Report from AITB-E: Observed Factors in Course Attrition
by Advanced Infantry Training Battalion-East
Course attrition within the infantry training continuum from the advanced courses to the Infantry Unit Leader Course (IULC) has steadily increased in the past four fiscal years (FYs). The increased attrition rate we assess to be attributed to student misconduct, apathy, degraded hard skills, and Marines who struggled to lead amidst chaos due to a lack of pre-course experience.
The purpose of this article is to disseminate observed trends associated with attrition within the infantry training continuum which have been noted at the Advanced Infantry Training Battalion (AITB)-East. The scope of this article is limited to FY19-FY23 course execution for the advanced courses and unit leader courses on the East Coast; specifically, Advanced Infantry Marine Course (AIMC), Advanced Mortarman Course (AMC), Advanced Machine Gun Course (AMGC), Advanced Anti-Tank Missile Gunner Course (AATMGC), and the unit leaders courses, those being Infantry Small Unit Leader Course (ISULC) and Infantry Unit Leader Course (IULC).
Character
Misconduct is one of the largest factors leading to in-course failures. Conduct drops from a course can include refusal to train, integrity violations, out of course misconduct, or deliberately failing to complete assignments within the course. AIMC in FY22 peaked on the misconduct chart, with 37 out of 301 students being dropped for conduct related incidences. FY23 continued to have another high conduct drop rate, with 21 conduct drops out of 304 total students. The FY22-23 combined drop rate led to 10% of all drops within those two FYs being attributed to misconduct. In contrast, the prior three fiscal years (FY19-21) only experienced a combined 24 students dropped for misconduct out of 835 students total enrolled, sitting at mere 3% dropped for misconduct. As we are using AIMC as the example, it should be noted that this trend is more predominately observed within the advanced courses, likely due to a more junior population of the Marines attending the course than was historically the case. Overall, misconduct drops have more than tripled in the past two years for AIMC.
After misconduct, we see a general apathy towards the course as a large contributor to attrition. Continuing with our analysis of FY19-21, AIMC experienced 77 out of 835 students dropped for academic reasons: 9% of all drops. In FY22-23, AIMC experienced 139 out of 605 total enrolled dropped for academic reasons, drastically rising to a 23% academic drop rate. Academic drops have more than doubled in the past two years for AIMC. It is rarely the case that Marines are dropped academically when they put genuine effort into learning the skill being taught. Academic drops are often attributed to Marines who do not complete the assignment as required, are given opportunities to remediate, and simply do not complete the task.
Brilliance in the Basics
The next contributing factor to attrition within the 03XX training continuum is difficulty with basic hard skills. When analyzing Marines dropped from AIMC class 1-23 for academic reasons, land navigation is an identified trend. This trend is commonly identified on day one of the course during the conduct of the initial performance assessment (IPA). In class 1-23 for example, of the 36 Marines who were dropped for academic reasons, 22 of those failed land navigation on the IPA and 14 of those went on to be dropped from the course academically due to failing land navigation. That comes to a course total 16% of attrition assigned to land navigation.
This is a trend we see manifest itself most commonly within the advanced courses, however IULC and ISULC are not immune to attrition caused by land navigation failures. When looking at the last four iterations of the IULC Core Competency Assessment (CCA)1, we only see (1) of the (22) CCA failures not fail a land navigation evaluation. Land navigation on the CCA consists of basic 1000-2000 level 03XX Training and Readiness standards such as plotting a point on a map. Within the last four iterations of ISULC, 25 out of 108 students failed the land navigation practical application, that being simple navigation from station to station along a gravel road. This amounts to 23% failing basic 1000-2000 level land navigation. While the CCA is no longer a hard gate for entry into IULC, land navigation is still tested. These are skills which entry level Marines are expected to perform at the Infantry Training Battalion. A Marines' inability to execute basic skills such as plotting a point on a map are leading to attrition within courses at AITB-E.
Fighter-Leader
A final trend observed in many of the courses at AITB is the inability to perform when thrust into a leadership role and being challenged within a chaotic environment. This comes to light through Field Leadership Evaluations (FLE). During FLEs, students are assigned leadership billets and expected to lead a formation through live fire evolutions or force on force exercises. During the conduct of IULC-E 3-23, eight out of nine academic drops were attributed to leadership failures during FLEs. When course cadre identify students that are appearing to struggle, many times they will be given opportunities for a “soft FLE”, that is they put them in leadership positions during exercises such as the simulation lab, sand table exercises, etc. to provide the Marine with informal feedback and an additional opportunity to sharpen their leadership skills. These “soft FLEs” are not a Program of Instruction (POI) requirement, this is something instituted by the course cadres because they want to give students all available opportunities to be successful within their course. One potential explanation for this attrition during FLEs is the expansion of large-scale exercises. With exercises at the battalion and regimental level dominating a infantry battalion’s Training Exercise and Evaluation Plan (TEEP), Marines are getting less repetitions and sets at small unit level training than in the past.
A second possible contributor to the struggling within FLEs is the reduction of time Marines are spending in grade before being promoted to the next rank. Across the board, the Marine Corps has experienced a shortening of time in grade (TIG) and we are seeing effects of this specifically within the 03XX training continuum. According to the FY15 GySgt Selection Board Comparative Assessment, the average TIG for those on the E7 promotion board was 6.2 years. Similarly, when looking at the FY15 SSgt selection board statistics, we see 5.25 years as the average TIG. Those same statistics in FY23 are 3.8 years TIG to be in zone for GySgt and 3.9 years TIG for the SSgt selection board. Marines in 2015 on average spent approximately two more years in grade than they do now. Two lost years of sets and repetitions within their key billets has consequences for their professional development. Marines spending less time in grade before promoting contributes to increased challenges in demonstrating mastery of the standards by rank and MOS prescribed in the training and readiness manual. These standards are the foundation on which all AITB-E programs of instruction are built. Regardless of the reason, struggling to perform within the chaotic environment of a FLE is a leading cause of attrition within both ISULC and IULC.
Conclusions
After identifying contributing factors to in-course attrition, it is worth dispelling two myths about reasons for increased failure rates. First, we commonly hear that Marines coming from the supporting establishment inherently struggle more than those coming from the FMF at AITB courses. However, the data does not support the premise. The student body of IULC 1-24 was made up of all but two from supporting establishment Marines. Marines from the School of Infantry, Marine Corps Security Forces, and Marine Corps Recruiting Command all were successful within the course because of a common denominator; the desire to succeed.
Second, a common narrative is that Marines get dropped from AITB courses for failing a single incident. In the case of land navigation, Marines are given three attempts to pass before being removed from the course. In between those attempts, Marines are given ample opportunities to remediate their deficiencies with instructors. Instructors commonly stay until 2000-2100 helping students to learn the skills needed to be successful in the course. Additionally, most academic failures have had compounding struggles up until their ultimate failure. Again, with land navigation, a student who was able to barely pass their third attempt may continue to struggle with subsequent skills that rely on location awareness may fail for a follow-on task. The advanced and leader course cadres are never looking for a reason to drop a student.
As observed by the staff at AITB-East, there are many factors which contribute to attrition within the 03XX training continuum, spanning from AIMC to IULC. We understand that many of the factors listed in this paper are symptoms from Service-wide manpower issues. However, it is our hope that bringing them to light may assist infantry leaders in selecting the right Marines and helping to prepare them to succeed in their MOS progression courses. As an example, early registration gains the students access to course Moodle content, where the AITB-East cadre has seen a correlation between the amount of pre-course work completed on Moodle and in-course success. The team at AITB-East seeks to be in continuous contact with parent commands that send their Marines to these courses, particularly if the students are struggling. Leaders are always invited to observe training or any performance evaluation review boards as available. Together, we can support the development of more competent, capable infantrymen who are ready for the future fight.
For any questions specific to the advanced courses the POC is Capt Sam Odell. For unit leader courses the POC is Capt Luke Holley. All other AITB-East questions and inquiries can be sent to Maj Dan Chmelar and LtCol A. C. Eckert.
Have ideas or experiences that could benefit other infantry and reconnaissance leaders? We need to hear your voice! The Connecting File depends on the willingness of readers to share lessons learned. Read more here about how you can contribute to our community.
The opinions expressed above are those of the author and The Connecting File. They do not reflect the views of the Department of Defense, the United States Marine Corps, or any other government entity.
As of IULC 3-24, the CCA has been replaced with an initial performance assessment that executes the same events, but failure does not prevent a student from beginning the course
The training process for infantry MOS's has come a long way in 40 plus years. Having been a plank holder in the Infantry Training School, (converted from the 2nd MarDiv Infantry Training Company circa fall of 1979), this level of advanced training is extremely interesting to hear about. The fact that there is some concern about the level of students not making it to graduation is of concern to the authors is a good sign. One assumes that the 0311/31/41/51/52 Marines at the advanced course have the basic POI behind them have had time in the Fleet or related active duty command and are back for enhanced training to further their ability to support MAGTF operations at some point in the future. Without a doubt small unit leader capability and development is the absolute back bone of Marine leadership and very specifically to Marine Infantry. Fire team, squad, platoon level training is like harassment at TBS, ongoing and ever changing.
Getting to my observation, having read the entire post twice, the training sounds great, but there may be a morale problem of some kind, maybe not at the school, but a malaise none the less that is contributing to the failure rate. this is not hard to imagine and similar to problems we had in 1979-80 as the old ITS was ramping up and the pipeline was getting fed, not every young Marine wanted to be there, and we only had 4 weeks to accomplish the POI and get Marines to the FMF across the river to Camp LeJeune. To say that the period of 2019 to the present has been difficult for the officers and enlisted entrusted with the training is saying a great deal. Imagine the scuttlebutt of the Marines returning for advanced training. If the MLR and SIF are the path forward why bother with this advanced infantry training? Good question Marine.
We had some real issues and problems with the training, the initial POI itself, and just simply ramping up to meet training and graduation requirements. If there is no clarity for the students and what they are there for and ergo under motivated to be there, you have a problem. An angry unmotivated Marine is like a bad rash and it can spread fast. This not news to the authors. the questions is now what?
The post is as usual, is a very well written and important document, happy to provide further ancient insight and reasoning for this postulate of a morale issue, it needs more than a old 0302 wise guy throwing shade at the issue in a simplified manner. but, it has been and will remain so, that if you think you have a problem you do, until you find out you don't.
The connecting file is a great resource, the articles are timeless (mostly) and this response is meant to be positive and contributory.
Regarding the "Brilliance in the Basics" concern-especially 1000 and 2000 level skills that should have already been introduced at IMC and sustained in unit, why not implement a 03XX 1000 AND 2000 level proficiency exam that is part of annual training for all 03 Marines? Something like the CCA or IPA could work, and the sustainment interval is 1 year. 1 standard fleet wide from Hawaii to Lejeune so that everyone can be on the same page and friction is reduced for students preparing to attend advanced and unit leader courses.