Order Code RL32965
CRS Report for Congress
.Received through the CRS Web
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2004
and FY2005 Results for Active and Reserve
Component Enlisted Personnel
Updated June 30, 2005
Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in National Defense
Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2004 and
FY2005 Results for Active and Reserve Component
Enlisted Personnel
Summary
This report provides a brief overview of the recruiting and retention rates for
Active and Reserve Component enlisted personnel during FY2004 and the first eight
months of FY2005. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, the United States has launched several major military
operations which have dramatically increased the operations tempo of the military
services, required the large scale mobilization of reservists, and resulted in significant
battle casualties. These factors have been particularly applicable to the Army, Army
Reserve, and Army National Guard which have shouldered the bulk of the manpower
burden associated with the occupation of Iraq. The Marine Corps and Marine Corps
Reserve have also been heavily involved in Iraq. Many observers have expressed
concern that these factors might lead to lower recruiting and retention rates, thereby
jeopardizing the vitality of today’s all-volunteer military. Recruiting and retention
results for FY2004 and FY2005 to date are summarized below. This report will be
updated as necessary
FY2004 — Active Components. In FY2004, recruiting and retention rates for
Active Component enlisted personnel remained generally strong, although there were
some areas of concern. One area of concern was Army recruiting. The Army met its
FY2004 goal for shipping new recruits to basic training, but it drew heavily upon its
“Delayed Entry Program” to do so. Retention for all the Active Components was
generally strong in FY2004.
FY2004 — Reserve Components. During 2004, enlisted recruiting and
retention rates for most of the Reserve Components remained strong, although there
were some significant exceptions — most notably with respect to Army National
Guard recruiting. The Army National Guard experienced a substantial shortfall in
meeting its recruit quantity goal in FY2004, while also failing to meet both of the
DoD recruit quality benchmarks. The Air National Guard also fell short of its
recruiting quantity goal in FY2004.
FY2005 — Active Components. Concerns about the strength of Army
recruiting have grown in FY2005, especially during the past few months, as the Army
missed its goal for shipping new recruits to basic training from February to May by
significant margins and fell slightly below one of the key DoD recruit quality
benchmarks. Retention has remained generally strong for the Active Components,
although the Army is slightly below its goal for retention among first term and mid-
career soldiers, and the Navy is slightly below goal for mid-career personnel.
FY2005 — Reserve Components. The Army National Guard has continued
to experience substantial recruiting difficulties, and recruiting shortfalls for the Air
National Guard have increased. Recruiting shortfalls have also surfaced in the Army
Reserve and Naval Reserve. However, retention rates have remained strong,
although the Army National Guard and Naval Reserve saw slight increases in the
number of people leaving compared with FY2000 and FY2004.

---

Contents
Recruiting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Active Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Reserve Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Retention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Active Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Reserve Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Options for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
List of Tables
Table 1: Accession Data (Quantity) for Active Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2004 and FY2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 2: Accession Data (Quality) for Active Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2004 and FY2005 (Non-Prior Service Enlistees only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Table 3: Recruiting Data (Quantity) for Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2004 and 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 4: Recruiting Data (Quality) for Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2004-2005 (Non-Prior Service Only) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Table 5: Active Component Enlisted Retention Data, FY2004 and FY2005 . . . 13
Table 6: Reserve Component Enlisted Attrition Data for FY2004 and 2005 . . . 14

---

Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of
FY2004 and FY2005 Results for Active and
Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel
This report provides a brief overview of the recruiting and retention rates for
Active and Reserve Component1 enlisted personnel during FY2004 and the first eight
months of FY2005. Since the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade
Center and the Pentagon, the United States has launched several major military
operations which have dramatically increased the operations tempo of the military
services, required the large scale mobilization of reservists, and resulted in significant
battle casualties. These factors have been particularly applicable to the Army, Army
Reserve, and Army National Guard which have shouldered the bulk of the manpower
burden associated with the occupation of Iraq. The Marine Corps and Marine Corps
Reserve have also been heavily involved in Iraq. Many observers have expressed
concern that these factors might lead to lower recruiting and retention rates, thereby
jeopardizing the vitality of today’s all-volunteer military.
Recruiting
Recruiting has been called the life blood of the military. Without a robust
ability to bring new members into the military, it would lack sufficient manpower to
carry out mission essential tasks in the near term and would lack a sufficient pool of
entry-level personnel to develop into the mid-level and upper-level leaders of the
future. To protect against this, the Active and Reserve Components set goals for new
recruit “accessions”2 each year. Officer and enlisted goals are set separately. There
are both “quantity”3 and “quality”4 goals.
1 The term “Active Components” refers to the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
The term “Reserve Component” refers to the seven individual reserve components of the
armed forces: the Army National Guard of the United States, the Army Reserve, the Naval
Reserve, the Marine Corps Reserve, the Air National Guard of the United States, the Air
Force Reserve, and the Coast Guard Reserve. This report, however, does not provide
recruiting and retention data for the Coast Guard Reserve, which normally operates as part
of the Department of Homeland Security, rather than the Department of Defense.
2 In the case of the Active Component, “accessions” are individuals who have actually begun
their military service, as distinguished from those who have signed a contract to serve but
who have not yet begun their service. Accession for Active Component personnel usually
occurs when an individual is “shipped” to basic training. For the Reserve Components, the
term has a broader meaning; accession can occur shortly after an individual signs a contract,
when he or she is “shipped” to basic training, or when they are transferred from an Active
Component to a Reserve Component.
3 This quantity goal is based primarily on the difference between the congressionally
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
Active Components
The recruiting data presented in Table 1 (all tables are at the end of this report)
show that all of the Active Components met their enlisted accession quantity goals
in FY2004. However, it is important to note that in FY2004 the Army achieved its
accession quantity goal in part by drawing heavily from its Delayed Entry Program
(DEP), the pool of newly contracted recruits who are waiting to be shipped to basic
training.5 Typically, the Army likes to have about 35% of the coming year’s
accession goal enrolled in the DEP; but by the end of FY2004 the Army’s DEP was
reduced to about 18% of its FY2005 accession goal. One reason for this reduction
in the size of the DEP was the decision to increase the size of the Army in early
2004,6 which created a need to send more people to basic training than had previously
been planned; another reason was that the Army missed its FY2004 goal for new
recruit contracts by 15%,7 thus undermining its ability to refill the DEP.
3 (...continued)
authorized end strength of the Component for a given fiscal year and the projected number
of currently serving personnel that Component will retain through the end of the year.
Officer and enlisted accession goals are set separately. To simplify somewhat, if a
Component has an authorized end strength of 200,000 enlisted personnel in a given year,
and it projects that it will retain 175,000 of its current enlisted members through the year,
it will set a goal of bringing in approximately 25,000 new enlisted recruits for that year
(actually, the goal will be slightly higher to account for those new recruits who are
discharged early, usually while in initial entry training). The actual number of new enlisted
recruits a Component needs, however, may change during the year as new projections are
made about the retention of currently serving enlisted personnel or if the Component must
increase or decrease the total size of its force.
4 DOD measures enlisted recruit “quality” based on two criteria: graduation from high
school and score on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT). Since FY1993, DOD’s
benchmarks for recruit quality stipulate that at least 90 percent of new recruits must be high
school diploma graduates and at least 60 percent must score above average on the AFQT.
5 The DEP is made up of those individuals who have signed a contract to join the military
at a future date, up to one year in advance, but who have not yet “shipped” to basic training.
6 The National Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136, section 401)
authorized an end-strength of 482,400 for the Army, up from 480,000 in FY2003. In
January, 2004, the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Peter Schoomaker announced that
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld had authorized a temporary increase in Army
strength up to 512,400 in order to facilitate restructuring of the Army. Subsequently, the
Army increased its goal for new accessions in FY2004 from 72,500 to 77,000. The Ronald
W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 (P.L. 108-375, sections
401 and 403), authorized an end-strength for the Army of 502,400 and provided the
Secretary of Defense with the authority to increase Army end-strength to 512,400 during
FY2005-2009 in order to support Army transformation efforts and ongoing operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan.
7 The Army’s goal for new enlistment contracts in FY2004 was 90,222. The actual number
of new contracts it achieved was 76,656, a shortfall of 13,566. While the standard measure
of recruiting success for the various Components is the achievement of their accessions
goals, the ability to achieve contract goals is often seen as a “leading indicator” of recruiting
strength or weakness.

---

CRS-3
At the start of FY2005, the relatively low level of the Army’s DEP and the
Army’s increased accession goal of 80,0008 generated concern that it would have
difficulty achieving its quantity goal. The Army planned to meet this challenge by
increasing the size of its recruiting force by nearly 20% and by offering more
generous enlistment incentives. As Table 1 indicates, however, the Army has only
met 83% of its accessions quantity goal for the period of October, 2004, through
May, 2005. While the Army met its monthly accession goals from October through
January, it fell short from February through May. If the Army hopes to meet its
overall accession goal for FY2005, it will either need to dramatically improve its
recruiting from June through September, or it will need to draw down its DEP still
further. (Recent media reports indicate that the Army exceeded their accession goals
in June; however, there is insufficient data at this time to determine the significance
of this).9 If the Army elects to draw down its DEP to meet FY2005 accession goals,
it could have a negative impact on the Army’s ability to meet its accession goals in
FY2006 and to manage the flow of new recruits through the training base.
These recruit quantity shortfalls have undercut the Army’s efforts to increase the
size of its Active Component force.10 In April, 2004, there were 411,224 enlisted
personnel in the Army. This number increased to a high of 414,438 by September,
2004, but has since declined to 405,972 as of April, 2005.11
The recruiting data presented in Table 2 show the performance of the Active
Components with respect to DOD enlisted accession quality benchmarks. The two
principal DOD quality benchmarks are the percentage of non-prior service enlistees
who are high school diploma graduates (HSDG) and the percentage who score above
average on the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT Categories I-IIIA). All of
the Active Components exceeded the DOD quality benchmarks in FY2004, often by
significant margins, and three of them continued to do so in FY2005. However, the
Army fell slightly below the DoD benchmark for high school diploma graduates as
of May, 2005.12 While this is a very small shortfall, it will likely raise concerns that
weak Army recruiting is impacting not just the size of the Army but its quality as
well.
8 As compared to the Army’s FY2004 accession goal, which was originally 72,500, but was
increased mid-year to 77,000. See footnote 6.
9 According to one report, the Army had a goal of 5,650 new accessions for June, and
achieved 6,150 (109% of goal). However, it is unclear from the article how much of this
was the result of improved recruiting success, as opposed to drawing down the DEP. Also,
no data on the quality of the recruits was provided. The report also indicated that the Army
Reserve exceeded its June goal of 3,610 new accessions by 50. Josh White, “Army
Surpasses Recruiting Goal But Says Much Work Remains,” Washington Post, May 30, A5.
10 See footnote 6.
11 Department of Defense, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, available at
[http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms1.pdf].
12 Past recruit quality data available at [http://www.dod.mil/prhome/docs/recqual04.pdf].
Past recruit quantity data available at [http://www.dod.mil/prhome/docs/numgoals04.pdf].

---

CRS-4
Reserve Components
The recruiting data show that most of the Reserve Components met their
enlisted quantity goals in FY2004 (see Table 3). The exceptions were the Army
National Guard, which missed its quantity goal by about 13% in FY2004, and the Air
National Guard, which missed its quantity goal by about 6% in FY2004. While the
Air National Guard’s shortfall was an area for concern, the Army National Guard’s
recruiting problem was more serious because its shortfall was much larger and
followed its failure to meet its quantity goal in FY2003.13

Overall, recruit quantity shortfalls for the Reserve Components have increased
during the first eight months of FY2005. The Army National Guard is currently 24%
below its year-to-date goal, while the Air National Guard is 20% below its year-to-
date goal. Recruit quantity shortfalls also surfaced in the Army Reserve (26% below
goal) and Naval Reserve (12% below goal).14 The Naval Reserve shortfall must be
assessed in light of current Navy plans to reduce the size of the Naval Reserve,15 but
the shortfall for the Army Reserve is certainly a cause for concern, owing to the
magnitude of the shortfall and in light of the recruiting difficulties faced by the Army
and Army National Guard.
These recruiting shortfalls will make it extremely difficult for the Army Reserve
and Army National Guard to achieve the end-strength levels authorized by Congress
for FY2005.16 As of April 2005, the actual personnel strength of the Army National
Guard was 331,446 — about 95% of its FY2005 authorized end-strength of 350,000.
The actual strength of the Army Reserve was 196,132 in April, 2005 — about 96%
of its FY2005 authorized end-strength of 205,000.17
13 The Army National Guard fell short of its recruit quantity goal of 62,000 by 7,798, or
13%, in FY2003. It exceeded its goal of 60,504 by 2,747, or 5%, in FY2002.
14 See footnote 10 for information on Army Reserve recruiting in June.
15 The authorized end-strength for the Naval Reserve in FY2005 is 83,400 (2,500 less than
it was in FY2004) According to the Department of the Navy Fiscal Year 2007/2007 Budget
Estimates, “The Navy Reserve is currently assessing its FY-05 execution in light of planned
reductions in FY-06 and may end the year below authorized end-strength.” The document
also stated “The FY2006-07 Reserve Personnel, Navy budget ...will support a Selected
Reserve end- strength of 73,109 and 71,165 personnel, respectively, in a paid status.”
16 The term “end-strength” refers to the authorized strength of a specified branch of the
military at the end of a given fiscal year. (The term authorized strength means “the largest
number of members authorized to be in an armed force, a component, a branch, a grade, or
any other category of the armed forces”). The Ronald W. Reagan National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 stipulated an authorized strength for the Army
National Guard of 350,000 as of September 30, 2005. (P.L. 108-375, sec. 411, October 28,
2004). While end-strengths for the reserve components are maximum strength levels, not
minimum strength levels, the inability to maintain a force at the authorized end-strength
level can be an indicator of strength management problems.
17 Figures include both officer and enlisted personnel. The strength of the Naval Reserve in
April, 2005, was 77,953 — 93% of its authorized end-strength for FY2005 of 83,400 — but
the Navy plans to reduce the size of the Naval Reserve substantially over the next two years
(continued...)

---

CRS-5

The recruiting data also show that most of the Reserve Components exceeded
DoD quality benchmarks in FY2004 and FY2005 (see Table 4). Most of the Reserve
Components exceeded the HSDG and AFQT benchmark in FY2004 and to-date in
FY2005, often by significant margins. However, the Army National Guard failed to
meet either goal in FY2004 and to-date in FY2005.
Analysis
There are several likely causes of these recruiting shortfalls. One factor that can
have a powerful impact on military recruiting is the state of the economy. Military
recruiting is generally easier in times of high unemployment and more difficult in
times of low unemployment. Historical data indicate that unemployment has been
dropping in recent years, falling from 6.0% in 2003 to 5.1% as of May, 2005.18
Institutions of higher education also compete with the military for manpower. Over
the past twenty five years, the proportion of high school graduates going directly on
to college has increased from about half to about two-thirds.19 This historically high
proportion of college-bound youth reduces the size the pool which military recruiters
have traditionally targeted: young people who have recently graduated from high
school.
However, while these factors contribute to a challenging recruiting environment
in general, it is important to recognize that recruiting shortfalls are most severe in the
Army and its Reserve Components — the Army Reserve and the Army National
Guard. Thus, in addition to broad social and economic forces which are likely
having a dampening effect on recruiting generally, there are also other factors which
appear to be undercutting recruiting for the Army in particular.
One factor likely affecting recruiting for the Army, Army Reserve, and Army
National Guard is the major role they are playing in the Iraq conflict. Recent survey
research indicates that the certain segments of the adult population — especially
women and African Americans — have become less likely to recommend military
service to young people since the war in Iraq began.20 As a major source of recruits
17 (...continued)
(see footnote 16). The Marine Corps Reserve is at 101% of authorized end-strength for
FY2005, while the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve are just over 99% of their
authorized end-strengths. All references to end-strength in this paragraph are for the
Selected Reserve elements of the respective Reserve Components.
18 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at [http://www.bls.gov/]
19 Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics: 2003, Table 186.
20 For example, in a November 2002 survey, 60% of the men and 54% of the women
surveyed indicated that they would recommend military service to a young person who came
to them for advice. By May 2004, those figures had dropped to 57% for men and 37% for
women. Also in the November 2002 survey, 59% of white respondents, 53% of African
American respondents, and 51% of Hispanic respondents indicated they would recommend
(continued...)

---

CRS-6
for the Army and its Reserve Components are young people without prior military
service (primarily those who have recently graduated from high school), negative
attitudes towards military service among those adults who are youth
“influencers”21can have a powerful effect. There have been reports that Army
recruiters are having difficulty signing up high school seniors, especially those below
the age of 18, who require parental consent to enlist. Even among those old enough
to enlist without parental consent, opposition to military service by parents or other
influencers may discourage them from joining.22
Another factor affecting recruiting for the Army and its Reserve Components
is the ongoing efforts to increase the size of its Active Component. In order to
expand, the active Army has increased its goal for new recruits from 73,800 in 2003
to 80,000 in 2005, thus providing active Army recruiters with a goal that is more
difficult to reach. Additionally, this affects Army Reserve Component recruiting as
well, as the active Army is now competing more vigorously with the Army Reserve
and Army National Guard for some of the same potential recruits.
The comparatively high rates of mobilization in the Army Reserve Components
in recent years may also be undercutting their recruiting efforts. A major source of
recruits for both the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard is people leaving
the active Army. These are people who want to embark on a civilian career but still
wish to maintain their military affiliation and certain military benefits. However, the
flow of enlisted personnel from the active Army to the Army National Guard
decreased in recent years, dropping from 6,275 in FY2002 to 3,104 in FY2004. This
may be partially due to concerns about being promptly called back to active service
via mobilization orders and deployed to Iraq, Afghanistan, or some other location.
On the other hand, this explanation is weakened by data showing that the number of
people transferring from the active Army into the Army Reserve actually increased
during this time frame, from 2,951 to 3,472.23
20 (...continued)
military service to a young person who came to them for advice. By May 2004, the figures
had changed to 47% for white respondents, 28% of African American respondents, and 56%
for Hispanic respondents. See Mothers’ Attitudes Towards Enlistment, produced by the
Department of Defense’s Joint Advertising, Market Research, and Studies Program, May
2004.
21 Influencers are those adults who regularly interact with youth, such as parents, coaches,
teachers, and mentors.
22 See for example: Washington Post, “Schools and Military Face Off,” June 19, 2005, A3;
New York Times, “Growing Problems for Military Recruiters: Parents,” June 3, 2005, A1;
USA Today, “Army and Marines Shift Focus to Wary Parents,” April 5, 2005, A1.
23 However, the Army Reserve’s increase may be related to recent improvements in its
ability to offer desirable positions and schooling to prospective recruits. Additionally, as
the Army National Guard has a heavy concentration of combat units, while the Army
Reserve is largely made up of combat support and combat service support units, potential
recruits may view the Army Reserve as a safer option. Transition figures from Reserve
Component Transition Branch, Army Human Resources Command.

---

CRS-7
Retention
The term retention refers to the rate at which military personnel voluntarily
choose to stay in the military after their original obligated term of service has ended.24
Imbalances in the retention rate can cause problems within the military personnel
system.25 A common retention concern is that too few people will stay in, thereby
creating a shortage of experienced leaders, decreasing military efficiency and
lowering job satisfaction.
Active Components
The retention data presented in Table 5 show that the Active Components met
or exceeded nearly all their goals for enlisted personnel in FY2004, although there
were some shortcomings. The Navy failed to meet its retention goal for “Zone A”
sailors (those with fewer than six years of service) by about two percentage points
and the Air Force failed to meet its retention goal for second term airmen by about
five percentage points. The Air Force’s inability to meet its retention goal for airmen
serving in their second enlistment was part of a longer term trend. It had fallen short
of this goal for seven of the previous eight years, by four to six percentage points
each year.26
So far, the data for FY2005 show that the Marine Corps is far exceeding its
enlisted retention goals, and the Navy is meeting or exceeding two of its goals, while
falling just short of its Zone B goal. The Army — whose retention goal for FY2005
is 14% higher than it was in FY2004 — is falling short in two out of three categories,
achieving 129% of its retention goal for career enlisted personnel, but only achieving
94% of its retention goal for first term enlistees and 97% of its goal for mid-career
enlisted personnel. Nonetheless, these retention rates have been improving as the
year has progressed, and the Army often produces strong retention results in the last
quarter of the fiscal year, so it is quite possible the Army will achieve its FY2005
retention goals by the end of the year. The Air Force is 18 percentage points below
24 The obligated term of service for enlisted personnel is determined by their initial
enlistment contract. The normal service obligation incurred is eight years, which may be
served in the Active Component, in the Reserve Component, or some combination of both.
For example, an individual may enlist for four years of service in the Active Component,
followed by four years of service in the Reserve Component. See 10 USC 651 and DOD
Instructions 1304.25.
25 If too few people stay in, the military will suffer from a lack of experienced leaders,
decreased military efficiency and lower job satisfaction. If too many people stay in,
promotion opportunities decrease and a higher percentage of people must be involuntarily
separated in order to prevent the organization from becoming “top heavy” with middle and
upper level leaders. Each of these outcomes, in turn, can have a negative impact on
recruiting by making the military a less attractive career option.
26 The Air Force missed its goal for 2nd term airmen in FY97-01, and FY03-04. It surpassed
its goal of 75% only in FY02, when it achieved a 78.3% retention rate. Some have argued
that these shortfalls are harming the Air Force’s ability to fill key mid-level leadership
positions. Alternatively, it could be that the goal is not tightly linked with projected
position vacancies and, therefore, is less meaningful for analytical purposes.

---

CRS-8
goal for second term airmen, far below its normal retention level in this category; but
this low retention rate should be viewed in light of ongoing “force shaping”
initiatives in the Air Force.27
Reserve Components
The Department of Defense tracks Reserve Component retention via attrition
rates. Attrition rates are a measure of the ratio of people who leave the reserves in
a given year; they are the inverse of retention rates, which measure the ratio of people
who stay in the service. Attrition goals are thus a maximum rate or ceiling, which
the various Reserve Components try not to exceed. The data show all of the Reserve
Components achieving enlisted attrition rates below these ceilings for FY2004 (see
Table 6). For the first seven months of FY2005, the data show a slightly higher rate
of attrition for the Army National Guard and the Naval Reserve when compared to
the same time period in 2004 and 2000.28 Nonetheless, the Naval Reserve is on track
to finish the year well below its attrition ceiling, and the Army National Guard is on
track to finish the year very close to its attrition ceiling. However, given the
declining end-strengths of the Army Reserve and Army National Guard, it may well
be insufficient for them to simply stay under their traditional attrition ceilings if they
hope to restore their personnel strengths to congressionally authorized levels.
Analysis
The fact that retention for the Active and Reserve Components has remained
generally strong in recent years may seem counter-intuitive, given the high
operational tempo and large scale reserve mobilizations that have occurred since
September 11, 2001, and especially since the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
However, a number of studies conducted in the late 1990s indicate that deployments
can enhance retention, perhaps by providing participants with a sense of
accomplishment.29 However, some of these studies also indicate that after a certain
27 As a result of stop-loss polices and high retention rates, the Air Force exceeded its
authorized end-strength in FY2004 by 17,316. In FY2005, it is trying to reduce its
personnel strength to bring it in line with authorized levels. As such, it has adjusted its
accession and retention goals to decrease its strength. See Department of the Air Force,
Fiscal Year 2006/Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Estimates, February 2005, p. 4, 8; David
Jablonski, “Force Shaping Opportunities Expand in 2005,” Air Force Print News, October
7, 2004.
28 It should be pointed out, however, that the attrition rates from the Army Reserve and
Army National Guard are skewed downward by their stop-loss policies, which prevent
soldiers alerted for mobilization or deployed from leaving the military until after their
deployment is completed.
29 See for example James Hosek and Mark Totten, Does Perstempo Hurt Reenlistment? The
Effect of Long or Hostile Perstempo on Reenlistment, RAND, 1998; Paul Sticha, Paul
Hogan and Maris Diane, Personnel Tempo: Definition, Measurement, and Effects on
Retention, Readiness and Quality of Life, Army Research Institute, 1999; Peter Francis,
OPTEMPO and Readiness, Center for Naval Analysis, 1999; and Paul Hogan and Jared
(continued...)

---

CRS-9
threshold level, this positive effect diminishes or becomes negative. Additionally,
these studies focused on retention behavior during the 1990s, when the deployments
were generally shorter and less hostile than at present.
Some survey data have raised concerns about future retention rates. For
example, a DoD sponsored survey conducted showed that respondents’ intention to
remain on active duty has remained fairly stable for those in the Navy and Air Force
between March, 2003 and August, 2004. However, during this same time frame,
“retention intention” dropped from 59% to 52% for respondents in the Army and
from 53% to 46% for those in the Marine Corps.30 A similar study of Reserve
Component personnel showed that respondents’ intention to stay in the reserves has
remained fairly stable from May 2003 to November 2004 for those in the Air
National Guard, Air Force Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Naval Reserve.
However, “retention intention” during this period dropped from 70% to 58% among
respondents in the Army National Guard, and from 69% to 57% among those in the
Army Reserve.31
Options for Congress
Congress has a number of options to address shortfalls in recruiting and
retention. The traditional policy levers used by Congress and DOD include increasing
funding for advertising, increasing the number of recruiters, and providing larger
enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses. Some have also argued that the high
operational tempo must be reduced in order to bolster current recruiting efforts and
to prevent retention problems in the future. To facilitate this, they have advocated
either increasing the size of military — especially the Active Component Army and
Marine Corps — or reducing the U.S. military presence in Iraq and other places.
Others have advocated reinstating the draft, something which would require
congressional action to implement. Opponents of the draft, however, argue that it
even if it were politically feasible, conscription would not generate the type of highly
motivated and highly trained individuals which the military has come to rely on.32
Those particularly concerned about Reserve Component recruiting and retention
often urge a reduction in the number of reserve personnel deployed to places like Iraq
or a shortening of the duration of reserve mobilizations for those who do get called
up; doing so, however, could put additional strains on Active Component forces.
29 (...continued)
Lewis, Voluntary Enlisted Retention and PERSTEMPO: An Empirical Analysis of Army
Administrative Data, The Lewin Group.
30 Defense Manpower Data Center, Human Resources Strategic Assessment Program, Note
No. 2004-014, “August 2004 Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members: Leading
Indicators.”
31 Defense Manpower Data Center, Human Resources Strategic Assessment Program, Note
No. 2005-002, “November 2004 Status of Forces Survey of Reserve Component Members:
Leading Indicators.”
32 See CRS Report RL31682, The Military Draft and a Possible War with Iraq, by Robert
Goldich, for a more detailed discussion of arguments for and against a draft.

---

CRS-10
Table 1: Accession Data (Quantity) for Active Component
Enlisted Personnel, FY2004 and FY200533
Service
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Percent
(Goal)
Oct-May
Oct-May
Oct-May
of Goal)
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Percent
of Goal)
Army
77,000
77,586
101%
80,000
49,285
40,964
83%
Navy
39,620
39,871
101%
38,500
18,440
18,456
100%
Marine Corps
30,608
30,618
100%
33,052
16,935
17,241
102%
Air Force
34,080
34,361
101%
18,900
8,968
9,047
101%
Table 2: Accession Data (Quality) for Active Component
Enlisted Personnel, FY2004 and FY2005 (Non-Prior Service
Enlistees only)34
Service
DOD Quality
FY2004
FY2005
Benchmarks
(Achieved)
Oct-May
(Achieved)
HSDG
AFQT
HSDG
AFQT
HSDG
AFQT
CAT I-IIIA
CAT I-IIIA
CAT I-IIIA
Army
90%
60%
92%
72%
89%
72%
Navy
90%
60%
96%
70%
96%
71%
Marine Corps
90%
60%
97%
69%
98%
69%
Air Force
90%
60%
99%
82%
99%
79%
HSDG: High School Diploma Graduate
AFQT: Armed Forces Qualification Test
CAT I-IIIA: Categories I-IIIA (above average scores)
33 Data provided by the Department of Defense. Past recruit quantity data available at
[http://www.dod.mil/prhome/docs/numgoals04.pdf].
34 Data provided by the Department of Defense. Past recruit quality data available at
[http://www.dod.mil/prhome/docs/recqual04.pdf]. HSDG data for the Army may omit up
to 4,000 participants in the GED+ program. GED+ is an experimental program which
allowed high-school dropouts with exceptionally high scores on the AFQT to complete their
General Educational Development (GED) credential and then enlist in the military. The
GED+ program was ended during FY2004.

---

CRS-11
Table 3: Recruiting Data (Quantity) for Reserve Component
Enlisted Personnel, FY2004 and 200535
Reserve
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Component
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Percent
(Goal)
Oct-May
Oct-May
Oct-May
of Goal)
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Percent
of Goal)
Army
56,002
48,793
87%
63,002
39,957
30,252
76%
National
Guard
Army
32,275
32,699
101%
28,485
16,143
11,891
74%
Reserve
Naval
10,101
11,246
111%
12,600
7,397
6,484
88%
Reserve
Marine
8,087
8,248
102%
8,538
5,139
5,154
100%
Corps
Reserve
Air National
8,842
8,276
94%
10,361
6,866
5,492
80%
Guard
Air Force
7,997
8,904
111%
8,162
5,001
5,831
116%
Reserve
Table 4: Recruiting Data (Quality) for Reserve Component
Enlisted Personnel, FY2004-2005 (Non-Prior Service Only)36
Reserve Component
DoD Quality
FY2004
FY2005
Benchmarks
(Achieved)
Oct-May
(Achieved)
HSDG
AFQT
HSDG
AFQT
HSDG
AFQT
CAT I-IIIA
CAT I-IIIA
CAT I-IIIA
Army National Guard
90%
60%
84%
57%
83%
57%
Army Reserve
90%
60%
91%
70%
90%
70%
Naval Reserve
90%
60%
96%
71%
91%
84%
Marine Corps Reserve
90%
60%
95%
78%
95%*
74%*
Air National Guard
90%
60%
n.a.
79%
n.a.
n.a.
Air Force Reserve
90%
60%
91%
73%
90%
72%
*Quality data for Marine Corps is through April, 2005.
35 Data provided by the Department of Defense.
36 Data provided by the Department of Defense.

---

CRS-12
Table 5: Active Component Enlisted Retention Data,
FY2004 and FY200537
Service/
FY2004
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
FY2005
Retention
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Achieved
Oct-May
Oct-May
Oct-May
(Total
Category
Compared
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Achieved
Goal)
to Goal)
Compared
to Goal)
Army38
Initial
23,000
24,903
108%
18,700
17,579
94%
26,935
Term
Mid Career
20,292
21,120
104%
16,364
15,834
97%
23,773
Career
12,808
13,987
109%
9,208
11,920
129%
13,454
Navy39
Zone A
56%
54.1%
-1.9 pts.
53%
59%
+6 pts
53%
Zone B
70%
70.2%
+0.2 pts.
69%
67%
-2 pts
69%
Zone C
85%
86.9%
+1.9 pts.
85%
86%
+1
85%
Air Force40
1st Term
55%
63%
+8 pts.
55%
58%
+3 pts
55%
2nd Term
75%
70%
-5 pts.
75%
57%
-18 pts
75%
Career
95%
97%
+2 pts.
95%
95%
Met
95%
Marine Corps41
1st term
5,990
6,011
100%
3,960
5,689
144%
5,949
Subsequent
5,628
7,729
137%
3,384
4,943
146%
5,079
37 Data provided by the Department of Defense.
38 The Army tracks retention rates in three categories: initial term (serving in first
enlistment, regardless of length), mid-career (second or subsequent enlistment with less than
ten years of service), and career (second or subsequent enlistment with ten or more years of
service). It states its retention goals in terms of raw numbers.
39 The Navy’s most important retention categories are Zone A (up to six years of service),
Zone B (6 years of service to under 10 years of service) and Zone C (10 years of service to
under 14 years of service). It also has a Zone D (14 years of service to under 20 years of
service) and Zone E (20 years of service or more), but these are less critical due to the high
retention rates for Zone D, and the way in which retirement impacts retention decisions for
Zone E. It states its retention goals in terms of the percentage of those eligible to re-enlist.
40 The Air Force tracks retention rates in three categories: first term (serving in first
enlistment, regardless of length), second term (second enlistment), and career (third or
subsequent enlistment). The Air Force sets retention goals as a percentage of those eligible
to re-enlist.
41 The Marine Corps tracks retention rates in two categories: first term (serving in first
enlistment) and subsequent (second or subsequent enlistment). The Marine Corps’ retention
goal is stated in numerical terms. The year to date goal is based on prorated projections of
their annual goal by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as the Marine Corps does not
set quarterly or monthly retention goals.

---

CRS-13
Table 6: Reserve Component Enlisted Attrition Data for FY2004
and 200542
Reserve Component
FY2004
FY2004
FY2005
FY2000
FY2004
FY2005
(Ceiling)
(Achieved)
(Ceiling)
Oct-Apr
Oct-Apr
Oct-Apr
(Achieved)
(Achieved)
(Achieved)
Army National
19.5%
18.6%
19.5%
11.6
11.1
12.5
Guard
Army Reserve
28.6%
22.6%
28.6%
16.6
12.5
13.1
Naval Reserve
36.0%
28.2%
36.0%
17.3
17.4
18.0
Marine Corps
30.0%
26.4%
30.0%
16.2
16.0
11.1
Reserve
Air National Guard
12.0%
11.5%
12.0%
7.1
7.6
6.1
Air Force Reserve
18.0%
13.6%
18.0%
10.5
8.1
8.4
42 Data provided by the Department of Defense.

---