However, the official expected outcome is increasing accession numbers of people enlisting to be classified into certain entry level initial skills pipelines and lowering student attrition from these training pipelines. No matter how much of the training pipeline is adapted to accommodate special skills qualification gained from being a SEAL, it's still over a year of training he needs to successfully complete to qualify for award of the 3-skill level.... he completes the pipeline, goes to an instructor gig/training unit (literally what’s happening), and then has all the time in the world to go on Joe Rogan and talk about how being a SEAL was hard, but being an AF PJ was a lifelong dream and now he proud of that career field.
I don’t have a feeling either way. I’m occupying the sneaky third position where I just make fun of both sides for being retarded and shortsighted.
Further policy for award of an instructor prefix (T or K) and assignment to such positions is skill level commensurate with control and duty position assigned. Typically, this requires award of and holding a 5-skill level or higher. Thus, such utilization is going to require skills and mission qualification training after gaining award of 3-skill level. I suppose additional exception to policy approvals can be used to get around these inconveniences.
Also, the potential of Murphy's Law having things go wrong in the worst possible way during the next year or two or three of training required to implement this solution is high due to this individual's age and chronic disqualifying medical conditions.
Coincidentally every idea becoming a course of action (or a solution) since 1988 to increase number of candidates entering into training initial skills training pipelines and to reduce student attrition has been ineffective. The only result of importance is how much the course of action provides the hoped for expected solution.
I'm in the buy some popcorn and watch the circus act for the next several years state of mind.
Last edited: