Editorial standards
Honest MOS exists to fight military-recruiting misinformation. That only works if our own content is held to a harder standard than the recruiters’. Here is who is accountable for it and exactly how it gets verified.
Who runs this
U.S. Army veteran. Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and Project Management Professional (PMP). Don founded Honest MOS and serves as editor-in-chief — he sets the editorial standard below and is accountable for the platform’s accuracy. His military service informs the job and career content; his CPA background informs the pay, benefits, and VA-money tools.
LinkedIn ›How we verify
- Facts come from government sources — or we leave them out
Pay, benefits, locations, and legal citations come from .mil / .gov / DoD sources (DTMO, DeCA, Tricare, VA, public law). When we can’t verify a number, date, or link, we leave it blank rather than guess.
- Editorial reads are labeled as editorial
Before enough verified reviews exist for a job, the “recruiter vs. reality” summary is our editorial read on publicly reported experience — labeled as such, not presented as data — and it gets replaced by verified service-member reviews as those come in.
- Reviews are verified and weighted
Service-member reviews are weighted by verification tier, from email-verified up to on-the-record. Every aggregate shows how much data and which tiers sit behind it, and flags small samples as early or low-confidence.
- Sensitive details are screened out
Every review is scanned for operational-security risks — unit designations, coordinates, deployment specifics — before it publishes. Anything flagged is held for human review.
Found something wrong?
Corrections make the platform stronger. Use the “suggest an edit” control on MOS, base, and school pages, or reach us through the contact page. For how we source and track confidence, see our data-quality methodology.
Protected by default. Honest by design.
Read our Constitution