Reforming Army Badge Programs

Fostering Award Alignment with a Vision of Competency, Readiness, and Lethality

By Captain Ross T. Millner

June 1, 2026 | Field Artillery, 2026 E-Edition

Read Time: < 17 mins

A West Point cadet rappels out of a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter during Air Assault Training at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on June 14, 2018. Air Assault training was taught by instructors from the Sabalauski Air Assault School. (U.S. Army photo by Michelle Eberhart)

This article reflects the author's professional opinions and interpretations. It does not represent official views, positions, or policies of the Field Artillery Commandant or Field Artillery School.

Introduction

On September 30, 2025, the Secretary of War addressed an audience of nearly 800 senior leaders and declared the U.S. military is “ending the war on warriors” by reversing cultural drift, restoring standards, and reinforcing merit-based excellence across the force.1 His remarks emphasized readiness, discipline and a professional identity rooted in competency rather than rhetoric and appearance. His subsequent ten initiatives are not simply talking points or political theater; rather, they represent a strategic commitment to credibility and lethality. In a profession that focuses on “warfighting, preparing for war and preparing to win,” lauding atrophy-prone skills undermines the credibility of service members and the military profession.2 The Army invests significant time and funding in developing subject matter experts through schools such as Ranger, Airborne and Air Assault, as well as through the Expert Soldier, Infantry and Field Medical proficiency programs. These qualifications symbolize expertise, discipline and elite performance; however, they are awarded permanently, despite the perishable nature of the skills they represent. Without periodic assessment, recertification or regular professional use, the Army risks eroding the professional credibility that these badges represent and diminishing the performance standards they are meant to preserve. To align with the Pentagon’s vision and restore both internal and external confidence in the capabilities we profess, the Army must reform its certification, qualification and “badge-wearing” policies for special-skill identifying programs by requiring annual validation and formal recertification every 3–5 years for all badge-holders. Such reforms will reinforce personal and unit readiness, preserve merit and ensure that service members who wear elite distinctions can still perform to the level that such hard-earned symbols demand.

Defining Proficiency

Army doctrine establishes that proficiency—the basis of a meritocracy—is earned, demonstrated and sustained through continuous training and evaluation. Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 7-0, Training, directs leaders to “achieve unit training proficiency and seek to sustain it over time.” ADP 7-0 and Army Regulation (AR) 350-1 recognize the inherent nature of atrophy in Army training and advocate for sustained readiness, repetition and validation as foundational components of individual and unit competence.3,4 Most warfighting functions enforce these expectations through periodic qualification and certification requirements. For example, Training Circular (TC) 3-20.40 outlines the program for Training and Qualification—Individual Weapons, and TC 3-09.8 outlines Fire Support and Field Artillery Certification and Qualification, both of which stress that competencies are maintained and displayed through regular validation cycles.5,6 In contrast, the training and certification of school-based skills stop short of expecting such disciplined, continuous training and validation. Army badges are, in many cases, permanent displays of once-attained proficiency. In units that do not routinely employ the acquired skills, badge-holders have little incentive or doctrinal requirement to demonstrate continued mastery.

The consequence of this disconnect is dire. Junior Soldiers, who aspire to their leaders’ accomplishments, see a visible disconnect between skill and appearance. This undermines the confidence subordinates have in the associated training and schools themselves. More critically, the confidence inspired in Army leaders by the assumption of a badge-holder’s subject matter expertise, discipline or work ethic introduces risk to mission execution and safety during standard operational training. To understand the origin of this institutional gap, it is necessary to first examine the evolution of Army Skill Badges and the policies governing their award and wear.

“When qualifications are permanent without mandated reassessment, the symbolic assurance they provide erodes quickly.”

The Army Badge System

The Army has always used badges for more than appearance; the symbols exist to signify expertise, foster confidence and reinforce professional identity. In the early 1900s, marksmanship badges were introduced as a specialty insignia to denote technical proficiency in marksmanship.7 During World War II, the Army introduced the Expert Infantryman Badge and the Combat Infantry Badge to recognize infantry skills, boost morale, foster a sense of prestige and aid in recruiting for combat branches.8 Later, the badge system expanded to include specialized skills such as airborne operations, Ranger training, Pathfinding, Air Assault insertion and Jungle and Mountain Warfare Schools. The governing policies, initially published as memoranda, were consolidated in Army Regulation (AR) 600-8-22.9 In the modern era, the Army established the Expert Soldier Badge and Expert Field Medical Badge to fill the gap of non-infantry Soldiers. Historically, these badges were designed to recognize verified skills and instill confidence in Soldier competency. Additionally, they aided the force in recognizing and retaining skilled Soldiers while fostering prestige and unit culture through established symbols of qualification and expertise. However, when qualifications are permanent without mandated reassessment, the symbolic assurance they provide erodes quickly. Today’s Soldiers don’t view these badges in such a manner. Without periodic evaluation, the badge shifts from an indicator of capability to a marker of past achievement. Perhaps as a reaction to this divergence—or perhaps as a reflection of cultural souring on participation trophies and “standing on our laurels”—the current force views badges as mere résumé entries. The discrepancy between the system’s historic purpose and current viewpoints underscores the need for policy modernization. No badge better reflects this erosion than the Ranger Tab, which is earned through tremendous effort, but not re-evaluated afterward.

Ranger School

Ranger School, known as “the Army’s toughest course and the premier small unit tactics and leadership course,” is the gold standard for small-unit leadership, endurance and tactical acumen.10 The school claims that Rangers are “better trained, more capable, more resilient and better prepared to serve and lead Soldiers in their next duty position.” Graduating proves a Soldier can lead under extreme conditions and show mental and physical toughness. Serving in the Ranger Regiment or specific infantry roles ensures that Ranger skills are maintained to a reasonable degree. For most graduates assigned outside the 75th Ranger Regiment, however, those specific skills fade without consistent use or reinforcement, just like all atrophy-prone training skills. There is perhaps no better example of highly technical, atrophy-prone training skills than those acquired by completing the Basic Airborne Course and Sabalauski Air Assault School.

Soldiers assigned to the 101st Airborne Division conduct an air assault demonstration showcasing the division’s air assault capabilities at The Sabalauski Air Assault School during Week of the Eagles at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, May 16, 2026. Week of the Eagles is an annual week-long event encouraging morale, physical fitness, and esprit de corps throughout the unit. (U.S. Army photos by Sgt. Brianna Badder)

Airborne and Air Assault

The Basic Airborne Course and the Sabalauski Air Assault School are some of the Army’s most prestigious, sought-after, and mission-critical educational programs. They teach technical tasks that require precision, repetition and continuous practice to maintain safe and competent execution. In formations requiring vertical insertion, rotary-wing assault, precision navigation or airborne operations, a significant portion of their leaders regularly employ these skills to fulfill individual task requirements and support collective training objectives. Jumpmaster duties, sling-load operations and pathfinder missions require ongoing, hands-on validation to ensure that safety and mission readiness standards are met. Service members in these formations earn their badge daily by demonstrating continuous proficiency in support of unit training events.

However, while Airborne and Air Assault units require periodic recertification to maintain their unique status and pay incentives, many badge-holders serve in organizations that do not routinely conduct associated mission profiles. While incentive pay programs appropriately demand periodic recertification, the Army has not applied equivalent standards for the permanent wear of the skill-associated badges. As a result, many Soldiers who depart their Airborne and Air Assault MTOE’d units cease performing these skills regularly, while continuing to display a qualification that is no longer reflective of current capability. Instituting periodic recertification events for all badge wearers, like those currently aligned with operational pay incentives, would ensure that competency standards remain consistent across the force and promote safety. It would also ensure that Airborne and Air Assault badges remain accurate indicators of both historical accomplishment and current proficiency. Additionally, these reforms would foster institutional trust and align badge-wearing with the Army’s vision of competency—not past performance—as the basis of readiness for the Army’s Airborne, Air Assault and Pathfinder-qualified service members.

U.S. Army Rangers, assigned to 5th Ranger Training Battalion, stands online to show the role of each member of the squads for the audience during the 5th RTB Open House at Camp Frank D. Merrill, Dahlonega, Georgia, April 25, 2026. The Ranger Open House is open to the public to show case Ranger School and the training Rangers endure to earn the Ranger Tab. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by 1st Sgt. Austin Berner)

Army Experts

The Army’s expert skill badges were created to recognize advanced tactical proficiency and reinforce confidence in individual Soldiers and the formations they support. The Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB), established in 1943, sought to “build and maintain esprit de corps” in infantry units by identifying Soldiers who demonstrated superior mastery of critical combat tasks under stress.11 The Expert Field Medical Badge (EFMB), created in 1965, similarly honors exceptional medical proficiency and performance in rigorous conditions.12 In 2019, the Expert Soldier Badge (ESB) expanded the tradition of recognizing expertise across all branches by rewarding Soldiers who demonstrate competency across core warrior skills.13 As a collective, these badges underscore the Army’s commitment to broad warfighting competence and certify that recipients met rigorous, objective standards under timed, graded evaluation—a notable achievement and mark of professional pride for Soldiers across the force, including myself. In 2021, as a second lieutenant, to test myself and prove my competency to my superiors and subordinates, I participated in the Expert Soldier Badge event in Camp Casey, Republic of Korea. I conducted specific ESB-related training with my platoon in the months leading up to the event. During the event, I learned from experts and genuinely gained skills that I could practically incorporate into my unit’s training plan. Earning my badge, with perfect edge distinction, was a huge source of pride to a young officer trying to distinguish himself in the eyes of the Noncommissioned Officers and Soldiers I lead.

U.S. Army Pvt. 2nd Class Zachary Johnson, assigned to the 19th Expeditionary Sustainment Command, conducts bleeding control during the medical lanes of the Expert Infantryman Badge and Expert Soldier Badge (E2B) testing at Camp Casey, South Korea, May 19, 2026. The lane evaluates participants on their ability to perform lifesaving medical procedures and respond effectively to simulated combat casualties under pressure. (U.S. Army photo by Cpl. Tae Sung Kim)

However, an elemental and often overlooked reality exists: the tasks involved in the expert badge programs are, by regulatory definition, individual tasks—the baseline Soldier competencies. In Mission Essential Task Lists, they are identified as 10-level individual tasks that should, doctrinally, be expected from every Soldier in the U.S. Army. The expert badge programs validate mastery at a specific moment in time and include a formal train-up period, suggesting that the level of expertise demonstrated during the events is not typical of the force, apart from deliberate exercises. The badges, as the expert programs are currently adjudicated, do not represent advanced or sustained tactical excellence. Typical events, including land navigation, rifle qualification and a 12-mile ruck march, are often conducted with the primary goal of passing as many Soldiers as possible rather than assessing true capability. While conducting rifle marksmanship qualifications for ESB, I witnessed Soldiers conduct as many iterations of rifle qualification as required, with all the ammunition they could carry, to achieve the ‘expert’ designation. Organizations separate participating Soldiers from unit collective training for weeks prior to event execution to functionally tutor Soldiers on the baseline skills that the Army demands from all warfighters. While I, like my fellow ESB-holders, absolutely demonstrated proficiency under rigorous standards during the event, I no longer have all those skills. Serving in new roles, at higher echelons, I earned new skills but failed to retain the high levels of proficiency I once displayed. When service members, me included, are permitted to permanently wear the associated badge, the purpose shifts from being a marker of personal excellence to certifying a temporal capacity for baseline task completion. In simple terms, the badge risks becoming a symbol of one-time capability while signifying enduring expertise.

Reforming the Army Badge System

If the Army intends for the EIB, EFMB and ESB to distinguish enduring warfighting expertise, rather than merely initial competence, then institutional policies regarding badge-wearing must evolve. Establishing a recurring, 3-year recertification cycle like civilian qualifications, such as Continuing Medical Education (CME) requirements for physicians or Project Management Professional (PMP) recertification, would still recognize Soldier achievement while ensuring that the EIB, EFMB and ESB also reflect real-time proficiency consistent with the Army’s vision.

A U.S. Army Soldier assigned to the 7th Infantry Division, participates in a map reading event during the weapon lanes portion of the Expert Infantryman Badge and Expert Soldier Badge (E2B) testing at Camp Casey, South Korea, May 19, 2026. This vital testing event confirms the candidate’s mastery of land navigation principles, ensuring they maintain situational awareness and directional accuracy while operating across unfamiliar terrain. (U.S. Army photo by Pfc. Jihun Park)

To ensure that the Army’s badges continue to signify real-time proficiency, while considering competing annual training requirements, logistical issues and financial costs, the reform implementation must be part of a scalable, credentialed and proponent-program-aligned system. The existing model demonstrated by Ranger Regiment requires all scrolled Soldiers to undergo periodic physical, tactical and leadership evaluations tied directly to promotion and participation in the Regiment. Expanding the model to all Ranger tabbed Soldiers by requiring annual validation, including the Ranger Physical Fitness Assessment, land navigation, graded small-unit tactics leadership evaluation and a 12-mile ruck march would reinforce sustained readiness. These events can be easily integrated into existing unit training plans (conducted separately) or assessed as a combined training event nested into unit collective training. Every 3–5 years, formal recertification, administered by certified external evaluators, could be conducted using standardized scoring guidance from the Ranger Training Brigade (RTB) to ensure the Ranger Regiment maintains the professional integrity of its institution.

For Airborne and Air Assault personnel assigned outside of mission-dependent formations, an annual currency event program could be conducted on core tasks, such as Jumpmaster Personnel Inspection (JPMI), sling-load inspection and drop/landing zone operations, using training aids and digital simulators. Triennial recertification could be conducted at installation schools, by proponent-certified graders, or by mobile training teams (MTT). EIB, EFMB and ESB holders already support their organizations’ annual EIB, EFMB and ESB programs as graders. By integrating all badge-holders into the grader-validation period, annual recertification could be conducted without undue burden while still validating the competencies of all these Soldiers. In the context of the Secretary of War’s vision for demanding training and professional readiness, these reforms warrant consideration as cost-effective, mission-specific and implementable methods for protecting the credibility of our Army’s most prevalent badges.

U.S. Army Rangers, assigned to 5th Ranger Training Battalion, conduct a Mountaineering Demonstration for the 5th RTB Open House at Camp Frank D. Merrill, Dahlonega, Georgia., April 25, 2026. The Ranger Open House is open to the public to showcase Ranger School and the training Rangers endure to earn the Ranger Tab. (U.S. Army Reserve photo by 1st Sgt. Austin Berner)

Refuting Objections

Some may argue that recurring validation and recertifications introduce unnecessary costs, consume limited training time and pose undue administrative burdens. While worthy of consideration, these objections do not undermine the viability of reforms. Financially, the Army already allocates funds to cyclical readiness evaluations, such as weapons qualification, medical sustainment training and the Army Fitness Test. Incorporating badge recertification within existing training calendars and recording them in the Digital Training Management System is not a novel idea—merely one that requires refinement to resource allocation. Logistically, certified unit graders already exist for other Army programs, such as Joint Fires Observers and Tactical Combat Casualty Care; therefore, there is a realistic expectation that the Army could field and manage badge-related recertification at the unit level. Proponent schools and MTTs could also offer opportunities for recertification without increasing logistical burdens. The more the philosophical objection—that badges, once earned, should remain permanent markers of achievement—misunderstands their intent and the nature of military expertise. History shows that Soldiers want the opportunity to train, display their craft and perform at the highest level. Though policy reforms may result in growing pains, the readiness and recruitment for the U.S. Army will be improved by the promise of sustained skill assessment through regular training and utilization. In a profession where competencies are perishable and credibility underpins trust, honoring the past performance of badge-holders must coexist with verifying continued proficiency to preserve the institutional value.

U.S. Army Soldiers assigned to 2d Infantry Division/ROK-U.S. Combined Division, take notes for patrol training during Expert Soldier/Infantry Badge practice week on Camp Casey, South Korea, May 20, 2026. The E2B tests Soldiers’ physical and mental abilities through rigorous tasks, aiming to enhance readiness, efficiency and proficiency in their respective fields. (U.S. Army photo by KCPL Seok Hoon Yoon)

Conclusion

In his remarks on September 30, the Secretary of War introduced a simple framework for evaluating military policies: the “1990 test.” He asked, “What were the military standards in 1990? And if they have changed, tell me why.”14 As leaders work to correct decades of institutional drift, we must consider how our training and visible awards have been subject to cultural drift and a degradation of standards while seeking to restore merit-based excellence.

As ADP 7-0 and AR 350-1 outline, considering the atrophy-prone nature of acquired or institutionally instilled Army skills, the badges representing those skills must reflect ongoing competence. Current regulations governing the earning, awarding and wearing of U.S. Army badges are misaligned with the intended symbolism of the badges themselves. Our doctrine emphasizes continuous development and realistic, cyclical training. The Secretary of War’s vision requires that performance standards be met by all members of the force. We must spend our limited training time sharpening blades, not polishing trophies. Therefore, our badge management regulations must reflect these high standards and permanently reject rewarding unsustained achievement.

To restore credibility and promote diligent, merit-based excellence in our formations, we must ensure that all facets of our unique badge-related schools, expert programs and regulatory documents require annual validation or periodic recertification. These reforms will reinforce high standards, safeguard troop readiness and guarantee that badges accurately signal ongoing skill and lethality. Ultimately, wearing an Army badge is an honor. It displays warfighting-function proficiency—not as a one-time achievement, but as a commitment to remain capable, relevant and ready to “fight to win.”

Bibliography