staff assistance visit army

Staff Assistance Visit

Appendix F-2.

• Staff Assistance Visit Standard Request (docx)

Latest News

FY24 STRONG B.A.N.D.S.

BLUF: The STRONG B.A.N.D.S.  program pages have experienced mixed trends in site traffic and user engagement. Total users for the STRONG B.A.N.D.S. program pages reached 4,410 New users saw a significant increase to 1,567,...

FY24 Summer Reading Program

BLUF: The 2024 Army MWR Summer Reading Program has made significant progress in driving traffic and engagement throughout its campaign.  Key engagement metrics for the Summer Reading Program...

Alternative Terms for Home Life

This A/B test aims to assess the impact of replacing the "Home Life" term in the main navigation menu with alternative terms on user...

Testing Process & Methodology

Write Out a Roadmap: Creating a detailed roadmap is essential for defining goals, priorities, risks, and timelines. This roadmap will guide our...

A/B Testing Roadmap & Current Initiatives

The A/B Testing roadmap is shaped by collaboration between PortlandLabs, the G9 Team, and the CAT (Content Access Team). The G9 Team provides...

Introduction

Welcome to the Army MWR A/B Testing Hub. This page is your go-to resource for understanding how A/B testing drives data-informed decisions and...

2024 Third Quarter Analytics

How many new pages of content did installations create last quarter? Web managers created a total of 362  new pages on EPW in the last...

2024 First Quarter Analytics

2023 Fourth Quarter Analytics

2023 Third Quarter Analytics

How many new pages of content did installations create last quarter? Web managers have created 359 new pages on EPW in the last quarter....

.st0{fill:#000;width: 200px; display: block; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto} New Logo Created with Sketch.

We're taking you over to a different website. We just needed to let you know. You’re still in good hands.

No Department of Defense, U.S. Army, or federal government endorsement is implied.

If you want to head back, hit cancel.

Official websites use .mil

Secure .mil websites use HTTPS

TAD SAV team evaluates TAE staff processes

Functional managers from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division (TAD) pose with Expeditionary District's leadership and staff following the outbrief of a staff assistance visit (SAV), on Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, Mar. 23, 2022. This evaluation was being performed by the TAD SAV team to prepare the Expeditionary District (TAE) for a follow-on inspection later this year. This is the first staff assistance evaluation in the short history of the Expeditionary District as it was formed in May, 2021, by the merger of the Transatlantic Afghanistan District and Task Force Essayons. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Bumgardner, TAE Public Affairs)

Functional managers from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division (TAD) meet with Expeditionary District's safety, engineering, quality control and project managers, along with civilian construction company officials, at the Unaccompanied Officer Quarters construction site, on Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, Mar. 22, 2022. This onsite staff assistance visit (SAV) is just one of many staff and business process evaluations being performed by the TAD SAV team to prepare the Expeditionary District (TAE) for a follow-on inspection later this year. This is the first staff assistance evaluation in the short history of the Expeditionary District as it was formed in May, 2021, by the merger of the Transatlantic Afghanistan District and Task Force Essayons. (U.S. Army photo by Richard Bumgardner, TAE Public Affairs)

Recently U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Expeditionary District leadership and staff met with subject matter experts from their higher-level headquarters, the Transatlantic Division, as they came together to complete the first Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) ever performed for the district, at Camp Arifjan, Kuwait, March 20-23, 2022.

With the challenges of operating in a COVID-restricted landscape, which prevented more than half of the staff assistance team from traveling to Kuwait, Lt. Col. Peter Ammerman, the Expeditionary District’s deputy commander, appreciated the evaluators that traveled for an onsite visit to the newly formed district. The rest of the Division evaluators, stationed in Winchester, Va., performed their assessments virtually with their counterparts at the Expeditionary District.

“An outside source looking in can bring fresh ideas and constructive recommendations to increase productivity,” Ammerman said. “With the evaluators having boots on the ground, they were able to sit next to our staff and delve into their battle rhythm routines. They could look through our continuity binders, analyze our business practices, and verify our internal audits.”

That verification is crucial as the Expeditionary District, formed in May 2021, is the youngest district in the Army Corps of Engineers. The district leadership and staff welcomed this evaluation as a mechanism to form a baseline for improving our business processes and procedures, necessary to meet the high standards of the Army Corps of Engineers and Transatlantic Division.

During the SAV, as it’s commonly called, the evaluators reviewed the district’s staffing functions like IT, human resources, safety, resource management, logistics, public affairs, and other administrative functions, along with engineering, construction, contracting and program management.

The Expeditionary District is actually quite unique in its personnel challenges as it’s entirely made up of active duty and reserve component military members, along with many Department of the Army civilians, quite a few of which are geographically separated.

District staff and employees are split between a large segment of personnel that are voluntarily deployed to Kuwait, Iraq, and Syria, and a smaller U.S.-based support staff of financial, engineering and construction experts that provide reach-back capacity for the forward team.

Col. Kenneth Reed, commander of the Expeditionary District, and his senior enlisted advisor, Sgt. Maj. Jun Tomagan, took reins in June 2021, as the district was transforming and transitioning from two legacy wartime-focused districts.

In his comments to the staff assistance team, Reed told the evaluators that the district overcame significant challenges to get to the success achieved during the SAV.

“When we arrived, it was still basically two organizations,” Reed said. “It’s the hard work from the staff in this room, in this building, along with those deployed forward and our reach-back personnel in the states, that have given us the success we’ve achieved.”

Scott Cilley, Transatlantic Division’s Business Integration Division chief and the staff assistance team lead, expressed the team’s appreciation for the sense of family that the Expeditionary team and staff exhibited, along with an openness and willingness to learn.

“Your openness, sense of family, and comradery, we couldn’t help but notice,” Cilley said. “We were especially glad to see the significant opportunities for theater security cooperation that we saw and heard when we sat in some of your customer meetings.”

One of the programs that Cilley and his team highlighted were the contracting team efforts, led by Yvette Walker, the Expeditionary District contracting chief, who spearheaded the effort to close-out all the legacy Afghanistan contracts.

“Your efforts in closing out two decades worth of Afghanistan contracts, more than 560 in total, and now down to only 36 contracts to go, that’s an outstanding job,” Cilley commented.

Cilley concluded with minor administrative findings and many best practices to take back to the Transatlantic Division headquarters in Winchester, to share with the entire division staff, and the Expeditionary District’s sister district, the Middle East District.

“Our focus is to always get better, to have continuous improvement,” Reed stated. “I appreciated your findings and comments. Our books are always open.”

Editor’s Note: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division’s Expeditionary District was formed from the merger of the Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Afghanistan District, which managed Afghanistan construction projects supporting Operation Enduring Freedom, and the Army Corps of Engineers Task Force Essayons, which managed Iraq construction projects during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division serves as USACE’s tip of the spear in one of the most dynamic construction environments in the world, STRENGTHENING PARTNERSHIPS , BUILDING CAPACITY, and ENHANCING SECURITY for our nation, allies, and partners. 

We SAFELY deliver agile, responsive, and innovative, design, construction, engineering and contingency solutions in support of U.S. Central Command, U.S. Special Operations Command and other global partners to advance national security interests.

News Stories Archive

Transatlantic division news.

USACE Expeditionary District welcomes new leadership

Expertise at the Front: How USACE Experience Powers U.S. Army Success

Empowering the Future: USACE Division CSM Visits U.S. Army Engineers in Kuwait

Building Resilience and Respect: USACE’s Role in Sustaining Military Capacity at Camp Buehring During Ramadan

USACE Strengthens Partnership for Global Infrastructure in Kuwait

USACE Transatlantic Division employee embarks on Army Coaching Program journey

USACE Transatlantic Division: Setting Extraordinary Standards as ‘Partner of Choice’ in CENTCOM AOR

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Transatlantic Division Commander Promoted to Brigadier General

On Solid Ground: Army Values are the Foundation of USACE Transatlantic Division’s Mission

USACE Innovation: The Key to 'Building Strong' in the CENTCOM AOR

• My presentations

Auth with social network:

Download presentation

We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Establish a HR Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) and Inspection Program

Published by Derick Robert Glenn Modified over 5 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Establish a HR Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) and Inspection Program"— Presentation transcript:

TROOP LEADING PROCEDURES

Command Supply Discipline Program

Unit 8: Tests, Training, and Exercises Unit Introduction and Overview Unit objectives:  Define and explain the terms tests, training, and exercises. 

Purpose of the Standards

Safety and Health Programs

Unit 5:Elements of A Viable COOP Capability (cont.)  Define and explain the terms tests, training, and exercises (TT&E)  Explain the importance of a.

Duties, Responsibilities and Authority of the NCO

SACS-CASI Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Council on Accreditation and School Improvement FAMU DRS – QAR Quality Assurance Review April 27-28,

19TH Theater Support Command Inspector General 30 MAR 03/0930LTC /(DSN) Inspections Assistance Investigations.

AR Revision U.S. Army Inspector General School 1 Revision of Army Regulation Summary of Change.

Non-commissioned Officers Reconstitution Training.

2/12/20032 Army Inspection Policy and Guidance A Review for Leaders.

Officers Reconstitution Training. Training Objective Task: Understand the roles and responsibilities of an officer during the academic year Condition:

BLM Decision Making Process

Performance Management System

Mentor Expectations & Framework

The MDMP Process MDMP Inputs MDMP Outputs Step 1 MDMP Inputs Step 5

Inter-Service Postal Training Activity

Define the Role of the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO)

Unit Training Management

About project

© 2024 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.

Official websites use .mil

Secure .mil websites use HTTPS

The Learning Enterprise Assistance Program

Customer Service at the Point of Need

Keith r. beurskens, maycie crozier, and jayson b. dodge, army university.

Army University (ArmyU) was established 7 July 2015. One of the organization’s roles is to identify and promulgate innovative best practices throughout the Army’s learning enterprise. The Directorate of Academic Affairs established the Learning Enterprise Assistance Program (LEAP) as a lessons learned initiative and a true customer-driven process to support the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command centers of excellence and branch schools. LEAP presents workshops selected by the customer in several education-related areas during staff assistance visits. An overview of the program’s background, a description of the planning process, and the results of the first year’s execution are presented. LEAP has proven to be a resource-intensive initiative that must demonstrate its value to the learning enterprise to be viable in the future. Proposed methods for evaluating the program’s effectiveness, customer satisfaction, and blended learning approaches are examined as potential methods for increasing the effective delivery of workshops requiring fewer resources.

Introduction

Army University (ArmyU), established 7 July 2015, is both a symbolic and a substantive enterprise-level change in Army learning. Creating ArmyU demonstrated the Army’s commitment to improving the education system and fostering innovation (Brown, 2015, p. 24). The ArmyU Directorate of Academic Affairs (formerly the vice provost of academic affairs) has primary responsibility for identifying and promulgating innovative best practices throughout the Army’s learning enterprise.

ArmyU established the Learning Enterprise Assistance Program (LEAP) as a service to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) centers of excellence and branch schools. Program participation is voluntary, at no cost to the centers of excellence or schools. The LEAP staff assistance visits are tailored based upon organizational self-assessments to cover areas they identify for improvement: a real customer-driven process. LEAP services include a growing menu of workshops. Workshops range from two to eight hours in areas identified for improvement based upon enterprise-wide lessons learned. LEAP was officially launched during the fourth quarter of fiscal year (FY) 2018 with five staff assistance visits performed. FY 2019 has at least 11 additional staff assistance visits programmed. Expected program growth may require multiple forms of workshop delivery to support all of the customers.

The Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence was established within the Directorate of Academic Affairs in part to assess current practices and adopt or integrate new learning practices supporting faculty development (Faculty and Staff Development Division), curriculum development (Instructional Design Division), and advances in the learning sciences (Institutional Research and Assessment Division). Leonard Lira and Keith Beurskens’s article in the October 2017 Journal of Military Learning titled “An Engine for Army Learning: Army University’s Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence” provides a detailed review of the Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence and its subordinate division’s functions (Lira & Beurskens, 2017). The Directorate of Academic Affairs also includes the accreditation and programs section responsible for the Continuing Education Degree Program, the Credentialing Program, and the American Council on Education, which reviews TRADOC courses for recommended college credit.

The LEAP conceptual beginnings were in response to the challenge of promulgating lessons learned from an evaluation of the American Council on Education credit review program effectiveness. The Accreditation and Programs Section determined there were two critical areas needing improvement: (1) lesson alignment of learning outcomes to assessments and (2) the American Council on Education’s presentation of instruction programs. The early successes supporting schools undergoing American Council on Education reviews lead to expansion of the LEAP.

The first LEAP working group met in mid-February 2018. It consisted of members of the Accreditation and Programs Section, the Instructional Design Division, the Faculty and Staff Development Division, the Institutional Research and Assessment Division, and the Policy and Governance Division from the Directorate of Learning Systems. The purpose of the first working group was to establish quarterly goals to achieve the end state of the program—a plan to reach full operational capability starting in FY 2019.

Some of the significant objectives included establishing a “menu” of workshops, developing internal LEAP standard operating procedures, creating products to inform the enterprise of the program, designing various surveys, and coordinating future LEAP visits. After the initial working group, the LEAP team met regularly at bimonthly intervals.

Table Learning Enterprise Assistance Program (LEAP) Workshops Table by Jayson B. Dodge Enlarge the figure

A key product of the working group was the initial menu of workshops to fill gaps identified from the ArmyU initial gap analysis, as shown in the table, “LEAP Workshops.” As the program grows and we work with the centers of excellence and schools, we realize LEAP must be agile and adaptive to address the needs of our customers. LEAP plans to expand to include other ArmyU directorates and develop additional workshops to offer customers.

Program Description

The LEAP program is designed to take a service culture approach and is entirely customer oriented. The program is completely nonattributional. There is no effort to do fact finding or reporting to ArmyU headquarters. Trends or results are shared only with the center of excellence or school leadership. The program is wholly based on the needs of the center of excellence or school, with no mandatory workshops included as part of the LEAP visit.

LEAP has three phases: pre-LEAP planning, LEAP staff assistance visit, and post-LEAP evaluation.

Pre-LEAP planning phase. The center of excellence or school initiates the pre-LEAP planning phase through contact with the ArmyU LEAP program manager. There are three key activities in this phase.

First, the LEAP visit is scheduled to accommodate the center of excellence or school. The LEAP coordinator supports the customer’s scheduling request while optimizing service to other LEAP customers and executing ArmyU’s other missions. The program manager also strives to have a minimum of two weeks between LEAP staff assistance visits. This time is critical to consider immediate feedback that could lead to workshop improvements, solicit the formal postvisit survey responses, and prepare for the next LEAP visit.

The second key event is a customer self-assessment and gap analysis, which aids the customer in selecting the appropriate workshops. The center of excellence or school may choose to conduct an informal self-assessment, or it may take advantage of a pre-LEAP survey developed to assist the customer in determining areas they may want to focus on during the LEAP visit. The survey assists participants with assessment of interest in various topics rooted in the current LEAP workshops. Research psychologists from the Institutional Research and Assessment Division analyze survey data and return the results, which are confidential, to the customer.

The third activity includes coordinating in progress reviews one month and again two weeks prior to the visit, finalizing desired workshops, and confirming student loads. The purpose of the in progress review is to verify link up time and location, workshop schedule, the number of participants per workshop, and reservations for required facilities.

LEAP staff assistance visit. The second LEAP phase begins the day before execution when the LEAP visit team links up with the center of excellence or school point of contact. Meeting the day prior allows the team to meet the customer point of contact, discuss any last minute changes to the schedule, reconnoiter classrooms, and download their workshop materials onto the computers used for their workshops. The LEAP team has a clear understanding that conditions may change on the ground, and they must remain responsive to the customer by being agile and adaptive to schedule changes. A second “smile-sheet” LEAP survey follows each workshop to measure participants’ immediate reaction to the content and facilitator performance. This feedback is a critical tool for two reasons. First, it allows ArmyU to measure customer feedback on the facilitator’s performance. Second, it enables ArmyU to determine whether the needs of the participants are met. Each day ends with a rapid after action review by the LEAP team. This phase ends with a formal after action review cofacilitated by ArmyU and center of excellence or school facilitators.

Post-LEAP evaluation. The final, post-LEAP phase commences upon the team’s return to Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, and consists of three main actions. The first action is to produce a combined trip report. The report provides an overall description of the staff assistance visit including LEAP team members, dates, and location of the visit and a short overall assessment of the climate of the visit. The report also lists the workshops provided, facilitators of the workshops, number of participants per workshop and, if necessary, the number of iterations of workshop. The last portion of the report includes observations and recommendations captured by the LEAP team during the daily after action reviews. The completed report is distributed to LEAP members and to the customer. Next is an internal ArmyU after action review to focus on improvements to the planning and execution of future LEAP visits. The final action is a follow-up phone interview with the center of excellence or school point of contact approximately eight weeks after the LEAP visit. The purpose is to solicit the customer’s assessment of the effectiveness of the workshops and to allow for scheduling LEAP follow-up visits if desired. This information is also valuable for assessing the overall satisfaction of our customer and to facilitate modification of the program if warranted.

Initial Program Results

The first official LEAP visit was in November 2017. The initial visit consisted of one day of training with an overview of the general learning outcomes from Army Field Manual 3-0, Operations , and creation of multiple-choice assessments at all levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy, a hierarchal framework of higher learning and education used to organize levels of expertise necessary to a reach an objective. Lessons learned were captured for program improvement. The program needed to expand the workshops offered to meet the needs identified by the customers from their gap analysis. The assessment workshop required a redesign to add rubric creation and create a full-day workshop dedicated solely to assessment design and development. The restructured full-day assessment workshop premiered in May 2018. A second workshop in May 2018 included a two-day revised assessment creation workshop and a new workshop on how to prepare for an American Council on Education review. Feedback from participants was very positive; it included comments on their new understanding of the criticality of assessments to success during an American Council on Education review and how the information would be applied. In August 2018, based upon customer requests, the number of workshops expanded to include Alignment of Terminal Learning Objectives and Enabling Learning Objectives, and Data Collection and Implementation of Feedback. The new workshops were well received, although the customers felt too many workshops occurred simultaneously for attendees to participate in all of them.

Initially, the program was advertised to specific centers of excellence and schools by ArmyU through word of mouth. Formal promotion of the program began through a partnership with the Policy and Guidance Division within ArmyU’s Directorate of Learning Systems, which conducts mandatory workload management site assistance visits each year to the centers of excellence and schools. The Directorate of Academic Affairs offered LEAP services as an add-on to the Policy and Guidance Division’s visit. Several schools and centers opted for the addition of a LEAP to the workload management visit (U.S. Department of the Army [DA], 2018a). The second program advertisement was the publication of a TRADOC task order. The purpose of the task order was to inform the learning enterprise of LEAP and various workshops available and to solicit requests for a LEAP visit in FY 2019. The response rate to the task order was low, yielding only a few requests for assistance (DA, 2018b).

Word of mouth advertisement by ArmyU and recent LEAP customers generates much greater program interest. ArmyU also promotes the program in Army Learning Coordination Council subcommittee meetings—in particular, the Policy and Governance Oversite Committee—that serves as a discussion and decision forum with participants from across the Army learning enterprise.

The promotion of the initial LEAP, especially through word of mouth, contributed to increases in the number and availability of workshop offerings. Centers of excellence and schools have requested at least 11 additional visits for FY 2019. Two of the FY 2019 LEAP visits are scheduled to support non-TRADOC schools. Planning is underway to include “how-to guides,” available online to support the workshops and expanding the work shop offerings in coordination with the Directorate of Distance Learning and the Army University Press.

Program Evaluation

LEAP must be a cost- and performance-effective program with benefits worth the investment. The program requires a significant investment of employee work hours and transportation costs for the LEAP team, as well as employee work hours of the students in the workshops. A customer-service approach is the most promising method to determine its value. Providing customer service within the military from a higher headquarters to a subordinate organization is a rare approach. The prevalent relationship is one of “mission command,” which is the balancing of “the art of command as the creative and skillful exercise of authority through timely decision-making and leadership” (DA, 2012, p. 5) and “the s cience of control consists of systems and procedures used to improve the commander’s understanding and support accomplishing missions” (DA, 2012, p. 8). A keyword search for “customer service” and “military” across several peer-reviewed sources in popular search databases (e.g., ABI/INFORM, Academic Search Complete, and ProQuest) did not yield any that included this unique relationship.

Managing the quality of the customer service relationship does not happen by accident! Service quality is managed similar to how other organizational processes are managed: planning, delivering, evaluating, and improving the service experience. Service quality was defined by Parasuraman, Zeithaml, and Berry (1988) as the ability to meet or exceed customer expectations. Customers pursue services that solve their problems and expect the service to be right the first time. Service quality is also more than providing a functional service. Mechanic and humanic clues appeal to the customer’s affective domain; they are emotional judgments of how the service encounters feel to the customer (Berry, Wall, & Carbone, 2006, p. 48).

The humanic dimension “offers the chance to cultivate emotional connectivity that can extend respect and esteem to customers and, in so doing, exceed their expectations, strengthen their trust, and deepen their loyalty” (Berry, Wall, & Carbone, 2006, p. 49). Humanic elements allow the organization to exceed expectations through a direct focus on “the customer” by evoking pleasant surprise. Emotional connection increases through personal and continuing customer-service provider relationships. Jan Carlzon’s (1987) Moments of Truth: New Strategies for Today’s Customer Driven Economy introduced the concept of “moments of truth” in dealing with customers capturing the essence of the humanic dimension. Moments of truth are experienced by the customer every time a member of the service provider’s organization interacts with them—email, telephone, video-teleconference, face-to-face, rumor, etc. Every customer interaction is both an opportunity and a threat to service quality.

Measures of customer service within LEAP are in two areas: (1) the learning of the individual student (i.e., accurately and satisfactorily) and (2) the effectiveness of meeting the hosting center of excellence or school goals (i.e., dependability and value). Service satisfaction reflects the customer’s post-experience summary evaluation of the service. Satisfaction may be subcategorized as relative (i.e., what is delivered) or overall (i.e., how it is delivered) satisfaction. Customer value is the assessment of the usefulness of the service relative to the cost (Sivadas & Jindal, 2017). Initially, LEAP used a “relative service” 10-item post-workshop survey and overall service comment cards. ArmyU is exploring empirically validated methods for future measurement of services.

ArmyU reviewed several customer service quality and performance tools applied in the past within the higher education context. The use of customer service practices within higher education organizations increases as students become viewed as customers, organizations face increased competition with other institutions, public funding decreases, and educational costs to students and their families rise (Celuch & Robinson, 2016; Chalcraft, Hilton, & Hughes, 2015; Teeroovengadum, Kamalanabhan, & Seebaluck, 2016). Service quality and performance tools may drive modifying the current LEAP survey and help demonstrate the value of the program. The most promising tools considered are the Higher Education Performance (HEdPERF) for individual learner satisfaction and word-of-mouth referral for organizational satisfaction.

Service Quality (SERVQUAL) and Service Performance (SERVPERF) general service measurement tools require modification for specific applications. SERVQUAL has been in use since the 1980s as a simple method of measuring the difference between a customer’s perceptions and expectations of the service received. SERVQUAL measures service and expectations based upon 22 items from each perspective across five dimensions: reliability, responsiveness, assurance, tangibles, and empathy. Performance is subtracted from expectations to derive quality gaps, grouped into seven areas (Adil, Mohammad Al Ghaswyneh, & Musallam Albkour, 2013). Criticism of the tool includes the potential for misinterpretation of the “difference scores” used to calculate the quality gaps, as well as theoretical and operational criticism of its dimensional structure (Galeeva, 2016, p. 329).

SERVPERF uses the SERVQUAL 22 items across the same five dimensions for measuring the performance of services delivered and compares the ratings to ideal features—it does not include expectations (Adil, Mohammad Al Ghaswyneh, & Musallam Albkour, 2013; Galeeva, 2016; Mahmoud & Khalifa, 2015). SERVPERF has been found to be a better measure of service in general than SERVQUAL (Adil, Mohammad Al Ghaswyneh, & Musallam Albkour, 2013, p. 70).

Higher education also uses modified versions of SERVQUAL and SERVPERF. There is some evidence SERVPERF and HEdPERF outperform SERVQUAL within higher education (Adil, Mohammad Al Ghaswyneh, & Musallam Albkour, 2013; Galeeva, 2016). Additionally, Ganić, Babić-Hodović, and Arslanagić-Kalajdžić (2018) researched the dimensions of satisfaction and loyalty to the SERVPERF and found a direct, positive, and significant relationship satisfaction, whereas loyalty had no significant relationships.

The HEdPERF service measurement instrument was developed specifically for higher education. The tool consists of 41 items and six dimensions: nonacademic aspects, academic aspects, reputation, access, program issues, and understanding. It also has high reliability and criterion-related validity; discriminate validity is not demonstrated ( Abdullah , 2005; Abdullah , 2006a).

Modified five-dimension HEdPERF (e.g., understanding dimension dropped) comparisons to SERVPERF and a HEdPERF-SERRVPERF integrated tool demonstrated HEdPERF as superior to the other two instruments for unidimensionality, reliability, validity, and explained variance ( Abdullah , 2006b). Several researches validated or partially validated the early work with HEdPERF, determining it outperforms SERVQUAL and SERVPERF in the higher education context, and the access dimension ( Abdullah , 2006a; Abdullah , 2006b; Silva, Moraes, Makiya, & Cesar, 2017).

Word of Mouth (WOM) is another proposed measure for overall satisfaction (Sivadas & Jindal, 2017). WOM is considered a substitute for attitudinal loyalty resulting from tremendously satisfied customers. Loyalty in this context represents the customer’s intent to once again use this service over other options (Tripathi, 2018). In the age of public social media, there has been an exponential growth in the use of WOM (Pruden & Vavra, 2015). Antecedents to customers making WOM recommendations include a positive or negative message of content, motivation, and opportunity to share the attitude. WOM is considered an extremely high level of satisfaction because it means customers are making unsolicited recommendations for a service or product (Pruden & Vavra, 2015). WOM recommendations also exhibit a halo effect that moderates the negative attitudes that arise from one bad experience (Shi, Tang, Zhang, Gao, & Zhu, 2016). The goal for LEAP is to expand across all centers and schools based upon the perceived value of the program, as measured by WOM.

Program Future

LEAP is gaining in popularity and demand, which is in turn leading to an expansion of the program’s workshop offerings. Schools are already requesting multiple same-year visits and spreading out visits to ensure a larger portion of their workforce can benefit from each workshop. Our customers have also shown interest in a workshop reach-back refresher capability. LEAP is expected to outgrow the ArmyU capability and funding required to provide all services in only on-site, face-to-face settings by FY 2020. In a time of budget constraints, a blended learning solution solves both these challenges.

Blended learning is a design approach that may leverage a mix of technologies, pedagogical approaches, and instructional technology with face-to-face instruction (Bliuc, Goodyear, Ellis, 2007). As Yu Zhonggen and Zhejiang Yuexiu (2015) noted in “Blended Learning over Two Decades,” blended learning can take many different forms: “The technology aided activities attempted to improve learning effectiveness through integration of active learning approaches and/or extensive use of working experience” (p. 6). The literature is mixed in findings of the blended learning advantages and disadvantages compared to face-to-face and completely online courses (Bliuc, Goodyear, Ellis, 2007, p. 233; Chen & Jones, 2007; Means, Toyama, Murphy, & Baki, 2013). Advantages of blended learning may include effective and flexible delivery, convenient learner access, and increased efficiency compared to traditional resident instruction (De George-Walker & Keeffe, 2010). A primary concern of transitioning to blended learning course design is the potential of not fully achieving desired learning outcomes, lower learner satisfaction, and lower development of classroom community (Bliuc, Goodyear, Ellis, 2007; Lim, Morris, & Kupritz, 2007).

A blended learning format can provide a more adaptive learning and instructional approach, allowing for more interaction between workshop participants and the instructor than an online-only format (Hockly, 2018). Delivering LEAP content online can be used by the student before, during, and after the workshop. Students would have access to the workshop content for future reach-back and research-based self-instruction. The goal for the future is developing blended learning strategies derived from the 2019 LEAP visits to implement in the 2020 LEAP and beyond.

Driving innovation across the learning enterprise is a critical function for ArmyU. ArmyU established the Learning Enterprise Assistance Program as a service to the TRADOC centers of excellence and schools. LEAP is a unique initiative for fostering innovation because of its customer service approach to learning within a military context. The initial response to the voluntary LEAP by the TRADOC centers of excellence and schools has been very positive: at least 11 LEAP visits will be performed in FY 2019, primarily because of positive word-of-mouth recommendations. Two of the FY 2019 LEAP visits are scheduled to support non-TRADOC schools.

ArmyU will improve LEAP in the future by expanding workshop offerings in response to customer requests. The LEAP customer-service approach is rare within the military. The goal is to measure customer service within LEAP using an empirically validated customer service tool and word of mouth. It is critical that LEAP is effective in two areas: (1) the learning of the individual student (i.e., accurately and satisfactorily) and (2) the effectiveness of meeting the hosting center of excellence or school goals (i.e., dependability and value).

The future viability of LEAP also relies upon ArmyU’s ability to develop an effective blended learning strategy. Delivering LEAP content online allows student access before, during, and after the workshop and supports reach-back and research-based self-instruction. The goal is to implement the blended learning design in FY 2020.

Abdullah, F. (2005). HEdPERF versus SERVPERF: The quest for ideal measuring instrument of service quality in higher education sector. Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 13 (4), 305–328. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ801769

Abdullah , F. (2006a). The development of HEdPERF: A new measuring instrument of service quality for the higher education sector. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30 (6), 569–581. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-6431.2005.00480.x

Abdullah, F. (2006b). Measuring service quality in higher education: HEdPERF versus SERVPERF. Marketing Intelligence & Planning , 24 (1), 31–47. doi: 10.1108/02634500610641543

Adil, M., Mohammad Al Ghaswyneh, O. F., & Musallam Albkour, A. (2013). SERVQUAL and SERVPERF: A review of measures in services marketing research. Global Journal of Management and Business Research Marketing, 13 (6), 65–76.

Berry, L. L., Wall, E. A., & Carbone, L. P. (May 2006). Service clues and customer assessment of the service experience: Lessons from marketing. Academy of Management Perspectives, 20 (2), 43–57 . https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2006.20591004

Bliuc, A., Goodyear, P., & Ellis, R. A. (2007). Research focus and methodological choices in studies into students’ experiences of blended learning in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education , 10 (4), 231–244. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1096751607000516

Brown, R. B. (2015). The Army University: Educating Leaders to Win in a Complex World. Military Review , July-August, 18–28. Retrieved from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20150831_art008.pdf

Carlzon, J. (1987) Moments of truth: New strategies for today’s customer driven economy. New York: Harper Business .

Celuch, K., & Robinson, N. M. (2016). How the customer feedback process contributes to perceived customer orientation and affective commitment in the higher educational service context. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 29 , 53–76. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-4308938011/how-the-customer-feedback-process-contributes-to-perceived

Chalcraft, D., Hilton, T., & Hughes, T. (2015, January). Customer, collaborator or co-creator? What is the role of the student in a changing higher education servicescape? Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 25 (1), 1–4. doi:10.1080/08841241.2015.1044790

Chen, C. C., & Jones, K. T. (2007). Blended learning vs. traditional classroom settings: Assessing effectiveness and student perceptions in an MBA accounting course. The Journal of Educators Online , 4 (1), 1–15. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ907743.pdf

De George-Walker, L., & Keeffe, M. (2010). Self-determined blended learning: A case study of blended learning design. Higher Education Research & Development , 29( 1), 1–13. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07294360903277380

Galeeva, R. B. (2016). SERVQUAL application and adaptation for educational service quality assessments in Russian higher education. Quality Assurance in Education , 24 (3), 329–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/QAE-06-2015-0024

Ganić, E., Babić-Hodović, V., & Arslanagić-Kalajdžić, M. (2018). Effects of SERVPERF dimensions on students’ loyalty -Do you know what is behind the scene? International Journal of Business and Social Science , 9 (2), 215–224. Retrieved from http://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_9_No_2_February_2018/24.pdf

Hockly, N. (2018). Blended learning. ELT Journal , 72 (1), 97–101. Retrieved from https://academic.oup.com/eltj/article-abstract/72/1/97/4812363

Lim, D. H., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , 11 (2), 27–42. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ842695

Lira, L. L., & Beurskens, K. R. (2017). An engine for Army learning: Army University’s Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence. Journal of Military Learning , 1 (2), 44–55. Retrieved from https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/journal-of-military-learning/Archives/jml-october-2017-Whole-book.pdf

Mahmoud, A. B., & Khalifa, B. (2015). A confirmatory factor analysis for SERVPERF instrument based on a sample of students from Syrian universities. Education and Training , 57 (3), 343–359. doi:10.1108/ET-04-2014-0038

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., & Baki, M. (2013). The effectiveness of online and blended learning: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Teachers College Record , 115 (030303), 1–47. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/download/43209482/ study__online_and_blended_learning.pdf

Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V. A., & Berry L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing , 64 (1), 12–40. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225083802_SERVQUAL_A_multiple-_Item_Scale_for_measuring _consumer_perceptions_of_service_quality

Pruden, D., & Vavra, T. G. (2015). An experiment in managing word of mouth. Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 28 , 104–110. Retrieved from https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1P3-3936717991/an-experiment-in-managing-word-of-mouth

Shi, W., Tang, L., Zhang, X., Gao, Y., & Zhu, Y. (2016). How does word of mouth affect customer satisfaction? The Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 31 (3), 393–403. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/302064955_How_does_word_of_mouth_affect_customer_satisfaction

Silva, D. S., Moraes, G. H. S. M., Makiya, I. K., & Cesar, F. I. G. (2017). Measurement of perceived service quality in higher education institutions: A review of HEdPERF scale use. Quality Assurance in Education, 25 (4), 415–439. doi:10.1108/QAE-10-2016-0058

Sivadas, E., & Jindal, R. P. (2017). Alternative measures of satisfaction and word of mouth. The Journal of Services Marketing, 31 (2), 119–130. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316358293_Alternative_measures_of_satisfaction_and_word_of_mouth

Teeroovengadum, V., Kamalanabhan, T. J., & Seebaluck, A. K. (2016). Measuring service quality in higher education: Development of a hierarchical model (HESQUAL) . Quality Assurance in Education: An International Perspective, 24 (2), 244–258. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1094457

Tripathi, G. (2017). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth intentions: Testing the mediating effect of customer loyalty. Journal of Services Research, 17 (2), 1–16. Retrieved from https://search.proquest.com/openview/c7b8c1e03f53f86463c57d8b68f72950/1?cbl=28391&pq-origsite=gscholar

U.S. Department of the Army. (2012). Mission command (Department of the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of the Army. (2018a). Fiscal year 2018 (FY18) Training and education development (TED) workload management site assistance visits (SAV) (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Tasking Order IN180525). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO).

U.S. Department of the Army. (2018b). FY 19 center and schools request for Learning Enterprise Advisory Program site assistance visits (U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command Tasking Order IN181571). Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.

Zhonggen, Y., & Yuexiu, Z. (2015). Blended learning over two decades. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education, 11 (3), 1–19. doi:10.4018/IJICTE.2015070101

Dr. Keith R. Beurskens is the deputy, Directorate of Academic Affairs and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, Army University. Beurskens was the lead author for the “Army University White Paper” and the “Strategic Business Plan for the Army University,” which led to the Army’s approval in establishing Army University in 2015. He has authored a number of articles; his latest publication was as editor of The Long Haul Historical Case Studies of Sustainment Operations in Large-Scale Combat Operations in 2018. Beurskens completed a 24-year military career that included assignments in combat engineer units, the Corps of Engineers, professor of military science at the University of Illinois, and major Army command-level staffs. Beurskens holds a doctorate of management in organizational leadership.

Maycie Crozier is an instructional systems specialist, Accreditation and Programs Division, Directorate of Academic Affairs and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, Army University. Crozier spent 10 years in public education before transitioning to civil service. Crozier was an instructor with Staff and Faculty Development Division, Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and Faculty Development at the Army SHARP (Sexual Harassment/Assault Response and Prevention) Academy, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, before coming to Army University. Crozier holds a BS in special education and a Master of Education Administration, both from Southwestern Oklahoma State University.

Jayson B. Dodge is the Learning Enterprise Assistance Program (LEAP) manager, Directorate of Academic Affairs and Center for Teaching and Learning Excellence, Army University. Dodge completed a 20-year military career that included assignments in brigade combat teams, active and reserve components, and the United States Forces Korea joint staff (CJ33). Dodge’s last assignment while on active duty was the Learning Products Branch chief, Policy and Governance Division, Directorate of Learning Systems. Dodge also was a member of the team that established Army University in 2015. Dodge holds a BA from the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point and a Master of Adult and Occupational Education from Kansas State University.

Back to Top

QUICK LINKS

• JML Call For Papers
• Current Edition
• JML Archives
• JML Submission Guidelines

Official websites use .mil

Secure .mil websites use HTTPS

ACC Staff Assistance Visit helps uphold airfield standards

By Master Sgt. Kerri Spero Joint Task Force-Bravo Public Affairs

News Archives

Our priorities.

LATEST FROM SOUTHCOM

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - GoCanvas

The US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist is used to organize periodic inspections according to the policies and responsibilities outlined by the US Army.

5,000 Companies save time and money with GoCanvas

This easy to use electronic safety and health inspection checklist covers each functional area of US Army SAV periodic inspections, including program management, logistical support, risk management and program compliance.

Instead of using paper checklists, the US Army safety inspections app manages all the details using a smartphone or tablet. Army safety program representatives can use the inspection team app anywhere in the field, making it easy to conduct full US Army safety inspections anytime, anywhere. Once the inspection team has finished the inspection, the completed inspection checklist can be emailed, printed and saved for the Army safety program records.

• Calculations
• Submission Editing
• Reference Data
• Google Docs

GoCanvas accounts come with hundreds of form templates

More Army Templates

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - M...

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - PASR

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - L...

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - F...

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - ASAP

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - E...

US Army Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) Checklist (PSDR) - O...

Don't take our word for it...

“I’m not a tech guy and I was able to pick this thing up in probably an hour, and actually start to build apps. I’ve done them over lunch when I’ve gotten frustrated with a process that didn’t exist in our company. So for non tech people who’ve got a problem, the support here is awesome and I’d recommend it to anybody, not just in our industry.” Dave Kramer, PennLine Service

Connect with one of our experts today.

We’ll help you put together the right solution for your needs.

SSI Learning Resource Center

Train to Lead, This We'll Defend!

Establish an HR Organizational Staff Assistance Visit (SAV) (ICI) CIP) Program

805C-42B7128C

Lesson Content:

Official websites use .mil

Secure .mil websites use HTTPS

Army South Operational Protection Directorate conducts staff assistance visit in Panama

By Leanne Thomas U.S. Army South

Major Construction Army (MCA) Information

• Design Charrette
• Definitive Designs
• TISA Drawings

Kitchen Plans

• Equipment Schedules
• Food Service Equipment (Cut Sheets)

Home - JCCoE - Operations Directorate - Facilities, Engineer, and Equipment Division

Facilities, Engineer, and Equipment Division (FEED)

The Facilities, Engineer, and Equipment Division (FEED) provides advice and assistance to units and installations around the Army food service world. Our primary focus areas are Army field equipment, garrison dining facility equipment, layout designs for Army dining facilities, and maintenance requirements. FEED provides performance specifications for new equipment, and makes equipment recommendations to the user. We empower the user and buyer to make the most educated and economical decisions they can.

Staff Assistance Visit

FEED is a part of the Staff Assistance Visits (SAV) to provide assistance in requested specific areas to ensure the Food Program operates properly. Team member can provide in-depth retraining on:

• Dining Facility Utilization
• Dining Facility Construction Renovation
• Kitchen Equipment Replacement Maintenance
• Equipment Programs
• Specific management areas or concerns expressed by the IMCOM Region and the Food Program Manager (FPM) reference to new construction

Transition Assistance Team, and Pre-Acceptance Team Visit

Teams can provide in-depth review on:

Transition assistance team

The purpose of a transition assistance team visit is to assist installation commanders in opening and operating newly constructed or modernized dining facilities. This team will train food service personnel in the concept of operation for a newly designed or modernized facility, and on the proper operation and maintenance of all food service equipment in the facility. Visits will be scheduled by JCCoE, ACES OD based on projected completion dates of new or modernized facilities in CONUS. To request a visit, follow the same procedure for Food Management Team requests.

Pre-acceptance teams

The objective of a preacceptance team visit is to assist the installation commander in MCA projects. This is done by finding facility and equipment discrepancies, identifying problems, providing solutions to the installation, the Department of Public Works (DPW), and the user accept responsibility for new or modernized dining facilities. The pre-acceptance team will review the facility to determine if design layout and equipment meet Army construction standards and military specifications. The FPM must coordinate with the DPW and Corps of Engineers in identifying completion dates for contractor furnished and contractor installed equipment. ACES OD (ATTN: ATSM-CES-OE) will be notified as early as possible when the equipment is completely installed to schedule attendance at the pre-acceptance inspection. Requests for preacceptance assistance team visits will be forwarded through the appropriate IMA region to JCCoE. To request a Pre-acceptance teams visit use the same procedure as prescribed for Food Management Teams.

Points of Contact

• COMM: (804) 734-3354
• DSN: 687-3354

Food Service Analyst

• COMM: (804) 734-3329
• DSN: 687-3329

Administrative Assistant

• COMM: (804) 734-4718
• DSN: 687-4718

Equipment Specialist

• COMM: (804) 734-3390
• DSN: 687-3450
• COMM: (804) 734-3122
• DSN: 687-3122

This page was last updated on: February 29, 2024

Your version of Internet Explorer is out of date. It has known security flaws and can cause issues displaying content on this page, and other websites.

Learn how to update your browser

• Organization
• Quality of Life
• Army Worldwide
• Press Releases
• Soldier Features
• Publications
• Under Secretary
• Chief of Staff
• Vice Chief of Staff
• Sergeant Major of the Army
• Public Affairs
• Social Media Guide

Former SMA visit increases awareness for Soldiers and Spouses about Army Emergency Relief in Vicenza

By Stefanie Mosley USAG Italy September 16, 2024

• Share on Twitter
• Share on Facebook
• Share on Reddit
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share via Email

While getting in his car to start the first leg of his tour in Europe, Retired U.S. Sgt. Maj. of the Army , Michael “Tony” Grinston, CEO of Army Emergency Relief was approached by a young Soldier, who recently moved to Vicenza.

Retired U.S. Sgt. Maj. of the Army, Michael “Tony” Grinston, CEO of AER visits Vicenza on Sept. 9, 2024 as part of a tour to highlight how AER can help Soldiers and families.

After a quick introduction, the Soldier explained to Grinston how AER helped him bring his dog overseas through the pet transportation loan program, which can reach up to $5,500 with no interest for individuals who qualify.

“If you don’t know that we have that program for that, it can put a lot of stress on the Soldier and Families because they didn’t know it was available to them,” said Grinston whose goal is taking this loan from 50% grant and 50% loan to a full grant.

Army Emergency Relief’s mission is to provide financial assistance through grants, interest-free loans, and scholarships to promote readiness and relieve financial distress of Soldier’s and their families, as well as retirees, Reserve Soldiers, National Guard, and Active Guard Reserve. AER provides over 30 different categories of assistance to include emergency travel, childcare, funeral expenses, utilities, and spousal relicensing and recertification.

Nearly 22 years ago, Grinston and his wife, Alexandra were stationed here in Vicenza. Having experienced life in Vicenza, he understands some of the challenges Soldiers and their families face.

Grinston met with nearly 20 Army spouses from the Vicenza Military Community at Army Community Service on Caserma Ederle to discuss AER and its mission, receive feedback, and to raise awareness about the many programs AER has to offer, especially those that help spouses.

The group started off their meeting with short introductions with their name and their hidden talent, with several sharing they are secret chefs, musicians, volunteers, a human jukebox, can swim butterfly, and can get their kids to school on time.

“If there is a family that’s struggling, all you have to do is know that they’re struggling,” said Grinston. “Just don’t be afraid to ask. If it’s financial, come to AER, if we don’t do it, maybe we should.”

Some of the biggest challenges that families face are spouse employment and spouse relicensing and recertification. AER’s biggest challenge is people not knowing what they offer, one of those being scholarships.

For the last several years, AER has awarded over $9 million in scholarships to spouses and family members.

Sophie Gainey, an Army spouse new to the community was a member of a spouse’s club while previously stationed in Germany, where a scholarship deadline had to be extended due to over 200 applications. She knows the need for AER scholarships is there.

“AER is a non-profit organization that offers our Army Soldiers and their families fantastic support from scholarships to financial assistance with zero interest loans and grants,” said Gainey. “Without a doubt AER programs actually save our Army families money and keeps them financially resilient.”

Gainey also commended Grinston on his efforts to help bring awareness to those who may not know what AER is, and to those who may be hesitant to ask for help.

“Today’s engagement between senior spouses and AER CEO Tony Grinston underscored AER’s commitment and forward-thinking ideas to assisting our Army families with their financial concerns,” said Gainey.

Later in the day, Grinston made his way over to Caserma Del Din for lunch with Soldiers to listen to their needs and how to better help, followed by a professional development session that focused on leadership.

Spc. James Lamp with Spartan Company, 54th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade, once had car issues and needed help to pay for the repairs, and AER was there.

Although Lamp knew he could turn to AER, lunch with Grinston allowed him the opportunity to learn more about the program including how AER thrives on donations, that they give out more than they receive, and that they offer not only loans, but grants, and scholarships too.

“I know now that I can push out this information to the Soldiers under me, to help get people the proper assistance that they need,” said Lamp. “AER is much more than just loans.”

Moving to overseas can be challenging, as there are many differences when it comes to lifestyle changes and even paying your bills.

After competing against Grinston in a physical training competition during basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Spc. Nathan Skipworth, with 54th Brigade Engineer Battalion, 173rd Airborne Brigade, was happy to see a familiar with Grinston’s visit so close to his promotion to Sergeant.

When Skipworth first arrived in Vicenza, he wasn’t aware of how the billing system for some of his utilities work, and soon found himself with a bill over $1,000.

After reaching out to AER, Skipworth received help to pay the utility bill, and pays monthly on a 0% interest loan. Now he takes the steps he needs to make sure he keeps his bills on track but understands asking for help can be difficult for some.

“Don’t be afraid to ask for help, said Skipworth. “That’s the biggest issue in the Army, but I did it and it ended up working out in my favor.”

For more information about the Army Emergency Relief program, please visit www.armyemergencyrelief.org.

RELATED STORIES

• October 10, 2022 Army announces winners of prestigious 2022 competition awards
• October 13, 2020 Army announces winners of prestigious 2020 competition awards
• June 11, 2019 CSM Michael Grinston selected as 16th Sergeant Major of the Army
• July 18, 2017 U.S. Army STAND-TO! | USACE Readiness Support Center

Social Sharing