Posted on Dec 24, 2015
Should Service Members (all branches) receive national accreditation for their skill sets?
13.8K
108
61
25
25
0
Current military accreditation standards are seen as sub-standard. I can only speak for the medical field, but many enlisted positions must receive civilian accreditation to perform specific duties. Why can't our accreditation be as equal, if not greater, than our civilian counter-parts. Not only in the medical fields, but what about our emergency response areas (National Defense) and information operations, networking, etc. I get the civilian sector puts more emphasis on didactic learning, but our real-world experience should get more credit.
Posted in these groups: 
Experience
Credentials
Experience Credentials
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 35
1
1
0
A little different observation;Education is big business.The curriculum is ever changing.Many times this event does not make you more knowledgable,but adds monies to the educational coffers.Therefore creating a certification.Forward thinking companies will take your skillset,train you to their standards,and move you accordingly.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
I was a Combat Medical Specialist and had to take the EMT-A course while stationed at Fort Meade, MD in order to work on the ambulance. There should be some form of reciprocity or credit towards certification. I spent two semesters rehashing what I got in 10 weeks at Fort Sam Houston.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Emergency Response was mentioned. If you are referring to disaster preparedness, response and disaster mitigation, there was grandfathering into FEMA from the Air Force Career field (enlisted and officer.) I was certified in Incident Command and Control by the National Fire Academy, amongst my other certifications. It only required a form filled out and filed. (Back in the dark ages.)
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Sp4 Byron Skinner. The medical MOS's that require the exact same requirements and a certificated from an accredited institution is awarded of course but with in most trades there is little training that may be reliant to the civilian situation. Institutional food service is perhaps another if the military still even does food service anymore. The days of KP are looooong gone.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
My response concerns the crossover of military medics. I'm a Vietnam veteran. Several years after leaving the military, I became a certified Paramedic/Firefighter and eventually became a Paramedic instructor. At the time, all Emergency Medical Technicians had to meet or exceed Federal minimal guidelines. I know military medics that certainly exceeded those minimum guidelines and their field skills certainly exceeded mine. The facts are that EMT's are licensed and certified to practice by each individual State, and in some States, individual counties. We have the National Registry of EMT's that is recognized and accepted by many States.
I will contact the National Registry to see if I can obtain more information on Military reciprocity for EMT's.
I will contact the National Registry to see if I can obtain more information on Military reciprocity for EMT's.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Absolutely! When I got out, I had 432 classroom hours of training, seven years working in my field and had completed four continuing education courses required for promtion, as well as a number of correspondence courses via the Marine Corps Institute (also necessary for promotion). Yet, the only way to get a job in the field, I had to have a Degree from some (expensive_ University. When I started attending college, the only credits I got for all of that experience was one credit of basic math (I had been regularly doing Calculus in the MOS), one credit of Health and Hygene and one credit of PE. However, I learned a valuable lesson: civilian employers want the piece of paper rather than an employee who can actually perform the job.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
couple things:
1 money----every state/county/school system wants to get money for providing accreditation to its folks they don't want to take someone else's word that folks are trained to their standards.
2. man-power----if you give junior enlisted the skill set to make more money on the outside they will leave the service.
3. pay levels- the services in general do not want to pay the equivalent of civilian pay to retain good people (see #2) (this was demonstrated with the Nurse Tech program back in the 80-90s time frame folks got their degree did their time and left leaving holes in manning across the board.
Now don't get me wrong....I'd love it if there was a national board that recognized that a 7/9 level should be treated as a college graduate....but i just dont see it happening....would been nice...to late for me...but my son is still in so be nice for him to be able to walk out with usable credentials.
1 money----every state/county/school system wants to get money for providing accreditation to its folks they don't want to take someone else's word that folks are trained to their standards.
2. man-power----if you give junior enlisted the skill set to make more money on the outside they will leave the service.
3. pay levels- the services in general do not want to pay the equivalent of civilian pay to retain good people (see #2) (this was demonstrated with the Nurse Tech program back in the 80-90s time frame folks got their degree did their time and left leaving holes in manning across the board.
Now don't get me wrong....I'd love it if there was a national board that recognized that a 7/9 level should be treated as a college graduate....but i just dont see it happening....would been nice...to late for me...but my son is still in so be nice for him to be able to walk out with usable credentials.
SSG (Join to see)
As to #2, the last 5 years has been nothing but 30000 more must go. Speaking for myself I could make at least double my military salary outside. I think it wrongs service members to assume they only joined because they have no better options.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
SSG (Join to see) - Concur.....I did not join thinking I was going to get rich....but that is not the norm for most of the gen X folks we having coming in now. More and more the military is being considered a stepping stone to something better vs a career or a commitment.
0
0
0
I think in many cases that if training is similar, or as part of the military training, in some areas, they can include teaching to a civilian standard, i.e. EMT, some of the medical skills, etc. In other areas, not so sure. I remember a number of my sr. enlisted guys when I was in USAF, getting degrees from "diploma mills', majoring in Air Traffic Control(!!??) from The University of What's Happening Now! They still couldn't write a report properly, using proper grammar, or present it. It allowed them to become officers (this was in USAF) and they'd make O-3 and retire. You have to admire their thought process, but having a bachelor's degree is SUPPOSED to make you half-way educated (or at least it used to be!) . I would have to re-do all of their reports. Very accomplished on the job in the field, but they wouldn't last two weeks in a corporate environment. They'd have done fine as Air traffic controllers, but you have to be careful to ensure that the qualifications really mean something, and that it isn't a rubber stamp.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The Civilian world does not understand what we do in the military. They do not understand how complex our jobs are and It puts V veterans at a disadvantage
when the standards in the military to do a job basically the same job as a civilian but
the veteran can't do that job because
they don't meet civilian accredation. It would make sense for the standards to change but those changes need to start at the Pentagon level and work with department of education. Under the Administration of Obama don't count on it.
when the standards in the military to do a job basically the same job as a civilian but
the veteran can't do that job because
they don't meet civilian accredation. It would make sense for the standards to change but those changes need to start at the Pentagon level and work with department of education. Under the Administration of Obama don't count on it.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
The training I received as an Aviation Electrician's Mate in the Navy was eight hours a day for twenty-two weeks. It started out with an overview of basic math, ending in transposition of algebraic equations before moving into basic DC and AC theory. This school was the equivalent of two years in a college classroom environment. Then I gained three years of practical experience repairing aircraft in the fleet. When I finally returned to civilian life none of my military schools or practical experience mattered when trying to get a job as an electrician. The IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) basically told me my military training was irrelevant, and if I wanted to become a represented electrician I'd have to join the union, and go through their entire two year school. All this was very disappointing, so I changed my plans, leaned on my three years of HS drafting, and became a draftsman and eventually a mechanical designer. However, I never lost my electrical skills and continue to apply them in community service projects and building projects for Wounded Warriors. Had I remained in the Navy I have no doubt I would have advanced quickly because I was motived, loved my job, and was very good at it. However, there seems to be very few civilian jobs where an organization or employer will accept military accreditation for an equivalent, or similar OES. It seem that nothing has changed in the past 50 years.
(0)
(0)
SFC Joseph Dunphy
The pension plan does not seem to compare well with private sector plans at all. First, in terms of equity, all plans should vest immediately, because the work is done immediately. The golden handcuff provisions, in this case waiting 2 to 4 years for vesting, negates the work of all who process out, for whatever reason, before that time. A 1 percent contribution by the employer when the Fed is targeting normal inflatior rates of 2 percent means the service member is already 1 percent behind just due to normal inflation. So the service member is going backwards, while in some private sector retirement plans a worker can put away $22,400 per year for retirement.
One of the pitfalls of annuities is that the guarantee is only as good as the insurance company behind it. Mutual Benefit went bankrupt, and we all know about the bail out of AIG during the last fiscal crisis., where the taxpayer had to foot the bill for their overspeculation. The guarantee for military pensions would have to be absolute.
The mid-career choice option is problemmatic, ie the lump sum option at 12 years if you re-up for 4. That;s the point at which many are married with children, with all the expenses that implies. People opting for the cash due to perceived hardship will be seriously shortchanging themselves, but really giving the employer a great gift by essentially signing away their pension in return for a quick fix of cash. This could have the unfortunate side effect of greatly increasing the population of homeless veterans, especially given the rapidly declining middle class opportunities in the private sector.
I did not read the whole retirement report, but in no article have I seen any mandate that the clerks in charge of processing retirement points are held to a standard to do a good job. Sometime back, it got tossed on to the individual, who is told to review their records every year, and the retirement point system is, to put it mildly, arcane. The whole process could use a serious overhaul to make it understandable. I suspect that the system was designed to cope with the limitations of computer systems at the time, and hasn't really been considered for re-engineering because "that's the way we've always done it." With the current cutbacks, and increased ops tempo, it is likely that the clerks---who are crucial cogs to a successful retirement system--are overwhelmed with high-priority tasks. Leaving the younger servicemember at the mercy of whatever mistakes get made.
Then there is the whole side issue of not enough employment for military spouses. Meaning that a transfer where the spouse suddenly finds themselves in a place where they can't get work, the couple loses maybe half their income or more, and the potential retirement contributions that could go with it.
The commission deserves some credit for trying to make the plan more equitable for more people. But, IMO, they didn't go far enough to ensure that there were enough resources to make sure the plan delivered on what they appeared to commit to in print. There are enough people who got brutally shortchanged under the old plan. The purpose of reform should be to reduce tha known injustices as much as humanly possible.
One of the pitfalls of annuities is that the guarantee is only as good as the insurance company behind it. Mutual Benefit went bankrupt, and we all know about the bail out of AIG during the last fiscal crisis., where the taxpayer had to foot the bill for their overspeculation. The guarantee for military pensions would have to be absolute.
The mid-career choice option is problemmatic, ie the lump sum option at 12 years if you re-up for 4. That;s the point at which many are married with children, with all the expenses that implies. People opting for the cash due to perceived hardship will be seriously shortchanging themselves, but really giving the employer a great gift by essentially signing away their pension in return for a quick fix of cash. This could have the unfortunate side effect of greatly increasing the population of homeless veterans, especially given the rapidly declining middle class opportunities in the private sector.
I did not read the whole retirement report, but in no article have I seen any mandate that the clerks in charge of processing retirement points are held to a standard to do a good job. Sometime back, it got tossed on to the individual, who is told to review their records every year, and the retirement point system is, to put it mildly, arcane. The whole process could use a serious overhaul to make it understandable. I suspect that the system was designed to cope with the limitations of computer systems at the time, and hasn't really been considered for re-engineering because "that's the way we've always done it." With the current cutbacks, and increased ops tempo, it is likely that the clerks---who are crucial cogs to a successful retirement system--are overwhelmed with high-priority tasks. Leaving the younger servicemember at the mercy of whatever mistakes get made.
Then there is the whole side issue of not enough employment for military spouses. Meaning that a transfer where the spouse suddenly finds themselves in a place where they can't get work, the couple loses maybe half their income or more, and the potential retirement contributions that could go with it.
The commission deserves some credit for trying to make the plan more equitable for more people. But, IMO, they didn't go far enough to ensure that there were enough resources to make sure the plan delivered on what they appeared to commit to in print. There are enough people who got brutally shortchanged under the old plan. The purpose of reform should be to reduce tha known injustices as much as humanly possible.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google