During summer 2026, Staff Sgt. Varun Gollapudi reported for Army duty at Syracuse University.
Gollapudi serves as detachment sergeant for the Army’s 691st Forward Resuscitative Surgical Detachment, based in Utica, New York. He is also a biology student in Syracuse University’s Class of 2027 who plans to pursue a career in medicine.
His military orders placed him in a research assignment co-sponsored by the Center for Health Behavior Research & Innovation (CHB) and the D’Aniello Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF). The assignment grew from a question with direct relevance to his unit: How can small surgical teams sustain trauma care when wounded service members cannot be evacuated quickly?
The Army is preparing for large-scale combat operations that could involve contested airspace, disrupted supply lines and far higher casualty volumes than recent conflicts. Forward surgical teams may need to care for more patients over longer periods with limited opportunities for evacuation or resupply. The research available to guide that planning remains limited, particularly for the Army’s newer Forward Resuscitative Surgical Detachment model.
Gollapudi understood the practical stakes. His military medical experience includes service as an active-duty platoon medic during a deployment to Afghanistan and as a critical care flight paramedic aboard a UH-60 Black Hawk. In his current role, he serves as the senior enlisted adviser responsible for his detachment’s readiness and helps lead one of its two surgical sections when the unit divides to cover more territory.
“I was curious how I could connect my experience working in the ‘golden hour’ in combat medicine to academic research,” Gollapudi wrote in an earlier Syracuse research brief.
At Syracuse, Gollapudi worked with Joseph W. Ditre, professor of psychology and CHB director; Ken Marfilius, CHB associate director; and Emily Rabinowitz, a postdoctoral researcher with CHB and IVMF. They trained him in literature review, scientific interpretation and research communication.
Gollapudi reviewed decades of research on Forward Surgical Teams, Role 2 medical care and combat casualty outcomes. He traced which conclusions were supported by observed outcomes and which came from simulations, case reports, projections or expert consensus. He also examined how evidence involving earlier Forward Surgical Teams may apply to today’s Forward Resuscitative Surgical Detachments, a question that remains largely untested.
That work became “Capability Forward,” a leadership brief presenting seven findings for Army and detachment-level planning. Its central finding is that rapid evacuation and access to appropriate medical capability work together to improve survival. When evacuation is delayed, forward teams may need to provide a broader range and longer duration of care than current models were designed to support.
The brief identifies several areas that warrant attention, including blood supply, postoperative and critical care, staffing, training, communications, facility protection and resupply. It also outlines actions units can consider now, such as extending training exercises beyond initial surgery, testing blood and sustainment plans under higher casualty volume, and preparing for interrupted evacuation.
Gollapudi was careful about the limits of the evidence. Most published outcomes research comes from Iraq and Afghanistan, where U.S. forces generally operated with air superiority, rapid evacuation and reliable logistics. The literature on future large-scale conflict relies heavily on planning models, operational reports and expert projections. “Capability Forward” makes those distinctions clear and identifies areas where further study is needed.
The brief was designed for command and detachment-level use. It translates a complex body of military medical research into findings and planning questions that leaders can evaluate alongside operational experience.
The Army-orders arrangement is also significant. It gave a serving soldier dedicated duty time to investigate a question from his unit within a university research setting. The placement grew from the Veteran & Military Behavioral Health Collaborative, a joint effort of CHB and IVMF that connects Syracuse researchers and students with service members, veterans, Department of Veterans Affairs investigators and other partners.
Gollapudi’s experience may offer a model for similar military-university research placements. Service members across the Department of Defense could use periods of military duty to study operational questions with university researchers and develop evidence-based products for their commands. His project provides an early example of how such an arrangement could work.
By the end of his assignment, Gollapudi had evaluated a complex body of military medical research, identified important gaps and produced a carefully sourced resource for Army leaders. He also developed skills in research and scientific communication that will inform his continued military service and his planned career in medicine.
Gollapudi arrived at Syracuse with a question shaped by years of military medical experience. He completed the assignment with a stronger understanding of the evidence behind his unit’s mission and a leadership brief designed to help the Army prepare for the demands ahead.