10%-

0%

ACTIVE DUTY PRIOR SERVICE NG & RESERVE

W1,026 No329 N-410

WFAS OUTCOMES

SBOARD VW nINJURY OTHER

ARI FY91 DATABASE

WFAS CLASSES 3-I9 THRU 602-91

Figure 5. Percent nonselected by reason within component (SFAS

classes 3-91 through 502-91, enlisted only).

9

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I.....-l I n II i
Prior Service Candidate Backgrounds and SFAS Outcomes

The results described next are based on the data from Prior U,

Service candidates enrolled in SFAS classes 502-91 through 501- 0

92. We first describe their background characteristics and then

examine the relationship of selected background variables to SFAS

outcomes. The results suggest how the proposed Prior Service

program restrictions might affect both the number of eligible candidates ai.. SFAS selection rates.

S

Backaround Characteristics. Table 3 shows the number and

percent of Prior Service candidates by their former branch of

service. In our sample, most candidates (80%) had previously served in the Army. If the proposed Army/Marine Corps restriction had been applied to these classes, 28 Navy and Air

Force candidates (9% of the total) would have been excluded. e

Table 3

Number and Percent of Prior Service Candidates by Former Branch

of Service in SFAS Classes 502-91 Through 501-92, Enlisted Only

NB PERCENT

PRIOR SERVICE

ARMY 246 (80%) 5

MARINE CORPS 33 (11%)

NAVY 15 (5%)

AIR FORCE 13 (4%) 0

TOTAL 307 100%

10

• • • •• • •S

II5 II II n0 0 i , *
We also looked at combat arms experience limiting the

analysis to Army and Marine Corps candidates. 1 Figure 6 shows

that about half of the Prior Service Army candidates had combat

arms experience, compared to about three quarters of the Marines.

Overall, 53% of Army and Marine Corps candidates had combat arms

experience.

PERCENT OF PRIOR SERVICE

ARMY & MARINE CORPS SOLDIERS

WITH COMBAT ARMS EXPERIENCE

100%

80%- 74%

s0•% - 1 49 63% 47%

40%-

20%-

0%

ARMY MARINE CORPS ARMY/MARINE CORPS

W246 N-33 N*279

= COMBAT ARMS E NON-COMBAT ARMS

ARI FY92 DATABASE

SFAS CLASSES 502-91 THRU 501-02

Figure 6. Percent of Prior Service Army and Marine Corps

soldiers with combat arms experience (SPAS classes 502-91 through

501-92, enlisted only).

2

Navy and Air Force candidates were not included, because they

were few in number, and because the data on the inprocessing form

did not allow an accurate determination of combat arms experience

in all cases.

11

S S 5 0 5 0 0 • 0 0
In view of the proposal to accept only Prior Service

candidates from combat arms or from CMF 31 (Signal Operations)

and CMF 91 (Medical) feeder NOS, we also examined the number of U

candidates who fell into these categories. Figure 7 describes 0

this breakdown for Army candidates. In addition to the 51% with

combat arms experience, another 14% had experience in either CMF

31 or CMF 91. Thus, over one third of the Army Prior Service

candidates did not fall into one of the desirable OS experience

categories and would have been eliminated had this restriction

been applied to our sample. 0

PERCENT OF ARMY PRIOR SERVICE CANDIDATES 0

BY TYPE OF MOS EXPERIENCE

60% 1

81%

80% -

40% 35%

30%-

20%

10% 7% 7%

0%-

WN12 N*17 NelS Ne86

ARI FY92 DATABASE

WFAS CLASSES 802-91 THRU 601"12

Figure 7. Percent of Army Prior Service candidates by type of

MOS experience (SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92, enlisted

only).

Lastly, we examined the length of time that candidates had

been separated from Active Duty. The data for this analysis came

from Question 5 on the Prior Service Inprocessing Form (Appendix

A) which asked, "How long were you out of the military?" Initial

12

S

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
inspection of these data and consideration of the question

wording revealed a problem of data interpretation. About 6%

(N-19) of the candidates reported zero months separation from the a

military due to their participation in the National Guard or a

Reserve components after Active Duty. For these candidates, we

were unable to determine their length of separation from Active

Duty, treated their data as missing, and excluded them from

subsequent analysis. For the remaining 94% (N-288) of the

candidates, we determined the percent who fell within various

separation intervals.

Figure 8 shows that 27% of the candidates had been separated

for a year or less. About 61% of the candidates had been

separated for no more than 2 years. Thus, if SFAS participation

had been restricted to soldiers with no more than 2 years of

separation, 39% of the candidates in this sample would have been

excluded.

PERCENT OF PRIOR SERVICE CANDIDATES

AT EACH SEPARATION INTERVAL

30% -

27%

25% 0 *

22%

20%

20%-

17%

16% 14%

10%

8%

0% ....

12 OR LESS 13-18 19-24 25-36 OVER 36

MONTHS SEPARATED

ARI FY92 DATABASE

SAS CLASSES 502-1 THRU 60142

Figure 8. Percent of Prior Service candidates at each separation

interval (SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92, enlisted only).

13

• • • •• • •
SFAS Outcomes. The first analysis of SFAS outcomes compared

candidates by former service branch. Because so few had

previously served in the Air Force or Navy, we combined these X,

soldiers into one category. Figure 9 shows the percent of S

prerequisite drops, nongraduates, and graduates (selectees)

within the three service groups. The number of soldiers from the

different services varied widely, with prior Army soldiers

(N-246) far outnumbering soldiers from the Marine Corps (N-33)

and Air Force/Navy (N-28).

Based on this sample, Figure 9 shows that the Marines

performed relatively well with the fewest prerequisite drops and

the highest graduation rate. Former Army soldiers had the lowest

graduation rate at 40%. Air Force and Navy servicemen had a

slightly better graduation rate (43%) for this small sample and

had the highest rate of prerequisite drops. 0

PERCENT PRE-REQ DROPS, NONGRADS, AND

GRADS WITHIN FORMER BRANCH B

OF SERVICE

60%

60- 1% 62%

40% 42% 43% 43%

40%

30%-

20% .. 14%

10% 9% 1 6a 1

0% - I

ARMY (N-246) MARINE (N-31) AF/NAVY (N-28)

SPRE-REQ DROP EJNONGRADS GRADS

ARI FY02 DATABASE

SFAS CLASSES 602-1 THRU 601"2

Figure 9. Percent of prerequisite drops, nongraduates, and

graduates within each service (SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-

92, enlisted only).

14

• • • •• • •

0~~~~ 000 ,, 
Combat Arms ExDerience. Next, we examined the impact of

combat arms experience on select rates. We limited this analysis

to Army and Marine Corps candidates, since their type of military experience could be readily determined. Figure 10 shows the

result. Both Army and Marine Corps candidates with combat arms

experience had higher select rates than those without. Moreover,

the difference was especially pronounced for Marines. The

combined Army and Marine data showed a 50% select rate for prior combat arms soldiers versus a 33% select rate for soldiers with

no combat arms experience.

PRIOR SERVICE ARMY & MARINE CORPS

SELECT RATE BY COMBAT ARMS EXPERIENCE

70%-

61%

60%.

50%- 48% •05 .

40%.

33% 33%

20% - 9

10% "

0% 1

ARMY MARINE CORPS ARMY/MARINE CORPS

N-246 N-33 N4279

=COMBAT ARMS E NON-COMBAT ARMSI

ARI FY92 DATABASE

SFAS CLASSES 602-91 THRU 601-92

Figure 10. Prior Service Army and Marine Corps select rate by combat arms experi3nce (SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92,

enlisted only).

We also considered select rates for soldiers with signal

operations and medical (CMF 31 and CMF 91) experience, since

USAJFKSWCS and USAREC exempted them from the proposed combat arms

restriction. The select rates for CMF 31 (n=17) and CMF 91

(n=18) were 41% and 22%, respectively. Because these select

rates are based on so few people, they should be interpreted with

great caution.

15

0S
NOR

Se~aration Time. We then examined length of time separated

from Active Duty in relation to success in SPAS. The proposed

restriction would limit SFAS participation to Prior Service

4 soldiers with no more than 24 months of separation, based on the

hypothesis that soldiers with shorter separation intervals

perform better in SFAS. We therefore considered 1-24 months and

over 24 months as critical categories. In addition, we examined

the potential impact of an even stricter criterion that would

limit participation to those with a separation interval of 18

4 ~ months or less.

Figure 11 shows that the select rates are identical across

categories. As the criterion is relaxed from 18 or fewer months

to include those with up to 24 months of separation, the select

rate does not decrease but rather remains the same. Moreover,

I ~ there is no difference in select rate for Prior Service soldiers

with 24 months or less versus more than 24 months of separation.

4 PERCENT SELECTED

BY MONTHS SEPARATED

442% 42% 42% * 40%-

30%-

20%-

10%-

4 ~0%-

1-181-24 OVER 24

MONTHS SEPARATED

ARI FY92 DATABASE

4 SWAS CLASSES 602-01 THRU 801-02

Figure 11. Percent of Prior Service selected by months separated

4(SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92, enlisted only).a

16
Proposed Restrictions. The last analyses were meant to

assess the impact of each restriction on select rates and number

of qualified candidates available by showing the results when CMF

31 and CMF 91 soldiers are excluded and when they are included. 0

Figure 12 shows that for all Prior Service candidates, the

overall select rate was 42%. When we excluded Air Force and Navy

candidates, the select rate remained unchanged. This is not

surprising, since Air Force and Navy candidates were a small

proportion of the sample. When the combat arms restriction was

applied, however, the select rate rose to 50%, reflecting the

generally higher performance of soldiers with prior combat arms

experience. The addition of the 24-month criterion actually led

to a decline in the select rate to 48%.

As shown, when we included CHi 31 and CMF 91 soldiers, the

major finding was a drop in the select rate from 50% to 46% when

the combat arms restriction was applied. This is explained

primarily by the low select rate (22%) observed for CMF 91.

However, as noted earlier, our sample of CMF 91 soldiers is small

and not necessarily representative of the Prior Service soldiers

with medical experience.

PERCENT OF PRIOR SERVICE SELECTED

USING PROGRESSIVELY STRICT CRITERIA

60%

60%

50% 

46% 48% 47%

42% 42% 42% 42%

40%.

30% .

20%.

10%.

0% .... ..

NO RESTRICTION ARIMC AR/MC#COMBAT AR/MC-COMo24 MO

I M EXCLUDING CMF31 & -1 INCLUDING CMF31 &,91

ARI FY62 DATABASE

WAS CLASSES 50241 THRU 601"2

Figure 12. Percent of Prior Service selected using progressively

strict criteria (SFAS classes 502-91 through 501-92, enlisted

only).

17

0
qualified 

The impact 

candidates 

of the 

was 

three 

quite 

restrictions 

dramatic. 

on 

By 

the 

including 

number 

only 

of 

Army 

E

X

and Marine candidates, we eliminated only 28 soldiers (i.e., we

retained nearly 91% of the sample). However, the requirement for

combat arms, CMF 31, or CMF 91 experience eliminated another 97

soldiers, leaving us with 59% of the original sample. When we

added the separation interval restriction (i.e., separated from

active duty within the last two years), the number of qualified candidates fell to 102 or about one third of the original

sample. 3

Table 4 shows the result in terms of the number of eligible candidates and the number of selectees associated with each

hypothesized condition. As each new restriction is imposed, both

the potential market and the number selected are substantially reduced. Thus, although fewer candidates would be assessed, 0

there would also be far fewer graduates.

Table 4

Hypothetical Impact of Proposed Restrictions on Prior Service

Market and Number of Prior Service Selectees (SFAS Classes 502-91 S

Through 501-92, Enlisted Only)

NUMBER NUMBER

CONDITO ZLI=If 2==

Current (no restrictions) 307 129

Only Army/Marine 279 117

Only Army/Marine with Combat 182 84

Arms or CMF31/91

Only Army/Marine with Combat 102-121 48-57

Arms and 2 years or less

separation'

3

Nineteen soldiers were not included because their data on

separation interval were missing. If all 19 met the 24-month

criterion and were added in, the resulting group size would still S

be only 121 or about 39% of the original sample.

4The exact number cannot be determined, because 19 soldiers

had missing data on separation interval. There were at least 102

and as many as 121. The number selected is estimated to be between

48 and 57.

18

S

S S 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 4
Discussion

The first research question addressed how well Prior Service

soldiers compared with Active Duty and National Guard/Reserve on S

background characteristics and performance in SFAS. The data

showed that the groups were nearly identical on background characteristics. The only exception was that Prior Service

soldiers were slightly less likely to be Ranger-qualified, a

characteristic that tends to favor SF selection (Brooks, 1991). The Prior Service select rate was lower than that of Active Duty but higher than that of National Guard/Reserve.

The greatest difference appeared in the prerequisite failure

rates. The Prior Service prerequisite failure rate was the

highest of the three groups and nearly twice that of Active Duty soldiers. This weakness was largely due to the number of Prior

Service swim test failures, which was at least double that of

Active Duty and of National Guard/Reserve. This result may be

partly explained by the fact that Prior Service soldiers are not

required to take a swim test before SFAS. Their swim failures

might be reduced by requiring swim tests and adequate swim

training opportunities before the start of SFAS.

Since the select rates were based on the total number of

candidates (including prerequisite drops), the Prior Service

select rate is somewhat more impressive than it seems at first

glance. Although their prerequisite failure rate was nine

percentage points higher than the rate for Active Duty, their 6

select rate was only two percentage points lower. Thus Prior

Service soldiers who passed the prerequisite tests performed relatively well in SFAS.

The second research question focused on the impact of

specific restrictions that USAJFKSWCS and USAREC have proposed to 9

limit 18X Program eligibility. The proposed restrictions were

designed to limit the participation of Air Force and Navy soldiers, those without combat arms experience, and those

separated from Active Duty for more than two years. The most

important finding was that these restrictions could have a

dramatic impact on the number of potential Prior Service

candidates and thus on the number of graduates. When we applied all three of the restrictions to our sample, nearly two thirds of

all Prior Service candidates were eliminated. Thus, decisions

about these restrictions should consider SF requirements for number of graduates as well as the potential for higher quality SF candidates.

The proposed restrictions would not appreciably increase the

likelihood of success in SFAS except for the combat arms

restriction. Tia Army/Marine data showed that selection was

indeed more likely for soldiers with combat arms experience.

Previous analyses (e.g., Brooks, 1991) have shown that Active

19

• • • •• • •

0m mmmmmm~mmmmm~ 0m 0 0 0 0 0 0
I r I 

Duty soldiers with combat arms experience are more likely to be

selected. Not surprisingly, the finding seems to generalize to

Prior Service soldiers as weil. The data did not support

restrictions on Air Force or Navy candidates or on men separated from Active Duty for more than two years.

While the findings cited in this report can support policy

decisions aimed at the Prior Service Program, other questions

remain to be answered. One question is whether Prior Service

SFAS graduates are worth the administrative burden and other

costs of the program. Another question is whether USAREC could

attain its known and anticipated future missions with nearly twothirds of the Prior Service market eliminated by the proposed

restrictions. Finally, would the proposed restrictions increase

the likelihood of success in the SF qualification course? When

answers to these questions are determined, policy makers will be

able to make highly informed decisions about the future of the

Prior Service Program.

420

mm • • m m • mmmBN m •m-m ml "
References

Brooks, J. E. (1991). A research needs analysis for U.S. Army

Sgecial Ooerations Forces: Interim report (ARI ResearchReport 1600). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research

Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

(AD B160 125)

Herd, A. M., & Teplitzky, N. L. (1992). Special Forces

recruitina: An overview of current procedures and issues

(ARI Research Report 1626). Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

(AD A257 031)

21

0
APPENDIX A

Prior Service Inprocessing Form

A-1 0

I

•...... •• • S, • •• •
mV

S

SFAS INPROCESSING FORM FOR PRIOR SERVICE

RANK ARRIVAL DATE

AGE_ _

NAME SSN MARITAL STATUS

NEXT OF KIN AND RELATION

ADDRESS

0

FORMER RANK FORMER PRIMARY MOS FORMER ALT MOS

FORMER BRANCH OF SERVICE_ _

1. HOW MANY YEARS OF SERVICE DID YOU COMPLETE BEFORE YOU

SEPARATED?

2. LIST ALL UNITS YOU WERE ASSIGNED TO WHILE IN MILITARY 0

SERVICE.

• 0

3. LIST ALL CIVILIAN JOBS HELD SINCE YOU WERE SEPARATED FROM THE

MILITARY.

4. LIST ALL MILITARY SCHOOLS YOU HAVE ATTENDED.

5. HOW LONG WERE YOU OUT OF THE MILITARY?

6. WHAT PROBLEMS DID YOU ENCOUNTER WHEN YOU CAME BACK INTO THE

ARMY?

A-2

• • • •• • •S
7. WHY DID YOU DECIDE TO COME BACK INTO THE ARMY?

8. WHY DID YOU SPECIFICALLY ELECT TO JOIN SPECIAL FORCES?

9. HOW WOULD YOU DESCRIBE YOUR PRESENT PHYSICAL CONDITION?

A. Excellent B. Good C. Poor S

10. DID YOU RECEIVE AND FOLLOW THE 5 WEEK TRAINING PROGRAM FOR

SFAS?

11. WHERE ARE YOUR DEPENDENTS NOW? S

12. WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE MILITARY?

13. ARE YOU RANGER QUALIFIED?

14. DO YOU SPEAK ANOTHER LANGUAGE, IF SO WHAT?

15. WHERE DID YOU LEARN THIS LANGUAGE?

A-3 931101

S

S 0 5 0 • 0