How to describe experience in a resume correctly?

Here's the challenge with hiring OEF/OIF veterans: Can someone please describe in detail the responsibilities, qualifications, and role within a US Army unit of an "infantry machine gun team leader"?

• Assume I have read both and An Iraq War veteran and applicant for a summer job in finance listed "infantry machine gun team leader" as his most recent and most extensive professional experience. I need to understand how this translates into a set of skills or personal qualifications that are applicable for an investment banking analyst. If you are current or former military and are familiar with this role, please describe the following in whatever detail you would consider helpful to a civilian employer: (1) Day-to-day functions of this role (2) Who they would answer to and who would answer to them (3) What types of qualifications are generally required to attain this role (4) By what barometers would performance of this person be assessed (5) If you have firsthand experience with the job of machine gun team leader, having either served with one or having been one yourself, please describe some of the challenges that are frequently encountered and how they are handled (6) As a final catch-all, what are NOT good questions to ask a veteran of OEF/OIF? Interpret this narrowly, as in what job- or career-related questions should not be asked--obviously I would not ask questions like "Did you kill someone" (not my business), "Do you agree with the war" (ditto), "Do you have PTSD" (almost definitely illegal to ask, given it's a medical condition), and so forth. If it is useful context, the candidate was in the Army and served in Iraq sometime between 2005-2010. Now here's why I ask this question. The candidate attends a pretty prestigious university and most of his peers have already had experience in finance, which is obviously something that I know pretty well and can therefore get a good sense of just by looking at a resume. But I can't say the same about military experience, which is denoted and recorded in its own distinct jargon; to say nothing of the absurdity that some vets are likely to feel when they are asked how their job performance was assessed in a place where the stakes were life or death. So at least for vets looking to enter finance, they are likely to walk into recruiting processes trailing by at least two touch-downs: Little to no finance background, and job experience that is extremely difficult to translate into concrete qualifications. Like probably most Americans, I do think that life-long civilians like myself have an obligation to help out veterans when we can, and in this case I think the best thing I can do is give a veteran-college student a fair shot at a good-paying job. And giving him a fair shot means better understanding what it is that he used to do. So to that end, please--describe away. Also consider yourself free to add thoughts generally on the matter of veterans' unemployment. Other employers: do you have any similar experience to share?

• Answer:

  Let's give this a shot. I want to first mention that I served in a somewhat similar role in the United States Marines. I have a good general sense of the day to day job, but I can't answer a lot of the specifics about how the army promotes and what metrics they're gauged on. Hopefully this will help you. Day to day functions?  As an infantry team leader his day to day functions probably centered almost totally on the team he was over. He was probably responsible for a group of around 4 junior soldiers. He needed to ensure that they were taken care of, in the sense that they were fed, rested, trained and physically fit. He was also responsible for regular counselings, be they periodic or disciplinary. He also had to ensure that all paperwork and administrative information for the soldiers under his care properly maintained and filed accordingly. Probably not what you were expecting, but this is the biggest part of their job. Civilian translation: HR Generalist, Entry Level Management Along with this comes his actual job. Machine guns sound fierce, but step back and realize that they are really just machines. A car engine is comparable. While this may not be the type of qualification you're looking for, weapons specialists have a degree of aptitude toward engineering in that they are trained to understand all the moving parts and functions of numerous weapons systems as well as meticulous maintenance and repair. Civilian translation: Low-level Engineer What is important to remember though is that this person isn't the type of HR director who tells you he can't do anything done until you fill out the ID10-T form or an auto mechanic who charges three times as much to do half the work he promised in twice the time he said it would. As a matter of life and personal well-being, this job entails that he has functionality at field repair and servicing a broken weapon while under fire. This means that he has to command his team and be able to fix anything wrong with the weapon system while under extreme duress. This trains a person to deal with stress differently than in the civilian world. Many of the civilian co-workers I deal with honestly don't get me when I seem to not be affected by stressful events. They don't understand that when I make a stoic expression and say "Ok." that that doesn't mean I don't care or don't understand the gravity of the situation. You might think that type of mentality that doesn't go into a panic when dealing with hardship isn't motivated or that they lack drive. That is of course until you finally realize that that's the type of person who quietly sits at his desk for fifteen hours and gets the job done, gets up, gathers his things and goes home without asking for all the praise and attention one might give, "Whinney-Whitney" halfway through her third freakout (sorry, that example was a bit specific, but we all have known a "Whiney-Whitney" and that isn't what most vets are). There really is no "civilian equivalent  other than that combat veterans are people who have to deal with stress and tasks most people can't imagine. I like to say that, "Once you've been shot at, it really makes you re-prioritize what used to stress you out." While this probably doesn't help you decide, imagine that if you have a high stress job, will you need someone who won't break at the drop of a hat? Well, this guy probably won't. To whom would they answer to and who would answer to them? This may be a better job for a soldier, but I can give an idea from the Marines. This person would probably be the leader of a team of 3-6 people. They would be part of a larger platoon of between 20-40 people. Each platoon has a platoon leader, who would probably be a senior Sergeant or Staff Sergeant, perhaps even a First Sergeant. These are normally people who served at least one full enlistment of 4 years and probably at least 8. They are very experienced in their field do generally the same job only on a much more administrative level and with a larger scope. They would likely be the candidate's direct supervisor. They in-turn answer to the lowest ranking officer in the spectrum which is the platoon commander. Along with this he would, by tradition, fall under anyone of a higher rank than he was. In the civilian world if you see someone the same rank as your boss or even higher, but they are not directly in your chain of command, than you can generally treat them as anyone else without much fanfare. This isn't so in the military. Everyone who outranks you, is your boss. This means he was under constant scrutiny ... even from strangers. This type of environment breeds individuals who strive for perfection just to get left alone. This may not be much use to you, but it is interesting to know. Below him was his team of 3-6 soldiers. They are junior soldiers, most likely on their first deployment cycle and new to the army. One member of the team may be a Specialist, which is a soldier who has been in a little while (about 2-3 years) and has a good deal of field experience, but not command authority. I have mentioned the responsibilities of this position and will move on. What types of qualifications are generally required to attain this role From my understanding this is probably the role for a Corporal or Specialist. Both of these are E-4's which means that they are the fourth rank in the enlisted promotion cycle. One can achieve E-4 in around 2-3 years. Specialist, which I mentioned before is the first in the NCO ranks. If someone shows a good deal of command potential he may be slated to become a Corporal. This is lateral move with no special benefits, but it is one of great responsibility for a younger soldier early in his career. If a person stayed in only four years, this is probably as high as they could have gotten. I really can't tell you that much about how the army promotes, but I have asked this question to help you: As I have mentioned before, it takes a few years and a lot of training to achieve the rank. A good level of competence must have been shown to be placed in command of a unit. By what barometers would performance of this person be assessed? Apologies again, but if the information provided doesn't service you, this question would also be best answered by an actual soldier from the Army. My personal advice: This person you are interviewing hopefully has shown something other than this job for the position you are hiring for. Is he involved in school towards a degree in business, finance or accounting? Has he had another job that references any of the the skills needed? Has anything in his life shown you that that is what he wants? Or is it just a good job and you're trying hard to give him a chance? The fact is this person is probably a very good worker, and if the job is starting off low enough and it is OK to train them in the specifics of the job then he would be great. If you need someone with hard financial understanding today, I would need to see something other than this on the resume to feel comfortable signing off on it.