top of page

Executive Protection Training School and G.I. Bill 

This page is dedicated to Veterans who have used, are currently using or plan on using their G.I. Bill Benefits for Executive Protection Training.

Post 9 11 GI Bill.jpg

For more than a decade, as a combat veteran, I have been deeply concerned about executive protection (EP) training organizations that are authorized to accept G.I. Bill educational benefits. In many cases, these programs are structured not to provide high-quality, cost-effective training, but rather to maximize the number of V.A.-approved clock hours thereby increasing how much the institution can charge in tutition against a veteran’s education benefit account. This practice often results in inflated tuition costs, extended course durations, and minimal educational value, ultimately exploiting the very veterans these benefits were designed to support.

For far too many years, veterans have seen their G.I. Bill benefits taken advantage of by unethical organizations that view these hard-earned education funds as an easy revenue stream. Instead of providing high-quality training and real career opportunities, these groups exploit veterans’ trust and the lack of oversight in certain sectors of vocational education.

​

The result?
Millions of dollars in wasted benefits, and countless veterans walking away with little more than a certificate that carries no industry value or employment relevance. These “credentials” often do nothing to advance a veteran’s career and leave them without the resources needed to pursue legitimate education or training elsewhere.

​

Our nation’s veterans deserve far better. They deserve programs that honor their service, protect their benefits, and equip them with real, marketable skills, not organizations that exploit the system for profit.

As a former Army NCO, where soldier welfare was central to my role, I’ve seen veterans exploited for far too long. Because of that, I feel both a professional and moral responsibility to speak up.

James Cameron

Disclaimer: SCG is not a legal firm and does not provide legal guidance. Our purpose is to help veterans make informed decisions by offering transparent information about Executive Protection training organizations approved for G.I. Bill use.

For those who have attended
Executive Security International (ESI) training  in Grand Junction CO.

Background and Institution Information

  1. Institution Name: Executive Security International (ESI)

  2. Website:  https://esibodyguardschool.com

  3. Location: 2777 Crossroads Blvd STE 7, Grand Junction, CO 81506

  4. Related Program/Courses: 

  • Executive Protection 28-Day Resident Training

  • Tactical Medic

  • Tactical Combat Casualty Care

  • PSD Protective Operations

  • Day Protective and Evasive Driving

  • Celebrity Protection Behavioral Intelligence

 

Legal and Regulatory Framework

Colorado Law – Private Occupational Schools (Vocational/Occupational Education):

  1. Under Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) Title 23, Article 64 (“Private Occupational Schools”)[1] [2]the legislative declaration states that the purpose of the article is “to provide standards for and to foster and improve private occupational schools and their educational services and to protect the citizens of this state against fraudulent or sub-standard private occupational schools by: (a) prohibiting the use of false or misleading literature, advertising, or representations by private occupational schools or their agents; (b) establishing accountability … through the setting of standards relative to the quality of educational services, fiscal responsibility, and ethical business practices; (c) providing for the preservation of essential records; (d) providing certain rights and remedies to the private occupational school division … and the consuming public; (e) providing for the authorization of appropriate educational credentials …”

  2. The statute also imposes fingerprint-based criminal history record checks for persons teaching at designated schools. C.R.S. § 23-64-110/[3]

  3. Schools must comply with minimum standards, may be subject to revocation of approval, and are prohibited from deceptive practices. C.R.S. § 23-64-112 (minimum standards), § 23-64-119 (revocation) and § 23-64-123 (deceptive practices).[4]

  4. The CDHE Division of Private Occupational Schools (DPOS) “administers the Private Occupational School Act … to protect students against fraudulent or sub-standard educational practices; the Board also reviews investigations and issues disciplinary actions against schools when appropriate.”[5] 

 

Why this matters legally: DPOS rules require approved schools to maintain an accurate catalog (program descriptions, credentials awarded, instructor qualifications) and to avoid deceptive advertising; schools must keep accurate student records and syllabi for each course. A school that issues credentials outside the scope of recognized authorizing bodies or its own approvals risks disciplinary action by the Board.

 

Federal Law – Veterans’ Educational Benefits & Course Approval:

  1. Under 38 U.S.C. § 3680A (Disapproval of enrollment in certain courses), the Secretary “shall not approve the enrollment of an eligible veteran” in (among other things) courses that are avocational or recreational in character or provided under contract by another entity that is not approved. § 3680A(a),(e),(f).[6]

  2. For example, § 3680A(f)(1)(A) provides that if a course is provided under contract by another entity and that entity has not obtained approval, then the Secretary may not approve the enrollment of an eligible veteran in that course.[7]

  3. Under the Code of Federal Regulations, 38 C.F.R. § 21.4203-21.4212 (Subpart D) the VA retains authority to determine whether “overcharges were made by a school and to disapprove the school for enrollment of veterans or eligible persons not previously enrolled.”[8]

  4. Moreover, under 38 C.F.R. § 21.9641 (and others) an institution may be disapproved if it overcharges students or misuses GI Bill funds.

 

Taken together, both Colorado law and federal veterans benefits law establish a clear standard: private occupational schools must operate under authorized state approval, maintain truthful advertising, qualified instruction, and must not enroll veterans into programs that are not properly approved or are of questionable vocational utility.

 

Points of Concern Regarding ESI

​

Medical-Training Curriculum Issues:

ESI has for over a decade offered medical training/certification as standalone or integrated courses (e.g., Tactical Combat Casualty Care (TCCC)). Yet the individuals listed as current or past instructors do not possess the requisite certifications from the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT) or other recognized credentialing bodies.

​

Without NAEMT (or similar) validation, the training lacks appropriate oversight to ensure instructional accuracy; thus, certificates issued are done so without the proper authority and provide a false assurance of competency and risk operational safety and liability.

ESI Fradulant Certificates
NAEMT Email

Use of External or Partner Training Organizations Without State/VA Approval:

  1. ESI offers courses via a partnering model (e.g., driver training, covert protection, PSD) rather than delivering instruction wholly under its own approved program.

  2. Partners include but not limited to: ICON Security[9]  AS3 Drivers Training[10] and Enablement Advisors[11]

  3. Federal statute § 3680A(f)(1)(B)[12] prohibits approval of veteran enrollment in courses that are provided under contract by an entity “that has not obtained approval for the course under this chapter.”

  4. The V.A.'s Disapproval of enrollment in certain courses Rule (38 U.S. Code §3680A(f))[13] directly addresses this issue to prevent approved schools from simply acting as financial conduits for unapproved third parties.

  5. Colorado law likewise demands that approved schools supervise and ensure the quality of the educational services they provide; outsourcing core instruction without proper oversight and approval raises serious compliance issues.

  6. The practice of using non-approved outside partners to deliver core curriculum for G.I. Bill students, especially if those partners are not compliant with state licensing requirements, constitutes a serious non-compliance violation of federal law.

ESI regulation violation
ESI regulation violation

Program Classification and Vocational Objective Concerns:

  1. Under Colorado’s FAQ for DPOS: “A private occupational school is any entity… that charges tuition for postsecondary education and training, offers educational services or credentials that constitute occupational education in this state, and which are not specifically exempt.[14]

  2. Colorado statutes define occupational education to be “education or training designed to facilitate the vocational, technical or occupational development of individual persons … designed to` fit individuals for gainful employment as semi-skilled or skilled workers or technicians in recognized occupations requiring less than a four-year baccalaureate degree.” (paraphrased)

  3. The PSD/Designated Defensive Marksman (DDM) courses offered by ESI are a clear example of deceptive advertising since these courses do not lead to recognized licensing or employment in the private sector outside of government contracting; thus they may fail the vocational objective standard, and may instead be avocational or recreational in character (which under § 3680A(a)(3) would preclude VA approval

  4. The DDM and PSD role does not exist in the private sector unless the individual is operating under a U.S. Government contract. Qualifications for this position are stringent, requiring applicants to be graduates of a military sniper school or a federally recognized SWAT/Sniper training program and would not accept ESI’s DDM course as an acceptable substitute.

​Keith Buckner, the named instructor does not appear to have the working experience and qualifications to be the instructor for this course.  His only listed qualification is that he attended ESI’s PSD and DDM course. 

​

The reliance on instructors whose experience is based solely on training received at ESI is a persistent systemic issue. This practice ensures that the teaching staff lacks independent, verifiable professional experience.

​

My professional experience having previously served as a government-qualified instructor, I know the role requires verifiable years of training and experience specific to every course topic, a standard ESI fails to meet.  Being former military was not a qualifier. 

​

ESI's education is specific to individual licensed security services, yet the institution fails to integrate or assist with the state-specific licensing process required for graduates to practice.

​

ESI’s courses are not accepted or approved to augment and/or replace qualifications and specific training which are required for government contract employment or state licensing requirements.

DDM Requirements

Instructor Qualifications and Standardization:

  1. ESI does not maintain a consistent cadre of instructors approved by DPOS; curricula reportedly fluctuate (e.g., addition of non-essential subjects to meet clock-hour requirements), indicating a lack of standard curriculum and consistent delivery.

  2. Colorado statute § 23-64-110 mandates fingerprint-based criminal history record checks for persons teaching at designated schools. Evidence that instructors may not have been properly vetted or approved suggests non-compliance with state law.

  3. Reports from former instructors describe the absence of lesson plans, shifting course-of-fire standards, and filler topics added solely to stretch clock hours for GI Bill purposes conduct inconsistent with Article 64 oversight and 8 CCR 1504-1[15]

Risk to Public Safety and Veteran Financial Protection:

  1. Because ESI’s programs involve firearms training, protective operations, tactical medics, etc., any deficiency in instruction or oversight poses elevated risk of harm to students, staff, the public, and the clients those graduates may protect.

  2. Given the high potential for exploitation of GI Bill funds by less scrupulous training providers, the combination of questionable program quality, marketing to veterans, and premium costs is especially concerning under federal law (e.g., § 3680A(d)(1) addressing when more than 85% of tuition is paid by the VA).

  3. As previously noted, some instructional staff lack the necessary qualifications to teach the specific topics for which they are responsible. This problem is amplified because ESI does not have consistent instructor staff.  Instructors are often assigned based on operational necessity (staffing requirements) rather than on the quality and verified qualifications of the individual instructor.

Clock-hour inflation without an accepted EP standard

  1. There is currently no established Executive Protection Standard that ESI aligns its curriculum to. Without a measurable standard, ESI's course duration is significantly longer than comparable programs that cover similar topics.

  2. Without a recognized Executive Protection standard, ESI’s course lengths appear substantially longer than comparable programs suggesting hours may be padded to meet VA clock-hour thresholds rather than instructional need.

  3. If the length of training is not anchored to competency-based outcomes and verifiable syllabi, it risks non-compliance under both DPOS curriculum and VA approval rules.[1]

ESI Claims

ESI beginners courses

vs.

others training providers cost a duration.

EP Training

Note on background checks 

Although SAA/DPOS traditionally focus on academic/administrative compliance however to ensure public safety and legal compliance, and since these programs entail inherently high-risk activities (firearms, tactical driving) the SAA should make successful completion of independently conducted background checks a prerequisite for this type of training approval.  This should apply to organizational leadership, instructors, staff and students.  Give that the curriculum involves firearms and sensitive tactics/techniques, this requirement prevents participation by individuals legally prohibited from possessing such skills, access and/or use of firearms and equipment.

​

According to ESI’s requirements they state, “Prior to the attendance of Resident Training for Executive Protection or PSD Protective Security Detail, the applicant must submit a letter from his or her local police agency indicating a no felony conviction record.”

​

This is by no means a standard practice of conducing a verifiable background check. A letter from a local police agency (often referred to as a "police clearance" or "local records check") is problematic for several reasons including:

​

  1. Limited Scope: It only reflects arrests or convictions within that specific local jurisdiction (city or county). It will not capture records from other counties, states, or federal agencies.

  2. Missing Federal Records: It fails to check the crucial national databases, such as the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) or state criminal information repositories, which are required for confirming an individual is not a "prohibited person" under state or federal law.

  3.  No Fingerprint Verification: It lacks the certainty provided by a federal or state-mandated check that uses fingerprint submission for positive identification.

​

Additionally

Under Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) Title 23, Article 64, which governs private occupational schools, the CDHE/DPOS has explicit authority to deny, suspend, or revoke a school or key personnel’s approval if the applicant has a criminal history that raises questions of moral character, integrity, or fitness to operate a school.

​

Relevant sections include:

  1. C.R.S. §23-64-112(1)(a) The Division may deny a school license if the “person or any of its officers, agents, or employees has engaged in fraud, misrepresentation, or unethical conduct in the operation of a school.”

  2. C.R.S. §23-64-112(1)(b) The Commission may also act if a person “has been convicted of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude.”

 

A felony conviction, particularly one involving violence, drugs, or dishonesty, can disqualify an individual from serving in an ownership, leadership, or instructional capacity at a CDHE-approved school.

Prosecutor Summary

Based on the documents collected, Executive Security International (ESI) has engaged in a prolonged pattern of fraud, deception, unlicensed instruction, safety violations, and misuse of federal education funds, resulting in substantial harm to U.S. veterans, the State of Colorado, and the general public.

 

The evidence strongly supports the elements of multiple state and federal criminal offenses, including:

  1. Colorado Theft by Deception (C.R.S. §18-4-401)

  2. Colorado Criminal Impersonation & Offering False Credentials (C.R.S. §18-5-113, §18-5-114)

  3. Colorado Consumer Fraud / Deceptive Trade Practices (C.R.S. §6-1-105)

  4. Reckless Endangerment (firearms liability) (C.R.S. §18-3-208)

  5. Federal GI Bill Fraud (18 U.S.C. §1001; §641; 38 U.S.C. §3680A)

  6. Federal Wire and Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. §1341–1343)

  7. Conspiracy to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. §371)

  8. Potential Federal Firearms Violations (18 U.S.C. §922)

 

The scheme spans more than a decade and involves false certifications, falsified instructional authority, unapproved third-party course delivery, forged medical certifications, inflated course hours, and improper transfer of federal education funds.

Full Disclosure and Professional Opinion

The issues surrounding ESI's operational and instructional non-compliance directly impact me, those who attend their courses, the general public and the industry in multiple ways to include:

​

As a former military leader, I am personally and professionally offended when organizations exploit the service and sacrifice of Veterans to improperly access their well-deserved and earned benefits. Those attending do so in good faith, expecting a clear return on investment (ROI), only to find the claimed value of the training to be false. This has cost the veteran community hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in educational benefits.

​

ESI’s curriculum is not based on in accepted standards, resulting in an unjustified premium cost of time and resources for its students. 

  • ESI falsely affirms student competency, perpetually claiming that its teachings are proper and correct. This practice creates a serious public safety risk, as there is no assurance that these individuals, who may be responsible for the personal safety protection of others, and emergency response actually possess the necessary skills.

​

As an employer who has hired hundreds of executive protection professionals over the last 15 years, I can attest that an ESI certificate does not automatically qualify an individual for employment. It is often viewed as a negative rather than a positive credential, due to the recognized lack of instructor vetting, training inconsistency and the issuance of fraudulent medical training certifications. 

  • ESI continues to state individuals are “CERTIFIED” however as previously demonstrated many of the course certifications are fraudulently issued or are courses that have not been approved or assessed by the SAA.

  • ESI’s training is a private credential; it is not issued, regulated or backed by the local, state, or federal government.

​​

Drawing on my background as a former professionally trained and experienced U.S. Army Sniper, Department of State (DoS) Qualified Designated Defensive Marksman (DDM), DoS High Threat Personal Security Specialist (PSS) and a DoS Qualified High Threat Protection Instructor I can confirm a critical point: ESI’s DDM course and their Personal Security Detail (PSD) course are not accepted as official qualifications or training for obtaining employment as a U.S. Government agency security contractor.

  • In my professional opinion, these courses are unsuitable for private sector civilians not employed by the government. Government agencies subject trainees to detailed vetting, including background checks and psychological testing, specifically to ensure training is provided only to trustworthy individuals. ESI conducts no such comprehensive vetting, creating a serious security vulnerability. It is only a matter of time before an unqualified individual misuses these skills against the public, which is precisely why similar high-risk training, like Bomb Technician courses, is restricted from the general public.

 

My personal experience with ESI includes in 2009 enrolling and completing ESI's $4,000 distance learning training while I was deployed in Kabul, Afghanistan, working for the U.S. State Department Diplomatic Security Services. Although I was an experienced protection professional, I found it highly irregular that I consistently scored  100% on all coursework without receiving any constructive feedback. As an experienced instructor, I recognize that performance critiques are essential for educational integrity, yet ESI provided none. 

 

According to ESI staff, the distance learning assignments were graded by individuals with no security background or experience. This information accounts for the complete lack of professional instructional critique on my submissions. 

 

ESI’s current and former leadership, including Ms. Delcamp, Ms. Erdmann (Director of Education Development), Ms. Duggan (current Vice President), Robert (Bob) Duggan (Owner), and Brandon Delcamp (former Vice President) did not and still do not possess any external professional security background. Their professional authority relies entirely on credentials issued by ESI itself, demonstrating a profound failure in both educational oversight and institutional credibility.

ESI’s non-compliance to industry standards and regulatory requirements creates risks and negatively impacts the following:

​

Financial and Educational Loss

  1. Misappropriation of Benefits: The non-standardized curriculum and artificially inflated clock hours resulted in an inefficient and excessive use of V.A. G.I. Bill benefits to pay a premium cost for inadequate training.

  2. False ROI: I attended ESI's program, and similar G.I. Bill students attend, in good faith, expecting a clear return on investment (ROI). The deficient curriculum and unaccepted credentials meant the program delivered little professional value employment.

  3. Predatory targeting:  Veterans are subjected to alleged predatory targeting to secure G.I. Bill funds, resulting in the inefficient use of well-deserved benefits and payment of premium costs for substandard training.

  4. Misrepresentation of Skills:  Completion of ESI’s DDM and PSD courses provides no accepted qualification for U.S. Government agency contract employment, despite the implication of the course titles. This misrepresentation falsely elevates student expectations for roles they cannot obtain.

 

Public Safety and Trust

  1. Educational Deficit: My personal experience with the distance learning program, where my work was reportedly graded by an unqualified individual and resulted in no instructional feedback, demonstrated a profound failure in educational integrity.

  2. Public Safety Concern: The practice of teaching high-risk tactical subjects (including firearms) without external standards or proper instructor vetting creates an unnecessary public safety risk, confirming the competence of individuals who may be responsible for the protection of others without being adequately trained.

  3. Risk of Misuse: The absence of comprehensive government-level vetting (e.g., background checks, psychological testing) for high-risk tactical courses creates a serious security vulnerability and increases the potential for an unqualified individual to misuse advanced skills against the public.

  4. False Competency: ESI falsely affirms student competency by graduating individuals without ensuring the accuracy of instruction (as evidenced by the lack of NAEMT validation), thereby jeopardizing the personal safety and protection of clients served by these graduates.

  5. Devalued Credential: As an employer who has hired hundreds of Executive Protection professionals, I know ESI's certificate is not only useless for employment but is viewed as a negative credential by industry leaders due to the known lack of instructor vetting and training consistency. This impacts my ability to hire qualified staff and reflects poorly on any individual who attended the course.

 

The State of Colorado and DPOS

  1. Regulatory Failure: ESI's practice of outsourcing core instruction to non-VA and non-Colorado approved organizations bypasses the state-level requirement for the Division of Private Occupational Schools (DPOS) to properly inspect and approve the curriculum.

  2. Reputational and Financial Risk: The potential identification of ESI's training as fraudulent could inflict financial consequences on the State of Colorado (e.g., clawbacks of G.I. Bill funds) and significantly damage the DPOS's credibility within the educational and security training industries.

 

The Executive Protection Industry

  1. Devaluation of Credentials: As a non-standardized institution, ESI undermines legitimate training efforts. The ESI certificate is often viewed as a negative credential by employers (as confirmed by your 15 years of experience), harming the industry's professional image due to the known lack of instructor vetting and training consistency.

  2. Lack of Standards: ESI operates without adhering to an established industry standard, which ensures that training providers meet a measurable benchmark.

[1] https://colorado.public.law/statutes/crs_title_23_article_64

[2] https://cdhe.colorado.gov/sites/highered/files/2021%20Revised%20Statute.pdf

[3] https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-23/community-colleges-and-occupational-education/article-64/section-23-64-110/

[4] https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-23/community-colleges-and-occupational-education/article-64/section-23-64-110/

[5] https://cdhe.colorado.gov/division-of-private-occupational-schools?

[6] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3680A?

[7] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title38/pdf/USCODE-2023-title38-partIII-chap36-subchapIII-sec3680A.pdf

[8] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-21/subpart-D?

[9]  https://industry-icon.com/training/celebrity-and-vip-protection-course/

[10] https://esibodyguardschool.com/course/celebrity-protection-behavior-analysis/

[11] https://www.enablement.biz

[12] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2023-title38/pdf/USCODE-2023-title38-partIII-chap36-subchapIII-sec3680A.pdf

[13] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/38/3680A#:~:text=4)(B).-,(e),(B)

[14] https://cdhe.colorado.gov/frequently-asked-questions-for-schools?

[15] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

​

​

​

[16] https://cdhe.colorado.gov/sites/highered/files/New%20Program.pdf?

[17] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[18] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-38/chapter-I/part-21/subpart-D/subject-group-ECFRf512caa42cbfa1f/section-21.4201?

[19] https://benefits.va.gov/gibill/85_15_faqs.asp?

[20] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404&utm_source

[21] https://benefits.va.gov/gibill/School_Program_Approval.asp?

[22] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[23] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[24] https://law.justia.com/codes/colorado/title-23/community-colleges-and-occupational-education/article-64/?

[25] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[26] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[27] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[28] https://www.sos.state.co.us/CCR/GenerateRulePdf.do?fileName=8+CCR+1504-1&ruleVersionId=8404

[29] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick-reference-and-best-practices-guide

[30] https://www.atf.gov/firearms/federal-firearms-licensee-quick-reference-and-best-practices-guide#:~:text=The%20amended%20regulation%20to%20require,the%20revocation%20of%20their%20license.

[31] https://cdhe.colorado.gov/sites/highered/files/New%20Program.pdf?

[32] https://cdhe.colorado.gov/sites/highered/files/New%20Program.pdf?

[33] https://benefits.va.gov/gibill/School_Program_Approval.asp?

[34] https://esibodyguardschool.com/administrative-procedures-esi/​​​​

Resources​

If you attended ESI and received fraudulent TCCC certificates, or if you believe you were taken advantage of as a veteran, it may be in your best interest to file an official complaint with the agencies listed below.

​

For full transparency, a formal complaint has already been submitted regarding Executive Security International (ESI) in Grand Junction, CO. However, one complaint alone is not enough. If we want to create meaningful change and prevent other veterans from being exploited, more voices need to come forward.

​

If any veteran who has attended an ESI course wishes to add their name and information to a growing list of exploited veterans you can do so by following this link: EP Training and G.I.Bill Use Form

​

While this is not legal advice, it is our understanding that the 40-year non-disclosure agreement (NDA) required of ESI students is likely unenforceable and, regardless, does not prevent anyone from filing complaints with state or federal regulatory bodies.

​​

This complaint has been formally submitted to the following regulatory bodies:

  1. Colorado Department of Higher Education (CDHE) - https://cdhe.colorado.gov/

  2. Colorado Department of Veterans Affairs (Colorado VA) - https://dmva.colorado.go

  3. VA Office of Inspector General (VA OIG) - https://dmva.colorado.go

  4. Denver field office of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) - https://www.atf.gov/denver-field-division

Colorado Department of higher education

lorna.candler@dhe.state.co.us

mary.kanaly@dhe.state.co.us

austin.bentz@dhe.state.co.us

kerrie.solis@dhe.state.co.us

kristi.connors@dhe.state.co.us

DPOS@dhe.state.co.us  

Colorado Department of Militray and Veterans Affairs

Leadership

michael.bruno@dmva.state.co.us

bruce.cowan@dmva.state.co.us

sarah.edwards@dmva.state.co.us

Staff​

Raymond.Odum@dmva.state.co.us  

Mathew.Cummings@dmva.state.co.us  

Glen.Marciniak@dmva.state.co.us

Howard.Bartee@dmva.state.co.us

Frank.LoBue@dmva.state.co.us

Mesa County Service Officer

VSO@mesacounty.us

Colorado Department of Higher Education

Division of Private Occupational Schools Complaint Form

https://cdhe.colorado.gov/dposconnect-resources 

CDHS Complaint form
Screenshot 2025-11-24 at 7.48.01 AM.png

https://www.va.gov/education/submit-school-feedback/introduction

VA OIG

https://benefits.va.gov/GIBILL/index.asp

GI Bill Fraud Alert

Veteran Advocacy Groups
Veterans of Foreign Wars 
Student Veterans of America
National Association of  Veterans Program Administrators 
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

Questions to Ask Before Using Your G.I. Bill for Executive Protection Training

When evaluating any training program, always trust—but verify. Investing a little time to check with state regulators, organizations like NAEMT, employers, and industry peers can protect you from using your benefits on a program that does nothing to support your executive protection career.

​

TraininMany training schools use impressive marketing materials and make bold claims, but appearances can be misleading. Protect yourself by getting every promise in writing and avoid relying solely on their brochures, websites and social media messaging.

Accreditation, Approval & Compliance

  1. Is the school officially approved by the VA to accept G.I. Bill benefits?

  2. Is the program state-licensed to provide vocational training?

  3. Does the school comply with state postsecondary education regulations?

  4. Has the school ever been placed on warning, probation, or suspension by the VA or state regulators?

  5. If they rent or issue firearms, do they possess the required ATF Federal Firearms License (FFL)?

  6. Do they adhere to the 85/15 rule, ensuring that at least 15% of students are non–G.I. Bill recipients?

​

Instructor Credentials

  1. What are the instructors’ real-world executive protection backgrounds?

  2. Do instructors have documented domestic and international EP experience?

  3. Do instructors have current industry certifications and operational relevance?

  4. Can the school provide instructor bios with verifiable work histories?

  5. Have the instructors undergone thorough background checks?

  6. Do they bring in outside training agencies or instructors, and if so, do those instructors meet the same required approvals from the state and the Department of Veterans Affairs?

​

Program Quality & Curriculum

  1. Does the curriculum align with recognized professional standards (e.g., ANSI)?

  2. How many hours of training are hands-on vs. classroom-based?

  3. Does the program teach modern, real-world EP skills (intelligence, advances, threat assessment, operations, medical, etc.)?

  4. Does the school provide APPROVED medical certifications (TCCC, TECC, CPR/AED)?

  5. Is the organization AND instructors approved by all required organizations for the training they provide e.g. National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT)

  6. Are firearms qualifications (if included) conducted by third party certified instructors on licensed ranges?

​

Employment & Career Outcomes

  1. What percentage of graduates get EP-related employment?

  2. Can the school provide verifiable job placement statistics?

  3. Does the school have established relationships with major EP companies or corporate security departments?

  4. Does the school offer résumé, interview, or networking assistance?

  5. Do graduates obtain or qualify for state security licenses after training (e.g., guard card, CCW, executive protection licenses if applicable)?

  6. Do the courses lead to actual employment opportunities? Many programs, such as High Threat Protection or PSD courses, do not apply to private-sector executive protection work or government contract opportunities.

​

Costs, Transparency & Ethics

  1. What is the actual cost of the program vs. what the G.I. Bill pays?

  2. Are there any hidden fees (gear, ammo, uniforms, admin, lodging)?

  3. Does the school push veterans to enroll quickly or pressure them to use benefits?

  4. Does the school promise or imply guaranteed employment (a red flag)?

  5. Is the training priced significantly higher then other training organizations indicating potential exploitation?

  6. Is the training duration significantly longer then other training organizations indicating potential exploitation?

​

Reputation & Legitimacy

  1. Does the school have independent reviews from actual working EP professionals—not just students?

  2. Is the school recognized or trusted by major EP employers?

  3. Does the school maintain a professional facility, training equipment, and safe practices?

  4. Has the school or its owners been involved in controversies, complaints, lawsuits, or regulatory actions?

​

Caution: Just because a training organization has been around for decades does not guarantee quality, credibility, or true expertise. Longevity can create the illusion of authority, but it does not reflect whether the curriculum is current, whether instructors have real-world experience, or whether graduates are actually successful in today’s executive protection industry.

​

Many long-standing programs continue to rely on outdated methods, legacy reputations, or marketing momentum rather than meaningful, modernized training. What matters most is not how long a school has existed, but whether it consistently delivers relevant instruction, verifiable expertise, ethical business practices, and real employment outcomes.

​

When evaluating a training provider, especially before using your G.I. Bill, focus on results, relevance, compliance, and credibility, not age.

​

Post-Training Support

  1. Does the school provide continuing education opportunities?

  2. Is there an active alumni network with real operational connections?

  3. Does the school maintain long-term communication and support after graduation?

© 2025 by Security Concepts Group

bottom of page