Staff member
While such statistics are compiled, getting them these days adds very little value without the supporting data. The supporting data has become more critical as A&S has changed from being one enlisted occupation specialty (AFSC) specific to being four enlisted occupation specialties (AFSCs) and one officer utilization field with three shred outs.

The officer aspect of A&S can be discounted due to how commissioned officers are acquired for the utilization field and put through A&S.

For some reason the Air Force just lumps student attrition into one combined percentage rate and perhaps some breakout of medical disqualification, academic failure, and SIE. Very seldom is sufficient supporting data given to allow any sort of useful analysis as the experts did it and they are just providing the statistic.

The biggest change to A&S is candidates can meet all the standards and still not be selected. This means they were not suitable for placement into the required training pipeline of any of the four enlisted AFSCs. This change means the stats have expanded from volunteer self-elimination (SIE), Medical disqualification elimination, to include non-volunteer removal for psych reasons (demotivating others, inability to work well with others, etc) and peer reviews even though all performance standards are being met or exceeded.

FYI, the pych evals aren't medical evals to diagnosis a medical disqualification, but rather to gauge how well one can perform effectively with others in the training environment and subsequently in the operational environment.

As far as removal for lack of physical capacity (fitness) the big cause is still aerobics connected. Running, treading water, underwater training events.

This information isn't very helpful to the hopeful candidate as all it does is feed doubts and fuels excuses for not making the decision to commit to trying.
Custom Text