Modify the Objective statement; make it one short, conscise, and complete sentance, something like:
I am seeking a position as a mechanical engineer working with energetic materials and explosives.
You don’t need to state that you’re entry level–the positions you’ll be applying for and your experience will make it clear what level of experience you have, and saying “entry-level” may peg you in the minds of some as “useless”. If a PE is required or worthwhile in your field (it is suprisingly irrelevent in most areas of mechanical engineering) then it’ll be assumed that you’re interested in pursuing that, and of course it’s a question you can ask in the interview. Most people will ignore your Objective statement anyway; I hate 'em because people tend to be way too flowery (“I’m eagerly anticipating an exciting career in blah blah blah…”) as if they’re announcing the cruise prize on “The Price is Right”. You don’t do that, but you could condense it down.
Lose the hours estimates on your computer skills. They’re not that high for one, and second they aren’t really indicative of skill. Somebody that has done 500 hours surface modeling and relational assemblies in Pro/ENGINEER or SolidWorks is a lot more impressive than someone who has spent 8000 hours making plates and tubes.
Make your experience in reverse chronological order from most recent down. Upon review, it looks like you want to emphasize your EMRTC experience over what you did at LANL; if that’s the case, then leave it in the same order.
I would reword your EMRTC experience to bring the Sled Track and 120mm penetration warhead testing to the front, and then detail under that what you did for those programs. You’ve got some unnecessary commas and semicolons in there, and I personally prefer whole sentances rather than statement fragments, but that’s personal choice.
Your LANL experience has a bunch of acronyms. Sure, you explain them, but if you’re applying for positions outside of LANL and with organizations that don’t use those acronyms, they don’t mean all that much. I’d prefer to see you talk about your actual responsibilities rather than toss out acronyms. Believe me, once you’ve spent a few years in engineering practice you gain a real jaded view of acronyms, which are frequently used to make something very simple seem complicated.
On the whole, it’s not bad; there’s good use of space, it’s not cluttered, there’s minimal use of buzzwords and blah-blah, and the pertinent information is readily accessable. The biggest problem is that it’s bland. After flipping through a stack of fifty resumes, this one just isn’t going to stand out. Now all of the Job Placement people at your school are probably going to tell you not to put any flair on your resume, and I agree that you don’t want to go overboard by using funky colored paper or putting a picture on there or whatnot, but I’ve actually gotten a lot of positive responses from mine by putting an image as a light watermark in the background. It’s light enough that it doesn’t cause problems in faxing, but reproduces well via photocopier, and I’ve gotten several interviews over the years (and maybe even a job or two) that I was likely underqualified or underexperienced for on the basis that my resume stood out and was remembered at the end of the day. So you might consider doing something like a watermark, or a small icon up at the top, or something to fix in a reviewer’s mind why he should flip back to this one.
Make sure to include a cover letter, too. Sure, most interviewers will just toss them away after a brief skim (and some without even a cursory glance) but others won’t even look at a resume that doesn’t include one, and by throwing in a few easily-found facts about the company you can at least convince a reviewer that you have a genuine interest and take initiative, which is far better than talking about what a “self-starter” and “go-getter” you are.
Good luck in your job search.