Background: Military-civilian partnerships (MCP) provide a bidirectional exchange of information and best practices. In 2021, Penn Presbyterian Medical Center (PPMC) and the United States Navy (USN) signed a 3-year memorandum of understanding to embed active duty (AD) trauma providers in the Trauma Division to facilitate the training and sustainment of skills required for combat casualty care (CCC). To date, there is little evidence to demonstrate the efficacy of MCPs in maintaining combat casualty readiness in non-physician trauma providers. Methods: We evaluated the impact of combat casualty readiness for non-physician providers by mapping clinical experiences in a Level I trauma center against the Defense Health Agency's Joint Trauma Systems (JTS) Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). The JTS CPGs provide best practices for CCC and highlight critical skills that providers need to know before deploying to an austere environment. Patient acuity data was collected, and specific JTS CPG skills performed by a non-physician provider in their respective specialty from each patient between January 2023 to September 2023. Analyses were performed using descriptive statistics via Redcap. Results: A sample of six Navy personnel in different specialties (1 emergency room nurse, one intensive critical care nurse, one operating room nurse, one search and rescue paramedic, one surgical technician, and one physician assistant) completed 868 records. 479 (55.2%) were trauma patients and 389 (44.8%) were non trauma patients. Categories of injuries that were seen, listed from the most frequent to the least, were: Other (474), Falls (176), Motor Vehicle Crashes (MVC) (130), Gunshot Wound (GSW) (95), Stab related injuries (22). Category 1 skills, defined as essential to know, were performed in 605 (35.9%) of the patients treated. In Category 2, skills described as important to know were performed in 595 (35.3%) of the patients treated. Category 3 skills, identified as less urgent as they are rare among trauma patients, were performed in 327 (19.4%) of the patients treated, and 156 (9%) required none of the JTS CPG skills. These categories were further broken down based on the frequency of the skills performed. Analysis revealed strengths and identified opportunities to direct clinical experience for underperforming skills. Conclusion: Military-civilian partnerships support combat casualty care readiness. The data presented, and the continuation of mapping clinical experience to military CPGs can gauge readiness in non-physician trauma providers. Notably, several skills in each category were identified as opportunities to modify the clinical exposure of the military provider. These findings indicate that modifications in clinical assignments could enhance AD experience in these critical skills.