The Joint Service Exhibition Drill Competition held this past weekend brought together the service exhibition drill teams.
With three judges evaluating under a shared scoring framework, final placements were determined based on cumulative scoring. However, as is often the case in judged events, the reasoning behind those placements is not always immediately clear to participants and observers.
This article provides a detailed breakdown of scoring and placement using the DrillMaster Adjudication System, as adopted by the Institute for Ceremonial Standards (ICS). The included scoresheets and commentary are intended to offer transparency by identifying the specific strengths, weaknesses, and performance factors that influenced each team’s final standing.
While these are not the official scoresheets used during the competition, they reflect a structured, doctrine-based analysis of the performances and align with the general consensus observed during judging. The goal is simple: to clarify how performance translates into score—and how score determines placement.
It was a privilege to be invited again to judge the competition. In 2025, the ground was a bit wet, but the primary concern was the wind, with gusts in the 20 mph range. This year, we hoped for better conditions. At 10 a.m., gusts ranged from 10–12 mph, and the decision was made to call the event by 1 p.m. if gusts reached 15 mph.
We prepared and waited at the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, DC’s Tidal Basin. The water made the wind unpredictable. By 1 p.m., the wind had quieted considerably, and with opening ceremonies rehearsals complete, each team moved off to dress and warm up.
The Scoresheets
The Old Guard and I created a very simple sheet, and I provided notes for the other judges outlining areas of focus:
- Composition (CA): Design structure, formation development, and equipment integration.
- Movement (MV): Precision, timing, and uniformity of individuals, small groups, and the collective performance.*
- Equipment (EQ): Precision, timing, and uniformity of individuals, small groups, and the collective performance.*
- Overall Effect (OE): Clarity, impact, and communication of the performance as a whole.
*These two captions examine the same performance responsibilities from two distinct perspectives.
This was intended to guide decision-making. From our seated position—centered and at performance level—we observed and evaluated.
When I tabulated the final scores, I noted strong alignment among the judges. Rankings and ratings were consistent across the panel—and that is a very good thing.
Back Home
Now that I am back home working on my critiques and the accompanying scoresheets, I felt hesitation after completing three analyses. I can’t do it—not in the way those captions require.
In all good conscience, I cannot judge these teams at the high school or collegiate level. That approach evaluates the what and how of a performance—design choices, construction, and comparative creativity. It serves an educational purpose for ROTC and JROTC programs, where competition and development are central objectives.
That is not the intent of the service drill teams.
These teams are not built around competition as a primary goal. Their performances are representations of their service—public-facing, communicative, and symbolic. The standard is not “better design,” but disciplined execution of a purposeful presentation.
Because of that, applying a scholastic evaluation model is not just ineffective—it is inappropriate.
I will appropriately adjudicate the performances, but the evaluation must be limited to the level of excellence achieved within each team’s chosen structure.
The ICS
I recently established the Institute for Ceremonial Standards. The Board of Directors and I have been hard at work. We adopted the World Drill Association Adjudication System and reworked it into the ICS Adjudication System using the captions above.
This system is effective at drill meets worldwide; however, it does not translate to the service drill team level. Why?
Service drill teams do not design routines in competition with one another. Their performances represent their service—they are tools of communication to the American public and audiences worldwide. Legitimacy is inherent.
In competition (if it continues), the question is not what is designed, but how well it is performed—at the individual, small group, and team level.
Introducing a Parallel Adjudication System
To resolve this conflict in evaluation approach, a parallel adjudication system is necessary. Rather than forcing a single model to serve fundamentally different purposes, adjudication must align with intent. The ICS Adjudication System remains appropriate for scholastic and developmental environments, where evaluating the what and how of performance supports education and growth. In contrast, service drill teams—and similar organizations worldwide—require a different model: the Performance Excellence Adjudication Model (PEAM). This model evaluates the level of excellence achieved within an already valid and purposeful structure. This parallel approach does not diminish either model; it clarifies their application. One system measures design and achievement for development, while the other measures execution and excellence in representation. The context determines the system—and at this level, that context demands a standard rooted in performance quality, not design comparison.
The Performance Excellence Adjudication Model (PEAM) evaluates the level of excellence achieved in the execution of a performance, treating the design and structure as purposeful and complete, and therefore not subject to comparative evaluation.
Download The ICS Doctrine Clarification Statement on this new system here: ICS DCS 50-109 The Performance Excellence Adjudication Model (PEAM)
Floor (Area, Pad, Deck) Coverage and Its Relevance
In many adjudication systems—particularly at the high school and collegiate levels—floor or deck coverage is a meaningful evaluation category. Teams are judged on how effectively they use the performance area, including spatial variety, staging, and the logical placement of movement.
At the service level, this criterion does not translate in the same way.
Service drill teams must design routines adaptable to a wide range of environments: basketball courts, parade grounds, indoor venues, and other non-standardized spaces across the country and around the world. As a result, routines are typically constructed to fit within an approximate 60-foot by 40-foot area, regardless of venue.
Additionally, safety requirements demand a buffer—often around 20 feet—between the team and the audience. This further constrains usable space and directly influences design.
Because of these factors, spatial usage is not a design variable in the same way it is for scholastic teams. It is a constraint shared by all service teams.
The question is not how much floor is used, but how effectively the routine functions within a controlled, adaptable space.
At this level, consistency, control, and adaptability take precedence over expansion.
Placement and Circumstances
Resources:
Download the scoresheet pack here to see the detailed scoring breakdown of what I suggest we concentrate on from now on. These independent evaluations are provided to clarify scoring and placement using a standardized, doctrine-based methodology. While not the scoresheets from the competition, the results reflect the same performance realities observed by the judging panel.
1st Place: Air Force Honor Guard Drill Team
Overview: The Airmen of the Air Force Honor Guard Drill Team earned first place through clear improvement in design structure and execution. The routine demonstrated logical sequencing and effective development of forms—an area that has shown notable growth from previous years. Increased emphasis on standardized individual movement, consistent layering of movement, and overall precision contributed to a highly controlled and cohesive performance.
The team’s approach can be characterized as technically driven, with a strong focus on structure, uniformity, and clarity of execution.
Circumstances and Structural Reality: The routine was originally designed for a 16-man team but was performed with 12. Adjustments were made to spacing and responsibilities to maintain structural integrity.
Additionally, high rifle tosses were removed in select sections as a precaution against wind conditions and potential rifle drift. These modifications altered certain elements of visual effect but preserved overall control and execution consistency.
The result was the most structurally sound and consistently executed performance of the competition.
My Score: Achievement: 92 | Execution: 98 | Total: 95.00
DrillMaster Video Critique:
2nd Place: Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon
Overview: The Marine Corps Silent Drill Platoon continues to demonstrate a performance model built on exceptional execution of modified basic movements. A majority of the routine emphasizes precision handling and control of the rifle, performed at a consistently high level.
The design structure relies on a series of established signature segments that are reconfigured annually. These include elements such as the Pendulum Manual, Meat Grinder (horizontal or vertical), Scatter Drill, and Single or Double Bomb Burst, which are arranged and adapted within the first half of the routine. The latter portion remains more stable, featuring the Long Line sequence, including rippled movement across the formation and the inspection sequence.
This approach produces a routine that balances variation in the opening segments with continuity and familiarity in the closing portion.
Circumstances and Structural Reality: Initial timing during entry appeared inconsistent, affecting early cohesion.
As with the Marine Corps Color Guard and Drum and Bugle Corps, the team conducts extended annual training at Marine Corps Air Station Yuma in February. This period includes integration of new members, which can significantly impact overall cohesion depending on turnover within the “Marching 24.”
As a result, early-season performances may reflect a developing level of synchronization, with refinement typically increasing as the season progresses.
The result is a performance that excels in execution consistency, though its structural model differs from teams emphasizing continuous design development.
My Score: Achievement: 90 | Execution: 97 | Total: 93.50
DrillMaster Video Critique:
Due to a recording issue, I was not able to record this routine. Does anyone have a video of the performance?
The analysis and scoring provided are based on direct observation during the event and follow the same adjudication standards applied to all teams.
3rd Place: US Army Drill Team
Overview: The Army Drill Team maintains a strong connection to its historical foundation, incorporating segments that trace back to the 1960s. During that period, Sentinels from the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier were also members of the team, contributing to the development of rifle movements and marching sequences that continue to influence the current performance.
The routine reflects a hybrid design approach, combining legacy segments with newly developed drill and rifle work. This creates a performance that balances historical continuity with modern elements.
This particular performance, however, did not represent the team’s highest standard of execution.
Circumstances and Structural Reality: Significant last-minute changes directly impacted the performance and that impact was felt by the judges.
A decision was made on the day of the event to remove high rifle tosses, altering portions of the routine’s design and effect. Additionally, the loss of an entire squad (four members) due to an injury just two days prior required the team to transition from a 16-man to a 12-man configuration.
This adjustment was made within a very limited timeframe, requiring rapid restructuring of spacing, timing, and responsibilities. The routine had been prepared and refined as a 16-man performance, and the reduced configuration introduced challenges in maintaining visual balance, continuity, and uniformity.
The curve of at the water’s edge possibly played into alignment issues. Getting your bearings with a large curved landmark, a fence in the outfield of a baseball field, for instance, can have an effect, sometimes drastic, on a team.
These factors affected both execution consistency and overall cohesion.
The result was a performance that reflected strong underlying capability, but one that was constrained by structural adjustments made under compressed conditions.
My Score: Achievement: 88 | Execution: 97 | Total:
DrillMaster Video Critique:
Due to a recording issue, I was not able to record this routine, but I did find a recording.
Overview: The Navy was going to send a soloist, which was going to make judging against teams quite difficulty, but I was ready with guidance for the other judges when- they brought a team! Over the last two years, the Navy has been sending the drill team all around the country in support of Navy Weeks and this past weekend, the team was in Kentucky! There were drill team members still in Washington and those five, plus a Chief to make a tetrad, were able to represent the Navy well.
Circumstances and Structural Reality: The Navy Ceremonial Guard Silent Drill Team operates from a fundamentally different design model than the other services—one built on long-term continuity and repeatability rather than routine redevelopment.
In the 1990s, Constantine Wilson, an alumnus of the New Mexico Military Institute, founded New Guard America (NGA) with the goal of creating a bladed (fixed bayonets) civilian exhibition drill team. NGA achieved that goal and toured extensively.
In the early 2000s, as NGA transitioned, Wilson developed a new routine and provided the original routine to the United States Navy Ceremonial Guard. The Navy adopted the routine and, within a short period, was performing it at a very high level.
For more than two decades, the Navy has maintained this routine through internal transmission from one generation of team members to the next. This continuity has allowed for sustained refinement, consistency, and a high level of execution reliability.
This model produces a different kind of excellence. Rather than emphasizing new design each cycle, it prioritizes 1) Repetition, 2) Precision through refinement, and 3) Institutional consistency.
The result is a performance that is highly stable and consistently executed, even as personnel rotate.
It is also important to understand that the routine was not originally designed for competitive evaluation. It was created for audience engagement—prioritizing clarity, continuity, and consistent visual impact rather than the variable demands of a competitive scoring environment.
Has the routine evolved? Yes. While the overall structure has remained consistent, targeted refinements have been made over time. In 2024, during a visit to the Ceremonial Guard, I worked with the drill team to implement two cleaner transitions, enhancing readability and flow within the routine.
Competitive Structure
This highlights a broader issue within a traditional competitive format. Teams that continuously refine a stable routine and teams that regularly redesign and rebuild are not operating under the same developmental model.
When different design philosophies are evaluated within a single ranking structure, the outcome reflects not only performance quality, but the underlying system each team uses.
The Navy’s approach demonstrates that excellence can be built through continuity just as effectively as through innovation—but the two are not directly comparable within a single competitive framework.
My Score: Achievement: 86 | Execution: 92 | Total: 89.00
DrillMaster Video Critique:
5th Place: Coast Guard Ceremonial Honor Guard Silent Drill Team
Overview: The team would benefit from a routine designed with repeatability and long-term development in mind, similar to the structured approach seen in the Navy’s program. While the performance incorporates structural elements observed in other teams—which is a normal and an expected part of growth—the overall design indicates a developing understanding of fundamental routine construction.
Circumstances and Structural Reality: The smallest of all the honor guards, the Coast Guard was also supposed to send a soloist and also showed up with a team!
They face a fundamentally different set of circumstances than the other services—circumstances that directly impact the outcome of a competition.
Members of the Coast Guard Ceremonial Honor Guard are assigned for a limited period, typically two years. During that time, they must first complete a rigorous qualification process to earn their position. From there, they are required to certify in at least two of the three ceremonial elements: pallbearers, color guard, and firing party.
Operational demands are significant. It is not uncommon for a member to serve at Arlington National Cemetery in the morning for a funeral, participate in a separate Coast Guard ceremony later in the day, and then join a joint-service colors presentation that same evening.
In addition to operational tempo, location presents another challenge. The Coast Guard Ceremonial Honor Guard is based in Alexandria, Virginia, resulting in longer transit times to many ceremonial sites compared to units stationed within Washington, D.C.
All of this must be balanced with drill team participation. Unlike some services that maintain dedicated drill teams with substantial rehearsal time, Coast Guard members must volunteer, qualify, and find time to rehearse within an already demanding schedule.
The result is a structural imbalance. While all teams perform at a high level, the Coast Guard operates under constraints that limit the time and repetition necessary to compete on equal footing with units that have more dedicated training resources.
Despite these challenges, the Coast Guard continues to produce strong performances. I love the Coast Guardsmen, I have loved my time there during visits and working with the Coasties, and I applaud their tenacity to put out a great performance every year. By the way, for the 2026 competition, it was the first performance for the whole team.
My Score: Achievement: 43 | Execution: 45 | Total: 44.00
DrillMaster Video Critique:
Implications for Competition Structure
When performance outcomes are shaped not only by execution, but by fundamentally different operational constraints, it raises an important question:
Is a traditional competitive model—one that produces a single winner and corresponding placements—the most effective way to evaluate and develop these teams?
Many years ago, the Joint Service Drill Competition was held in a local DC shopping mall. It later moved to the Lincoln Memorial, still as a competition. In 2012, I judged the “last” competition before it transitioned to Joint Service Drill Exhibition. The competitive format returned in the late 2010s, though the name has remained the same.
This observation is not a reflection on the quality of any team or the value of the event. Rather, it highlights the need to consider whether the current structure fully accounts for the realities each service faces.
Purpose and Context of Service Drill Teams
At first glance, a competitive format appears natural. High school and collegiate drill teams routinely compete, and that structure is widely understood.
However, service drill teams operate under a fundamentally different purpose.
Their primary mission is not competitive—it is representational.
Download the ICS Doctrine Clarification Statement: ICS DCS 50-300 Adjudication Validity in Service-Level Drill Competition.
Each team exists to demonstrate professionalism, discipline, precision, and capability to a public audience, often with little or no background in drill and ceremonies. As a result, routines are designed for clarity, accessibility, and communication—not direct comparison.
These performances can be evaluated. They can be scored.
But they are not designed to defeat one another—they are designed to represent something larger.
A competitive structure introduces a different objective: to outperform another team. That objective influences design, risk, and performance priorities in ways that do not align with the intended role of these units.
The question, then, is not whether these teams can be ranked—but whether ranking them reflects what they are designed to do.
Conclusion
As in years past, the performances at this year’s event reflect a high level of professionalism, commitment, and pride across all participating services. Each team presents a distinct identity, and the overall level of execution remains strong.
At the same time, the scoring analysis highlights a consistent reality: outcomes are influenced not only by performance on the day, but by the structural conditions under which each team prepares. Differences in time, mission requirements, personnel turnover, and training focus create an environment where parity is difficult to achieve.
This raises an important consideration for the future of the event.
When conditions of preparation are not equal, a strictly competitive model—one that produces a single winner and ranked placements—may not fully represent the excellence on display.
This does not diminish the value of the competition. Rather, it suggests an opportunity to evolve it.
A model that emphasizes evaluation over ranking and recognizes excellence within each performance may better serve the purpose of showcasing these units and advancing the standard across all services.
This is consistent with the principles of the Performance Excellence Adjudication Model (PEAM), where evaluation is based on the level of excellence achieved within each team’s established structure, rather than comparative design or competitive positioning.
Competitions
Just as in high school JROTC drill team competitions, there are well-established “powerhouse” programs alongside smaller or developing teams working with limited time, fewer resources, and less continuity.
Those differences do not reflect effort or commitment—they reflect circumstance.
Over time, successful programs recognize that progress is not measured against the top-tier teams, but against their own previous performance.
When the focus shifts to internal consistency, refinement of fundamentals, and development of identity, growth becomes sustainable. Excellence follows—not as comparison, but as a result.
Clarity and Growth
The intent of this analysis is not to challenge results, but to provide clarity and contribute to the continued growth of the activity.
Excellence is present across all teams. The question moving forward is how best to recognize it.
Recognition of excellence must align with purpose—not position.