military training experience essay

America is disconnected from veterans and military families. Be part of the solution.

The Experience of Army Basic Training

“MOVE FORWARD PRIVATES MAKE YOUR BUDDY HAPPY!”

Standing in a long and winding row of recruits, I obeyed the drill sergeant’s command, homophobic overtones notwithstanding. Positioned in a loose “parade rest”–legs shoulder-width apart, arms theoretically locked behind my back–I shuffled forward a few inches, approaching the rear end of my recently assigned battle buddy, John Lapp, who stood ahead of me in line. Battle buddies are two soldiers who share a bunk. Each member of the pair is responsible for knowing where his buddy is at all times.

Feeling a light brush against my own butt, I turned around and shot Travis, a fellow private, an irritated look. Embarrassed, he wiggled back a couple of centimeters. Within the hour, our line snaked through the featureless medical complex, and we received the day’s vaccinations.

Rows of bunk beds in the barracks at Fort Benning. Courtesy Robert Cohen

We were several days into Army in-processing, the experience that transforms civilians into privates—young men ready to begin basic training. The 30th Adjutant General Reception Battalion at Fort Benning, Georgia–30th A.G., as it’s been known to generations of soldiers–managed this process. For two weeks, the “Welcome-to-the-Army” nurses at Benning poked and prodded us, barbers shaved our heads, and Army quartermasters issued uniforms and gear. And we learned to wait. For hours, every day, we stood in line, inching forward to the next appointment.

Lapp and I got along from the start. While we both had Ranger contracts, he knew a ton more about the Army than I did and explained to me how one actually earned entry into the famed 75th Ranger Regiment, an elite Special Operations group. Rangers are the ultimate badass commandos; harder and deadlier than regular Army units, they draw the most dangerous missions, frequently infiltrating behind enemy lines. Listening to Lapp, I quickly realized that my knowledge of how Rangers actually function didn’t extend beyond movies I had seen about war. Tom Hanks’ World War II epic, Saving Private Ryan , featured the SpecOps soldiers, as did Black Hawk Down , the movie about Rangers and the-even-more-badass Delta operatives who fought and died in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu. The latter movie released in early 2002, about a week after our group arrived in Georgia. Although none of us saw the film until months later, we nevertheless had many discussions about it during our short tenure at 30th A.G.

Three 800-man battalions, Lapp taught me, comprise the Rangers’ operational element. The Regiment is a legacy of Rogers’ Rangers, a band of scouts who operated in small units during the French and Indian War of the 1750s and ’60s, mostly outside of traditional military hierarchies and massed-force tactics that armies have used for millennia. To join this elite unit, I’d have to complete a 14-week infantry basic training course, three weeks of Airborne School, and then an 18-day Ranger Indoctrination Program, or what is known as “RIP.” Graduation from all three schools grants admission to one of the three battalions. The famed Ranger School itself, I discovered, while an extremely prestigious and grueling passage, is not an option for new recruits, and not a prerequisite to join the regiment.

Lapp had graduated high school the previous spring. At 23, I was five years his elder, and I took him under my wing, encouraging him to look at schools like Brown–where I’d graduated from the previous May–when he got out. I regaled him with stories from my glamorous recent past . Just six months ago, I shared, I’d been in China, traveling in Shanghai with a Dutch-Israeli woman I’d met on the bus from the Mongolian border to Beijing. People just needed the right opportunity, I knew, and they could have what I had: a college degree, travels around the world. Lapp listened politely but didn’t volunteer much enthusiasm for my way of life. Instead, he spoke frequently about his girlfriend Lindsey, showing me his wallet photo of her, remarking on how even her name was especially beautiful.

We talked a lot about which unit we wanted to serve with. Lapp taught me the Army was built around 10 divisions, and that if you didn’t go Ranger, you could select your duty-station before signing your contract. This would have been useful information before I took the oath, as was news that recruiters don’t get credit for bringing in would-be officers, only enlisted soldiers. My recruiter’s incentives, it seemed, may not have aligned with my best interests.

Ross Cohen at Fort Benning. Courtesy Robert Cohen

Some of our fellow enlistees were real douchebags. A few guys who’d been at 30th A.G. for 10 days looked down their noses at people on Day 3, as though we were irredeemably inexperienced. Others spread rumors about a “testicle shot” that every recruit must endure. I hadn’t dealt with this particular style of immaturity in a long time.

We ate in a large cafeteria. After spending up to a couple of hours in line each day, we had five minutes to throw down a meal of eggs, grits, pancakes, biscuits ’n’ gravy, fried chicken, or spaghetti. I grabbed extra packets of syrup and ate them unadorned or with slices of white bread, the one plentiful food. We generally weren’t supposed to speak with each other while standing or eating–“SHUT YOUR COCK-HOLES!”–but the drill sergeants applied the sanction irregularly.

More than any other subject, we traded gossip about when we’d at last ship off “downrange”–to the real basic training. Rumors flew that a surge in post-9/11 enlistees, like us, was clogging the system, turning a one-week process into who-knew-how-long.

“One group spent a fucking month here.”

“Yeah, but that was during Christmas. Timing sucked for them.” Sources were always shoddy, and we never developed a good sense of the truth.

After 13 days, the 30th A.G. cadre herded us, along with two very full Army duffel bags, into cattle cars. They drove us over to Sand Hill–the section of Fort Benning where every infantryman in recent decades has completed basic training–and we officially began.

A new batch of angry drill sergeants met us, shouting long, punctuation-free sentences: “FIND YOUR DUFFELS PRIVATES GET YOUR BAGS FORM UP BY HEIGHT YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES GO GO GO!!”

We sprayed into action. A couple of guys took the initiative; grabbing bags, they yelled out our IDs, the three-digit numbers assigned to us and stenciled prominently onto a lot of our gear. “4-1-7! 4-4-1!” As they distributed the duffels, I retrieved mine and then hustled over to the formation area. At about 4 minutes, 30 seconds, we were actually in pretty good shape to hit the time hack.

Didn’t matter. “TIME’S UP GET DOWN DO MOTHERFUCKING PUSHUPS YOUR MOMMY AIN’T HERE FOR YOU NOW!” It was a warm day, and I quickly sweat through my olive-green T-shirt. For the first time, the “Army” was real.

The drill sergeants–two white, one African American, and one Hispanic–inspected us with a disgust I found to be a little forced. Clearly, they were acting; they couldn’t possibly bear me any personal animus. Drill Sergeant Casco approached me, and I looked him in the eyes while awaiting his command–a rookie mistake; you’re supposed to look straight ahead in formation, not at your drill sergeant.

“WHAT THE FUCK YOU LOOKIN’ AT PRIVATE? I GOT A COCK GROWING OUT MY FOREHEAD?! THAT LOOK GOOD TO YOU?!”

What? Oh. “No, drill sergeant!”

“THEN WHY’RE YOU STARIN’ AT ME LIKE I GOT A DICK THERE?!”

Uhhh… “I’m not, drill sergeant!”

“You callin’ me a fuckin’ liar?!”

Before I could reply in the negative, he called over to one of the white drills harassing recruits a few yards away: “Drill Sergeant Thomas, this private thinks I’m a liar!”

“Sounds like he doesn’t respect you, Drill Sergeant Casco. That’s pretty fucked up, if you ask me.”

Casco got in my face, a couple of inches from my nose, lowering his voice to a growl. “Drill Sergeant Thomas thinks you don’t respect me. Is that true, Co-hen?”

I was pretty sure there was no right answer; if I said no, then I’d be calling Thomas a liar. Casco, fortunately, had to move down the line: more troops to harass. He left me with a look of disgust and an order: “Do push-ups until I tell you to stop!”

Award-Winning Journalism in Your Inbox

• Subscribe to Award-Winning Journalism * Email address
• Email This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

He was “smoking” me. A term meaning intense and painful punishment by way of exercise, smoking serves as the Army’s primary means of correctional training or did in 2002. We heard stories about how much tougher it used to be–to include hitting–until President Clinton clamped down, following complaints of abuse.

Smoking didn’t include any physical contact with the drill sergeants, but beyond running in place, push-ups, and sit-ups, it did involve a diverse array of muscle-twisting exercises with names like monkey fucker, mountain climber, flutter kick, iron Mike, and low crawl. For the first few weeks, we experienced an intentionally severe amount of smokings, with the drill sergeants constantly in our faces about the tiniest infraction. A few specks of dust, for example, found in a private’s wall locker during a surprise barracks inspection, might prompt a platoon-wide mass punishment. I didn’t like this system. It didn’t seem fair.

The drill sergeants employed language like “cock-holster,” “grab ass,” “dummy,” and “numb nuts.” They spoke frequently throughout those first few weeks of “Jody,” the mythical guy from back home who cuckolds every soldier, doing all kinds of things with your girl. One representative cadence ran:

Jodie Boy’s a real cool cat Jodie drives a Cadillac Jodie’s got your girl at home

Now you’re sittin’ all alone

As you advance through basic, though, discipline relaxes. After a month, we could talk quietly in line. After nine weeks, we earned the title “Soldier” and received weekend passes. My parents, brother, and sister visited me in Georgia for the trip. I spent the two days mostly sleeping in their hotel rooms. For the final five weeks, we could read books and magazines; before, we were allowed only religious texts, so I’d chosen the Bible, having never before read the New Testament.

In a platoon of 54 men, I served alongside five other college graduates, an unusually high number. We half-dozen were among the first of a small surge of college grads who signed up in the years following 9/11, a 2.8 percent increase from before. I motivated myself with pictures of a fiery World Trade Center taped to the inside of my wall locker, along with a photo of a girl and me at a Brown formal in 2000. Although news was forbidden, I usually lied about attending Sunday Jewish services, instead using the time to sneak away to the off-limits rec center, where I’d log online.

With Afghanistan, as I predicted, already in the rearview mirror, America had commenced the diplomatic phase of the Iraq War. In March, Vice President Dick Cheney toured the Arab world to make the case for removing Saddam. I was certain we’d invade, toppling a totalitarian monster and sharing democracy and freedom not just with the Iraqis, but through their example, the entire Middle East. We had a chance to respond to Bin Laden’s hate with a world-changing act of good. Liberating the Islamic world from its despots could only benefit us–we’d already seen that by the grateful reactions of the people we’d saved since 1991; Kuwaitis, Bosnians, Kosovars, and the northern Iraqi Kurds–all Muslims. I imagined walking down the street in some Iraqi city, a veteran of real battles, knowing I’d fought to liberate the country.

But in Georgia, I began to struggle. I excelled at only two things: road-marching and sit-ups. Otherwise, I realized quickly that I lacked a natural aptitude for Army life. In addition to my general disdain for obsessive cleanliness– We have to buff the floors with wax? And sorry, what is a buffer? –I didn’t get the fascination with weapons and blowing things up. It didn’t excite me, for example, to shoot the M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon–the SAW–a light machine gun that provides every infantry team’s most lethal firepower. Definitely not worth the hours of weapon-cleaning time, as I tried fruitlessly to clean the SAW’s greasy barrel. It also didn’t help that I was a bad runner and had been a pack-a-day smoker prior to taking the oath of enlistment. (A later comrade-in-arms once told me I fell out of more runs than airplanes.)

I did enjoy the camaraderie and liked my fellow recruits. I was struck mostly by how young they were, and how little of the world they’d seen. My new battle buddy, an African American from California named Anthony Jackson, had never been on a plane prior to his trip to Georgia. Jackson was a great guy, and a much better soldier than me, but like a majority of the platoon, he was young: 18 years old.

The politics of the unit leaned right. We all wanted to deploy, and to the extent anyone cared, President Bush was very popular. Some of the older soldiers affiliated with the GOP, but few gave much thought to domestic politics. Iraq–oddly, it seemed to me–wasn’t registering on most people’s radars. When our drill sergeants told us to shape up or we’d die in Afghanistan, I wondered how anyone could believe that; if we were going to die anywhere, obviously it was Iraq.

The Army is working class. In a Q&A with a drill sergeant one evening, a private asked what sort of civilian jobs an infantry background prepared one for. Drill hemmed a bit, before identifying custodial work. Serving as a janitor is an honorable profession; at the same time, the narrow scope of his answer seemed to overlook the leadership, teamwork, and attention to detail that service develops.

About six or seven weeks into basic, I realized that maybe I didn’t have what it took to be a Ranger. Before enlisting, I always imagined basic training as being the toughest part of the military; once you’re through, it’s easy sledding. Nope. Basic has one big advantage: You serve with a platoon-full of soldiers all in the same boat. When you get to your eventual unit, you become a cherry–a new guy; something to be popped. That means different things in different jobs; finance-battalion privates, for example, aren’t really hazed. But Rangers run 10 miles up and down hills every day. They tie down cherries and shave their body hair. They have the best equipment and best soldiers, and they operate at a very intense speed.

Our Journalism Depends on Your Support

• Hidden Our journalism depends on your support.

I clearly wasn’t going to thrive in that environment.

I decided instead to follow my contract from infantry basic to Airborne School; being a paratrooper had a pretty badass ring to it; an enticing word, I hoped, in the ears of as-of-yet-unmet women. The Rangers were glad to see me go; they hate quitters, and so they make quitting easy.

Ross Cohen at Fort Richardson, Alaska, where he served after basic training. Courtesy Robert Cohen

After 13 weeks and two days, I graduated from the Army’s infantry basic training course.

On the second day of Airborne School, I filled out the right forms and declined my RIP contract, making me subject to NOTA–Needs of the Army. One week later, and minutes after floating down from one of Fort Benning’s iconic 250-foot towers during jump school, I received my orders: Per NOTA, I was to be stationed at Fort Richardson, Alaska, where I’d serve with the 1st of the 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment–the Geronimo battalion.

You might also like

Registered 501(c)(3). EIN: 82-1669255.

• Corrections
• How to Pitch TWH
• Writing Seminars
• Our Free Newsletter
• Ways to Give

WH in your inbox.

Training: The Foundation 
for Success in Combat

Military Strength Topical Essays

2023 Essays

2022 Essays

2021 Essays

2020 Essays

2019 Essays

2018 Essays

2017 Essays

2016 Essays

2015 Essays

• View the current Index

Heritage.org

Oct 4, 2018 22 min read

Jim Greer, Colonel, U.S. Army (Ret.)

In no other profession are the penalties for employing untrained personnel so appalling or so irrevocable as in the military.

—Douglas MacArthur, 1933

It is astounding what well-trained and dedicated Soldiers can accomplish in the face of death, fear, physical privation, and an enemy determined to kill them.

—Lieutenant General Ace Collins, 1978

Death, fear, physical privation, and an enemy determined to kill them: These are the challenges that those who defend our nation face when they go to war. Whether one is a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine; a brand new private or a grizzled old veteran; a fighter pilot, a submariner, a tanker, a military policeman, a transporter, or a medic, every serviceman and woman must be prepared to make contact with the enemy, survive, and accomplish the mission as a member of the team. That is what training the Armed Forces of the United States is all about: enabling those who serve to fight, win, and come home to their loved ones.

Warfare is always changing, always evolving.

• World War II saw the emergence of blitzkrieg and air operations over land and sea.
• Vietnam demonstrated the power of combinations of enemy regular and insurgent forces.
• The ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated how improvised explosive devices can be significant killers on the battlefield.
• In 2006, the Israeli Defense Forces were stymied by Hezbollah’s employment of a hybrid approach that combined sophisticated conventional weapons and tactics with terrorism and long-range missiles. 1
• Most recently, Russia has employed what is termed “New Generation Warfare” to conquer the Crimea, secure the eastern Ukraine, and threaten the Baltic nations. 2

Military training must therefore change as well. It must continually be forward-thinking, innovative, and aggressive, both in understanding how warfare is evolving and in adapting training to meet those challenges. Today, the Chinese military presents the threat of long-range missiles to deny the U.S. access to the western Pacific Ocean and to our allies such as Japan, South Korea, and Australia. Since the end of World War II, the ability of the U.S. to move freely as it pleases in the Pacific has been assured, but that freedom of action is increasingly at risk as the Chinese military invests in new technologies and capabilities. This growing challenge places a training requirement on all four services to learn how to defeat the threat of such anti-access/area denial tactics. 3

Training is one of the key functions of each of the services within the Department of Defense (DOD). Others include manning, equipping, organizing, and sustaining, but it is training that wraps all of those functions together to create and maintain effective organizations. Training is so important that each service has its own major subordinate command dedicated to training:

• The Training and Doctrine Command for the Army, 4
• The Naval Education and Training Command for the Navy, 5
• The Training and Education Command for the Marine Corps, 6 and
• The Air Education and Training Command for the Air Force. 7

Each of these commands respectively holds the service responsibility for designing, developing, resourcing, assessing the effectiveness of, and providing command oversight of its service’s program. Additionally, for the Joint Force, the Joint Staff J-7 has responsibility for joint oversight, policy, and strategy for training and exercises that bring individual service forces together into a coherent whole. 8

What Is Training?

The U.S. military defines training as “instruction and applied exercises for acquiring and retaining knowledge, skills, abilities, and attitudes (KSAAs) necessary to complete specific tasks.” 9 Generally speaking, military training is divided into two broad categories: individual and collective. Individual training is exactly that: training designed to develop individual skills. Collective training is designed to integrate trained individuals into a cohesive and effective team, whether that team is a tank crew of four or an aircraft carrier crew of 5,000.

Training can be as small as an hour-long class for a four-person team on how to bandage a wound and as large as a multi-week joint exercise including tens of thousands of personnel and units from all four services. It generally occurs in three domains: the institutional domain, which includes the various formal schools in each service; the operational domain, which includes training in units and on ships, whether at home station, deployed, or underway; and the self-development domain, conducted by individuals to address the gaps they see in their own learning.

Training Realism

Their exercises are unbloody battles, and their battles bloody exercises.

—Flavius Josephus, 75 C.E.

No other activity prepares a military force better for combat than combat itself. The environment in which combat is conducted—one of violence, death and destruction, fear and valor, complexity and uncertainty—is one of the most challenging in which any human being or human organization must operate. It is so challenging and unique that it cannot be completely replicated outside of combat itself. Thus, to be effective, military organizations must train under conditions that are as realistic as possible and come as close as possible to placing the individual, the team, the unit, and the crew in the environment and situations they will face in combat. Training realism is one of the key measures of training effectiveness.

Much of the design and innovation in training is aimed at generating realism. Training design generally has three components:

• The task itself—the thing an individual or the element is expected to accomplish. An example might be to conduct an attack, conduct resupply of a vessel, or employ electronic warfare to jam an enemy system.
• The conditions— the set of circumstances in which the task is expected to be performed. Examples might be day or night, moving or stationary, opposed by an enemy or unopposed, or with full capabilities or some capabilities degraded.
• The standards— the level of competence and effectiveness at which the task is expected to be accomplished. Standards might include the speed at which the task is to be performed, the accuracy of hitting a target, or the percentage of operational systems that are ready and available.

Identifying the tasks, conditions, and standards drives training realism. Ultimately, as Flavius Josephus described the training of the Roman army, the goal is for military forces entering combat to have “been there before” so that they know they can fight, win, and survive.

Training Effectiveness

It’s not practice that makes perfect; rather, it’s perfect practice that makes perfect. It is, after all, the seemingly small disciplines and commitment to high standards that makes us who we are and binds us together as a force, an Army, in peace and in war.

—General Martin Dempsey, 2009

As former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Marty Dempsey’s quote implies, the services do not train just for training’s sake. They train in order to reach specific measurable levels of performance in specific tasks. Training, then, is both nested and progressive. It is nested because training in specific individual tasks is aggregated to enable training in small elements tasks, which in turn are aggregated into training in progressively larger organization tasks.

Take, for example, a carrier battle group. A carrier battle group consists typically of the carrier; several cruisers, frigates, or destroyers; and perhaps a submarine. On each of those ships, individual crewmembers, petty officers, and officers must be trained on their individual tasks. Those individuals then form teams such as a fire control party or an engineering team. Teams are then combined to make departments, such as the gunnery and engineering departments, which then train together to create an overall crew for the ship that is effective in sailing, attack, defense, or replenishment. The various ships of the carrier battle group then train together to enable collective attack or defense by the group of ships. At the same time, individuals and organizations are trained progressively under increasingly challenging conditions to increasingly higher standards. All of this must then be assessed for competence and effectiveness.

Because training involves both individual and collective learning, the military uses the standard approach of the educational profession to develop and conduct training. This is known as the ADDIE approach:

• A ssess. Organizations assess their training to identify gaps in proficiency or determine new training requirements.
• D esign. Training is designed to overcome gaps or to improve proficiency under a variety of conditions.
• D evelop. Once designed, training is developed, coordinated, and resourced to enable execution.
• I mplement. Developed training is implemented to train the requisite individuals and organizations.
• E valuate. Once conducted, training is evaluated for its effectiveness. Individuals and elements are retrained until proficiency goals are achieved.

Training assessments are a critical factor in achieving training effectiveness. On the front end of the ADDIE process, such assessments identify gaps in the achievement of standards, which in turn leads to the design, development, and execution of training to achieve those standards. At the back end of the process, training is evaluated to determine whether standards were met and, if they were not, what further training needs to be conducted to achieve those standards.

The Department of Defense uses the Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) 10 to track readiness, to include training. Under DRRS, each service uses its own readiness reporting system to report training readiness on a monthly basis for all of the elements in its organization. This monthly assessment is used to guide training management to ensure that training is conducted to achieve readiness goals.

Training and Leader Development

Training and leader development are two military functions that go hand in hand. It is of little use to have personnel and units that are well trained if they are not also well led; conversely, the best leader can accomplish little with poorly trained troops. Of course, both training and leader development are forms of learning, and there is significant overlap between the two functions. Consequently, the services invest considerable effort in leader development.

Each service has a Professional Military Education (PME) program for commissioned officers, warrant officers, and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) or petty officers. There is also a Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) program to ensure that officers are qualified to integrate service components into joint headquarters and joint task forces. In each case, PME consists of a progressive series of schools that begin with pre-commissioning education in the military academies, Reserve Officers Training Corps, 11 Marine Corps Platoon Leaders Course, and various officer candidate schools. PME continues with basic, advanced, and specialty education. Each service has a staff college for mid-grade officers and a senior service college, or war college, for senior officers. JPME has a National Defense University system that officers and civilians from all services and partner departments and agencies attend. 12 Within each service, there are parallel PME systems for junior, mid-grade, and senior warrant officers and NCOs.

Leader development represents a significant investment by the Department of Defense. During a 20-year career, a leader is likely to spend between two and four full years in the various PME schools: between 10 and 20 percent of total time served. The investment is necessary because of the unique and complex features of the environment and conduct of warfare. Senior leaders always confront the tension between time in schools and time in operational units. During periods of intense deployment, such as the high points of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns in the mid-2000s, attendance at leader development schools is sometimes deferred. When this happens, however, leaders face a challenge: determining whether it is better to have an untrained person present in the unit or a vacancy in the unit while that person is being trained.

Historically, interwar periods—the years between major wars like the 1920s and 1930s between World War I and World War II—have been periods during which leader development flourished and innovation occurred. The military’s war colleges, the highest level of leader development, were instituted during interwar periods. Similarly, all of the services’ advanced schools, such as the Army’s School of Advanced Military Studies, the Marine Corps’ School of Advanced Warfare, and the Air Force’s School of Advanced Airpower Studies, were started during the Cold War. Clearly, such innovation needs to take place in the post-9/11 environment of seemingly continuous warfare, but how this will happen has not been determined.

Initial Entry Training

Virtually all members of the armed services enter the profession at the ground-floor level. Whether they are recent high school graduates, graduates of a university or one of the service academies, or transitioning from another job or career, they are thrust into an organization whose culture, shaped by the demands of warfare, is significantly different from anything they have previously experienced. At the same time, they are confronted with a myriad of new tasks that they must learn in order to be valued members of the team.

Each of the services has an Initial Entry Training Program, generally divided into two phases: a basic phase, often called “basic” or “boot camp,” to develop the foundational skills required of everyone in that specific service and inculcate them into the culture of that service and a more advanced phase to develop specific skills for their chosen or assigned specialty, whether as an intelligence analyst, a dental hygienist, a mechanic, or an air defender.

Initial Entry Training is a significant undertaking. Each year, the U.S. Navy trains approximately 40,000 recruits at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, 13 and the U.S. Air Force trains approximately 35,000 in Basic Military Training at Lackland Air Force Base. 14 The Marine Corps trains approximately 20,000 recruits a year at Parris Island 15 and another 17,000 at San Diego. 16 The U.S. Army trains more than 80,000 recruits each year at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, 17 and three other major training installations. All told, DOD is conducting Initial Entry Training for almost 200,000 young men and women each year.

The design and resourcing of Initial Entry Training always present a challenge. Obviously, senior leaders would like to train new recruits to the maximum extent possible before those soldiers, sailors, airmen, or Marines join their units or their ships, but more training means more time, and each individual has enlisted in the military only for a certain period of time, usually three or four years. As a result, there is a trade-off between time spent in initial training and time spent actually serving in support of a mission.

Another consideration is the investment of more senior, experienced people who serve as the training cadre. The services rightly send their very best to be the first leader under whom a new recruit will serve, but that means that the best leaders, who are limited in number, are not always with the fighting forces.

Command and Staff Training

A central component of training military organizations and units is the training of commanders and staffs. Each of the services has dedicated training programs and resources for such training, which normally employs simulations because it would be wasteful to use large numbers of troops and equipment simply for staff training. Much of this training is aimed at planning, coordination during execution, and decision-making.

• The Army Mission Command Training Program trains the commanders and staffs of large units at the brigade, division, and corps levels. 18
• The Marine Staff Training Program trains the senior commanders and staffs of Marine Air-Ground Task Forces. 19
• The Red Flag Series of exercises at Nellis Air Force Base is the U.S. Air Force program for training the commanders and staffs of Expeditionary Air Force elements. 20
• The U.S. Navy operates several different programs tied to its regional fleets. For example, Carrier Strike Group 15 is responsible for training the commanders and staffs of Pacific-based carrier battle groups, amphibious ready groups, and independent ships. 21

Another key factor is the training of joint headquarters and joint staffs. U.S. military forces never fight simply as Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine units. Even if a particular operation is predominantly in one domain, the execution is necessarily joint.

Since 9/11, for example, the U.S. has conducted military operations in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is entirely landlocked, and counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations are conducted exclusively against targets on the ground, against an enemy with no navy and no air force. Yet U.S. military operations in Afghanistan have been completely joint as the Air Force has provided precision attack from the air, the Navy has provided electronic warfare and training for Afghan National Security Forces, and Marine Corps forces have conducted counterinsurgency operations in specific sectors within the country. In addition, special operations forces from all four services have conducted sensitive missions throughout the war.

Previously, training of joint headquarters and staffs was conducted by U.S. Joint Forces Command (USJFCOM) under a comprehensive program that was not unlike the Mission Command Training Program conducted by the Army. However, in 2011, USJFCOM was disestablished, and a very robust capability was lost. Since then, joint staff training has been conducted by the services, by regional Combatant Commands, or to a limited extent by the Joint Staff. Thus far, because the ongoing campaigns in Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan have not faced multidimensional enemies, the change has not had adverse consequences. However, as the Department of Defense focuses training and readiness on more capable potential enemies such as North Korea, Russia, China, or Iran, the lack of a robust joint training capability will increasingly be an issue.

Training Simulations

Simulators and simulations have a long history of enabling training for military forces. Simulators include capabilities that replicate actual systems in order to maximize training opportunities, reduce cost, promote safety, or preserve equipment for wartime use. Early examples were flight simulators that reproduced the cockpit, wings, and tail of an airplane in order to train pilots in the control, maneuvering, and reaction to emergencies on the ground before they took an airplane up in the air. Other simulators in use today recreate the entire bridge of a navy destroyer so that officers and petty officers can learn to maneuver, fight, and safeguard the ship under tactical conditions. 22

Simulations enable the training of organizations by creating battlefields or operational environments. Early examples of simulations were tabletop war games in which maps recreated the terrain of a battlefield and markers were used to signify the various units of opposing sides. Participants would fight out battles for training in the art and science of warfare.

Today’s simulations are far more sophisticated and often far more integrated. The military uses four general classes of simulation: live, constructive, virtual, and gaming. Each of these classes of simulation has a specific purpose and training audience, and two or more classes of simulations can be integrated to make training of individuals and units even more effective. The goal of much simulation research and development is not just to create the most effective individual simulation, but to create a true integrated training environment that combines all four classes to maximize training effectiveness.

• Live simulations are the training simulations that most closely represent training as historically conducted with individuals and units using real equipment in training environments that most closely reflect actual combat. This means using actual land, sea, air, space, or cyber terrain; actual weapons using either live or dummy/inert ammunition; and actual vehicles and other equipment, often against an enemy force that is also live and simulated by some portion of the U.S. military.
• For example, Red Flag exercises are live training simulations in which Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps aircraft fight against an enemy portrayed by U.S. aircraft and crews that are trained specifically to represent various enemy capabilities. In a similar manner, Army and Marine Corps ground forces have Combat Training Centers (CTCs) at which large formations of thousands of troops and hundreds of armored and wheeled vehicles and weapons systems fight battles against a well-trained and well-equipped opposing force (OPFOR) and conduct large-scale live-fire training at distances and ranges that they would expect in actual combat.
• Constructive simulations are representations of military forces and operational environments, usually aimed at training for large-scale combat involving whole naval fleets, Army Corps, Marine Divisions, or Air Force Wings, to include joint constructive simulations that combine forces from one or more of the services. Originally, constructive simulations were conducted using tabletop war games with pieces representing military units, but today, most constructive simulations are computer-based. Given the size of forces and the fidelity with which military units, ships, and aircraft can be represented, constructive simulations are usually used to train leaders and staffs.
• Virtual simulations are computer-based representations of individuals, teams, units, weapons systems, and other capabilities, usually with great fidelity to the operational environment (terrain, weather, urban areas, etc.) to include not only enemies, but also local populations. Virtual simulations are best suited to training individuals, teams, or small units. For example, Conduct of Fire Trainers (COFTs) are used to train individual tank or fighting vehicle crews, and Close Combat Tactical Trainers (CCTTs) are used to train platoon and company-size groupings of tanks or armored fighting vehicles. Virtual simulations have the virtue of training aircrews, ship’s combat systems crews, and tank and fighting vehicles crews in many repetitions and situations—in other words, lots of practice—without the large costs for fuel, munitions, and maintenance and without the need for the large spaces that live training requires.
• Gaming is the newest class of training simulation. While war games have been used for centuries in the form of board games or tabletop games, the advent of computer gaming brought with it whole new opportunities. The military recognizes that digital games improve rapid decision-making, cognitive processes, and synchronization and integration of different systems and capabilities while providing almost countless variations of situations and complex problems with almost immediate feedback on performance. The military even uses games to educate new recruits about the military service they have chosen before they actually attend their Initial Entry Training.

Resourcing Training

When personnel are not actually engaged in combat, training dominates military activity in all four services on a daily basis. Soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are trained from the first day they enter the armed forces until the last day of their service. Commanders at every level consider training for future combat and military operations to be one of their primary responsibilities. Institutionally, each service expends significant time, money, and personnel on generating, conducting, and sustaining the most effective training possible for individuals, teams, units, and organizations at every echelon. Failure to conduct such training or conducting training that does not attend to the harsh realities of war will likely lead to failure in battle.

Of all the training resources we have, time is the most precious. Military organizations start the year with 365 days, but with 104 weekend days and a dozen or so holidays, the start point is soon around 250 days. Then training has to compete with other critical events such as maintaining equipment, moving units from one place to another, personnel-related tasks such as medical checkups, and preparation for deployment.

Therefore, in a really good year, a unit might have six months of actual training time. Then commanders must manage that time. How much is devoted to individual training? How much is devoted to collective or unit training? How much is small-unit or individual ship or squadron training, and how much time is spent on large-scale training? How much is live training, and how much time is spent in simulators? Management of the training calendar becomes one of the most important leader tasks.

Providing adequate personnel for training is also a critical resourcing effort. Great training requires great trainers. The basic training that each service provides is only as good as the drill sergeants and other non-commissioned officers who are taken out of combat-ready units and provided to the training base. Similarly, professional military education at all levels requires dedicated and well-educated faculty, both uniformed and civilian. Senior leaders must make strategic decisions about the management of personnel to provide the best support to training while still ensuring that units and ships are adequately manned to go to war if necessary while meeting the needs of ongoing conflicts.

Of course, the most visible resource necessary for training is money. Money pays for all of these capabilities. It pays for training areas, ranges, training ammunition, and fuel. It pays for flight hours for training aircrews, for transporting units to and from training areas, and for the training simulations. The services also must pay for development of future training capabilities such as virtual, constructive, and gaming simulations and for modernization of training forces as the conflict environment and the threats and enemy change. Money also pays the personnel costs associated with training.

Training budgets are very complex across the Department of Defense. Part of the cost of training is contained in a unit’s operations and maintenance budget. Other training costs are in infrastructure or base maintenance budgets. Others are found in modernization budgets as the services improve capabilities or field new systems. Some costs are related to pre-deployment training for units that are preparing to go into combat in places like Iraq or Afghanistan. Costs are also spread over several years, or “across the POM” (Program Objective Memorandum) as the five-year DOD budget planning cycle is termed. This means that some training costs are short-term, year-to-year, while others, such as the costs of building training infrastructure, are spread out over several years.

Resourcing training with enough money is a national endeavor, not just a military one. The Department of Defense, in conjunction with other federal departments and agencies, submits budgets to the Administration that include all of the various training requirements. The Administration submits that budget to Congress as part of its overall budget. Congress considers all of the training requirements and costs in crafting an appropriations bill, which eventually is subject to a vote, approved, and signed by the President. At the same time, the various states are developing and approving budgets that include their own defense-related training costs, such as for the Army and Air National Guards and state-level training areas and facilities. And every two years, when Americans vote, the readiness, modernization, and training of the military forces is a consideration.

In other words, military training is every American’s business.

Warfare continues to change as new operational methods like hybrid warfare are combined with new technologies such as cyber, drones, and 3-D printing. Military training also must continue to change so that the U.S. military is prepared to confront emerging threats and potential enemies that are growing in strength and ambitions. Training innovation and training resourcing are critical to achieving new and better ways to train the force.

Ultimately, the goal of military training is to ensure that when the nation goes to war or engages in conflicts or military operations short of war, the armed forces of the United States will be able to accomplish strategic, operational, and tactical objectives. The ultimate goal of training is to win battles and engagements and to do so with the lowest cost in terms of national resources and with the lowest loss of life among those who have volunteered to fight to defend the nation.

1. David E. Johnson, Hard Fighting: Israel in Lebanon and Gaza (Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2001), https://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG1085.html (accessed May 23, 2018).

2. Janis Berzinš, “The New Generation of Russian Warfare,” Aspen Review , Issue 03 (2014), https://www.aspen.review/article/2017/the-new-generation-of-russian-warfare/ (accessed May 3, 2018).

3. Dean Cheng, “The U.S. Needs an Integrated Approach to Counter China’s Anti-Access/Area Denial Strategy,” Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 2927, July 9, 2014, https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-us-needs-integrated-approach-counter-chinas-anti-accessarea-denial-strategy .

4. U.S. Army, Training and Doctrine Command Web site, http://tradoc.army.mil/index.asp (accessed May 23, 2018).

5. U.S. Navy, Naval Education and Training Command Web site, https://www.netc.navy.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

6. U.S. Marine Corps, TECOM Training and Education Command Web site, http://www.tecom.marines.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

7. U.S. Air Force, Air Education and Training Command Web site, http://www.aetc.af.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

8. U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, J7 Joint Force Development Web site, http://www.jcs.mil/Directorates/J7-Joint-Force-Development/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

9. U.S. Department of Defense, Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Joint Training Policy for the Armed Forces of the United States,” Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction No. 3500.01H, April 25, 2014, p. A-5, http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/training/cjcsi3500_01h.pdf?ver=2017-12-29-171241-630 (accessed May 23, 2018).

10. R. Derek Trunkey, “Implications of the Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System,” Congressional Budget Office Working Paper No. 2013-03, May 2013, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/113th-congress-2013-2014/workingpaper/44127_DefenseReadiness_1.pdf (accessed May 23, 2018).

11. U.S. Department of Defense, “Today’s Military: ROTC Programs,” https://todaysmilitary.com/training/rotc (accessed May 23, 2018).

12. U.S. Department of Defense, National Defense University Web site, http://www.ndu.edu/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

13. U.S. Navy, Recruit Training Command Web site, http://www.bootcamp.navy.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

14. U.S. Air Force, Air Force Basic Military Training Web site, http://www.basictraining.af.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

15. U.S. Marine Corps, MCRD Parris Island Web site, http://www.mcrdpi.marines.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

16. U.S. Marine Corps, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Western Recruiting Region Web site, http://www.mcrdsd.marines.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

17. U.S. Army, “Gateway to the Army: Initial Entry Training,” https://www.gatewaytothearmy.org/fort-jackson/basic-training (accessed May 3, 2018).

18. U.S. Army, Combined Arms Center, Mission Command Training Program (MCTP) Web site, https://usacac.army.mil/organizations/cact/mctp (accessed May 23, 2018).

19. U.S. Marine Corps, MAGTF Staff Training Program Web site, http://www.tecom.marines.mil/Units/Directorates/MSTP.aspx (accessed May 23, 2018).

20. Fact Sheet, “414th Combat Training Squadron ‘Red Flag,’” U.S. Air Force, Nellis Air Force Base, July 6, 2012, https://web.archive.org/web/20150918180334/http:/www.nellis.af.mil/library/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=19160 (accessed May 23, 2018).

21. U.S. Navy, Commander, Carrier Strike Group Fifteen Web site, http://www.ccsg15.navy.mil/ (accessed May 23, 2018).

22. Sam LaGrone, “Navy Makes Training Simulation Based on Fatal USS Fitzgerald Collision,” U.S. Naval Institute News, February 21, 2018, https://news.usni.org/2018/02/21/navy-makes-training-simulation-based-fatal-uss-fitzgerald-collision (May 23, 2018).

Subscribe to email updates

© 2024, The Heritage Foundation

• Cover Letters
• Jobs I've Applied To
• Saved Searches
• Subscriptions
• Marine Corps
• Coast Guard
• Space Force
• Military Podcasts
• Benefits Home
• Military Pay and Money
• Veteran Health Care
• VA eBenefits
• Veteran Job Search
• Military Skills Translator
• Upload Your Resume
• Veteran Employment Project
• Vet Friendly Employers
• Career Advice
• Military Life Home
• Military Trivia Game
• Veterans Day
• Spouse & Family
• Military History
• Discounts Home
• Featured Discounts
• Veterans Day Restaurant Discounts
• Electronics
• Join the Military Home
• Contact a Recruiter
• Military Fitness

How to use your Veteran experience in college application essays

Veterans have a unique set of circumstances to draw upon when putting together their application essays. A Veteran is likely to have been many places, in many situations, and seen many things that the average high school senior simply can't imagine and for which he or she has no frame of reference.

Here are a couple of tips for how best to use your military experience in your application essay—and (perhaps more importantly) some thoughts on what  not  to do.

DO mention your leadership ability

Leadership potential might be the number one character trait that schools are looking for in applicants. Proof that you've taken on serious responsibility and have a high level of maturity is a good indication for those in admissions that you will take your education seriously and will go on to do great work post-graduation (and then make millions and donate back to the school, of course). As a Veteran, it is likely you have led a command of some kind—make sure this is touched on in your essay piece.

DO NOT tell this boring story: I went to teach them… but it turned out to be  they  who taught  ME

There's a particular essay that all adjudicators and admissions committees dread. It goes like this… I was employed to teach people/children in a remote village/urban center/small rural area. I went into it thinking I would be educating them, but in the end it was  I  who learned from  them.

Admissions officers hate this essay. Why? Because it doesn't really say anything about you as a person, and the story is not as original as you might think. Careful of this theme… it's deadly.

DO talk about challenges you faced

It's very likely you have dealt with questions and situations that most people have not. Illustrate how you used quick thinking and skills to overcome problems, and how you became more mature because of these decisions.

DO NOT get too dark. Leave out deep personal tragedy

Of course it's good to talk meaningfully about your experience, but this can go too far. Abuse, depression and death are striking subjects and therefore you might think they are good fodder for an essay. After all, the idea is to provoke a response, to make sure you are memorable. Unfortunately, an essay that focuses on these topics does not serve you well. Similarly, psychological trauma that may have been suffered during military service is not great for your essay, not because it's not important to your character, but because it tends to take the reader out of the narrative and usually doesn't connect very effectively to why you'll be a good candidate for college. So often essays that focus on dark subjects go down a trajectory that leads away from your achievements, which is what these pieces  should  highlight. Never stray from a path that keeps you talking about why you are an IDEAL  candidate.

DO tell your specific story

It's important to tell your story—not just one of general military life. Your narrative may seem relatively commonplace to you because it was spent in the company of people who were participating in similar activities, but the details of your service are unique and interesting to admissions officers.

DO NOT feel like it is out of place

Some people with military background feel awkward about telling their story, feeling it is exploitative. Not only is it sensible to use your military life in your essay, it's likely if you went into the service right out of high school, you don't have much else to discuss.

DO highlight technical skills you learned

In your years in the military, you likely were given highly technical jobs and responsibilities that will look very impressive to laypeople. Make sure to talk about these positions and give some details as to how these might help you in a future career post-graduation.

DO NOT forget to seek help

If you need advice or just someone to go over your application with you, talk to an education services officer. And make sure you visit the military education center and explore the VA website. There you'll find insight on how best to utilize the  Post-9/11 G.I. Bill  (also known as Chapter 33 benefits), the  Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program  and  other programs designed to help Veterans finance their education .

Full understanding of these programs might be a good element to include in your essay, but more importantly, be sure to take full advantage of these programs.

And finally, DO get college credit and discuss that on your essay!

Submit a DD-214 form to make sure that your full military experience is included with your applications. Some of your experience might help you gain college credit and that might be a selling point to universities to which you apply.

Follow these tips, and you're sure to have a stellar application. And you can feel confident in the fact that there are many institutions that are eagerly awaiting to accept young men and women who have served our country.

You May Also Like

The recent success of many credentialing programs has depleted funding for the AF COOL program.

Most college students require financial assistance to complete their undergraduate and post-graduate degrees. Here are some...

A career in the cybersecurity field is a great place that leverage your military experience.

Service members in college have to work around their busy schedules. Universities that offer shorter classes that start on a...

Education Topics

• Education Overview
• Online Learning
• Money For School
• Keys to Success
• Getting Your Degree
• Timesaving Programs
• Contact a School

Select Service

• National Guard
• Benefits Directory
• Active Duty
• Benefits for Retirees
• Veteran Benefits
• Military Spouse & Family
• Reserve & Guard
• Military Benefits Open Enrollment

Latest in Military Education

• Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Army Veteran Over Extended GI Bill Benefits
• Army's Premier Education Benefits May Be on Chopping Block, with Tuition Assistance Cuts Being Considered, Too
• Virginia Considers Changes to Military Survivor and Dependent Tuition Waiver to Rein in Costs to Colleges
• VA Paid Roughly $1 Million in Double Housing Payments to Some Student Vets Due to a Legal Loophole
• 4 Tips to Make 2024 a Financial Success Story

Latest Military News

• Terry Anderson, AP Reporter Abducted in Lebanon and Held Captive for Years, Has Died at 76
• Israeli Leaders Criticize Expected US Sanctions Against Military Unit That Could Further Strain Ties
• Israeli Strikes on Southern Gaza City of Rafah Kill 22, Mostly Children, as US Advances Aid Package
• Iran's Supreme Leader Tacitly Acknowledges Tehran Hit Little in its Massive Attack on Israel
• Ukrainian and Western Leaders Laud US Aid Package While the Kremlin Warns of 'Further Ruin'

Military Edu Path

Empowering Veterans' Futures Through Education

Military Experience in College: Leveraging Your Skills for Success

Your military experience can be a valuable asset when it comes to pursuing higher education. Many colleges and universities recognize the skills and training you gained during your service and offer college credit for military experience. This article will explore how you can leverage your military background to enhance your college applications and succeed in your academic journey.

• Colleges and universities offer college credit for military experience, recognizing the skills and training gained during service.
• The American Council on Education (ACE) collaborates with the Department of Defense (DoD) to review military training and recommend appropriate college credit.
• Your military experience has prepared you for the challenges of college, including discipline, perseverance, adaptability, leadership, teamwork, and time management skills.
• Various tuition assistance programs, such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill , can help offset the costs of attending college for service members and veterans.
• When choosing a college, look for institutions that are military-friendly, offering flexibility and dedicated resources for military students.

College Credit for Military Experience: The American Council on Education (ACE) Program

Your military service has provided you with valuable skills and knowledge that can be recognized and rewarded in the academic setting. The American Council on Education (ACE) collaborates with the Department of Defense (DoD) to evaluate military training and experience and recommend college credit for service members. This program, known as the ACE Program, offers a pathway for you to translate your military experience into tangible credits towards your college degree.

The ACE Program operates through the Joint Services Transcript (JST) , which serves as an official documentation of your military occupational experience and training. More than 2,300 colleges and universities recognize the JST as a credible source of information and use it to determine the appropriate college credits that can be awarded to you. These credits are based on the ACE credit recommendations for military training and experience.

By utilizing the ACE Program and the JST, you have the opportunity to earn college credits that align with the skills and knowledge gained during your military service. This not only saves you time and money in pursuing your degree but also acknowledges the value of your military experience in an academic context. The ACE Program is a valuable resource that can help you leverage your military background and accelerate your educational journey.

Take advantage of the ACE Program and explore how your military experience can be translated into college credits. Contact your college or university’s admissions or military support office to inquire about their recognition of the JST and the ACE credit recommendations. By leveraging your military experience through the ACE Program, you can maximize the value of your service and set yourself up for success in your academic and professional endeavors.

Military Skills in College: Adapting to the Academic Setting

Your military experience has equipped you with a unique set of skills that can greatly enhance your college journey. The discipline, perseverance, and adaptability you developed during your service will serve as valuable assets in the academic setting. As you transition from military service to academia, you’ll find that your military skills can be applied to various aspects of college life.

Discipline: In the military, you learned the importance of structure and self-discipline. These qualities will help you stay organized, manage your time effectively, and meet deadlines in college. Whether it’s completing assignments, studying for exams, or balancing multiple responsibilities, your military-inspired discipline will keep you on track towards academic success.

Perseverance: The challenges you faced during your military service required resilience and the ability to persevere. In college, you may encounter demanding coursework, unexpected obstacles, and moments of self-doubt. Drawing on your military experience, you can tap into your inner strength, push through difficult times, and maintain a determined mindset that will enable you to overcome any academic challenges you face.

Adaptability: The military taught you to adapt to new situations quickly. This skill will prove invaluable as you navigate the ever-changing academic environment. College life often presents unexpected circumstances, such as adjusting to a new class schedule, collaborating with diverse groups of peers, or adapting to different learning formats. Your ability to adapt and thrive in unfamiliar situations will set you apart and contribute to your overall success.

By leveraging your military skills, you can excel academically and make the most of your college experience. Remember, your dedication, perseverance, and adaptability are qualities that have been honed through your military service and will continue to serve you well in your pursuit of higher education.

Military Experience and College Tuition Assistance

Your military service not only provides you with invaluable skills and experiences but also grants you access to various tuition assistance programs that can help alleviate the financial burden of attending college. Whether you are an active duty service member or a veteran, there are several financial benefits available to support your educational journey.

One of the most well-known programs is the Post-9/11 GI Bill , which offers eligible veterans and service members financial support for tuition, housing, and books. This bill provides a percentage-based benefit that covers a portion, and in some cases, up to 100% of your tuition expenses. The amount you receive is determined by the length of your active duty service after September 10, 2001, and can be used for undergraduate, graduate, and vocational programs.

“The Post-9/11 GI Bill has been a game-changer for me. It has allowed me to pursue my degree without worrying about the financial aspect. I am grateful for the opportunities it has provided and the doors it has opened.” – John Smith, Army Veteran

In addition to the Post-9/11 GI Bill, several other tuition assistance programs are available, such as the Montgomery GI Bill and the Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP), which cater to different types of service members and veterans. It’s essential to research and understand the eligibility requirements and benefits of each program to determine which one best suits your needs.

By taking advantage of these tuition assistance programs, you can significantly reduce the financial burden of college, making it more accessible and affordable. Investing in your education is not only an investment in your future but also a way to further enhance the skills and experiences gained during your military service.

These programs not only provide financial support but also recognize the value of your military experience by investing in your education. Take advantage of these opportunities and embark on your college journey with confidence, knowing that your dedication and service are being rewarded.

Key Takeaways:

• The Post-9/11 GI Bill offers financial support for tuition, housing, and books, covering a percentage of expenses based on your length of active duty service.
• Other tuition assistance programs, such as the Montgomery GI Bill and REAP, cater to different types of service members and veterans, providing additional financial benefits.
• By utilizing these tuition assistance programs, you can make college more accessible and affordable, reducing the financial burden and investing in your future.

Military-Friendly Colleges: Finding the Right Fit

When transitioning from military service to college , it’s crucial to find a college or university that is military-friendly and understands the unique needs and challenges of service members and veterans. A military-friendly institution provides dedicated resources and support to help you succeed academically while accommodating the demands of your military commitments.

One key aspect to consider is the flexibility offered by the college for military students. Look for institutions that provide flexible learning options like online classes with no set log-in times and multiple start dates throughout the year. These options allow you to balance your military responsibilities while pursuing your education at your own pace.

In addition to flexibility, seek out colleges that have dedicated resources for military students. These resources can include veteran resource centers, counseling services tailored to the needs of veterans, and mentors who have military experience themselves. Having a supportive community can make all the difference in your college experience and ensure that you have the necessary support to thrive academically and personally.

Sample Table: Military-Friendly Colleges Comparison

“Choosing a military-friendly college is essential for a smooth transition from military service to higher education. These institutions understand the unique challenges faced by service members and veterans and provide the necessary support to ensure academic success.”

By selecting a military-friendly college that offers flexibility and dedicated resources, you can set yourself up for a successful academic journey. Remember to thoroughly research and compare different institutions to find the right fit for your needs and goals. With the right support and a college environment that understands your military background, you can thrive both academically and personally.

Applying Military Experience to College Credits: Understanding the Process

Transferring your military experience into college credits can be a valuable way to expedite your academic journey. To begin the process, you will need to submit your Joint Services Transcript (JST) to the college or university of your choice. The JST provides official documentation of your military training and experiences, allowing institutions to evaluate and determine which credits can be accepted. Each college or university has its own policies and procedures for JST evaluation, so it’s important to familiarize yourself with their specific requirements.

In addition to the JST, some colleges and universities offer test options for credit transfer . These standardized exams, such as the College Level Examination Program (CLEP), can allow you to earn credits for relevant knowledge and skills. By successfully completing these exams, you can potentially save time and money by bypassing certain courses or requirements.

It’s important to note that the acceptance of your military experience for college credits will vary by institution. While some colleges and universities may accept a significant number of credits, others may only accept a few. It’s crucial to research and understand each institution’s credit transfer policies to maximize the benefits of your military experience.

Table: Comparison of Credit Transfer Policies for Military Experience

Tips for a successful transition: college application and enrollment.

Transitioning from military service to college is an exciting and transformative journey. To ensure a smooth and successful transition, it is essential to approach the college application and enrollment process with organization and thoroughness. By following these tips and guidelines, you can navigate the application process effectively and make the most of your military experience.

Organizing Application Materials

Before applying to college, gather all the necessary application materials to avoid any last-minute rush or missing documents. Some of the common materials required for college applications include:

• Transcripts: Request official transcripts from any previous educational institutions you have attended, including high schools and any colleges or universities.
• Military Documentation: Gather your military service records, including your DD-214 form, which verifies your honorable discharge from the military.
• Application Fees: Prepare to pay any application fees required by the colleges or universities you are applying to. Fees may vary depending on the institution.
• Letters of Recommendation: Reach out to former commanding officers, supervisors, or mentors who can provide strong letters of recommendation highlighting your skills, work ethic, and character.

By organizing and preparing these application materials well in advance, you can streamline the application process and avoid any unnecessary delays or complications.

Applying to College After the Military

When applying to college after your military service, it is crucial to research and identify colleges that are military-friendly and offer support and resources tailored to the unique needs of veterans and service members. Look for institutions that provide:

• Flexible Admissions Policies: Some colleges offer specific admissions policies and application deadlines for military applicants, allowing for greater flexibility in the application process.
• Veteran Resource Centers: Seek out colleges that have dedicated veteran resource centers, which can provide guidance, support, and assistance in navigating the transition to college life.
• Financial Aid for Veterans: Explore the financial aid programs and benefits available specifically for veterans, such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill and other tuition assistance programs.

By targeting colleges that understand and appreciate your military experience, you can find a supportive and inclusive academic environment that will help you thrive during your college years.

Leveraging your military experience in college can be a game-changer for your academic journey. The skills and training you gained during your service are highly valued by colleges and universities, and they can even offer you college credit for your military experience. By recognizing the value of your military background and effectively applying it to your college applications, you can set yourself up for success.

One of the ways to maximize the benefits of your military experience is by taking advantage of the American Council on Education (ACE) program. ACE collaborates with the Department of Defense to review military training and recommend appropriate college credit. How amazing is that? With over 2,300 colleges and universities recognizing the Joint Services Transcript (JST) , you can showcase your military occupational experience and training to gain credit recommendations.

As you transition from the military to academia, remember that your military skills are transferable and will help you adapt to the academic setting. The discipline, perseverance, adaptability, leadership, teamwork, and time management skills you acquired during your service will give you an edge in college. Plus, let’s not forget about the financial benefits! Military tuition assistance programs, like the Post-9/11 GI Bill and VA Education Program, can help make college more accessible and affordable.

When choosing a college, look for one that is military-friendly and offers flexibility for military students . Seek out institutions with dedicated resources for veterans , such as veteran resource centers and specialized support services. These resources can provide you with the assistance and understanding you need to thrive in your college journey.

In conclusion, your military experience is a valuable asset that can greatly contribute to your college success. By understanding the process of transferring military credits, choosing a military-friendly college, and effectively applying for admission, you can leverage your skills and experiences to make the most of your education. Your dedication and perseverance during your military service will continue to serve you well as you embark on your college journey.

Can I receive college credit for my military experience?

Yes, many colleges and universities recognize the skills and training gained during military service and offer college credit for military experience. The American Council on Education (ACE) collaborates with the Department of Defense (DoD) to review military training and recommend appropriate college credit for service members.

How can I transfer my military experience into college credits?

To transfer your military experience into college credits, you can start by submitting your Joint Services Transcript (JST) to the college or university you plan to attend. Each institution has its own policies and procedures for evaluating your JST and determining which credits can be accepted.

What financial assistance programs are available for service members and veterans?

Service members and veterans are entitled to various tuition assistance programs, such as the Post-9/11 GI Bill and VA Education Program. These programs offer financial support that can cover a significant portion, and in some cases, up to 100% of your tuition expenses.

What Support Services are Available for Veteran Students in College?

College campuses provide a range of effective support for student veterans . Services like career counseling, academic tutoring, and mental health resources are tailored to address the unique challenges veterans face. Veteran support centers and dedicated staff ensure their smooth transition into academic life while fostering a sense of belonging and community. These resources play a crucial role in helping student veterans succeed in their higher education journey.

How can I find a military-friendly college?

When choosing a college, it’s important to find a military-friendly institution that understands the unique challenges and needs of service members and veterans. Look for schools that offer flexible learning options, such as online classes with no set log-in times, and have dedicated resources for military students, including veteran resource centers and specialized support services.

What should I include in my college application after the military?

When applying to college after the military , it’s important to stay organized and ensure you have all the necessary application materials. These may include transcripts, military documentation, application fees, and letters of recommendation. Submitting your application materials in a timely manner and taking advantage of available military benefits can streamline the enrollment process.

How can my military skills benefit me in college?

Your military experience has prepared you for the challenges of college in various ways. The discipline, perseverance, and adaptability you acquired during your service can help you succeed in the academic setting. Additionally, your leadership, teamwork, and time management skills will be valuable assets in collaborative projects and navigating the demands of college life.

How can I ensure a successful transition from military service to college?

To ensure a successful transition, it’s important to understand the process of transferring military credits, choose a military-friendly college, and effectively apply for admission. Leveraging your military experience in college can provide you with valuable skills, experiences, and benefits that enhance your education. Your dedication and perseverance during your military service will continue to serve you well as you embark on your college journey.

Military Experience: Sergeant Major Essay

There are very many aspects of life and different experiences that leave their trace on the person. Military experience is very unique compared to other ones. Not everyone can deal with the pressures and action that is going on in the field and on the base. A rank of Sergeant Major is considered to be a high one and the person must have a reputation of a responsible and knowledgeable individual. The duties in tactics are very important in the military setting. The fact that the maintenance of synchronization between 6 Battalions was one of the primary duties proves that careful selection of the person for this position has taken place. With such great responsibility comes a lot of pressure in making sure that all the needs and requirements are adhered to and the men are ready for any situation. This position of authority forces the person to become a better leader, as the others are looking up and following the directions of the individual who was entrusted with such an important task.

Being an Operations SGM “with little to no experience” must be challenging. This sort of job encompasses two very important things. One is to control and establish a relationship with the team and the other one is the knowledge needed for such a position. Very often the actions of a group of people closely depend on the information and example they have received from their leader. It is a unique position, to be the Operations SGM, as it requires a constant examination and analysis, not only of the fellow men but also of the self and own actions and attitude. The ability to learn quickly, come up with the best decisions, and be able to explain and demonstrate the skills, which are required, is a task that not everyone could handle. Training is a very important part of any job and especially for a Soldier. The simulation of real-life situations and the familiarity with tactics and plans of action prove extremely useful when a similar moment takes place. It is known that the training that army personnel receive is very serious and only the best and brightest can withstand all the pressure and training.

The challenges that were faced, can be considered a good thing and a positive experience. 20 years is a great number of years devoted to such a profession. This means that the job must be rewarding and interesting. The many positions of the leader show that there were numerous times when the leadership role had to be proven and the outcome was positive. Also, the different types of positions illustrate how diverse an individual must be to take on so many skill sets. It seems that all the experience was beneficial to provide the best information to the soldiers. The preparation for battle is the most important part and any mistake could be severely punished. A lot of care must be displayed when learning new materials and systems of operation. The duties seem very specific and it is implemental to have some form of background in such tasks. To be responsible for the training of 3500 Soldiers is a challenging task and a person must be very strong and educated to provide the best coordination and advice.

One indeed has to be skilled in the communication and understanding of others when dealing with training or coordinating a situation. Ordinary citizens greatly rely on the army and the people who make the defense of the country and world peace their duty.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, February 3). Military Experience: Sergeant Major. https://ivypanda.com/essays/military-experience-sergeant-major/

"Military Experience: Sergeant Major." IvyPanda , 3 Feb. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/military-experience-sergeant-major/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Military Experience: Sergeant Major'. 3 February.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Military Experience: Sergeant Major." February 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/military-experience-sergeant-major/.

1. IvyPanda . "Military Experience: Sergeant Major." February 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/military-experience-sergeant-major/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Military Experience: Sergeant Major." February 3, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/military-experience-sergeant-major/.

• Sergeant Major and Command Sergeant Major Role in Sustainability
• A Five-Year Career Development Plan
• Career Planning and Development
• Deoxyribonucleic Acid Profiling in Forensics
• This Is My Squad for Sergeant Major of the Army
• The Hurt Locker: Sergeant James’ Obsession With War
• Hawks' “Sergeant York” and Military Social Work
• The Main Action of the Play “Rising of the Moon”
• Role of the Army Staff Major
• Arthur Wellesley's Leadership Actions and Traits
• The Dark Ages in My Life, History, and Theater
• Experience of Becoming a Successful Outdoor Leader
• My Ideal Career: Personal Dream
• Balancing Work, Studying, Classes, and Social Life
• Thinking Critically and Logically For Better Understanding and Living

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Army — Lifelong Learning in the Army: Building Better Leaders

Lifelong Learning in The Army: Building Better Leaders

• Categories: Army Army Values Leadership Development

About this sample

Words: 830 |

Published: Aug 4, 2023

Words: 830 | Pages: 2 | 5 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, importance of hands-on training in lifelong learning, critical thinking and learning in the army, development of better leaders in the army, works cited.

• Schwartzman, R. (2003). Lifelong learning for the Army: The Future Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) final report. United States Army War College.
• Wyche, W. L. (2013). Army lifelong learning: A look at self-directed, problem-centered training. Military Intelligence Professional Bulletin, 39(4), 70-75.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Government & Politics Business

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

1 pages / 477 words

1 pages / 641 words

6 pages / 2883 words

3 pages / 1233 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Army

In discussing accountability and the leader army, it's essential to understand that accountability can be defined as taking action, decision making, and responsibility. When in a position of leadership, it is important to take [...]

Diversity in the military is not merely a representation of different backgrounds; it is a testament to the strength that emerges from the integration of varied experiences, perspectives, and talents. The armed forces have long [...]

Lifelong Learning; www.skillsyouneed.com/learnllifelong-learning.html; 2011-2019

Leadership competencies are leadership skills and behaviors that contribute to superior leader performance. Are leaders born or made? A leader can be made, not born. This does not mean that someone that is not in a leadership [...]

The Army began its Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention (SHARP) Program to eliminate sexual harassments and sexual assaults. The SHARP Program tries to do that by changing the culture through education and [...]

Leader Development is an important attribute that makes the Army function properly. Leader Development keeps your leadership sharp in a constantly changing organization. Leader Development is not just for your Team Leaders and [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Educate or Train Leaders in the Army Essay Example

The purpose of this essay is to assess whether it is more effective to train or educate leaders. Does one provide superior result comparatively or is it a balance that is the question. Examination of this broad topic could undoubtedly improve the effectiveness of future programs.

Training leaders. Training is the tried-and-true approach to gaining hands-on experience. The soldier goes through each step meticulously for many iterations. Slowly developing muscle memory for a given task while instilling the steps within their person. It is not just careless movements; it is effectively performing the task over with maximum effort. A good example of a training environment is going out to the field.

Educating leaders. To educate an individual on any subject is to deepen their understanding of given topic. It is the why, and how that is pertinent. Most areas of study are dissected and broken down into easily digestible subcategories. The dissemination of information is typically in classroom environment such as BLC. It is understandable to assume both forms of instruction produce adequate results. An educated leader can apply their knowledge to maximize positive results. Determining the correct action based on the standards and guidelines. A soldier who has attended various informative courses may contain a wider knowledge base over subject matter. While an individual whose undergone rigorous training can apply “trial and error” knowledge to avoid unforeseen roadblocks. Not just trial and error, it is the having physically preformed that task. Ensiled with the performance within muscle memory will no doubt improve overall proficiency. A trained soldier will perform an action confidently and accurately unlike an untrained soldier.

Let us say a soldier has a malfunction within their weapon system. The educated leader would recommend preforming immediate action; however, the soldier does not know how. The leader would technically understand but would they be able to perform the action physically? They have seen it on paper and even demonstrated in person. The issues lie in the lack of proper hands-on training. Having never physically trained the weapon would be foreign in the soldiers' hands. A trained solider will perform immediate action flawlessly and provide instruction on how to preform it.

A leader whose had extensive training gets asked a technical question. The question is regarding the maximum pull weight of a LMTV. The soldier drives the LMTV every week having never been informed of the limitations of their vehicle. Pulling too much weight will permanently damage the equipment leading to mission disaster. A more informed soldier who has been educated on the LMTVs specifications could confidently answer.

The effectiveness of the available programs/trainings becomes detrimental to the growth of the Military as a whole. Training must be by the numbers to the standard within the training manuals. The moment the standard is deviated from is the moment training begins degeneration. An improperly trained soldier assumes they are preforming the function correctly. A confident solider with incorrect instruction will no doubt spread the substandard.

Instructors within the military educate soldiers on diverse topics within classroom environments. It is their job to disseminate information in an unbiased concise manner. The material can be dense and incomprehensible; it is their duty break down the complex subjects. It is imperative the instruction given, and information provided is adequate and factual. A classroom of opinions and ideas without concrete evidence is merely a club. Soldiers trust the information received is true and apply able. Education and training without proper instruction defeats the subject of this entire essay. The question of whether to train or educate leaders is held together by the instructor's ability to instruct. It is imperative to the success of future leaders.

While this essay has been a debate on the two topics. It is apparent that the balance between training and education is fine line that must be walked. A solider stronger in training methods is a technical question away from ignorance. Similarly, a soldier who has primarily attended informative courses is a physical task away from blunder. It is the duty of the commanders and senior leaders to ensure that balance is made, and the standards met.

To summarize, an overbearing strength in one aspect leads to weakness in another. It is the ability to apply learned and experienced information that makes a strong soldier. To be a leader is the ability to cover all aspects of life in the military without doubt. It is not a matter of which is most important, it is a matter of knowing when to apply the experience.

Related Samples

• Argumentative Essay on Should Schools Provide Free Pads and Tampons?
• Argumentative Essay: Competition Is Bad for Students​​​​​​​
• Why Honor Code Should Be Revised Essay Example
• Essay on Learning During The Pandemic
• Essay Sample on Women in Politics
• Admission Essay Example - University of Madison
• High School Life Essay
• Small Schools vs. Big Schools Essay Example
• Essay on Social Media Safety Should Be Taught In Schools
• Who was George Washington Essay

Didn't find the perfect sample?

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Front Psychiatry

The Role of Military Training in Improving Psychological Resilience and Reducing Depression Among College Freshmen

1 Department of Psychiatry, The Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, China

2 National Clinical Research Center for Mental Disorders, Changsha, China

3 National Technology Institute on Mental Disorders, Changsha, China

Zhening Liu

Haojuan tao, associated data.

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Background: Military training plays an important protective role in enhancing mental health. However, the effects of military training on psychological resilience and depression among college freshmen in China remain unclear. The present study aimed to evaluate changes in psychological resilience and depression through military training among college freshmen, and to investigate associated psychosocial factors including childhood trauma that may influence its effects on psychological resilience.

Methods: A prospective and self-comparison study design was employed. College freshmen who received 3 weeks of military training were recruited. Socio-demographic variables were collected and childhood trauma exposure was estimated by the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ). The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) were used to assess psychological resilience and depression before and after the military-style training.

Results: The military training significantly increased the total and subscale scores of CD-RISC ( p < 0.001), and decreased the PHQ-9 score ( p < 0.001). The proportion of students with clinical depression reduced from 10.5% at baseline to 7.2% after the training ( p < 0.001). Improvement of CD-RISC scores was positively affected by male gender and urban area, while negatively affected by older age, and higher baseline scores of PHQ-9 and CTQ. A significant correlation was found between changes in scores of CD-RISC and PHQ-9 through the training ( r = −0.238, p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Military training may have a positive effect on increasing psychological resilience and reducing depressive symptoms among college freshmen, especially in male students and those from an urban area, while older age, childhood trauma, higher depression levels, and resilience at baseline may weaken, or even mask its positive effect. Follow-up research should be considered for the long-term effects of military-style training.

Introduction

Military training, known as junxun in Chinese, is a combination of both theoretical teaching and physical training at schools in which students follow a soldier's daily routine and go through intensive formation training ( 1 ). Apart from basic movements such as stand at attention, stand at ease, footwork, salute, and review, some other important skills are also introduced during military training, including emergency evacuation, combat skills, self-defense, and national defense methods ( 2 ). First introduced in 1955, military training has become compulsory for all high school and university students in China since 2001. According to the Law of the People's Republic of China on National Defense Education, middle school students and undergraduates are required to have military training either before school starts in September or after National Day in October. Each year, more than 6 million college freshmen participate in mandatory military training before academic studies. Although content (physical training, cultural activities, life skills, etc.) and length of military training (2–3 weeks) may vary in different schools, their training purposes are basically identical for most students: to improve physical fitness, to enhance willpower, to develop persistence and endurance, to bear hardships, and to lead a disciplined life ( 1 , 2 ). Apart from benefits for students' own growth and development, military training also promotes team spirit and team cooperation, and facilitates students' better integration and adaptation to new school life ( 2 ).

Although military training among students has sparked doubts and complaints in China, evidence from a large body of research among other populations in other countries suggests that military training plays an important protective role in enhancing resilience and reducing psychologic distress such as depression by promoting physical fitness ( 3 – 5 ). As the largest nonprofit institution on military health research policy in the US, the RAND Corporation has been focusing on promoting psychological resilience in the U.S. Military ( 3 ). In their recent reviews of literature, physical fitness through military training has been identified as one of the key individual factors that promote resilience ( 3 ). Similarly, several reviews and meta-analyses have also shown evidence of decreased depression associated with increased physical activities through military training ( 4 , 5 ). For instance, Crowley et al. ( 6 ) examined the association between physical fitness and depressive symptoms in 300 soldiers and found a decreased risk of depression of 60% among soldiers with high physical fitness from military training. Although robust evidence has shown the benefits of military training in improving resilience and decreasing depression, little is known about its impact on the mental health of students in China.

The psychological problems of college students are an important public health issue that attracts increasing research attention ( 7 , 8 ). College is a critical transitory period during which students are growing from adolescents to adults and may encounter many challenges and difficulties that render them at high risk of developing mental health problems ( 9 ). Many patients with mental disorders experienced their first psychiatric episodes while in college, and 12–18% of college students have a diagnosable mental disorder ( 10 ). Among all mental disorders reported in college campuses, depression has been one of the most frequently mentioned in previous research ( 11 – 14 ). For instance, a prevalence rate of 34.5% was reported for depression in one study in America ( 11 ), while another study in China reported a prevalence rate of 11.7% for depressive symptoms and 4.0% for major depressive disorder ( 15 ). It is estimated that the prevalence of depression in China is still on the rise ( 16 ). In this case, effective mental health promotion strategies to improve resilience and reduce depression among college freshmen are in urgent need.

Military training could be considered as a form of hardiness training in college freshmen. Previous studies have found that hardiness training could improve psychological resilience in the general population and contribute to mental health ( 17 – 19 ). Furthermore, it may have a positive impact on the prevention and treatment of depression, reducing suicide ideation, and improving the quality of life among depressed patients ( 17 , 20 ). In brief, resilience-enhancing interventions including hardiness training is expected to be one of the most effective strategies of prevention and treatment of depression ( 17 ). Nevertheless, the effects of military training on psychological resilience and depression among college freshmen remain unclear. Besides, many studies suggested childhood trauma as a key risk factor of low resilience and high depression ( 21 ).

Childhood trauma refers to any physical and psychological harm suffered during childhood, which includes emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as emotional and physical neglect ( 22 , 23 ). Childhood trauma has been widely acknowledged as a significant risk factor for adverse mental health outcomes such as depression in later life ( 24 ). Abundant evidence has also shown that people who experienced childhood trauma have impaired resilience, and that resilience plays a mediating role between childhood trauma and depression ( 25 ). It is thus important to study the impact of military training on resilience and depression, while also taking into account childhood trauma.

To our knowledge, there are no studies that have examined the impact of military training on resilience and depression, while also considering childhood trauma in a military training sample among college freshmen in China. Given the rising trend in the incidence of mental disorders among college freshmen and the widely implemented military training programs in colleges, it is necessary to examine the effectiveness and clinical significance of military training on mental health. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of military training on psychological resilience and depression among college freshmen, and to investigate associated psychosocial factors that may influence such an effect, as well as to explore the relationship between the changes of resilience and depression during the training. The findings of our study may provide valuable information and important guidance for educational management agencies in China.

Participants

This self-comparison design study was conducted in two universities in Changsha city of Hunan Province—Changsha College and Central South University. Our target subjects were all freshmen enlisted in military training. Eligible participants were required to be freshmen admitted to the above-mentioned two universities, who participated in the military training, and were able to read and write. Those who had serious physical or mental illnesses and thus not able to attend military training, and those who were unable to understand and communicate were excluded from our study. Finally, we recruited 8,529 college freshmen, with 2,546 from Changsha College, and 5,983 from Central South University.

All study procedures were approved by the medical ethics committee of the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University. Our research team went to each class of each university to explain the study purpose, procedures, benefits, and risk in detail. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants (or their guardians, if necessary) for the study. All eligible students were invited to fill in paper-based questionnaires both before participating in military training and after finishing the training. The surveys were distributed in small groups and self-administered with one investigator monitoring. Information on socio-demographic variables including gender, age, years of education, and hometown area (rural or urban) as well as childhood trauma were collected at baseline. Resilience and depression were assessed at 2 days prior to, as well as 2 days after the military training. All study procedures were conducted in strict accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. All information relating to personal privacy was kept completely confidential.

Intervention

All participants received 3-week military training, which started from 9 am to 5 pm every day including weekends. Participants were trained in small groups of 20–30 members. Each group was led by a professional instructor who was a real soldier from the army. The military instructor was in charge of the whole group and was responsible for teaching students basic movements such as stand at attention, stand at ease, footwork, salute, and review during daily training. In addition, the students also followed the lifestyle routine of the instructor, including getting up early, making up beds, making their room tidy and clean, eating food quickly, using the bathroom quickly, taking a bath quickly, obeying commands, and displaying military discipline, etc. In order to promote group cohesion and student integration, some cultural activities were also added to the daily training, such as learning military songs in a group and individual talent shows.

Psychological Resilience

The Connor-Davidson Resilience scale (CD-RISC) was used to measure psychological resilience ( 26 ). This scale consists of 25 questions and each question is scored from zero to four. Consequently, the total score ranges from zero to 100, with higher scores indicating greater resilience. The CD-RISC contains five factors as follows: personal competence, trust in own intuition, positive acceptance of change, control, and spiritual influence. The CD-RISC is considered a reliable and valid instrument for measuring psychological resilience ( 26 ). In the present study, resilience was assessed by the Chinese version of CD-RISC ( 27 ) which has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties and could be a reliable and valid measurement for evaluating resilience with Chinese people ( 27 ).

The Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) was used to assess depression before and after the training. This self-administered screening instrument ( 28 ) consists of nine items, which parallel each of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM-IV-TR)-defined symptoms of major depressive disorder. To be consistent with the DSM-IV-TR major depressive disorder criteria, each of the nine depression items are rated from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day) according to symptoms in the past 2 weeks. The total scores range from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more severe depressive symptoms. The PHQ-9 has previously showed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability ( 29 ). In this study, we used the score of 10 as a cut-off value to estimate the prevalence of clinical depression ( 29 , 30 ).

Childhood Trauma

The history of childhood trauma was evaluated by the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ) ( 31 ). Content validity and reliability of the CTQ have been well-demonstrated and can be used in different populations throughout the world ( 32 – 34 ). It is recommended for use among adults as well as adolescents, and assesses all five types of childhood maltreatment, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, and emotional and physical neglect. The scale consists of 28 items, 25 of which are used to measure the five maltreatment constructs (five items for each subscale), and the other three items are used to detect cases with minimization and denial of childhood problems. In our study, history of childhood trauma was evaluated by the Chinese version of CTQ, which was demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measurement of childhood trauma in Chinese people ( 35 ). Participants were determined to have experienced childhood trauma according to the following cut-off points: ≥13 for emotional abuse; ≥10 for physical abuse; ≥8 for sexual abuse; ≥15 for emotional neglect; and ≥10 for physical neglect. Scores above these levels were considered indicative of the presence of childhood trauma. Participants were further divided into two groups—those who had experienced at least one type of abuse or neglect were designated as “traumatized,” and those who had not experienced any were designated as “not traumatized.”

Data Analyses

All statistical analysis was performed with IBM SPSS Statistics version 20.0. Descriptive statistics were provided for socio-demographic data. Comparisons between the scores before and after the training were made for the CD-RISC and PHQ-9 through the paired t -test. And then the whole sample was divided into the traumatized and not traumatized groups according to the CTQ scores and the depressed and non-depressed groups according to the PHQ-9 scores at baseline. Changes in scores of the CD-RISC and PHQ-9 through the training were compared within and between different subgroups through ANOVA for repeated measurement (different genders, different traumatized status, and different clinical depression status). The proportion of students with clinical depression before and after the training were compared through the chi-square test.

To investigate the predictors of improvement in resilience through the training, we conducted multivariate linear regression analyses to calculate unstandardized coefficients (B), 95% confidence intervals for B (95% CI), and standardized coefficients (β). We entered age, gender, years of education, hometown, and scores of the CD-RISC, PHQ-9, and CTQ at baseline as independent variables, with changes in scores of the CD-RISC before and after the training as dependent variable. Correlation analysis was used to assess the relationship between changes in scores of the CD-RISC and PHQ-9 before and after the training through Spearman's correlation coefficient. We considered a p < 0.05 to be statistically significant.

Description of the Sample

From the initial sample, 1,620 were excluded from analysis, with 416 refusing to participate in the study, and 1,204 failing to complete the questionnaires. A total of 6,909 valid responses were obtained. The mean age of the sample was 18.34 ± 0.92 years old, ranging from 16 to 24. More than half of the students were male (63.8%) and from rural areas (50.3%). The total years of education were 12.21 ± 0.64.

Comparisons Between Scores of CD-RISC and PHQ-9 Before and After Military Training

After the training, the total and each subscale scores of the CD-RISC were significantly improved ( t = −25.89, p < 0.001), while the average scores of the PHQ-9 significantly decreased ( t = 24.54, p < 0.001) ( Table 1 ). Additionally, the number of students with clinical depression decreased from 725 to 497 (χ 2 = 46.67, p < 0.001) ( Table 2 ).

Comparisons of scores of the CD-RISC and PHQ-9 before and after military-style training.

CD-RISC, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire-9 .

Comparisons of changes in scores of the CD-RISC and PHQ-9 in different groups through military-style training.

CD-RISC, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; PHQ-9, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; CTQ, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire .

Comparisons of Changes in Scores of CD-RISC and PHQ-9 Between Different Groups

No significant differences were found between male and female students in total scores of the CD-RISC, while the improvement in scores of the CD-RISC was much more pronounced in those without childhood trauma. No significant differences were observed in changes of scores of the PHQ-9 across genders or between the traumatized and non-traumatized groups. Participants who were not clinically depressed at baseline had greater changes in scores of CD-RISC and PHQ-9 through the training. Furthermore, changes in total and each subscale scores of the CD-RISC and PHQ-9 were all significant within each subgroup ( Table 2 ).

Factors Associated With Changes in Scores of CD-RISC Through the Training

No potential multicollinearity of all variables was found, with variance inflation factor values of 1.154 and below. The model was found significant ( p < 0.001). In the multiple linear regression analysis, male gender and urban area were found to be positive factors while older age, and higher scores of the PHQ-9, CD-RISC, and CTQ at baseline played negative roles. This model accounted for 39.0% of the variance in the improvement of the CD-RISC total scores through military-style training. The CD-RISC scores at baseline were the most powerful predictors for the changes in resilience through the training ( Table 3 ).

Independent predictors of changes in scores of CD-RISC through military-style training.

CTQ, Childhood Trauma Questionnaire; PHQ-9, Patient Health Questionnaire; CD-RISC, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; df, differences of post-training scores relative to the baseline (before training) .

Changes in scores of the CD-RISC were significantly associated with changes in scores of the PHQ-9 through the training ( r = −0.238, p < 0.001) ( Figure 1 ).

Correlation between changes scores of CD-RISC and PHQ-9 through training ( r = −0.238, p < 0.001). CD-RISC, the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; PHQ-9, the Patient Health Questionnaire-9; df, differences of post-training scores relative to baseline scores (before training).

Military training has been conducted in colleges and universities in China for over 30 years. Although the training has been proven to improve physical strength and to discipline behaviors ( 36 ), most of its benefits to mental health have been theoretical. The results of this study supported our hypothesis that military training may effectively increase psychological resilience and mitigate depressive symptoms independent of gender, trauma status, or status of clinical depression, although there are different levels of effectiveness in different subgroups.

Our main finding was that military training was effective in enhancing psychological resilience and decreasing depression. This finding adds further support to the previous reviews and meta-analyses showing the significant positive effects of physical fitness through military training on improving resilience and decreasing depression ( 3 – 5 ). Through military training, students develop good and healthy lifestyles such as sleeping early and getting up early, eating healthy food, and exercising intensively ( 37 ). These healthy lifestyles all help students maintain physical fitness and wellbeing, which contribute to better resilience and lower depression. In addition, one core element of military training was team building, where students may gain peer support from each other, which is also a well-known protective factor for resilience and depression ( 38 ). This finding is also consistent with a recent review on interventions to build resilience among young people ( 39 ). Among a range of interventions listed, school-based exercise programs such as military training has been proven to show significant positive effects in either enhancing resilience or preventing mental health problems ( 39 ). The study results provide support for military training as a beneficial aspect of resilience intervention and should be continued for college freshmen to improve their mental health. Another implication is that future intervention programs targeted at improving resilience and decreasing depression among college students and other populations may also consider adding and adapting some elements from military training.

Compared with students without clinical depression at baseline, those with clinical depression had less of an improvement in resilience and a smaller decrease in depression. In logistic regression, a higher level of baseline depression was also found to be a negative factor in resilience improvement. As we all know, severe depression is hard to cure without antidepressant drugs ( 40 ). Military training, as a kind of psychotherapy, may only play a limited role in improving severe depression. Students with severe depression may show a lower degree of coordination in military training, as well as less of an involvement in activities and interpersonal interaction. All of these factors will not be conducive to the establishment of a good interpersonal relationship, and thus affects the improvement of resilience. This finding indicates the necessity and importance of combining pharmaceutical treatment with military training for students with severe depression to improve their resilience.

Resilience is defined by the American Psychological Association as the process of adapting well in the face of adversity, trauma, tragedy, threats, or even significant sources of threat, and is often used to evaluate individual's social adaptive capacity and mental health ( 41 ). Previous research has found the importance of childhood rearing in resilience building ( 42 ). In our study, childhood trauma was further found to pose an obstacle to resilience despite military-style training, which suggests its long-term negative effect on mental health. In addition, although the severity of childhood trauma is correlated with the severity of depressive symptoms ( 43 , 44 ), no significant differences were found in changes of depression between the two groups, which may indicate different mechanisms of improving resilience and reducing depression. Further studies are needed to investigate the associations among military training, childhood trauma, resilience, and depression.

Male gender was found to be a positive factor in improving resilience, while a critical p -value was found in the comparison of changes in scores of the CD-RISC, which may be caused by other confounding factors. Male students tended to be more active and to establish better relationships in the training, which may explain the positive impact. However, further research is needed to examine the long-term effect and the potential mechanism. Urban area seemed to be a protective factor, which may be explained by better adaptive ability and more familiarity with the environment. However, older age seemed to be a risk factor, which may come from more pressure and stability of the formed personality.

Another important finding is the association between resilience and depression. Alleviation of the depressive symptoms along with increased resilience through training may suggest an anti-depressive effect of resilience, which has been found in previous research ( 17 ). However, we can only partly attribute the decrease of depressive symptoms to the improvement of resilience as the changes of resilience and depressive symptoms were inconsistent in different subgroups, and the correlation coefficient between them was only 0.238. Therefore, there should be other ways to reduce depression through the training, apart from improving resilience. The development of depression has been linked to a stress-diathesis hypothesis ( 33 ), so increasing hardiness and decreasing perceived stress levels may be another way to reduce depression according to previous studies on hardness training ( 28 ).

Our study has several limitations. One major limitation is the pre-post study design which measured outcomes before and after an intervention in the same group of subjects. Without a comparison group, conclusions of this study design were solely based on the temporal relationship of the measurements to the interventions ( 45 ). Such a design may be biased since other changes occurred at the same time, or simply just the natural changes of time, may also cause changes in the outcomes, instead of the intervention ( 45 ). As a result, the observed improvements in resilience and depression in the current study may not be reliably attributed to the intervention alone, making this a weaker design than a randomized controlled study design (RCT) that uses a comparison group to control for all potential confounders. However, since military training is mandated by law in almost all higher education institutions in China, it is difficult to set up a control group who did not participate in the training. In addition, such a pre-post study design is not uncommon in public health research ( 46 – 48 ), we believe our study still provides useful information to guide future studies. Another solution may be using a stepped randomized controlled study design where one group received military training, while the other group delayed their training until after the study ends. Secondly, while it is promising that military training can have an immediate positive impact on resilience and depression in our study, it is unknown how long the effect can last. Long-term follow-up will be required. Thirdly, although the military training for college freshmen is similar throughout China, the training duration and the specific course arrangement may differ in different schools. So it can be argued that our results may not be available in other parts of the country. Finally, all the questionnaires were self-reported without further interview, which may weaken the accuracy of the results.

In conclusion, the present results have important implications for mental health and education promotion in colleges. Military training might play an important role in improving resilience and reduce depressive symptoms among college students. This finding provides support for military training as a beneficial aspect of resilience and depression interventions and should be continued for college freshmen. Military training also shows a potential to be adapted in other intervention programs targeted to improve resilience and mental health in other populations. Intervention effect was positively affected by male gender and urban area, while negatively affected by older age, childhood trauma, higher depression levels, and resilience at baseline. These findings suggest the need of taking into account all of these factors while developing and evaluating military training for college students, with alternative interventions provided to students with specific needs such as medication for those with severe depression. Besides, long-term effects remain uncertain, which warrants further research efforts.

Data Availability Statement

Ethics statement.

The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by The medical ethics committee of the Second Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, China. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin.

Author Contributions

RG, MS, and ZF: data collection. RG, MS, and HT: methodology. RG: writing (original draft preparation). RG, MS, CZ, ZF, ZL, and HT: writing (review and editing). HT and ZL: project administration. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Funding. This study was supported by the China Precision Medicine Initiative (2016YFC0906300), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81671335, 81701325, 81801353, 82071506), and the Natural Science Foundation of Hunan Province, China (grant number 2019JJ50848).

2 Japanese navy helicopters crash in the Pacific Ocean during training, leaving 1 dead and 7 missing

TOKYO — Two Japanese navy helicopters carrying eight crew members crashed in the Pacific Ocean south of Tokyo during a nighttime training flight after possibly colliding with each other, the country’s defense minister said Sunday. One crew member who had been recovered from the waters was later pronounced dead, while rescuers searched for seven others who were still missing.

The two SH-60K choppers from the Maritime Self-Defense Force were carrying four crew each and lost contact late Saturday near Torishima island about 600 kilometers (370 miles) south of Tokyo, Defense Minister Minoru Kihara told reporters.

The cause of the crash was not immediately known, but officials believe the two helicopters “highly likely” collided with each other before crashing into the water, Kihara said.

He added his ministry will suspend training flights for all SH-60s for now.

The navy chief of staff, Adm. Ryo Sakai, said the trainings will be suspended until the accident’s cause is determined and preventive measures are adopted.

Rescuers have recovered a flight data recorder, a blade from each helicopter, and fragments believed to be from both choppers in the same area, signs that the two SH-60Ks were flying close to each other, Kihara said. Officials will analyze the flight data to try to determine what led to the crash.

Search and rescue efforts for the missing crew were expanded Sunday, with the MSDF and Air Self-Defense Force together deploying 12 warships and seven aircraft. Japan Coast Guard patrol boats and aircraft also joined the operation.

U.S. Ambassador to Japan Rahm Emanuel said in a message on social platform X that the U.S. had offered to help with the search and rescue.

“We will stand together, side by side, with our friend and ally, Japan. My thoughts are with the crew members, and their families and friends during this challenging time,” he said.

The helicopters, twin-engine, multi-mission aircraft developed by Sikorsky and known as Seahawks, were modified and produced in Japan by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. They were on nighttime anti-submarine training in the waters, Kihara said. One lost contact at 10:38 p.m. (1338 GMT) and sent an automatic emergency signal a minute later. They lost contact about 270 kilometers (150 nautical miles) east of Torishima island.

Only one distress signal called an emergency locator transmitter was heard — another sign the two helicopters were near the same place, because their signals use the same frequency and could not be differentiated, Kihara said.

One helicopter belonged to an air base in Nagasaki, and the other to a base in Tokushima prefecture.

The SH-60K aircraft is usually deployed on destroyers for anti-submarine warfare, but is also used for search and rescue and other missions. Japan has about 70 of the modified helicopters.

Saturday’s training only involved the Japanese navy and was not part of a multinational exercise, defense officials said. They said no foreign aircraft or warships were spotted in the area.

Japan, under its  2022 security strategy,  has been accelerating its military buildup and fortifying deterrence in the southwestern Japanese islands in the Pacific and East China Sea to counter threats from China’s increasingly assertive military activities. Japan in recent years has conducted its own extensive naval exercises as well as joint drills with its ally the United States and other partners.

The navy chief of staff said Saturday’s training was part of routine anti-submarine warfare drills involving MSDF warships, submarines and Seahawks.

The crash comes a year after a Ground Self-Defense Force  UH-60 Blackhawk crashed  off the southwestern Japanese island of Miyako, due to an engine output problem known as “rollback,” leaving all 10 crew members dead, which shocked the nation. In 2017, a Japanese navy SH-60J, an earlier generation Seahawk, crashed during a nighttime flight training off Aomori due to human error.

Saturday’s crash and possible collision also recalled a July 2021 nighttime training off the southern island of Amamioshima, where two SH-60s had a minor collision, both suffering blade damage, but causing no injuries.

Following that collision, the MSDF introduced a set of preventive measures. Sakai said Saturday’s crash could have been prevented if all those measures were adequately followed.

In the U.S., a fatal crash of a MH-60S Seahawk during training off California in 2021 was attributed to mechanical failure from unsuspected damage during maintenance, according to the Navy.

Japan’s NHK public television said no weather advisories were issued in the area at the time of Saturday’s crash.