Document text
UNITED STATES
AIR FORCE
OCCUPATIONAL
SURVEY REPORT
SURVIVAL, EVASION, RESISTANCE, AND ESCAPE
TRAINING INSTRUCTOR
AFSC 1T0X1
SN2271 " .
JUNE 1997
OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM
USAF OCCUPATIONAL MEASUREMENT SQUADRON
AIR EDUCATION and TRAINING COMMAND
1550 5th STREET EAST
RANDOLPH AFB, TEXAS 78150-4449
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE ;DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED
19970715 176
DISTRIBUTION FOR AFSC ITOXl OSR
TNG
OSR EXT
AFOMS/OMDQ
AFOMS/OMYXL
AL/HRMM
ARMY OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY BRANCH
CCAF/AYX
DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER
HQAFPC/DPAAD3
HQAFPC/DPPAPC
HQ USMC/STANDARDS BRANCH
NAVMAC
HQAETC/XOSL
HQACC/DPTTF
HQ AETC/DPPEE
HQ AFMC/DPUE
HQ AFSOC/DPPMT
HQ PACAF/DPAET
HQUSAFE/DPATTJ
HQ USAF/XOOT
336 TRG/CCV
2505 SOUTH DENVER STREET
FAIRCHILD AFB WA 9901 1-8648
336 TRG/OST
2505 SOUTH DENVER STREET, SUITE 207
FAIRCHILD AFB WA 9901 1-8648
1
10
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
5
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
4 4
2 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
NUMBER
PREFACE . vi
SUMMARY OF RESULTS . viii
INTRODUCTION . 1
Background . 1
SURVEY METHODOLOGY . 2
Inventory Development . 2
Survey Administration . 2
Survey Sample . 3
Task Factor Administration . 4
SPECIALTY JOBS . : . 4
Career Ladder Structure . 4
Overview of Specialty Jobs . 5
Group Descriptions . 6
ANALYSIS OF DAFSC GROUPS . 10
Skill-Level Descriptions . 1 1
Summary . 12
TRAINING ANALYSIS . 21
First-Enlistment Personnel . 21
Training Emphasis (TE) and Task Difficulty (TD) Data . 24
Specialty Training Standard (STS) . 27
JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS . 30
SPECIAL ANALYSIS . 34
IMPLICATIONS . 34
11
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Tables, Figures, Appendices)
PAGE
NUMBER
TABLE 1 COMMAND DISTRIBUTION OF ITOXl PERSONNEL . 3
TABLE 2 PAYGRADE DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY SAMPLE . 3
TABLE 3 RELATIVE PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY SPECIALTY JOBS . 9
TABLE 4 SELECTED BACKGROUND DATA FOR SPECIALTY JOBS . 10
TABLE 5 SPECIALTY JOB COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT AND 1 992 SURVEYS .. 1 1
TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF DAFSC GROUP MEMBERS ACROSS SPECIALTY . 13
JOBS (PERCENT RESPONDING)
TABLE 7 RELATIVE PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY DAFSC GROUPS . . 13
TABLE 8 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T03 1 PERSONNEL . 14
TABLE 9 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1 T05 1 PERSONNEL . 15
TABLE 10 TASKS WfflCH BEST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DAFSCs 1T031 AND . 16
1T051 PERSONNEL (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)
TABLE 11 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T071 PERSONNEL . 17
TABLE 12 TASKS WfflCH BEST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DAFSCs 1T051 AND . 18
1T071 PERSONNEL (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)
TABLE 13 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T091 AND ITOOO
PERSONNEL . 19
TABLE 14 TASKS WfflCH BEST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DAFSCs 1T071 AND . 20
1T091AND ITOOO PERSONNEL (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)
TABLE 15 RELATIVE PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY FIRST- . 22
ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL
TABLE 16 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY ITOXl FIRST- . 23
ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL
TABLE 17 DUTY AFSC ITOXl TASKS WITH HIGHEST TRAINING
EMPHASIS RATINGS . 25
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTEWED)
(Tables, Figures, Appendices)
PAGE
NUMBER
TABLE 18 TASKS RATED fflGHEST IN TASK DIFFICULTY . 26
TABLE 19 STS ITEMS NOT SUPPORTED BY OSR DATA . 28
TABLE 20 TASKS PERFORMED BY 20 PERCENT OR MORE GROUP MEMBERS
BUT NOT REFERENCED BY STS . 29
TABLE 21 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY TAFMS . 3 1
TABLE 22 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS FOR AFSC ITOXl
TAFMS GROUPS IN CURRENT STUDY TO PREVIOUS STUDY . 32
TABLE 23 COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY TAFMS . 33
TABLE 24 COURSES COMPLETED . 35
TABLE 25 FORMS USED . 35
FIGURE 1 AFSC ITOXl CAREER LADDER SPECIALTY JOBS . 5
FIGURE 2 DISTRIBUTION OF ITOXl FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL .
ACROSS SPECIALTY JOBS
APPENDIX A SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY
SPECIALTY JOB GROUPS . 36
PREFACE
This report presents results of an Air Force Occupational Survey of the Survival, Evasion,
Resistance, And Escape (SERE) Training Instructor career ladder. Air Force Specialty Code
(AFSC) ITOXl. The authority for conducting occupational surveys is contained in AFI 36-2623.
Computer products used in this report are available for use by operations and training officials.
The survey instrument was developed by LCdr Brian Thompson (Canadian Armed Forces),
who also analyzed the survey data and wrote the final report. Computer programming support
was furnished by Ms. Rebecca Hernandez while Mr. Richard Ramos provided administrative
support. This report was reviewed and approved by Lt Col Roger Barnes, Chief, Airman
Analysis Section, Occupational Analysis Flight, Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron
(AFOMS).
Copies of this report are distributed to Air Staff sections, major commands, and other
interested training and management personnel. Additional copies are available upon request to
AFOMS, Attention; Chief, Occupational Analysis Flight (OMY), 1550 5th Street East,
Randolph Air Force Base, Texas 78150-4449 (DSN 487-6623).
RICHARD C. OURAND, JR., Lt Col, USAF
Commander
Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron
JOSEPH S. TARTELL
Chief, Occupational Analysis Flight
Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
1. Survey Coverage: The Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Training
Instructor career ladder was surveyed to provide current job and task data for use in updating
career ladder documents and training programs. Survey results are based on responses from 247
respondents accounting for 74 percent of the total population surveyed.
2. Specialty Jobs: Two clusters and jobs and two independent jobs were identified in the
career ladder structure analysis. Both clusters are totally oriented toward the performance of
either survival training or resistance training tasks. The two independent jobs involve
supervisory and standards and evaluation functions.
3. Career Ladder Progression: Skill-level progression for members of this AFSC is typical of
most career ladders. Three-skill level personnel spend the vast majority of their job time
performing training tasks in the survival cluster. At the 5-skill level, personnel are still heavily
involved in survival training tasks but also conduct resistance training. Personnel at the 7-skill
level begin to become involved with supervision and standards and evaluation tasks. Nine-skill
level personnel reflect a further shift toward supervisory and management work.
4. Training Analysis: Overall, the STS provides a comprehensive coverage of the work
performed by personnel in the career ladder. There are a few tasks performed by more than 20
percent of all respondents that are not matched to STS elements. These tasks deal with combat
recovery; parachute assemblies; and aircrew life support equipment.
5. Job Satisfaction: In general, job satisfaction among AFSC ITOXl personnel is very high.
Similar findings were noted when the current survey was compared to the previous survey and to
the comparative sample of similar AFSCs. Respondents within the two cluster and supervisor
job group are very satisfied, tvith members holding the Standards and Evaluation job showing
noticeably lower satisfaction with their job.
6. Implications: The current AFSC ITOXl career ladder structure reflects an overall normal
job progression. Two clusters and two specific jobs were identified in the career ladder. Job
satisfaction is very high among career ladder incumbents. The career ladder documents are well
supported by the training conducted at the technical school.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
IX
OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORT (OSR)
SURVIVAL, EVASION, RESISTANCE, AND ESCAPE (SERE)
TRAINING INSTRUCTOR (AFSC ITOXl)
ENLISTED CAREER LADDER
INTRODUCTION
This is a report of an occupational survey of the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape
Training (SERE) career ladder conducted by the Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron
(AFOMS). The current SERE career ladder was created in October 1993 with the conversion
from AFSC 121X0 to AFSC ITOXl. Survey data will be used to identify current utilization
patterns among career ladder personnel and evaluate career ladder documents and training
programs. The last OSR for the SERE career ladder was published in November 1992.
Background
As described in the AFMAN 36-2108 Specialty Description for AFSC ITOXl, dated
October 1994, members manage and conduct formal courses of instruction and survival training
activites. They develop and instruct formal course curriculum and aircrew continuation training
programs for aircrew members and other designated personnel. These courses and programs
include impact of conditions effecting survival, evasion, resistance to exploitation, escape,
recovery, use of life support equipment, and emergency parachute descent.
All entry level personnel are required to take prerequisite training courses S-V80-A
(Combat Survival Training) and S-V90-A (Water Survival Training, Non Parachuting) before
enrolling in S-V81-A, the Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape Training Instructor course,
which is 121 days at Fairchild AFB WA. Entry into this career ladder currently requires an
Armed Forces Vocational Aptitude Test Battery (ASVAB) score of General-53 and a strength
factor of “N” (Weight lift of 100 lbs).
APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLEVOTED
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Inventory Development
The data collection instrument for this occupational survey was USAF Job Inventory (JI),
dated August 1996. A tentative task list was prepared after reviewing pertinent career ladder
publications and directives, pertinent tasks from the previous survey instrument, and data fi-om
the last OSR. The preliminary task list was refined and validated through personal interviews
with 13 subject-matter experts (SMEs) at the technical training location and at the following
installations:
BASE
Fairchild AFB WA
USAFA CO
Pensacola NAS FL
UNIT VISITED
336 TRG/CCEA
34 TRS/CST
17TRS/DOTF
The resulting JI contains a comprehensive listing of 348 tasks grouped under 1 1 duty
headings and a background section requesting such information as grade, MAJCOM assigned,
organizational level, job title, functional area, related career courses completed, and forms used.
Siuwev Admini.stration
From September through November 1996, base training offices at operational imits
administered the inventory to eligible AFSC ITOXl personnel. Job incumbents were selected
firom a computer-generated mailing list obtained from personnel data tapes maintained by the Air
Force Personnel Center, Randolph AFB TX. Each individual who completed the inventory first
completed an identification and biographical information section and then checked each task
performed in his or her current job. After checking all tasks performed, each member then rated
each of these tasks on a 9-point scale, showing relative time spent on that task, as compared to all
other tasks checked. The ratings ranged fi'om 1 (very small amount time spent) through 5 (about
average time spent) to 9 (very large amovmt time spent). To determine relative time spent for
each task checked by a respondent, all of the incumbent's ratings are assumed to account for 100
percent of his or her time spent on the job and are summed. Each task rating is then divided by
the total task ratings and multiplied by 100 to provide a relative percentage of time for each task.
This procedure provides a basis for comparing tasks in terms of both percent members
performing and average percent time spent.
2
Survey Sample
Personnel were selected to participate in this survey so as to ensure an accurate
representation across major conunands (MAJCOM) and paygrade groups. All eligible AFSC
ITOXl personnel were mailed survey booklets. Table 1 reflects the percentage distribution, by
MAJCOM, of assigned AFSC ITOXl personnel. The 247 respondents in the final sample
represent 71 percent of the total assigned personnel and 74 percent of the total persormel
surveyed. Table 2 reflects the paygrade distribution for these AFSC ITOXl personnel. Both
command and paygrade distributions of the survey sample are close to the percent assigned.
TABLE 1
COMMAND DISTRIBUTION OF ITOXl PERSONNEL
COMMAND
PERCENT OF
ASSIGNED
PERCENT OF
SAMPLE
AETC
79
82
AFMC
5
6
PACAF
5
4
Joint Services SERE
4
1
ACC
3
2
USAFA
1
1
AFSOC
1
1
Other
2
3
TOTAL ASSIGNED = 350 (As of September 1996)
TOTAL SURVEYED = 336
TOTAL IN SURVEY SAMPLE = 247
PERCENT OF ASSIGNED IN SAMPLE = 71%
PERCENT OF SURVEYED IN SAMPLE = 74%
TABLE 2
PAYGRADE DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY SAMPLE
GRADE
PERCENT OF
ASSIGNED
PERCENT OF
SAMPLE
E-1 -E-3
21
14
E-4
24
27
E-5
26
28
E-6
16
15
E-7
10
13
E-8 - E-9
3
3
Task Factor Administration
Job descriptions alone do not provide sufficient data for making decisions about career
ladder documents or training programs. Task factor information is needed for complete analysis
of a career ladder. To obtain the needed task factor data, selected senior AFSC ITOXl personnel
(generally E-6 or E-7 craftsmen) also completed a second booklet for either training emphasis
(TE) or task difficulty (TD). These booklets were processed separately from the JIs. This
information is used in a number of different analyses discussed in more detail within the report.
Training Emphasis fTET TE is a rating of the amount of emphasis that should be placed on tasks
in entry-level training. The 32 senior NCOs who completed a TE booklet were asked to select
tasks they felt require some sort of structured training for entry-level personnel and then indicate
how much training emphasis these tasks should receive, from 1 (extremely low emphasis) to 9
(extremely high emphasis). Structured training is defined as training provided at resident
technical schools, field training detachments (FTD), mobile training teams (MTT), formal on-
the-job-training (OJT), or any other organized training method. Interrater reliability for these 32
raters was acceptable. Tasks with a TE rating of 7.05 or above should be seriously considered
for tech school training.
Task Difficulty (TD): TD is an estimate of the amoimt of time needed to learn how to do each
task satisfactorily. The 24 senior NCOs who completed TD booklets were asked to rate the
difficulty of each tasks using a 9-point scale (extremely low to extremely high). Interrater
reliability was acceptable. Ratings were standardized so tasks have an average difficulty of 5.00
and a standard deviation of 1.00. Any task with a TD rating of 6.00 or above is considered to be
difficult to learn. When used in conjunction with the primary criterion of percent members
performing, TD ratings can provide insight into first-enlistment personnel training requirements.
Such insights may suggest a need for lengthening or shortening portions of instruction
supporting entry-level jobs.
SPECIALTY JOBS
(Career Ladder Structure)
The first step in the analysis process is to identify the structure of the career ladder in
terms of the jobs performed by the respondents. The Comprehensive Occupational Data
Analysis Program (CODAP) assists by creating an individual job description for each respondent
based on the tasks performed and relative amount of time spent on these tasks. The CODAP
automated job clustering program then compares all the individual job descriptions, locates the
two descriptions with the most similar tasks and time spent ratings, and combines them to form a
composite job description. In successive stages, CODAP either adds new members to this initial
group, or forms new groups based on the similarity of tasks and time spent ratings. The basic
group used in the hierarchical clustering process is the job. When two or more jobs have a
substantial degree of similarity in tasks performed and time spent on tasks, they are grouped
together and identified as a cluster. The structure of the career ladder is then defined in terms of
jobs and clusters of jobs.
Overview of Specialty Jobs
Based on the analysis of tasks performed and the amount of time spent performing each
task, two clusters of jobs and two independent jobs were identified Avithin the career ladder.
Figure 1 illustrates the jobs performed by AF SC ITOXl personnel.
A listing of these jobs and job clusters is provided below. The stage (STG) number
shown beside each title references computer printed information, the letter "N" indicates the
number of personnel in each group. The respondents forming these jobs account for 85 percent
of the survey sample. The remaining 15 percent, for one reason or another, did not group into
one of these jobs. Examples of job titles for these people include Group Quality NCO, Group
Operations Manager and Command Quality Training Instructor.
I. Survival Instructor Cluster (STG 37, N=1 49)
II. Supervisor Job (STG 30, N=1 8)
III. Standards and Evaluation Job (STG 3 1 , N=5)
IV. Resistance Cluster (STG 18, N=37)
AFSC ITOXl CAREER LADDER JOBS (N = 247)
SURVIVAL INSTRUCTOR
60%
FIGURE 1
5
Group Descriptions
The following paragraphs contain brief descriptions of the jobs identified through the career
ladder structure analysis. Table 3 presents the relative time spent on duties by members of these
specialty jobs. Selected background data for these jobs are provided in Table 4. Representative
tasks for all the groups are contained in Appendix A
L SURVIVAL INSTRUCTOR CLUSTER rSTG037>. These 149 airmen perform the
core job within the career ladder and represent the majority (60 percent) of the survey sample.
This cluster involves performing an average of 135 tasks related to instructing global survival
training to students. Apart from teaching how to survive in the outdoors, 20 percent of the
instructor’s time is also spent instructing evasion training. The three jobs identified in this core
cluster are Survival Instructor, Parachutist Instructor, and Open Seas Instructor. The Survival
Instructor Job is located primarily at Fairchild AFB with members spending 55 percent of their
time performing either global survival or evasion training tasks. All seven individuals identified
in the Open Seas Instructor Job hold the grade of either E-5 or E-6 whereas 55 percent of
personnel in the Survival Instructor job hold grades of either E-3 or E-4. As well, they spend an
average of 22 percent of their time conducting open seas survival training. Ninety percent of the
members of the Parachute Instructor Job hold the grade of E-5 and have an average of over 4
years in the job. All members of this job instruct students how to use parachutes and egress
aircraft. In addition, they perform parachutist drop zone control officer duties as well as conduct
recovery training. The three jobs in this cluster are significantly different in respect to the type of
training they conduct, yet they all support the primary aim of survival. Distinctive tasks
performed include:
Conduct training on preparation of water in global environments
Conduct training on location and procurement of water in global environments
Conduct training on use of aircrew signaling devices in global environments
Conduct training on guiding recovery forces in global environments
Conduct training on prioritization of survivor needs
Conduct training on recovery site selection in global environments
Conduct training on satisfying individual needs, other than in captivity
Conduct training on construction of fires in global environments
The majority of these airmen hold a 5-skill level (48 percent) and 39 percent are in their
first enlistment. The average time in the career field is 7 years. The predominant paygrades are
E-4 (32 percent) and E-5 (30 percent). Only 9 percent of these members report they are assigned
to units outside the continental United States.
6
II. SUPERVISOR JOB ISTG018I. The 18 airmen forming this job (7 percent of the
survey sample) are predominantly E-7s (56 percent). They perform an average of 98 tasks which
is somewhat lower than the Survival Instructor cluster. Ninety-four percent of the airmen in this
job hold either 7-, 9- or CEM-skill levels. Their average time in the career field is 20 years and
89 percent of these members report they are assigned to units within the United States. Distinct
tasks performed include:
Evaluate personnel for promotion, demotion, reclassification, or special awards
Evaluate effectiveness of training procedures
Write recommendations for awards or decorations
Schedule personnel for temporary duty (TDY) assignments, leaves, or passes
Advise staff or unit personnel on training matters, other than OJT
Direct administrative fimctions
Interpret policies, directives, or procedures for subordinates
Evaluate personnel for compliance with performance standards
Determine training requirements for instructors
III. STANDARDS AND EVALUATION JOB (STG031k All five members of this
job evaluate training methods and instructor effectiveness and serve at Fairchild AFB. Obvious
differences fi'om the Supervisor job is the amoimt of time spent on Standards and Evaluation
functions such as writing inspection reports, as well as the fact that they conduct minimal
supervision (see Table 3). Although commonly performed tasks look similar. Supervisor Job
members still perform tasks in all areas of training unlike the Standards and Evaluation job.
Standards and Evaluation airmen perform an average of 45 tasks, less than half the average tasks
for the Supervisor job. Eighty percent of these airmen hold grades of E-6 or E-7 and they are all
at either the 7- or 9-skill level. The average time in the career field is 16 years. Commonly
performed tasks include:
Write inspection reports
Conduct instructor evaluations
Evaluate training methods or techniques of instructors
Evaluate effectiveness of training procedures
Evaluate courseware
Advise staff or unit persoimel on training matters, other than OJT
Evaluate personnel for compliance with performance standards
Inspect persoimel for compliance with military standards
Compile data for records, reports, logs, or trend analyses
Conduct formal course evaluations
Plan self-inspection or self-assessment programs
Conduct self-inspections or self-assessments
Develop or establish work schedules
7
IV. RESISTANCE CLUSTER (STG018). Survival personnel in the Resistance cluster
work in simulated prisoner of war camps and teach students how to survive as a prisoner. All
members of this job hold either 5- or 7- skill levels and average 12 years in the service. The two
jobs identified in this cluster, Interrogations Job and Group Problems Job, reflect the specific
duties that these individuals perform. The Group Problems job spends more time performing
management tasks. Ninety percent of members in the Interrogations Job hold the E-4 or E-5
paygrade whereas 41 percent of Group Problems Job persoimel are either at the E-6 or E-7
paygrade. As a cluster, resistance persoimel perform an average of 57 tasks. However, the
Interrogations Job are specialized and perform an average of only 20 tasks while Group Problems
persoimel perform an average of 72 tasks. Distinctive cluster tasks performed include:
Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during propaganda efforts
Conduct training on establishment of individual resistance postures
Conduct training on use of Code of Conduct during captivity
Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during interrogations
Conduct training on use of Geneva Conventions during captivity
Conduct training on interrogation processes
Conduct training on captor methods for exploiting Prisoners of War (PW)
Conduct training on captor objectives for exploiting PWs
Conduct training on organizing individual needs in captivity
Conduct training on techniques to combat psychological stress during captivity
Comparison to Previous Study
Apart from identifying the Standards and Evaluation job, the jobs and functions of the
ITOXl AFSC career ladder structure have remained relatively the same compared to the last
survey (see Table 5). This suggests that the organization of work performed by members of this
career ladder has remained relatively stable since the early 1 980s.
8
VO sp
O
CN O
W oi
CO t-H
« 2
< Oh
oo
(N tn
CO
m
uo
CO
CN
cs
o
Cv
vp sp
\0
Q., On ^
CO m
^ S
ttj CO
W W
y y
ta
Oh Oh
AVERAGE NUMBER OF TASKS PERFORMED
TABLES
SPECIALTY JOB COMPARISON BETWEEN CURRENT AND 1992 SURVEYS
_ CURRENT SURVEY (N=209)
Survival Instructor Cluster (N = 149)
Supervisor Job (N = 1 8)
Standards And Evaluation Job (N = 5)
Resistance Cluster (N = 37)
_ 1992 SURVEY (N=180)
Survival Training Instructor Job (N = 120)
Parachute & Water Survival Instructor (N = 6)
Supervisor and Administrator Job (N = 21)
No Similar Group Identified
Resistance Training Instructor Job (N = 33)
ANALYSIS OF DAFSC GROUPS
An analysis of DAFSC groups, in conjunction with the analysis of the career ladder
structure, is an important part of each occupational survey. The DAFSC analysis identifies
differences in tasks performed at the various skill levels. This information may then be used to
evaluate how well career ladder documents, such as the AFMAN 36-2108 Specialty Description
and the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP), reflect what career ladder personnel
are actually doing in the field.
The distribution of skill-level groups across the career ladder jobs is displayed in Table 6,
while Table 7 offers another perspective by displaying the relative percent time spent on each
duty across the skill-level groups. A typical pattern of progression is noted within the AFSC
ITOXl career ladder. Personnel at the 3-skill level work solely in the Survival Instructor cluster
while at the 5- and 7-skill level they work as either Survival or Resistance Instructors. Members
of the AFSC ITOXl career ladder are involved in minimal supervisory activities through the 7-
skill level. As incumbents move up to the 9-skill level, individuals have moved away from the
training jobs completely and are performing supervisory and management functions.
Skill-Level Descriptions
DAFSC 1T031. Representing 15 percent of the survey sample, these 37 airmen perform an
average of 97 tasks. Ninety-five percent of 3 -skill level airmen work in the Survival Instructor
Cluster (see Table 6) with the highest percentage of their time spent on Global Survival training
tasks (see Table 7). One hundred percent of the 3-skill level personnel are employed in Air
Education and Training Command and they account for 23 percent of the Survival Instructor Job.
Representative tasks performed by 3-skill level incumbents are listed in Table 8. Most tasks
relate to Performing Instructor Duties and Teaching Techniques (Duty A) and Conducting Global
Survival Training (Duty E).
11
DAFSC 1T051, Representing 42 percent of the survey sample (largest DAFSC in the survey),
these airmen perform an average of 105 tasks (only slightly higher than 3 -skill level members).
Sixty-nine percent work in the Survival Instructor Cluster and 1 8 percent work in the Resistance
Cluster (see Table 6). The highest percentage of their time is spent conducting either global
survival or evasion training.
Table 9 lists representative tasks performed by all 5-skill level personnel. Table 10 reflects
those tasks which best differentiate 5-skill level personnel from their 3-skill level counterparts.
The major difference between the two groups is that 5-skill level personnel perform resistance
training whereas no 3-skill level personnel are employed in resistance training. In addition, the
5-skill level personnel are engaged in a slightly broader range of tasks, many being supervisory
in nature with less emphasis placed on the conduct of training tasks.
DAFSC 1T071. Seven-skill level personnel represent 38 percent of the survey sample and
perform an average of 1 1 1 tasks. Like their junior counterparts at the 5-skill level, the majority
work in either the Survival Instructor or Resistance Clusters. However, 9 percent of the 7-skill
level personnel work in the Supervisor Job while 3 percent are employed in Standards and
Evaluation (see Table 6). Thirteen percent of 7-skill level personnel are employed overseas.
Table 1 1 lists the tasks performed by the highest percentage of these airmen. Table 12
shows those tasks which best differentiate the 5- and 7-skill levels. As expected, the key
difference is a much greater emphasis on supervisory functions at the 7-skill level.
DAFSC 1T091 and ITOOO. The 14 of these personnel represent 5 percent of the survey sample
and perform an average of 86 tasks. Seventy percent of the members in this group are at the 9-
skill level. Seventy-eight percent of this group are employed in either the Supervision or
Standards and Evaluation jobs (Table 6). Table 7 shows that 67 percent of their time is spent
performing management and supervisory activities, and minimal time is spent conducting actual
survival training.
Table 13 lists representative tasks performed by these senior NCOs. Most of these involve
supervisory or management fimctions. Table 14 shows those tasks which best differentiate the 7-
and 9- and CEM skill levels. As expected, the key difference is a much greater emphasis on
management functions at the 9-skill level, while 7-skill level personnel still perform many of the
training tasks.
Summary
Progression in this career ladder follows a pattern of conducting SERE training at the lower
skill levels, with a broadening into supervision and management at the 9- and CEM skill levels.
An emphasis is clearly seen in performing primarily the core job of the Survival Instructor at the
3-skill level, with some broadening into supervisory functions at the 5-skill level. Craftsmen at
the 7-skill level are beginning to shift to supervisory jobs, but a good deal of their job time is still
spent in the training arena. The 9-skill level persoimel are primarily supervisors and managers of
the career ladder.
12
DISTRIBUTION OF DAFSC GROUP MEMBERS ACROSS SPECIALTY JOBS
(PERCENT RESPONDING)
cn
CONDUCTING RESISTANCE TRAINING
TABLE 8
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T031 PERSONNEL
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
TASKS _ (N=37)
A0027 Present lessons using demonstration performance techniques 97
E0208 Conduct training on selection and maintenance of course of travel in 97
global environments
EOl 85 Conduct training on construction of fires in global environments 97
A0024 Prepare lesson plans 97
E0205 Conduct training on prioritization of survivor needs 97
EOl 95 Conduct training on walking techniques in global environments 97
E02 1 2 Conduct training on tying knots 97
EOl 84 Conduct training on use of topographic features for navigation . 97
E0201 Conduct training on preparation of water in global environments 97
EOl 96 Conduct training on location and procurement of food in global 97
environments
EOl 82 Conduct training on determination of location in global environments 97
E0200 Conduct training on location and procurement of water in global 97
environments
EOl 89 Conduct training on selection of shelter construction sites in global 97
environments
EOl 90 Conduct training on constraction and maintenance of shelters in global 97
environments
E0202 Conduct training on storage of water in global environments 97
EOl 88 Conduct training on improving protection of naturally occurring shelters 97
E0211 Conduct training on tying hitches 97
A0029 Present lessons using instructional aids 95
E0207 Conduct training on satisfying individual needs, other than in captivity 95
A0032 Present lessons using time and circumstance instruction in operational 92
environments
AOOlO Critique student performances 92
* Average Number of Tasks Performed - 97
14
TABLE 9
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T051 PERSONNEL
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
TASKS (N=103 )
AOOlO Critique student performances 91
A0006 Conduct briefings, or debriefings 80
A0024 Prepare lesson plans 79
A0029 Present lessons using instructional aids 76
A0027 Present lessons using demonstration performance techniques 74
EOl 80 Conduct training on use of aircrew signaling devices in global 72
environments
EOl 78 Conduct training on guiding recovery forces in global environments 72
A0025 Present lectures 71
EOl 77 Conduct training on recovery site selection in global environments 71
E0201 Conduct training on preparation of water in global environments 71
A0032 Present lessons using time and circumstance instruction in 68
operational environments
A0009 Counsel trainees on training progress 65
A0008 Conduct OJT 63
A0020 Evaluate progress of trainees 62
B0048 Conduct survival, evasion, resistance, and escape (SERE) 53
continuation training
A003 1 Present lessons using role-playing methods of instruction 50
K0343 Conduct training on use of Code of Conduct during captivity 26
K0348 Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during propaganda 24
efforts
K0344 Conduct training on use of Geneva Conventions during captivity 24
K0347 Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during 23
interrogations
K0345 Conduct training on use of Uniform Code of Military Justice 23
(UCMJ) during captivity
K0334 Conduct training on establishment of individual resistance postures 20
* Average Number of Tasks Performed - 105
15
TASKS WHICH BEST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DAFSCs 1T03I AND IT05I PERSONNEL
(PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)
TABLE 11
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T071 PERSONNEL
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
_ (N=93)
A0006 Conduct briefings, or debriefings 86
AGO 10 Critique student performances 74
CO 162 Write TDY trip reports 68
A0019 Evaluate effectiveness of training procedures 66
A0023 Maintain training records or files 66
A0033 Procure training aids, space, or equipment 66
BO 108 Participate in general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings, 63
conferences, or workshops, other than conducting
A0016 Develop training schedules 63
A0004 Brief organizational personnel concerning training programs or matters 62
B0036 Advise staff or unit personnel on training matters, other than OJT 61
A0029 Present lessons using instructional aids 61
AOOl 5 Develop training programs, plans, or procedures 61
A0025 Present lectures 60
A002 1 Evaluate training methods or techniques of instructors 59
A0009 Coimsel trainees on training progress 59
B0063 Develop or establish work schedules 58
B0090 Evaluate personnel for compliance with performance standards 52
BO 126 Supervise military personnel 52
B0043 Conduct general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings, 52
conferences, or workshops
BOl 03 Inspect personnel for compliance with military standards 49
A0007 Conduct formal course classroom training 47
BO 104 Interpret policies, directives, or procedures for subordinates 39
K0343 Conduct training on use of Code of Conduct during captivity 39
A003 1 Present lessons using role-playing methods of instruction 33
K0334 Conduct training on establishment of individual resistance postures 3 1
K0348 Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during propaganda 28
efforts
* Average Number of Tasks Performed - 1 1 1
17
TASKS WHICH BEST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DAFSCs 1T051 AND 1T071 PERSONNEL
(PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)
Ph
>— H
Q
CJ ^ ^
£ ^ ^
Q - e
o ^
00 IT) o
pui o or
< H N
Q ^
— ON^ON— --^ONOOCNCNCNcn
mcNcn<Nmmr^r<Jc^mmr^mm
VO'O'O^'OVOVO^VO^^O'O'O'O
C/3
G
o
o
o
C3
>
<l>
t/)
c
.2
cd
>
o
T3
CD
CC3
bC
.s
’G
G
T3
O
1
•s
c« ^
C
O ^
8 « c
^ S.2
O >, .ti
C
cd
a o
■a 2
1.=
CX ^
<a ^
G G
O O
bO bO
G C
<D
>
O
o
(D
'S
E
o
o
C4-.
O _
a> cfl g
'S i2 ^
o
^ bO b£)
4-» c G
a> .t:
o
o
c
o-i
CO
iB ^ —
a> S
w o
o
(D
c
o
o
G
.2
*E
CO
>
G 'O
)— )
(D
CD
CD
g:
CO
G
2
’55
G
>
CD
G
O
bO
G
.2P g<c
(1> CD G
.ti G TD u CO
CO G CD o T3
« o ■? ^ «
bJQ
CL Cr
G ^ -S
.5 ’o H ,
^ ^ S
O O t-
CD CD .2
6'^ > U-, CO CO
^ ^ D Q- G G CX
G G G
o o o
bO bO bO
G G G
CO
G
.2
C O
O O
O '*■'
- bO
o .E
« s
G G
> o
CD Cm
fcM O
D
O
bO
G
G
O
o
c c c
o o o
bO bO bO
G G G
=3 CO
^ G
CD CD
■*ri
> S
^ 'E
bO £
G
•S ^
b G
o «
2 g
CX G
G G
o o
bO bO
C G
G
.2
G
O
o
G
’E
G
>
D
Vh
D
G
G
CO
CD
G
-G
bO CO
.E <
G
O W
2 tiO|
D .E
> CO
O G
G G
O O
bO bO
G G
G G G G
C C C G C C C
G G G G G
M W liM 1-4 Sxi
G G G G G G G
M M ^ ;-4 Ui
OOOOCDOOOOOOOOO
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG
T3T3T3T3-aT3T3T3T3"0T3'TD'G'0
GGGGGGGGGGGGGG
oooooooooooooo
OOCJOOOOOOUOUOU
GO
00
s
<N Z,
2 o
S PQ
^ m (N
fnll!^JCNO'^cnc3^^3csoo
oSSooooooE>QO
pq (ij Ml >--> 1— j
o
W
oo*— 'CNcacscNJcNc^'^^'^^ooo
mmroromrommmrnmmfnr<^
c^Nmcnw^^cNcNnocNr^ooto^vo
o^ (N m C3^ o
^ m 04 m m
r-4 00 • ir>
^ ^ CS — ^ <N
ON
CD
G
C
O
CO
CD
CX
l-s 8
I « s
•o 2
s s
CO
^ 8
- n.
CO
CP
O
•G
CO
CD
O
G
CD
Cm
G
O
o
c/T
bO
G
Im
bO
G
CO
"O
M
G
-O
G
G
M
w
CD
O
c
G
G
E
2
bO
o
bO
G
H
G
CX
CO
CD
CD
g -5
G
G
TD
C
G
^ J
CD G
O c«
§ ^
■H. 8
S -o
8 "o
^ .G
^ 5
cr
U £
G
C G
O O
^ .2
Q> 13
CP G
a>
M
CD G
CP *13
CO .ti
G G
CO
g: CD
o
3 c«
4h
bO ^
•s “
■5 o
CD CO
G C
C o
2 1
(I> O
G ^
o 2
bO .£
CO £
G CD
-o ^
CD G5
o .ti
2 5:
Cu
^ C
•1:2
CX
E
o
o
G
bO
G
G
O .G
G c+Ih
CD
CD
_ CO
G -M
CP O
;§•§
«r8
Gh O
<M
o
CO ^
CO -O
Q> ^
§ 13
G
t> o
c2 2
^ s>
a> CP
CD CD
<D
O
G
O
o
13
G
G
O
CO CO
J-l (1>
CD ^
CO a>
G -G
o
.G CO
'S
•a o
G >
G ^
bO Q>
CD
.S
M
o
D
.G w
■O §
'►-* G
2 8
•i °
3 «
fl
I
CP
CP
G
G CO
^ a
u «
w S
-S G
o .SP
*CO
CO CO
1 P
2 P
^ bO
CO
.2
G CO ^
— S 5
= .2
b£) M
CD G
Ph
Cm G
G G O G
B B ^ B
G G .£ G
^ ^ ^
w w m w
CD CD
’> ’m
CO >
CD C
^ a>
-§
CD
8 o
v> CO
G ^
P o
CX
CD
^ P-.
.E CD
3 c
G g
s £
CD M
o t:
CP ^
O CP
3 ^
Q ^
.S >.
•I =
G -Q
G
O
CP
E
CD
CD
G
G
O
CO
p^ p^
CD o
CX^
.■G U
S c
G c
G P
O w
fe a>
a> G
CO TJ
•r
5 p
< 00
mcSNOOt^CTNO'^u^cN^r^Ovoro
c:^0'^’— 'c3^0c□^<Nmvo^om<N
O^OOOOO^^O^O^
WOOOOOOOOOOOOO
pQmpQCQ<pq<pQCQPQPQPQCPm
TABLE 13
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY 1T091 AND ITOOO PERSONNEL
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
_ (N=14)
A0004 Brief organizational personnel concerning training programs or matters 1 00
B0043 Conduct general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings, conferences, 1 00
or workshops
A0006 Conduct briefings, or debriefings 100
BO 108 Participate in general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings, 93
conferences, or workshops, other than conducting
B0036 Advise staff or unit personnel on training matters, other than OJT 93
A0018 Evaluate courseware 93
B0091 Evaluate personnel for promotion, demotion, reclassification, or special 93
awards
B0064 Develop organizational or functional charts 93
B0104 Interpret policies, directives, or procedures for subordinates 86
B0072 Draft budget requirements 86
BO 1 22 Review drafts of regulations, manuals, or other directives 86
A0019 Evaluate effectiveness of training procedures 86
B0071 Draft agenda for general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings, 86
conferences, or workshops
B0090 Evaluate personnel for compliance with performance standards 86
BO 126 Supervise military personnel 79
AOOll Determine training requirements for instructors 79
B0055 Coxmsel subordinates concerning personal matters 79
B0078 Establish organizational policies, such as operating instructions (OIs) or 79
standard operating procedures (SOPs)
B0074 Draft supplements or changes to directives, such as regulations, manuals, 71
or indexes
B0081 Evaluate budget requirements 71
B0066 Direct administrative functions 71
B0057 Determine or establish publication requirements 71
BO 133 Write staff studies, surveys, or routine reports, other than training or 64
inspection reports
* Average Number of Tasks Performed - 86
19
TASKS WHICH BEST DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN DAFSCs 1T071 AND IT09I/1T000 PERSONNEL
(PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)
Pu
^ II
< o
Q H S
CJ
00
ti.
<
Q
r- Os
o „
Ph II
CA>
00
<
H
r- *
c^o^o^^-^n^oooo-^-^oo^
w
c n
S o
£ ^
c
o
c
<D
£
o
c
o
£
c
a
1
o
-2
’w)
c
cn _ _
^ -t:
o
T3
Q>
a ^
C ^
is g
I CO
C ^
O ^ C3
cS cd CO
JO ^ (D
O ^
’Sb ’S) ’>
^ ^
.£ no
CO CO toX)
<1> o c
o P :i2
tM *0
o o
4> 03
CO 1:2
U<
2 n ±3
> t2 §
•s ^.i
& ^
o a>
o
S o
a>
8
^ q cd
g O (D
-g C4-^ jis
p2 o c^
bX) O
•s g
C
.2
o
J2 '
CO
.2 C
o
g o
^ CO
C4-<
O O
„ C
cd (U
c ^
a>
cd
(D
bO
n 4-^
o ;g o
<D ‘S <l>
CO Z3 CO
bs bX) :3
c c c
000
bX) bO bO
c c: c
D
.td c:
CO cd
^ £
*-• O
o a>
§ -s
^ CO
C C C
000
bX) bX) bX)
c c c
TD
C
cd
a
.2
‘'CI*
a
>
o
T3
C5
C3
C
o
X
c
(D
n
a
>
a
o
*£
c
.2
%-i^
cd
*— CO
a> -4-*
a. G
o ^
c e
•— c
CO O
p .p
I =
X> (U
12
.1 ■s
^ c
(D —
<D
£
c
o
CO -P
C >
o
CO <l>
O cd
cx
CO
P
(1>
cx
o
CO
O
o
p
o
CO
CO
cd
a >
a> ^
•§
^ g
O
(1>
S 0
<l> o
4-1
O
o
cx CX P
.£ .£ .£ .£ .£ .£
^ cd cd cd cd cd
§■§
60 ea
.S ^
.£ g
S S
•<-» CO
ooaooooP
pppppppt:
CCPCPCC^
oooooooS
OOUOOOUcx
c
(D
£ o
P CO
^ p
p p
O O
bO bO
.£ .£
]£ ]£
*3 *3
cd o
I S;
P ^
p a>
CO x:
33 CO
S3 2
N «
Cd 4-(
jz
p P
o o
bX) bX)
£ £
p [£
‘3 *3
0000
p p p p
^ td T3 T3
P P P P
0000
o a o o
ONOoor-oopSf^ror^voj^^
ooooo^^^ooo^o
WpqwwwCCKCQffiWffiUn
— ' On
^^^^r-oooo^G^o^ooooooooo^
r^C^VO^^V^ONOOCNJXNOOOsVO^^^XN
CNcnCNXNCNmm^^'^COXNCMC^CSCN
CO
cx
o
CO
CO
<D
o
O CO
^ cx
5-( r-
o -S
CO
.2
0
*0
p
CO
CD
*3
bX)
p
p
p
CD
p
.£
£
’C
cx
0
c/T
p
.2 CO
CX
td CD
cx
p
= P
-P
bX);P
q no
o
o
p
CO
p ^
<l> O
£ S
0
2
cd -G
CO
(D
£
p
o
a
p
o
o
o
CO
w
p
o
o
cx
o
o
>
o
p
.2
’•p
CO
<1>
bD
bX)
p
CO
T3
I
0)
;-
I
O
P
"3
>
W
p
(t>
£
a
p
cr
<u
;-H
-+-»
O
bX)
T3
P
<t>
'5
"3
O CO CO
;— 0 ^
« t> -s
.2 2
*r .*5 o
& T3 ^
CD Q cx
^ 2 u.
8 CO O
i-* CD
.£ ^ S
g p .S:
p ^ p
p .id
p ^ -o
a> CO X
V ^
CO O .P ,
o P 2
-= I ^ '
S U Q.
C 3 -S
Pd CO P
^ cx
§1 1
O Q £
§ «
s g
« g
bp ^
« 8
Jp CO
« ^
“t=
.p a>
"S ^
CD -G
£ c/f
Cm
^ p
+-»
CO <D
p s
Id ^
o 'P
p
I
o
a>
cx
CO
p
P
O
o
<N
P
5 p
t2
c« ^
bX) ^
p Jd
•p: o
^ p
CD CO
£ c/T
— bX)
p p
§ I i
bX) £ g
—4
o p ^
P e P
I S)8
w) tj ■§
P P
« -o =
« g «
ir O >
Q O W
o CO
2 s
p- £
o ^
.2 o
'C2 id
o Ou
«l
P CO
o CO
.2 1>
+-► CO .
O w ■
11-
cx CO
brf ^
^ 8
CO
•S
CO
p
O
CO
a>
•p
p
o
P o
o o
CO CX
o c
(D 4-(
td
P ^
Id £
> s
W P-.
(U
£
.2 .t: 3
cr
(D
O
CX
to
o W)
X5 HD
■2,^
2 «
'C P
^ Q
3
.2 o
O §
CO Pd
•S S
O Id
S §
CO
a-'S
cx tsi
J-t ’p
^ £?
.2. o
B cx
P o
^ <l>
p >
> o
W Q
'cooO’— '^ONCN'P**^
oooov^r-or^'^^asr^csr-oovo
OOOOO^OOOO^^OOO
000000000000000
<mpQCQCQCQm0Q<:0Q0QP3CQpQffl
TRAINING ANALYSIS
Occupational survey data are one of many sources of information which can be used to
assist in the development of a training program relevant to the needs of personnel in their first
enlistment. Factors which may be used in evaluating training include the overall description of
. the job being performed by first-enlistment personnel and their overall distribution across career
ladder jobs, percentages of first-job (1-24 months TAFMS) or first-enlistment (1-48 months
TAFMS) members performing specific tasks, as well as TE and TD ratings (previously explained
in the SURVEY METHODOLOGY section)
First-Enlistment Personnel
In this study, there are 63 members in their first enlistment (1-48 months TAFMS)
representing 28 percent of the total survey sample. Figure 2 reflects the distribution of first-
enlistment personnel within the career ladder. As expected, most of their duty time is spent on
training activities. Table 15 displays the relative percent of time spent on duties by first-
enlistment persormel. Reviewing the table, it is clearly evident that most first-enlistment
personnel are primarily performing tasks under Duty E (Conducting Global Survival Training)
and Duty J (Conducting Evasion Training). Table 16 lists representative tasks performed by
first-enlistment personnel. Most involve global survival training tasks.
FIGURE 2
FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL JOBS (N = 63)
21
TABLE 15
RELATIVE PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL
(N=63)
PERCENT
TIME
SPENT
A PERFORMING INSTRUCTOR DUTIES AND TEACHING TECHNIQUES 12
B PERFORMING MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES 4
C PERFORMING GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL 1
ORDER SYSTEM ACTIVITIES
D PERFORMING GENERAL SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT ACTIVITIES 2
E CONDUCTING GLOBAL SURVIVAL TRAINING 39
F CONDUCTING OPEN SEAS SURVIVAL TRAINING 2
G CONDUCTING PARACHUTING AND EGRESS TRAINING 2
H CONDUCTING MEDICAL TRAINING 11
I CONDUCTING ROUGHLAND TRAVEL AND EVACUATION *
TRAINING
J CONDUCTING EVASION TRAINING 27
K CONDUCTING RESISTANCE TRAINING 1
22
TABLE 16
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AFSC ITOXl
FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL
(N=63)
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
TASKS _ _ _ _ _ — - - -
A0027 Present lessons using demonstration performance techniques
A0024 Prepare lesson plans r. i • i^koi
E0208 Conduct training on selection and maintenance of course of rave m g
environments
E0184 Conduct training on use oftopographic features for navigation
EO 1 90 Conduct training on construction and maintenance of shelters in global
environments
E0201 Conduct training on preparation of water in global environments
EO 1 89 Conduct training on selection of shelter construction sites in global
environments
E0205 Conduct training on prioritization of survivor needs
E0200 Conduct training on location and procurement of water in globa
environments . , •
EO 1 82 Conduct training on determination of location in global environments
EO 1 88 Conduct training on improving protection of naturally occurring shelters
E0202 Conduct training on storage of water in global environments
E02 1 2 Conduct training on tying knots
E0178 Conduct training on guiding recovery forces in global environments
EOl 87 Conduct training on location of naturally occurring shelters in global
environments
E0203 Conduct training on personal hygiene in global environments
E0204 Conduct training on sanitation in global environments
A0029 Present lessons using instructional aids
EOl 85 Conduct training on construction of fires in global environments
E0207 Conduct training on satisfying individual needs, other than in captivity
EO 1 80 Conduct training on use of aircrew signaling devices in global environments
EOl 77 Conduct training on recovery site selection in global environments
EOl 95 Conduct training on walking techniques in global
A0032 Present lessons using time and circumstance instruction in operational
environments
AOOlO Critique student performances
J0300 Conduct training on five phases of evasion
E0220 Conduct training on use of COLDER principle in global environments
J0308 Conduct training on concealment techniques under evasion conditions
J0307 Conduct training on camouflage techniques under evasion conditions
97
97
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
95
94
94
94
94
94
94
92
92
92
92
92
92
^Average Number of Tasks Performed - 101
23
Training Emphasis ('TE') and Task Difficulty (TD) Data
TE and TD data are secondary factors that can assist technical school personnel in
deciding which tasks should be emphasized in entry-level training. These ratings, based on the
judgments of senior career ladder NCOs working at operational units, are collected to provide
training personnel with a rank-ordering of those tasks in the JI considered important for first-
enlistment personnel training (TE) along with a measure of the difficulty of those tasks (TD).
When combined with data on the percentages of first-enlistment personnel performing tasks,
comparisons can then be made to determine if training adjustments are necessary. For example,
tasks receiving high ratings on both task factors (TE and TD), accompanied by moderate to high
percentages performing, may warrant resident training. Those tasks receiving high task factor
ratings but low percentages performing may be more appropriately planned for OJT programs
within the career ladder. Low task factor ratings may highlight tasks best omitted from training
for first-enlistment personnel but this decision must be weighed against percentages of personnel
performing the tasks, command concerns, and criticality of the tasks.
Table 17 lists the tasks having the highest TE ratings, as well as the percentages of first-
job, first-enlistment, and TD ratings for each task. TE ratings for ITOXl first-enlistment airmen
were very high due to the nature of the career ladder. Table 18 shows TD raters annotating the
conduct of resistance training to be among the most difficult tasks to learn.
24
TABLE 17
DUTY AFSC ITOXl TASKS WITH HIGHEST TRAINING EMPHASIS RATINGS
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
TASKS
TNG
EMP
1ST
JOB
ist
ENL
■ TASK
DIFF
A0027
Present lessons using demonstration performance techniques
8.62
100
97
5.62
A0032
Present lessons using time and circumstance instruction in
operational environments
8.53
95
92
5.22
J0307
Conduct training on camouflage techniques under evasion
conditions
8.34
95
92
5.48
J0308
Conduct training on concealment techniques under evasion
conditions
8.34
95
92
5.52
J0311
Conduct training on evasion movement techniques
8.31
95
90
5.82
A0029
Present lessons using instructional aids
8.28
100
94
5.11
E0200
Conduct training on location and procurement of water in
global environments
8.25
100
95
5.47
E0201
Conduct training on preparation of water in global
environments
8.25
100
95
4.56
E0185
Conduct training on construction of fires in global
environments
8.19
100
94
5.46
H0267
Conduct training on prevention and treatment of dehydration
8.16
81
81
5.30
J0322
Conduct training on use of aircrew signaling devices under
evasion conditions
8.12
90
90
5.39
J0300
Conduct training on five phases of evasion
8.12
95
92
5.70
E0196
Conduct training on location and procurement of food in
global environments
8.12
100
94
5.53
J0321
Conduct training on procuring water under evasion conditions
8.12
90
90
5.40
AOOlO
Critique student performances
8.09
86
92
5.10
c A'y
J0306
Conduct training on locating recovery sites under evasion
conditions
8.09
95
92
5.43
E0202
Conduct training on storage of water in global environments
8.09
100
95
4.40
E0197
Conduct training on use of edibility tests
8.06
100
95
4.60
E0205
Conduct training on prioritization of survivor needs
8.06
100
95
5.19
J0312
Conduct training on evasion shelter site selection and use
8.06
90
90
5.32
Mean TE Rating is 4.46, and Standard Deviation is 2.59 (High TE - 7.05)
Mean TD Rating is 5.00, and Standard Deviation is 1 .0
25
r- ^ <N
(N <N CN VO <N
3 ^ JC?
^ ^ Os
ON o m oo r^
o m vr> cN m o
cN ^ cn ^ <N
Ofn»r^mvor^^m(^voorNj
VO CN oo
Cs) ^ ^
oooooomOml^f^ovNOmoooo^moooroo
cN m r<i <N
m<Nty^cN^r<ir<i(NcN
OOOVNOOOO
OOOOinOOOO
0 0^00
(SI^^OOOOVNCMOr-C^C^CNONOO^CNCNONOOr-'VOCN^
\qvovqvovovNir^voio^'^'^'^rorncnrnrncNCNCN(N<N<N
vovovovdvo'ovoNovovovovovovovovo'Ovo'ONovovo^o'o
2 5 3
§■^1
M I I,
Cm
O O o
£ C c/3
O O c '
B B ^
x: a.
xz i:z Vi •
Xi Xi P
C3 CC 5
P
CO CO rx ’
o a> W)
c c 2
o O CL
I &JD bO bD
c c c
•O no o ’
c c >
o o o
O U Q <
bO^ X
o o to.
O X P
^<JO
O w M
^ ^ tS
O CO ’
a X O
cr c zs
•fl o .2- i
X! O C '
I
MS -■
.S =3 2Pi
O CL
CJ X!
TO O
C tH
o ^
U ^ (
2> a.<
£ =3
CC o
2 ?P £ o
c: o j=j
I 1^2
'Z .S" O
c2 £ -S:
MOO
'JO <0 D
X
B
Cm
O
O
o
•M
Ou
C+H
o
o
£
'S
O
a
cb
bO
IS
a
2 o
M ^
'i*
G
Ut
O
-<->
CL
CO
a
CO
CO
G Ui
CT" O
G
o
G
a
G
43
O
O
bf) ^
O
O
a
C
c
C
C
G
G
G G g
Mn ^
c
o
O
o
o
O
O
O
’S ^ 2
bD o
o
bO
bO
bO
bO
bD
bO
bO
G bD.2
.£ bO
bO
.s
.s
.S
.£
.£
.£
•S
CO C CO
.s .s
.£
'£
[B
!§
[B
[B
!s
!s
G G <L>
O .5 G
G S
Ui .G
’c
■*4->OOt>OOOOOOM»
czsozszsoPzszsDc:
a>T3T0T0T0T3^T0T3’O O
S^CCCCGCGCn*^
MOOOOOOOOOtL
pHOOcjaocjuaua.
g ^ ^
.g «<-»
So o
O G
o o o
Q a u
NOcncsvNON^'^cNoo
rnmmOfn2Sf^C)05^cn2®rr»mmcommO?Noo®®m
ooooo<^ooo<No^ooooooo^oo^o
so
(N
Specialty Training Standard rSTS")
A comprehensive review of the AFSC ITOXl CFETP, dated February 1994, matched STS
items to survey data. Although STS paragraphs containing general knowledge information,
mandatory entries, subject-matter-knowledge-only requirements, or supervisory responsibilities
were matched, they were not included in the final analysis. Task knowledge and performance
elements of the STS were compared against the standard set forth in AETCI 36-2601 and AFI
36-2623 (i.e., include tasks performed or knowledge required by 20 percent or more of the
personnel in skill levels (or TAFMS groups) of the AFS).
Any STS paragraph or subparagraph with matched tasks performed by 20 percent or more of
members is considered to be supported and should be retained in the STS. Overall, the STS
provides a very comprehensive coverage of the work performed by personnel in the career
ladder. Even though some elements of the STS did not have high percentages of personnel
performing matched tasks, the fact that the supporting tasks were a part of an identifiable job
being performed within the career ladder supports the retention of the STS elements involving
parachuting, roughland, and resistance training (see Table 19). Obviously, the career ladder must
retain these STS elements in order to respond to required SERE job functions.
There are few technical tasks performed by more than 20 percent of all respondents that are
not matched to STS elements (see Table 20). These tasks deal with combat recovery; parachute
assemblies; and aircrew life support equipment. Training personnel should consider thes
unreferenced tasks to determine if inclusion in the STS is justifed.
27
w
.2Q
<
o
<
H
<
Q
C/3 5!
O 2
o
^ ij!;3
''’- si
. CQ
pi;
o
pH
00 pu
O {-H
CO W
Sg
c/D ^
H
C/3
TSK
DIF
6.47
6.42
4.57
4.49
6.52
4.79
5.81
6.47
ZVL
7-
LVL
26
39
39
38
27
m
04
00
28
5-
LVL
cn
26
m
CN
m
m
22
CO
t-H
m
24
3-
LVL
0
0
-
cn
m
cn
00
vn
0
1ST
ENL
(N
(N
0
VO
04
VO
04
1ST
JOB
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TNG PROF
EMP CODE
B
6.28
A
6.78
2c
5.81
2b
5.41
A
2.06
2b
5.34
3c
6.50
2b
4.59
2b
6.66
.S;
*•^3
Ou
c^
O
W)
.S
*c
-a
CO
Q CO
S <D
•C ^
I ^
§ o
>»
O CO
is ^
'W
^ a
^ x>
I' s
C3 O
O
? o
Bo CO
^ §
^ -
S, B
o
&
o
C/D]
C/D
<\
W|
PQ
Hh
s
Pij
C/D
H
C/D
O'
-s:
o
1
2
a
I
a
o
t»c
c
's
*S
o
33
C
o
U
o
o bO
5s CJ
.33
Ut
^ 33
'O
S H
^ *S
4f c
^ o
^ CJ
Cm
^ O
O O
Ci> -O
^ o
Cm
s: o
^ <D
t\ s?
o
o
St
s
St
.§
5; bX)
? !=!
^3 ^-
a
=0 o
St ^
l«
St ,<D
bS Jt3
33
a>
s
33
O
*>
a
CD
cj
<D
CO
C
CD
CU
o
S
I
CO
<D
u.
^ -2
o V.
<D
O
CO
CD
O
■>
s: ^
Cii O
&
s; o
S> o
2
?; o
2
bo Oh
O
bO
.s
’c
c
o
bX)
c
;j a
Q I
§1
Q O
Ps m
o
00 W
St
1
<3
O
S
<ti ‘5
^ tH
2 -
^ 33
^ O
:::) o
m
in fs
VO O
(N Ph
-S 3
CD
CO
Cii
bX)
33
b-S
I 2
O
^ 2
CD O
-o
CD 33
^ O
^ O
Ov
CN
O <N
1^ O
<N Ph
1
!-
.5 §
•5 S
? 3
r^ O
t-i O
CD -O
2 'o
?S i-
O o
bs ^
CD
CO
Vh
33
O
o
o-
o
St
cii
St
O
I'S
o S
0 Q
r<i
-I
<N <
CD
£
Oh
cr
o
O
hO
o
cc3
;-.
CCS
Oh
bX)
33
S
Cm
O
-o
bJD
£
*£
s? J
^ o
^s: bX)
^ -S
» .£
-s; d
o *-
Q
^ 0
St 33
Q U
50
rn O
Co
CD
in
CD
O
o
I
St
O
o
§
2
1“ »c
§ o
*5:2 O
§, ^
0^ .s
^ -s
Q 2
o *<->
S t3
?< o
vP 'O
^ c
^ o
31, O
cs
VO
^ o
?n X
a
’£
bX)
o
£
Ui
,0
St ^
'32 CO
CS o
2 33
2 3r
^ ’£
5S CD
O ^
bO
^ 33
^ £
CD .=
•S'!
^ o
o bO
^ .£
^ .£
.St CCS
i5 ^
.1 o
^ 33
O
u
<j->
^ S
CO
I
Cm
CD
cd
T3
33
CCS
bX)
CCS
O.
o
I-
2 s
S;^
bO
C
o
"O
o
cr
CD
O
33
CCS
CO
I
2S CO
C5^ CD
••H* M
Si e
•§ §
^ bO
CD
o
St
d
03 o
CD O
-o
CD C
k5? O
^:) o
VO
m
o
ov
c4
Q
C/D
VO
!l
5
s
w
H
o
o
Q
C/D
O
O
1
Id
e
00
fS
JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS
An examination of the job satisfaction indicators of various groups can give career ladder
managers a better understanding of some of the factors which may affect the job performance of
airmen in the career ladder. Attitude questions covering job interest, perceived utilization ot
talents and training, sense of accomplishment from work, and reenlistment intentions were
included in the survey booklet to provide indications of job satisfaction.
Table 21 presents job satisfaction data for APSC ITOXl TAFMS groups, together wiA
TAFMS data for a comparative sample of Direct Support career ladders surveyed in 199 .
Across all three TAFMS groups, AFSC ITOXl members rated their job interest, utilization of
talents utilization of training, and sense of accomplishment gained from work considerably
higher’than the comparative sample. Reenlistment intentions are also rated higher across all year
groups.
An indication of how job satisfaction perceptions have changed over time is provided m
Table 22 where again TAFMS data for the current survey respondents are presented along with
data from the last occupational survey report. Reviewing this table, current survey satisfaction
ratings are relatively similar to the AFSC 121X0 groups. The career group rated the utilization
of training slightly lower than the previous survey, while rating job interest and utilization ot
talents slightly higher. Reenlistment intentions are lower for all three TAFMS groups than the
previous survey.
In Table 23, a review of the job satisfaction data for personnel in the specialty jobs
identified in this survey reveals that airmen in almost all jobs responded very positively to all the
indicators listed. The exception was the Standards and Evaluation Job incumbents who indicated
lower ratings to job interest, utilization of talents, utilization of training, and accomplishment
gained from work than members of other jobs.
30
COMPARISON OF JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS BY TAFMS GROUPS
(PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)
Comparative sample of Direct Support career ladders surveyed in 1996 include the 2T0X1, 2T2X1, 3C1X1, and 3E1X1 AFSCs.
Information not included in previous survey
S|
c/3
!I3
§
o
oo
o o
CO CO
oo 1—
CO
c/3
W
CQ
<
CO
s
cu
O
c/3
W
CO
CO
I
Note: Columns may not add to 100 percent due to rounding or nonresponse
SPECIAL ANALYSIS
This survey assessed which career courses (see Table 24) and what forms (see Table 25) the
survey respondents have completed or complete in their normal duties. It is interesting to note
how few people use forms in this career field.
IMPLICATIONS
This survey was initiated to provide current job and task data for use in evaluating the
AFMAN 36-2108 Specialty Description and appropriate training documents.
Survey results clearly indicate that the present classification structure, as described in the
latest specialty description accurately portrays the jobs performed in this career ladder. Career
ladder training documents appear, on the whole, to be well supported by survey data. As was
pointed out in the JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS section, job satisfaction responses by
AFSC ITOXl personnel reported the utilization of training is adequate, thus indicating support
for the overall training system. Additionally, the career ladder progression is good, with the
move fi-om survival training instructor work at the 3- and 5-skill levels to supervisory and
management at the 7- and 9-skill levels.
34
TABLE 24
COURSES COMPLETED
(PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)
SV90A Water Survival Training, Nonparachuting 94
SV80A Combat Survival Training 90
SV86A Water Survival Training 89
SV87A Arctic Survival Training 87
Physiological Training 47
Emergency Medical Technician Course 41
Airborne Parachutist School (Ft. Benning) 40
Roughland Evacuation 39
SV81B Survival Instructor Indoctrination Course 33
Interrogator Instructor Training 29
S V 84A Underwater Egress T raining 23
Academic Instructor School (AIS) 21
Canadian Bush School 9
SV81D SERE Training Instructor 7-Skill Level Upgrade Course 7
Other 7
Dynamics of Intemationl Terrorism (Hurlburt Field) 6
Pararescue Training Mountain Phase 6
Chemical Biological Radiological Warfare School 5
Technical Training Instructor Course (TTIC) 5
Cross Culture Communications (Hurlburt Field) 4
TABLE 25
FORMS USED
(PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)
AF 1297 (Temporary Issue Receipt) 60
AF 457 (USAF Hazard Report) 3 8
AF 2005 (Issue/Tumln Request) 33
AF 25 1 9 (All Purpose Checklist) 32
AF 9 (Request for Purchase) 27
AF 332 (Base Civil Engineer Work Request) 24
DD 1577 (Unserviceable (Condemned) Tag Materiel) 21
AF 2432 (Key Issue Log) 20
AFTO 391 (Parachute Log) 20
AFTO 392 (Parachute Repack, Inspection and Component Record) 19
DD 1574 (Serviceable Tag Materiel) 19
DD 15772 (Unserviceable (Reparable) Tag Materiel) 17
None 16
AF 68 (Munitions Authorization Record) 1 5
AF 2413 (Supply Control Log 13
AF 1994 (Fuels Issue/Defiiel Document (DOD)) 1 1
DD 1149 (Requisition and Invoice/Shipping Document) 1 1
DD 200 (Financial Liability Investigation of Property Loss) 1 0
35
APPENDIX A
SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED
BY SPECIALTY JOB GROUPS
36
TABLE A1
SURVIVAL INSTRUCTOR CLUSTER (STG037)
PERCENT
MEMBERS
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMING
E0201 Conduct training on preparation of water in global environments 99
E0200 Conduct training on location and procurement of water in global 98
environments
EOl 80 Conduct training on use of aircrew signaling devices in global 97
environments
EOl 78 Conduct training on guiding recovery forces in global environments 97
E0205 Conduct training on prioritization of survivor needs 97
E0207 Conduct training on satisfying individual needs, other than in captivity 97
E0202 Conduct training on storage of water in global environments 97
EOl 97 Conduct training on use of edibility tests 97
EOl 77 Conduct training on recovery site selection in global environments 96
EOl 96 Conduct training on location and procurement of food in global 96
environments
A0027 Present lessons using demonstration performance techniques 95
E0220 Conduct training on use of COLDER principle in global enviromnents 95
EOl 85 Conduct training on construction of fires in global environments 94
A0024 Prepare lesson plans 94
A0029 Present lessons using instructional aids 93
AOOlO Critique student performances 93
EOl 82 Conduct training on determination of location in global enviromnents 93
E0208 Conduct training on selection and maintenance of course of travel in 93
global environments
EOl 84 Conduct training on use of topographic features for navigation 93
A0032 Present lessons using time and circumstance instruction in operational 88
environments
37
TABLE A2
SUPERVISOR JOB (STG030)
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS
BO 108 Participate in general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings,
conferences, or workshops, other than conducting
B0043 Conduct general meetings, such as staff meetings, briefings,
conferences, or workshops
A0006 Conduct briefings, or debriefings
BO 1 26 Supervise military personnel
B0091 Evaluate personnel for promotion, demotion, reclassification, or
special awards
A0019 Evaluate effectiveness of training procedures
BO 1 3 1 Write recommendations for awards or decorations
BO 123 Schedule personnel for temporary duty (TDY) assignments, leaves,
or passes
B0036 Advise staff or unit personnel on training matters, other than OJT
B0066 Direct administrative functions
BO 104 Interpret policies, directives, or procedures for subordinates
B0090 Evaluate personnel for compliance with performance standards
AOO 1 1 Determine training requirements for instructors
B0055 Counsel subordinates concerning personal matters
BO 1 30 Write performance reports or supervisory appraisals
A0004 Brief organizational personnel concerning training programs or
matters
BO 1 1 2 Plan briefings, conferences, or workshops
B0092 Evaluate personnel to determine training needs
BO 1 22 Review drafts of regulations, manuals, or other directives
B0058 Determine or establish work assignments or priorities
CO 1 6 1 Write minutes of briefings, conferences, or meetings
B0095 Evaluate work schedules
B0096 Evaluate workload requirements
B0070 Direct training functions
BO 1 33 Write staff studies, surveys, or routine reports, other than training
or inspection reports
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
100
100
100
94
94
94
94
94
89
89
89
89
89
89
89
83
83
83
83
78
78
78
72
61
56
38
TABLE A3
STANDARDS AND EVALUATION JOB (STG031)
PERCENT
MEMBERS
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS _ PERFORMING
BO 128 Write inspection reports 100
B0044 Conduct instructor evaluations 100
A0021 Evaluate training methods or techniques of instructors 100
AOOl 9 Evaluate effectiveness of training procedures 1 00
A0018 Evaluate courseware 100
BOOS 6 Advise staff or unit personnel on training matters, other than OJT 100
B0090 Evaluate personnel for compliance with performance standards 80
BOl 03 Inspect personnel for compliance with military standards 80
COl 35 Compile data for records, reports, logs, or trend analyses 80
B0042 Conduct formal course evaluations 80
BO 1 2 1 Plan self-inspection or self-assessment programs 80
A0006 Conduct briefings, or debriefings 80
B0047 Conduct self-inspections or self-assessments 80
B0063 Develop or establish work schedules 80
BO 122 Review drafts of regulations, manuals, or other directives 80
A0002 Advise staff or unit personnel on on-the-job training (OJT) 80
matters
A0004 Brief organizational personnel concerning training programs or 80
matters
B0082 Evaluate inspection report findings or inspection procedures 80
BO 104 Interpret policies, directives, or procedures for subordinates 60
B0092 Evaluate personnel to determine training needs 60
B0058 Determine or establish work assignments or priorities 60
B0049 Conduct staff assistance visits, inspections, or audits 60
B0062 Develop or establish work methods or procedures 60
L
TABLE A4
RESISTANCE CLUSTER (STG018)
REPRESENTATIVE TASKS
AOO 1 0 Critique student performances
K0348 Conduct training on use of resistance techniques dtaring
propaganda efforts
K0334 Conduct training on establishment of individual resistance
postures
K0343 Conduct training on use of Code of Conduct during captivity
K0347 Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during
interrogations
K0344 Conduct training on use of Geneva Conventions during captivity
K0336 Conduct training on interrogation processes
K0345 Conduct training on use of Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) during captivity
K0327 Conduct training on captor methods for exploiting Prisoners of
War (PW)
K0328 Conduct training on captor objectives for exploiting PWs
A0006 Conduct briefings, or debriefings
A003 1 Present lessons using role-playing methods of instruction
K0338 Conduct training on organizing individual needs in captivity
K0341 Conduct training on techniques to combat psychological stress
during captivity
K0329 Conduct training on combat captivity conditions
K0346 Conduct training on use of resistance techniques during
indoctrinations
K0330 Conduct training on cross-gender aspects of captivity
K0326 Conduct training on adapting survival principles during captivity
K033 1 Conduct training on establishment of covert communication
techniques
K0337 Conduct training on organizing group needs in captivity
A0009 Coimsel trainees on training progress
A0008 Conduct OJT
PERCENT
MEMBERS
PERFORMING
100
97
97
95
92
92
89
89
89
86
84
76
76
76
76
73
73
73
73
68
65
62
40