Each year, thousands of service members and veterans arrive at our colleges and universities carrying more than just a joint services transcript (JST). They bring years of training, discipline and expertise earned in service to our nation. Translating their experiential learning into academic credit is one of higher education’s most powerful tools to accelerate degree completion, save money for students and taxpayers, and honor the commitments our institutions have made to military learners.
While the intent is noble, the process is delicate. Recognizing and awarding military credit from a JST requires both precision and restraint. Too much undifferentiated or elective credit, especially when it doesn’t apply to a declared program, can do more harm than good. The challenge is federal financial aid rules count all accepted transfer credits toward a student’s satisfactory academic progress (SAP) maximum time frame. That means well-intentioned institutions that auto-award large blocks of electives for military training courses or workplace learning may inadvertently push veterans closer to running out of federal financial aid before they finish. Institutions and transfer services teams need to recognize that the JST credit recommendation is based on an evaluation by faculty subject matter experts and only becomes college credit once it is recognized by the institution. Therefore, the institution can recognize all, some or none of the JST recommendations.
Our task, then, is clear: We must value military credit recommendations without devaluing a military learners’ chances of completing a degree in the most efficient and financially responsible way. The best institutions have found a strategic balance honoring service while maintaining academic integrity, fiscal responsibility and clear pathways to completion.
Start with Careful Evaluation
The American Council on Education’s (ACE) Military Guide is the cornerstone of this work. Faculty evaluators use it to map JST entries to degree-applicable courses, whether in the major, general education or electives with caps. The key is to avoid blanket transcription of credit. Each award must be selective, degree-relevant and carefully justified.
This approach honors the principle of evaluating first, awarding selectively. It ensures that the credits recorded truly advance a student’s progress toward graduation. At the same time, it preserves flexibility. Institutions can hold additional ACE-recommended learning in the student’s file for later use if the program of study changes. Faculty involvement is critical. Crosswalks and equivalency tables that discipline experts create using the ACE Military Guide should be publicly available and consistently applied. These crosswalks, complete with effective dates and notes on applicability, make the evaluation process transparent and auditable. Just as important, they send a message to military learners. Your training has been recognized, validated and translated in ways that align with academic standards. This is not a handout; it is an acknowledgment of college-level learning, evaluated with the same rigor we apply to any other form of prior learning assessment.
Protect Students Through Smart Transcription
One of the most practical policies institutions can adopt is a degree-applicable transcription. In plain terms, that means only putting credits on the transcript that apply to the declared program. Students should be informed that anything we accept counts toward financial aid calculations. With this knowledge, they can choose to hold non-applicable credits off the transcript, preserving aid eligibility for future degree changes. This student-centered approach prevents the accumulation of excess electives that look good on paper but do little to advance completion. It also establishes a do-no-harm principle: Credit is awarded but only when it helps. Even the best policies fall flat without strong advising. Institutions that serve military learners well often use a team-based approach: financial aid, the School Certifying Official (SCO) and an academic advisor meet jointly with the student at intake. Together, they review how JST credit interacts with degree requirements, VA benefits and financial aid rules.
Some campuses even deploy a Maximum Time Frame calculator during advising. By modeling different scenarios, maximum credit award versus selective award, students can see how today’s choices affect their long-term aid eligibility. These sessions also explain how VA’s monthly housing allowance is tied to full-time enrollment in degree-applicable courses, helping students plan their schedules without costly surprises. Training faculty and advisors on these nuances is just as essential. A well-informed advisor can help a veteran navigate not only transfer credit but also timelines for benefits, rate-of-pursuit rules, and appeal processes if SAP limits become an issue.
Policy Alignment and Appeals
Institutions must ensure that their written SAP policies clearly state what federal rules require: accepted transfer and JST credits count toward both pace and maximum time frame. But those same policies can include appeal pathways. With an academic plan in place, students who have accumulated credits in service to their country should not be barred from finishing their degrees. Aligning institutional practices with Department of Defense Tuition Assistance memoranda and the VA School Certifying Official Handbook keeps compliance tight and roles clear. When JST recommendations don’t align neatly, structured portfolio-based prior learning assessment (PLA) can provide another pathway for recognition with faculty oversight and outcomes-based rigor.
Communication and Transparency
Perhaps the most underappreciated element of success is clear communication. Institutions should maintain accessible web pages and orientation materials that explain:
- How to submit a JST
- How ACE credit recommendations work
- How financial aid rules apply to accepted transfer credit
- How to defer non-applicable credit until later
Veterans and active-duty service members deserve to understand not just the what of credit evaluation but the why. When institutions demystify these processes, students make informed decisions and feel respected as partners in the process. Institutions should not stop at awarding credit. They must monitor outcomes: How many credits are they awarding? How many count toward degrees? How do these practices affect retention, completion and SAP appeals? This data should guide refinements to crosswalks and advising practices, minimizing excess elective accumulation and maximizing degree progress.
Awarding military credit is not simply a clerical exercise. Done well, it is a matter of justice, recognizing the knowledge gained through service while safeguarding the pathways that lead to a degree. Done poorly, it risks leaving students with transcripts full of credits but no degree, with aid exhausted before the finish line. The institutions that strike the right balance follow a clear formula: evaluate first, award selectively, communicate transparently, advise collaboratively and monitor outcomes. This approach accelerates completion, improves retention, uses tax dollars responsibly and, most importantly, honors the service of military learners in a way that truly serves them.
You Might Also Like
