Active Duty vs National Guard Green Berets (Part 3)
Time for an update…
I wrote Part 1 and Part 2 over a year ago, and they still hold true. But there’s been a fair amount of discussion lately and a great deal of conjecture, braggadocio, and no shortage of misinformation. And my DMs are suffering from the rhetoric. So, I thought an update would be in order.
As noted in Part 1, the standards for SFAS are universal. There is no separate AD or NG standard and there is zero consideration for unit manning. The Cadre do not care about demographics. One standard. But there is some difference in selection rates, and we should understand the context before we make to many conclusions. I’ll reiterate the publicly available information for selection rates.
The three SFAS Daily Summaries provide a very small snapshot from 2021, but give good granularity across demographics. This USSOCOM report is more longitudinal and covers six years ending in 2017, but doesn’t break down via demographics other than O vs E. I’ve personally analyzed all of the Selection data from 1989 through 2021 as part of my research and the trends are pretty consistent. The past 18 months have been unique, but only in overall downward trend. The individual demographic groups remain mostly consistent. Officers have been the least impacted group holding mostly steady.
What the sum of the data tells us for selection rates is:
Officers: ~50%
National Guard Enlisted (NGE): ~45%
18X (including NG): ~40%
Active Duty Enlisted (ADE): ~25%
I’ve discussed previously why officers do well and what the exigent circumstances that shade the 18X numbers are, but we haven’t closely examined what influences the National Guard numbers. Why do NG guys do so well? You might view this raw data and conclude that your best shot at earning your beret would be simply go via the Guard. That’s certainly the assertion that has shaded recent postings. That’s a fool’s argument and lacks a real understanding of the process.
You must understand the process, the culture, MOS disparities, and much more to understand the numbers. First, the process can vary widely from State to State. What holds true for Utah might not hold true for California or Florida or Alabama. Sometimes there are stark differences from Company to Company even. These differences are important and are a primary reason why I 1) stay away from the recruiting/career counselor process and 2) always defer to the recruiters and Training Dets.
At the core of the process is the Special Forces Evaluation (SFE) and Special Forces Readiness Evaluation (SFRE) events. We’ve posted some of these events previously, and they again can vary widely from event to event and State to State, but they are absolutely invaluable in doing exactly what they say —evaluate your readiness for SFAS. Many are open to Active Duty and even civilians. You’re a fool if you’re not tapping into these opportunities. I’ve heard of “pass” rates from the mid-50% range all the way down to zero finishers. But what remains true is that you have to pass a screening before you’re allowed to go to SFAS via NGE. Given that prerequisite, shouldn’t NGE SFAS selection rates be higher?
The process is very good. The Training Dets are skilled and perhaps more importantly they are very dedicated…culture matters, but it’s dishonest at best to say that best way to get Selected is to go Guard. Given the raw data the best way is go Officer. Given a deeper understanding of the exigent factors ADE might be next. 18X, even with the various gates they have to negotiate pre-SFAS is probably next. And while there’s no data to unequivocally conclude anything, I would say that NGE is the most difficult. You have to pass multiple gates to even qualify for SFAS. You have a bad day or a bad event at an evaluation and you’re out.
So, when uninformed and over-opinionated idiots hand out life altering career advice, and they do so with such unearned confidence and temerity, I give pause. NGE fail at similar rates and for similar reasons as everyone else. PFA failures, Land Nav drops, IVWs, and Ruck/Run. The nonsense narrative to “jUsT dOn’T qUiT!” is just that, nonsense. And to insinuate that I’m under-informed or just selling books is fucking idiotic. Nobody gives more timely, more accurate, and more nuanced advice than I do. For free. So you can take your soft shoe profile and shove it up your ass. Fucking barracks lawyer.
The decision to go 18X does put you at the potential mercy of “needs of the Army”, but you’ll be Infantry. Infantry unit culture is much more conducive to success at SFAS than any other branch. And going 18X puts you in a cohort of likeminded and focused individuals. For all of its faults, the 18X pipeline is the fastest and likely best route to SF, except for Officer. The recent SFAS out-counseling reports of “not enough experience” aren’t talking about army experience, they’re talking about life experiences…maturity.
Getting assigned to Group is great, but it is not a significant contributor to success at SFAS. Anyone who has spent any amount of time in SOF knows this. The physical nature alone makes Military Intelligence less conducive to success at SFAS. You’d be better off being a mechanic or UAV operator. …gO To gRoUp aNd GeT yOuR TS/ScI bro…yeah, go ahead. Maybe the barracks lawyer with a soft shoe profile with no idea what he’s talking about should just focus on himself.
Choose your experts wisely.
