I do not have access to the go/no-go standards. However, consider how can one demonstrate possessing adequate or sufficient leadership skills through the course of several situational problems having some level of design to evaluate mentality, personality and emotional capabilities necessary to survive and accomplish assigned missions and concurrently fail for psychological reasons? It will be the doing incompetency's that will indicate the applicant will most likely be unable to cope in doing in the mission/operational environment long before any severe mental mental or psychological disease or condition will be diagnosed.
I do have extensive collection of various justification for assessment standards implemented during and after WWII to current day. All are connected with being in a many month combat tour and being in day-to-day combat, particularly combat involving lots of death and maiming.
The studies focused on reducing mental breakdown attrition and development psychological inefficiencies once in the combat theater and being there accomplishing in combat.
These studies indicated significant advanced performance ineffectiveness and inefficiencies happened much sooner for psychological (mental breakdowns and incompetence) when performing under combat stress rather than for physical fitness causals.
Most worrisome is the studies clearly and concisely indicated some people were better with mentally, emotionally and psychologically coping than many others.
The OSS among other organizations implemented assessments designed to determine the physical, mental, and emotional capabilities of individuals before those individuals could and would be put in their intended combat theater assignments and duties.
The Army Air Forces used these studies combined with aircrew survivability rates and operational conditions to determine and implement maximum number of combat hours or sorties aircrews will fly until they were removed from flying combat sorties. Known as combat tour points these points were adjusted throughout WWII to correspond with changing survivability rates and operational conditions.
Psychological disorder testing, assessments and/or evaluations for special duties or occupational classifications would bring much associated stigma if elimination for performance ineffectiveness and inefficiencies became incorrectly connected to having a psychological disorder.
Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Inventory (NEO) doesn’t assess serious psychological disorders. It has a personality assessment purpose to differentiate normal differences in personality and is geared to identifying personalities most likely to thrive and function effectively in the environment the individual will be placed into to do something successfully.
In this case the NEO is designed in purpose to identify individuals having personality traits allowing them to most likely adapt to and cope with the education and training environment encountered in successfully completing all the initial skills courses and training required for award of the Pararescue 3-level AFSC.
Pertinent to psychological disorders it takes a bit more than a TAPAS or NEO assessment to be eliminated for psychological reasons as these tests do not establish or confirm a medical diagnosis. For perspective all the Battlefield Airman AFSCs require a PULHES psychiatric factor of 1. The PULHES psychiatric factor profiles are:
1-No psychiatric pathology. May have history of a transient personality disorder.
2-May have history of recovery from an acute psychotic reaction due to external or toxic causes unrelated to alcohol or drug addiction.
3-Satisfactory remission from an acute psychotic or neurotic episode that permits utilization under specific conditions (assignment when outpatient psychiatric treatment is available or certain duties can be avoided).
4-Does not meet S3 above.
Neither NEO or TAPAS have purpose and are completely unsuitable for determining a PULHES psychiatric factor.