Document created: 3 June 04
Air University Review, September-October 1971

Air Force Training and Our National Economy

Lieutenant General George B. Simler

We in the Air Force have for many years looked at our contribution to national effectiveness in purely military terms. It is our mission to provide air power when and where required to support national policy. However, to hold this important viewpoint in isolation from another equally important contribution is to be shortsighted.

Today we are in an era of massive social change, particularly changes in the attitudes of the nation toward priorities for national defense versus the need to devote resources to solve internal problems. It may well be a symptom of a more dangerous undercurrent of opinion that the military services are somehow siphoning off the money which should be going into the solutions of domestic problems. In other words, the military services are portrayed as users of our society’s manpower and wealth rather than providers of a productive service to the nation. Military manpower is decreasing, and funds for defense in the national budget are being reduced. The number of persons serving in the Air Force dropped from 856,000 in June 1964 to 791,000 in June 1970 and slipped to 757,000 in July 1971.¹

The funding plans for the aimed forces show a similar trend. The administration’s request for funds for the military in FY 1972–$78.7 billion—represented only 32.1 percent of the total federal budget, the lowest percentage since 1950. ²  More than $20 billion of this is programmed for military pay, and an additional $3.7 billion is being requested to provide pay increases and other changes in support of the all-volunteer force. Consequently, procurement of new hardware and maintenance of existing weapon systems are serious management problems.

The fact is generally overlooked that the armed services play an important sociological role in the sphere of education and training. While we train airmen to perform the tasks necessary to operate a modern Air Force, we are at the same time teaching skills that make these airmen more useful citizens when they return to the civilian world. This year more than 160,000 airmen and officers will leave the Air Force. Many of them will return to school, although not so many as we sometimes like to think. A study conducted in 1967 showed that only 15 percent of the airmen released from the service went to school.³ The rest entered the job market. These airmen who leave the Air Force will have to compete for jobs in today’s highly competitive job market. If we are to contribute optimally to the nation’s good, then it is our responsibility to insure that, within the constraints of operational military exigencies, those airmen are prepared to earn a living—and a good living.

While we may properly argue today that the Department of Defense performs a sociological role, that has not always been the case.⁴ The skills required of a military man were, for many years, only marginally related to civilian labor requirements. Prior to World War I the armed forces were considered as an institution apart from the civilian flow of life. There was little manpower movement between the military and civilian sectors. Military training focused on combat skills for which few civilian counterparts existed.

When our first major world war necessitated the induction of many civilians into the military, it became quickly apparent that some consideration of skills and aptitudes was necessary in the military classification process. The range of these military occupations was limited and provided little assistance to the postwar adjustment problems of veterans seeking civilian employment. This divergence in occupational structures was due in large measure to the lack of technological growth in the military compared to that in civilian organizations. The automobile and truck came into the forces, and a few airplanes were reluctantly accepted. But the embryonic military specialists of the early 1920s had difficulty in achieving maturity. A belief in the permanence of future world peace permeated the nation and so reduced the size of the armed forces that technological and educational growth was largely stymied.

World War II taught the nation how to convert civilian skills to military occupations during a crisis. The military recognized that previous education and experience were related to the capability of the armed forces to mobilize rapidly. And manpower planners quickly became aware of the reliance that both the military and civilian sectors would have to place on highly trained personnel.

Since World War II, developments in nuclear capabilities, advancements in electronics, and other technological changes have created demands by the armed forces for greater technical skills. These military requirements mirrored a civilian society which already was mobilizing its energy and expertise to increase the output of better trained and educated manpower. And the emphasis on education in the civilian society—60 percent of the 1968 high school graduating class entered college—has led to a questioning, articulate, and capable military work force. A commonality of need was created in both military and civilian organizations for the high talent manpower pool that education has provided. It is this commonality of need that has enhanced the armed forces as a national resource.

While we are managing the military hardware required to defend our nation, we are concurrently providing vocational and technical training to young men and women of the Air Force. In the early sixties the U.S. Department of Labor conducted a survey of adult formal training. Training in the armed forces was shown to be the most important labor source for three occupations—airplane mechanics, bakers, and dental technicians—and an important secondary source for eleven others.⁵ The age distribution of the sample suggested that the military training of the World War II and the Korean War time periods was being measured. Another study disclosed that 30 percent of a small group of ex-Air Force electronics technicians were employed in comparable civilian electronics occupations.⁶ Analysis of the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) indicates that more than 90 percent of the Air Force career specialties have equivalent or comparable civilian skills. The Air Force rate, incidentally, compares favorably with the 11 to 14 percent average of non-DOT specialties found to exist throughout the military establishment.

By comparing these figures with the total output of the Air Force, we can get an idea as to the scope of this training. The Air Force recruits new personnel at a rate of about 100,000 a year. If our force is to remain constant, that means we release roughly 100,000 a year. Of the basic trainees who enter the Air Force, about 80 percent go to one of our technical schools for job training. The remaining 15 percent go to duty bases where they receive training while on the job. In all, the Air Force’s primary training organization, Air Training Command, conducts some 3757 courses in subject areas ranging from electronics and missile propulsion and guidance to intelligence, photography, and security police. Approximately 10,700 instructors and 4000 classrooms are used.

All this training is vital to the proper functioning of the U.S. Air Force and is equally relevant to the social structure of society if those who receive skill training in the Air Force put that same training to productive use in a civilian job. Successful job placement is related to skill training, demand for the skill, capability for cross-training into a comparable civilian skill, and willingness of the ex-serviceman to locate in an area where his skill can be utilized. It is an established fact that the Air Force is providing vocational and technical training on a scale and at a skill level necessary to equip men to find jobs in the civilian world. This vocational and technical training with its associated pay and personal benefits, is unmatched. And we would anticipate that, within certain limits, there will be a continuing demand for those skills.

Despite the recent downtrend in the economy and the present high unemployment rates, the Department of Labor is predicting that the number of jobs in the economy will continue to increase, reaching more than 100 million by 1980.⁷ The service-producing industries over the next 10 years are expected to grow rapidly and to employ 59.5 million by 1980, an increase of 35 percent above the 1968 level. The goods-producing industries will also increase in the years ahead, although at a slower rate than the service industries. Employment in goods-producing industries is expected to increase to about 30 million in 1980, 10 percent above the 1968 level. Other occupational workers are in such areas as the professional and technical fields, management, clerical, sales, and others. Requirements for workers in these areas will be increasing as well—in some specialties at rates up to 50 percent. While job growth is significant, another key indicator of job outlook is the need for replacements. More jobs will be created in the years ahead through normal attrition, such as retirements, than from employment growth.

Thus the future looks bright for the military man with a civilian-applicable skill who separates in the years ahead, provided he is willing to settle in a geographic area where his talents can be utilized. But the question still has not been answered: Does a man use his military skills after separating from the service?

A survey of 858 former Air Force members was conducted by an AFIT student in an effort to answer this question.⁸ In his analysis, he divided the respondents into two groups by military skill those in technical areas and those with “military services” skills. The second group consisted primarily of individuals trained in skills that were usually found only in the military, such as individuals trained to fill out specialized forms. These former Air Force members generally characterized their military experience as contributing positively toward their civilian employment experiences. About 80 percent of the officers surveyed reported that their military experiences had helped them. And almost 70 percent of the enlisted men with technical skills said that their military experience aided them. Almost half of the enlisted men who worked in the military services skill areas reported that their training helped them in their civilian employment. It seemed that active service in purely military occupational specialties without technical training was of less benefit to the individual. By contrast, technical skill training and experience in the military appear to be readily transferred to civilian jobs.

Another obvious benefit the Air Force affords lies in the accreditation of its courses. Many of the courses offered by the military meet the requirement for accreditation of service experience by the American Council of Education. Many airmen who leave the service and go back to school find that their training can be used for college credit, thus shortening the time until they leave school and become a part of the national labor force. Another example of this is the medical school at Sheppard AFB, Texas, whose new physician’s assistant training program is recognized by the American Medical Association and Midwestern University. The graduates can be licensed in several states, where they will make a real contribution to the national need for medical services.

More than 90 percent of the hundreds of skills in which the Air Force trains thousands of men yearly have direct counterparts in the civilian community, and most of these men will return to the civilian economy and enter the labor market. Those who return to school may find they have the bonus of accreditation for the training they have received in the Air Force.

Thus the Air Force, through its training, can be considered one of the nation’s great resources, and we must continue to foster the resource in several ways. First, as long as retention is a problem, we must demonstrate our training role during recruitment. Since a large number of men who enter the Air Force do so to learn a skill, we must make absolutely certain that the quality of our training is exceptional. This is particularly important as, we face the conflict of paying tax dollars for unemployment compensation on one hand while on the other hand job and vocational training opportunities are available in the military services.

Second, we must utilize those skills our personnel had prior to military service. When a man possesses a skill before he enters the service, chances are he will use that skill when he leaves, despite whatever job he may have held in the Air Force. An officer will probably return to the field he studied in college. Unless the Air Force utilizes preservice abilities and skills, it is not making the best possible use of the nation’s human resources.

Third, the Air Force must continue to provide an opportunity for achievement, responsibility, and personal success to those who need it and have the ambition to avail themselves of the opportunities provided by military service. Both technical training and military training lend themselves to this purpose, for both instill a high degree of personal and team discipline. A technician must be precise and must follow technical data, while his military training teaches him respect for authority and adherence to procedures.

Finally, we must keep in mind that we are training today for the labor force of the future. When a man enters the Air Force today, the chances are good that whenever he leaves the Air Force he will enter the civil job market. We must make certain that the skill he learns in the Air Force is not out of date when he leaves. Thus the Air Force has a responsibility to utilize only the most modern of techniques in its training as well as its day-to-day operation.

The Air Force not only provides for the physical security of the nation; through its training programs it contributes a great deal more. We feel that Air Force education and training are among the most powerful incentives we can offer to young people who will consider Air Force service. It is through these training and education programs that we demonstrate to the public our concern for solutions to sociological problems while providing adequate air power for national defense.

Notes

1. Armed Forces Journal, 15 February 1971, p. 25.

2. Ibid., p. 24.

3. Robert Brooks Richardson, “An Examination of the Transferability of Certain Military Skills and Experience to Civilian Occupations,” Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, September 1967, p. 145.

4. Ibid., p. 48.

5. Ibid., p. 11.

6. Ibid., p. 12.

7. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment Outlook, Bulletin 1650-117.

8. Richardson, op. cit.

Contributor

Lieutenant General George B. Simler (B.S., University of Maryland) is Commander, Air Training Command. During World WAR II he was Commander, 451st Medium Bombardment Squadron, England. His assignments have been in Personnel at Hq USAF and Hq ADC; Professor of Air Science and Tactics, University of Maryland; Director of Athletics, USAF Academy; Commander, 4520th CCTW, Nellis AFB; in Okinawa as Comdr, 18th  Tactical Fighter Wing, and Vietnam as Director of Operations, 7AF; and in Germany as Vice Commander in Chief, USAFE. General Simler is a graduate of the National War College.