I am an MI officer (HUMINT, SIGINT, CI, IMINT, All-Source) and commanded the Group MI Det and the Group Support Company in 5th Group. I deployed with 5th Group to Iraq in the early years of the war there and subsequently did six more tours to Iraq and Afghanistan with various units of the National Mission Force. Some caveats:
-this was a long time ago, and below is my opinion and experience only
-others here will strongly disagree with what I'm about to say and that's fine
-5th Group isn't 20th Group
-Active Duty isn't National Guard
-I'm speaking completely as a support guy and not an "operator"
-people change, and sometimes organizational cultures do
-this was a long time ago (yes, I know I said that already)
I don't feel like I'm in a position to address your questions about jumps and deployments, but to specifically respond to this:
wanted some perspective on life as intel support with them or any SF group, especially if there are any HUMINTers
An an organization, SF doesn't have the same perspective on support troops that other SOF organizations do, which is largely (IMO) reflected in the fact that--unless something changed in the last few years--there is no assessment, selection, and training pipeline for support troops going to an SF Group. As a result, the support pax are a mixed bag; some are good, some are bad, but most are average. This is in contrast to other SOF organizations, who value--and put time and other resources towards--their support personnel and consequently have (again, IMO) a higher level of enabler competency and therefore respect from those whom they support.
Culturally, SF are conditioned to believe that they can do it all internally. That makes total sense for organizations which are designed to operate in austere conditions in 12-
man person A-Teams. However, between that culture and the issue I identified above, typically (IME) if you ask someone in SF who the best intel person they know is, it's usually an 18F. It's almost never someone in an intel MOS. To me, as an intel professional, the worst part about it is that they are often right. That's a problem, on many levels.
The consequence of the above is that support troops are looked down upon by the 18-series personnel they support in a way I did not experience (or observe) in other organizations I was assigned to or that I supported downrange. So what's life like as a support troop in an SF unit? Three words: "second class citizen." Just know that going in.
Because the Teams rarely worked with intel back in garrison (SOTAs being a notable exception), there was little trust or confidence in our abilities downrange. Our HUMINTers were largely confined to the FOBs because, as everyone knows, red-hats are not to be trusted outside of the wire. That was very frustrating to my folks. Contrasting that with my experiences in other units and in subsequent deployments, it was a deep disappointment.
as for this:
also, are you able to speak on school availability for the 35 series guys? Not necessarily the sexy pathfinder/ air assault/ ranger, but more so the intel-specific ones. I ask because a lot of colleagues in these support roles have made it sound like they have the option to guard bum and go to schools at the drop of a hat, but it sounds too good to be true...
Well, if an organization doesn't know what your capabilities are, they're not going to value your contributions. If they don't value your contributions, they're not going to thing you're important. If you're not important, are they going to spend time and money on you?
For us, it was VERY hard to get Group to support training for intel types. I remember one Command and Staff where the Group S2 briefed that some of his guys were on tap to go to Pathfinder Database training (an intel system that I don't think is used anymore--no connection to Pathfinder School). One of the S3 folks got upset and wanted to know what support guys were doing going to Pathfinder (he thought it was the school). It wasn't that an support guy was taking a Pathfinder slot from an SF guy (there was a Pathfinder school at Fort Campbell, where we were stationed, so it wasn't exactly hard to get slots), he didn't want a support guy to go to Pathfinder School. He calmed down after the Group S2 very patiently explained what the Pathfinder Database training was. It was a bizarre exchange and gave me some insight into how enablers were viewed in Group. "We don't need it, we just don't want YOU to have it." I have some additional vignettes related to equipping enablers that I won't go into because this is already getting into "TL;DR" range.
At any rate, contrast the experiences above with the ones from my time in, say, the 160th, where the attitude was, "OK, we have two Pathfinder slots in the next class. Who do we have who we think will be a first-time go? S2, you're up!" Because I had to try out to be in the 160th, and I went through part of the training pipeline, and because of the organizational culture, I was considered an important and valued part of the team. Everyone had their job to do, and for the most part, no one automatically assumed they could do mine. It was a good place to work.
The above notwithstanding, 5th Group was very good to me. They were my foot in the door in the world of SOF, I earned my first "above center of mass" eval there, and I got two company commands there. But given a choice, as a support guy I would rather go back to just about any other Army SOF unit because of the organizational culture.
My experience isn't everyone's experience, your mileage may vary. Additionally, I didn't really understand what it was like to be support in an SF Group until I left Group and moved on to higher-tier SOF units. It was culturally very different to be in units where 1) everyone had to try out to be there and 2) valued the enabler side of the house. I think a lot of people who think being an enabler in Group is good, have never served in another SOF unit to have something to compare it to.
I'll close by saying I want to make it clear that I'm not bad-mouthing SF. I think the long term members of the site will confirm that I hold SF in high esteem and think they have an important and valuable mission. Being ops in SF is *way* different than being support in an SF group. My point is, if you have a choice and you're an enabler, I recommend you choose to support a different SOF organization. If you don't have a choice, or if you're looking for a way in, time in Group may be a good one for you.