Combat Boots 2 the Boardroom

Nonprofit profile at a glance

EIN
832629631
IRS 990 coverage
2024–2025
Forms available
Form 990 2025, Form 990-EZ 2023, Form 990-N 2019
Location
Richmond Hill, GA, USA
Phone
4044651735
Rating
60
Verdict
SUPPORTED
Rating confidence
Standard

Reported finances

Revenue
$343,571
Expenses
$102,519
Assets
$475,540
Liabilities
$31,800

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Amounts in USD.

Leadership & pay

1 person listed

Executive titles in this filing

  • Lynnetta M Smith (CEO - Executive Director)

People named in this filing

  • Lynnetta M Smith (CEO - Executive Director)

Selected names, not a complete roster or a statement of current roles. Open leadership details for the complete filed list.

Source: IRS Form 990. Selected filing: tax year 2025. Names and roles reflect this filing, not necessarily current officeholders.

Overview

Mission

Combat Boots 2 The Boardroom transforms lives by empowering veterans military families and youth through workforce development entrepreneurship leadership training literacy initiatives health and wellness support and transitional services that strengthen economic independence and community engagement.

What it reported doing in 2025

The P.R.O.S.P.E.R. Veteran Transition Initiative is a cohort-based leadership and workforce development program designed to support veterans transitioning from military to civilian life. The program provides professional development entrepreneurship training industry exposure leadership coaching health and wellness support digital literacy and credentialing opportunities through partnerships with local and national organizations. Participants engage in structured monthly sessions focused on preparation resilience opportunity support purpose empowerment and reintegration to strengthen long-term economic independence and community connection.

Operating model

Revenue model
Affiliate-supported. 60% of the money available for current operations came from contributions from related organizations.
Distribution model
Hybrid. The nonprofit split its reported program spending across 62% for direct work, and 38% for grants.
  • Includes noncash contributions: Reported contributions include donated property or goods.

The verdict

SUPPORTED - The filed numbers largely add up and most voting board members are independent. A relatively small share of available resources goes toward mission work and a relatively small share of total spending goes to programs.

Rating breakdown

  • Financial Efficiency: 8
  • Transparency & Controls: 100
  • Accountability: 88
  • Sustainability: 79
  • Growth: 100

Detailed rating inputs

Financial Efficiency

  • Mission deployment rate: 2.7%; rating input score 3
  • Program expense ratio: 8.9%; rating input score 9
  • Fundraising efficiency: $8.05 raised per $1 spent on fundraising; rating input score 32; 32nd percentile among comparable filings

Transparency & Controls

  • Consistency checks: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Pay-setting controls: Limited
  • Foreign activity oversight: Limited
  • Grant itemization coverage: Limited
  • Major donor itemization: Yes; rating input score 100
  • Related-party transparency: Limited

Accountability

  • Independent voting board: 100%; rating input score 100; 64th percentile among comparable filings
  • Governance controls: 5 of 7 controls in place; rating input score 71
    • Conflict-of-interest policy: Pass
    • Whistleblower policy: Pass
    • Document-retention policy: Pass
    • CEO compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Other executive compensation review process: NotApplicable
    • Form 990 shared with the board: Pass
    • Board meeting minutes documented: Pass
    • Audit committee oversight: Missing
    • Independent financial-statement audit: Fail

Sustainability

  • Operating margin: 70.2%; rating input score 96; 96th percentile among comparable filings
  • Total-asset coverage ratio: 4.64; rating input score 78; 78th percentile among comparable filings
  • Liabilities to assets ratio: 0.07; rating input score 25; 25th percentile among comparable filings
  • Officer compensation ratio: 0%; rating input score 67; 67th percentile among comparable filings

Growth

  • Program expense growth: 200% per year; rating input score 100; 100th percentile among comparable filings
  • Revenue growth: 39.7% per year; rating input score 100; 95th percentile among comparable filings
  • Asset growth: 37.7% per year; rating input score 100; 93rd percentile among comparable filings

Details

  • Where the money goes: 2.7% of revenue deployed · 8.9% of spending went to programs
  • Governance: 13 of 13 board members independent · 5 of 7 filing controls reported
  • Programs: 2 filed program accomplishments · $9K in reported program spending
  • Leadership: top reported pay $0 · 1 people listed
  • Consistency: 26 of 26 current checks pass
  • Schedules: 5 filed schedules · includes major donors
  • Filing history: 2 filing years from 2024 to 2025
  • Contacts: How to reach this organization
  • Grant readiness: Federal tax and exclusion status, award history, and grant-maker relationships.
  • People: Everyone the filings name, and which of them the filings identify by more than a name.

Key Signals

Signals prioritize questions for review. They are not findings of misconduct.

  • High — Financial Efficiency: Mission deployment rate scored 3/100.
  • High — Financial Efficiency: Program expense ratio scored 9/100.
  • Moderate — Financial Efficiency: Fundraising efficiency scored 32/100.
  • Review — Accountability: Governance controls: Independent financial-statement audit not reported.
  • High — Sustainability: Liabilities to assets ratio scored 25/100.