DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE JOINT PERSONNEL RECOVERY AGENCY 10244 BURBECK ROAD, BLDG 358 In Reply Refer FT BELVOIR. VIRGINIA 22060-5805 JPRA MEMORANDUM FOR HEADQUARTERS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, NSJW HEADQUARTERS, MARJNE CORPS, Subject: DOD Evaluation of US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Course E-2D-0039 (U) 1. This Agency, as the Department of Defense Executive?Agent action of?ce for Code of Conduct related training, conducted an evaluation of Navy SERE High Risk Course E- 2D-0039, 26 February - 9 March 2007. The evaluation was conducted in accordance with DOD Instruction (DODI) 1300.21, "Code of Conduct Training and Education," 8 an 01, Executive Agent Instruction (EAI), "Requirements for Level Training in Support of the Code of Conduct," 1 May 01, EAI, "Policy for Quali?cation and Utilization of DOD Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) Jun 99, and Joint Staff message 282113ZFEB06, ?Interim Guidance for Core Captivity Curriculum,? which directs the use of the draft 3002.13, ?Personnel Recovery Educational and Training.? Areas of primary interest were training adequacy, consistency, adherence to DOD policy and guidance, and safety. 2. This evaluation was conducted by: Mr. Larry Schroeder, Chief, Oversight and QA Division Mr. Joe Miller, Chief, SERE Oversight Branch Mr. Tom Ellis, GG-13, Chief, Quality Assurance Branch Mr. Gary Percival, Chief, Human Factors Division 3. Area of Concern. The JPRA of?cial stance is that the water board should not be used as a physical pressure during Level SERB training. This position is based on factors that have the potential to affect not only students but the whole DOD SERE training program. The way the water board is most often employed, it leaves students defeated with no ability to resist while under pressure. Once a student is taught that they can be beaten, and there is no way to resist, it is difficult to develop hardiness. None of the other schools use the water board which leaves the San Diego school as a standout. 4. General Cements: a. The three ?ndings, one a repeat, at attachment 1 require official response by 31 July 07 indicating con'ective actions taken. b. Noteworthy accomplishments, as well as observations and recommendations in attachments two and three, are offered to assist your efforts in providing the highest quality training to all personnel attending the program. Response to these comments is not required. However, the majority of these recommendations must be corrected to ensure the course complies with emerging training standards and to ensure that SERE training remains uniform across DOD. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 1 of 8 ma: omens t1. ll '10 tvn'H HON cm c. My thanks to the entire school staff for their cooperation, professionalism, and positive attitude during the evaluation. We remain ready to assist in any way possible. - BRENDAN G. CLARE, Colonel, USAF Commander Attachments 1. Findings 2. Noteworthy Accomplishments 3. Observations and Recommendations c0py to: Of?ce of the Assistant Secretary of Defense/Global Security Affairs, Defense Prisoners of War and Missing Persons Of?ce DPMO) FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 2 of 8 FINDINGS l. 30 FINDING. ELO 4b(1). The policy and training guidance provided was incomplete IAW draft DoDl 3002.13 as required by .18 Msg, 2821132Feb06, para 4C. The information contained in the referenced paragraphs below was either missing or not presented to the required level of learning. CHANGE. Ensure all policy is included in the course to the required learning level in the appropriate lessons prior to their application in academic role-play or resistance training laboratories. [Ref: 3002.13, Encl 2, Paragraphs E2.2.2.l.l.2, E2.2.2.l.2, E2.2.2.l.3, E2.2.2.l.4, E2.2.3.2.2.2, E2.2.3.2.2.3, E2.2.4.l.3, E2.2.4.2.2.5, E2.2.5.1.1.2, E2.2.5.l.l.3, E2.2.5.2.2.3, E2.2.6.1.1, FINDING. ELO 4b(l 1). Students did not appropriately develop an Evasion Plan of Action (EPA). Students were given a worksheet during the EPA laboratory that did not require them to develOp the EPA. All initial actions, initial evasion movement goals and long term goals are to be planned by the students and documented in the EPA. All this information was ?lled out on their worksheets which did not require them to think about what actions they would take if isolated. (REPEAT FINDING) CHANGE. Include the requirement for students to plan their actions during development of their EPA. FINDING. The Academic Role-play Laboratories (ARL) did not meet the all of the ?ve qualitative requirements below and quantity requirements. CHANGE. The ARI. rounds must be of suf?cient length to (1) allow the instructor to adequately demonstrate the selected form(s) of exploitation, (2) shape student behavior, and for the student(s) to (3) effectively assess their captor(s), (4) identify the forms of exploitation, and (5) to successfully display appropriate resistance strategies and techniques. It typically takes a minimum of 15 minutes to achieve these requirements. At least 12 ARLs are required to ensure student comprehension of the required knowledge and skills versus the eight conducted. [Ref: Joint Staff message, 282113ZFeb06, para 33 and FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3 of 8 Attachment 1 NOTEWORTHY ACCOMPLISHMENTS l. The school staff is to be commended and has made some progress with implementing full spectrum SERE training. Their positive attitude, motivation, and efforts to date are good. The staff?s willingness to take on the remaining challenges will result in an improved SERE course that meets all requirements. However, additional resources are required to provide training to standard. 2. There was signi?cant improvement using physical and pressures during the resistance training laboratories. An excellent job was done reviewing the operating instructions and retraining the apprOpriate use of physical pressures the past few weeksexcessive force during application of physical pressure, and we saw some great examples of escalation of pressure and some good use of pressures. 3. The Interrogation lesson provided by P01 Stubbs was effectively designed and presented well. Revised video clips that fully represent the desired behavior will signi?cantly enhance the learning. 4. Eckerle?s evasion lesson was excellent. His level of current experience proved an exceptional source for additional information and relevant support material. 5. P01 Johnson provided outstanding recovery training during ?eld training. 6. The ?eld training leadership and staff are providing excellent training that meets all requirements. Their motivation, dedication and effort to be the best are clearly evident. The revised and consistently used Instructor Guides are indicative of it. 7. P01 Aguilar provided an excellent political indoctrination. He developed the exploitation and then helped the students to identify and resist it. 8. P01 Lozano was a standout in the RTL. Her ability to observe and identify problems the students were having in solving group dilemmas and then moving the students towards the objectives was very noteworthy. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4 of 8 Attachment 2 OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. This school stands alone in that there is no corporate knowledge. Typically every four years there is more than 100% turn over due to the all active duty force. We recommend that the school deveIOp strategic plans to maintain corporate knowledge. The plan could consider improving continuation training processes throughout the instructors? SERE career; maintaining clear, concise, updated documentation on training processes; or develOping positions and hiring long term training and program management personnel. Continuous training is critical to gaining and maintaining the necessary instructor expertise to ensure quality training. ACADEMIC TRAINING 2. Current instruction has not been suf?ciently updated from the core captivity curriculum. Recommend aligning the Spectrum and situational awareness lessons and PowerPoints to fully match the concepts explained in the SERE Training Instructor Reference Product (STIRP), ?Full Spectrum Captivity Training: A Background Paper on Concepts and Processes,? 13 Sep 06. Ensure all instructors fully understand these concepts. 3. The primary premise recognized as critical for success in ?ill Spectrum training was that there had to be a single skill set if all SERE training was to be conducted in one course. Currently, the resistance instruction does not provide the students with the knowledge and skill to establish an effective resistance posture as a POW, detainee, or hostage. Recommend all instructors thoroughly understand the ?single skill set" concepts and tactics, techniques, and procedures necessary for effective full spectrum captivity training. The captivity skill set is to survive (action plans, individual survival skills, ceping methods, and rapport building), communicate (inside and outside captivity), organize (overt and covert, leadership and followership), resist (identify exploitation, authorized communication, posture, and resistance techniques), and escape (rescue, release, negotiations). The main problem area in the course is with resistance skills, speci?cally posture. The three goals of an effective resistance posture for POWs, detainees, and hostages are apparent sincerity, innocence, and personal dignity. Students must know how to achieve these goals regardless of the captor group holding them. 4. Students must be able to understand the methods and techniques of exploitation plus the proper strategy to resist it prior to being exposed to laboratories. The exploitation lesson currently falls short of achieving a comprehension learning level similar to the way the interrogation lesson does since it primarily only de?nes the various means and methods. Recommend revising the lesson to include effective examples of all exploitation and the apprOpriate resistance strategies. Ending the lesson with a short quiz will test the students? knowledge and reinforce the learning. 5. The ARLs are needed to ensure students ?illy comprehend how to implement the appropriate action plan and resist exploitation. To achieve this, ARLs need to be conducted in a small group format of no more than 20 students per group so instructors can adequately assess student learning. Recommend implementing small group ARLs as soon as resources support doing so. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5 of 8 Attachment 3 6. Current training confuses the difference between leaving evidence of presence and proof of life. Recommend all instructors become familiar with the ?Leaving Evidence of Presence" STIRP, dated 8 Sep 06. The communication lesson will require increased emphasis on the TTP for both these concepts to achieve future training standards. 7. The organization lesson did not ?illy address covert organization. Recommend ensuring that the lesson provides a comprehension level of learning on covert organization security methodology and functions. Be sure to stress the importance of active participation by all followers in the organization. 8. The resolution lesson will require improved academic instruction on thorough escape planning, defeating facilities, and defeating security measures to achieve future training standards. 9. Recommend providing a video recording and playback capability that enables students to review their individual ARL performance after the critique. This is a powerful learning tool that should be implemented as soon as possible. This is also an excellent instructor training tool to enable instructors to improve their role-play performance. 10. The current instruction does not suf?ciently differenciate and ingrain the three action plans. Recommend adding two additional academic lessons, one for detainees and one for hostages that would be presented after the initial ARLs and the spectrum and SA lesson. They should follow the same content flow of earlier instruction?first the spirit and intent of the Code of Conduct and legal issues, then a review of exploitation as it typically applies to detainees or hostages, and ?nish by explaining how resistance skills can be employed to most effectively implement the appropriate action plan. Each lesson should be followed by ARLs to ensure the students understand how to implement the appropriate action plan. This approach will enable the course to develop basic resistance skills for a POW before moving on to the complexities of the ?Jll spectrum, SA, and adapting to achieve the detainee and hostage action plans. 11. Facility security concerns arose during academic resistance training which the staff is addressing. Uncleared personnel were observed unescorted in the hallway outside the classroom where classi?ed training was being conducted. The volume of the sound system was too loud allowing classi?ed instruction to be heard on the ground behind the building outside the classroom. FIELD TRAINING 12. The small area maps issued to the students are inadequate to determine location via the methods taught. The small map sheet used does not include enough prominent terrain features to support triangulation. Recommend coordinating with the Brunswick NAS school to determine ways to carrect this problem. 13. Non-standard student equipment like compasses and signal mirrors caused problems for the ?eld instructors. Recommend the school issue one style compass to the students which will allow the instructors to focus their navigation instruction. Instructors also currently have to personally purchase magnesium blocks to meet training requirements. Required training aids should be provided by the school. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6 of 8 Attachment 3 14. The roles of the varied instructor groups within the scenario are currently confusing to the students as different potential captors look, sound, and act alike. Recommend that the varied roles within the scenario be clari?ed and adequately supported with the appropriate props. The cues the students use to develop their situational awareness should be reasonably clear. 15. Due to the amount of time between resistance academics and the resistance training laboratories (RTL), recommend that a lesson plan based review of resistance toward the end of field training be provided to assist in preparing students to enter the RTL phase of training. HOSTAGE RESISTANCE LABORATORY 16. The hostage RTL needs to provide more direct student-instructor interactive time and realistic practice of the important hostage concepts?rapport building, de~escalation, and reasonable resistance. Students currently receive only about 45 minutes each out of their 4-6 hours in this lab. Recommend that the Joint SERE Instructor Training (JSIT) Division within the Personnel Recovery Academy (PRA) be contacted to provide assistance via an observer-trainer (0T) visit to improve hostage laboratory processes and student learning. Their assistance will require an of?cial request through CNO to 7 with informational copy to IPRA. 17. Recommend that the hostage RTL exploitation is focused on concession, reprisal, and propaganda versus the current focus on interrogation. 18. Currently students are assessed as a group on their rapport building efforts. Recommend the instructors evaluate and document individual versus group efforts at building rapport to improve individual debriefs and ensure individual participation of this important hostage survival tool. POW RESISTANCE LABORATORY 19. The main purpose of subjecting the students to different captor groups is to test their situational awareness (SA). SA errors were not adequately recognized or addressed by instructors. Instructors need to focus their assessment on proper student SA of the new captor. Recommend the school document a list of typical SA errors that instructors can use to identify student problems that need attention. 20. Softcells are improved as they do not solely rely on paperwork and video trickery as in the past but still require improvement. The rounds were inconsistent as interrogations. Recommend that once the instructor establishes his role, he begin to ask increasingly difficult questions requiring the student to resist. 21. Hard cells questioning requires improvement. Recommend that the instructors use multiple types of questions. They must move beyond the direct black and white questions to allow for effective resistance and student success. Also, don?t loose sight of effectively demonstrating the majority of interrogation techniques between the hard and soft cells. 22. Instructors need to take more ownership of student performance, cross criticisms, hard cells. Poor group performance should not only be identi?ed but be retested. As opposed to our observations during past visits, this time we didn?t observe instructors and supervisors discussing student performance accompanied by discussion of how to get the students to improve their FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 7 of 8 Attachment 3 performance. This type of drift reinforces recommendation number one. We didn?t observe instructors and supervisors discussing student performance accompanied by discussion of how to get the students to improve their performance. This was not the case in the recent past and reinforces recommendation number one. A JSIT OT visit can help improve instructor capabilities for items [9 through 22. 23. Although the Services have the latitude to develop their own training programs, the training tactics, techniques, and procedures should be safe, effective, and promote a positive learning experience. Unfortunately, the current employment of the water board seems to be inconsistent with that philosophy. The water board has always been the most extreme pressure that required intense supervision and oversight because of the inherent risks associated with its employment. Based on our observations, the water board leaves students defeated with no ability to resist while under pressure. For example, students are briefed to tap their toes when they are ready to answer questions. Out of the four water boards we observed, the instructor did not stop watering students when they started tapping their toes, but instead continued watering until stOpped by the watch of?cer or until the totally defeated student gave an answer through the water. In one case two full canteen cups were poured after the student started tapping. It is not a question of the student?s ability to answer; it is a question of what you are trying to teach the student. Forcing answers under the extreme duress of the water board does not teach resistance or resilience, but teaches that you can be beaten. When a student?s ability to develop resiliency is compromised (based on your training), it may create unintended consequences regarding their perception of survivability during a real world SERE event. Based on these concerns and the risks associated with using the water board, we strongly recommend that you discontinue using?. 24. Recommend that the school take a closer look at the description of some of the stress positions and the stomach slap to ensure that instructors are in compliance with the written guidance. We recommend creating a video tape of the approved pressures to serve as a bench mark for future training and to help avoid drift. We saw various applications of stomach slaps (standing side by side facing the student with a 180 degree swing to standing facing the student with a 10-12 inch swing before the slap) and were unsure of the appropriate application of this pressure from the description in the red book. The knee stress as observed was different then written in the red book. The instructor?s application of the pressure was usually the same as used at the other school houses. It does not require students to keep the backs of their heels against the wall. We did observe one student in knee stress as written in the red book. This procedure is more stressful to the knee joint and potentially more dangerous. DEBRIEFING 25. Recommend that all significant dilemmas be addressed during the group debrie?ng. The cross criticism dilemma was overlooked. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 8 of 8 Attachment 3 UNCLASSIFIED FOUO Talking Paper 1. Purpose Provide a recommendation for how to address NAVY SERE School (W) use of water-boarding as part of its curriculum. 2. Background - During the March 2007 Navy SERE School (W) 2007 evaluation (Tab B), PRA reported that the school was utilizing water-boarding technique as part of its resistance training curriculum. JPRA recommended against this training technique because of the risk the student is exposed to as well as the consensus among SERE that water-boarding leaves the student defeated and unable to continue to resist. This mindset of course is contrary to the objective of Level Code of Conduct training. 3. Facts a. JPRA is charged with overseeing all SERE Training IAW 1300.2 and DODI 2310.2. This oversight is accomplished through bi-annual inspections. b. As of this date there are no restrictions on physical pressures applied during SERE training. Directive 3002.13 (SERE Training Policy), schedule to be published in Spring 2008 will Specify approved resistance training techniques. c. The Navy operates two SERE Schools, one Navy SERE School (E) in Brunswick ME and the second, Navy SERE School (W) in North Island CA. d. Navy SERE School (E) prohibits the use of this training technique because of empirical medical data conducted by it?s SERE that elevated levels of cortisol in the brain stem caused by stress levels incurred during water-boarding. The overall effect of this increased level of cortisol creates a negative learning environment. e. Navy SERE School (W), includes water-boarding in it?s curriculum. It is the only SERE School ofsix in that uses water-boarding as an instructional technique. f. On 1 Oct 07 the two schools were realigned under Naval Education and Training Command (N ETC). g. With foreknowledge of Navy SERE School (W) use of water-boarding in it?s curriculum. 1 voiced my concerns about the risk of using water-boarding and the evidence that negative training occurred during my 14 Dec 2006 VTC. General Smith instructed me to put whatever I wanted in my report but that unless there was something in writing preventing this technique, I should ?stay in my lane.? h. In February 2007, JPRA Human Factors (HF) conducts a Staff Assistance Visit to SERE School (W) in preparation for the formal inspection in March. The report (Tab C) indicated a systemic problem with the application of all physical pressures. g. JPRA conducted a scheduled bi-annual inspection and documented the safe use of water-boarding but emphasized the negative impact on learning (Tab B). h. Navy NSSP responded to JPRA (Tab D) that they have reviewed the utilization of water-boarding as physical pressures technique and are ?con?dent in this training technique has value and is being safely accomplished.? The memorandum promises a review of all physical pressures between training facilities will be forwarded to the CNO for approval. To date this has not been completed. UNCLASSIFIED FOUO Col Clarer' 703-704-2509/ II Oct 07 UNCLASSIFIED FOUO 4. Discussion a. Besides the negative training effect and the risk students are exposed to during the water-boarding, this instructional technique has become a lighting rod for members of Congress concerned with the migration of SERE Techniques into interrogation techniques. Three of the six SERE Schools including Navy SERE School (B) have been visited by Congressional Staffers. It?s only a matter of time before Navy SERE School (W) is visited and the Navy has to explain and justify the continued use of this instructional method and is asked, why it was allowed to continue. b. On multiple occasions over the past two years PRA has discuss water- boarding with the commander of Navy SERE (W) without successfully convincing him of the negative impact on trainingour opinion that this training is seen as ?a right of passage? vice a valuable SERE training technique. 0. Navy Staff PR Rep acknowledges the inconsistency between their two schools Navy SERE East and West but relayed that water-boarding is ?an emotional issue with former Navy To that end the Navy has contracted former POWs to make a recommendation to the CNO on what physical pressures should be used during SERE training. While former POWs certainly have some bona tides regarding survival in a captivity environment there is no evidence to suggest they know the best way to train students in today?s environment against non state actors. (1. As the Executive Agent for PR, the Commander USJFCOM can direct the CNO to stop water-boarding during SERE training but this issue should ?rst be addressed at a lower level. The Commander PRA has exhausted all efforts at the 0-6 level. To prevent an embarrassing situation for USJFCOM this issue should be raised to the JFCOM Flag level short of the Commander and discretely prevent a risky and documented ineffective training technique. 5. Recommendation The Commander WFC should contact Rear Admiral (Upper Hall) Gary Jones at NETC, (850-452-4858/9888) and express of?cial USJF COM concern with the use of water-boarding by Navy SERE School (W) in its curriculum. UNCLASSIFIED FOUO Col Clare/ 703-704-2509] ll Oct 07 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Gary L. Percival, GG-14 JPRA 26 September 2007 wee: The Philosophy behind the Use of Pressures during Training 131W Code of Conduct training is a form of combat training. Controlled realism has stood the test of time in training for combat. The best training programs are those that provide opportunities to test combat skills and techniques under increasingly realistic situations. The controlled realism in Code of Conduct training needs to be suf?cient to confront students with actual situations that they might encounter as a captive. These training situations must be designed and implemented to eliminate the possibility of doing any real or physical harm to the student. As with all combat training, any possible negative effects of failure experiences should be prevented by presenting training dilemmas in a manner that maximize students? chances for success and by providing a thorough debrie?ng of the events at the end of the realistic training. - The use of controlled physical pressures during Code of Conduct training addresses one of the greatest fears of captivity while enhancing the realism of the training scenarios. - Students who learn to apply appropriate coping strategies when physiologically and stressed have increased con?dence and resilience. Physical pressures used in Code of Conduct training are not intended to produce enduring or damaging consequences, or to render the student so incapacitated by physical or emotional duress that effective learning does not take place. - The purpose of applying physical pressures is to enhance training by realistically projecting students? focus into the training scenario and, in a safe and measured manner, simulate conditions associated with captivity and the captor exploitation efforts. - The goal of all pressures should be to give students con?dence that properly applied postures and resistance techniques work. Pressures used in training can be applied to demonstrate to students that inappropriate postures and resistance techniques can cause undesirable consequences FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - Students must be given the opportunity to adapt and apply correct principles with success in order to practice appropriate resistance techniques regardless of the pressures being applied. RECOMMENDATIONS The proper use of authorized pressures during COC role?play training activities should be carefully monitored and controlled. Pressures should be limited, associated with a learning objective, and have a positive learning outcome. personnel, medical personnel, and oversight instructors (non role players) must be present during the application of pressures. No personnel, medical personnel, or oversight instructors (non role players) will participate in the actual implementation of any pressures. The tactics, techniques, procedures, and rationale for administering all pressures must be clearly written, constantly trained, and strictly enforced. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY