.

Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of
FY2012 and FY2013 Results for Active and
Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel

Lawrence Kapp
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
July 29, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32965

c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Summary
Congress has historically been quite interested in recruiting and retention of personnel in the
nation’s Armed Forces, since maintaining a fully manned and capable workforce is a key
component of military readiness. This report provides a brief overview of the recruiting and
retention results for Active and Reserve Component enlisted personnel during FY2012 and
FY2013. Both years were considered quite strong for recruiting and retention in the Active and
Reserve Components in general, although the Army Reserve appeared to experience some
difficulties.
Recruiting and Retention Metrics
Recruiting performance for enlisted personnel is principally measured in terms of meeting
quantity and quality goals. Quantity goals are based on the projected need for new personnel each
service must bring in over the course of the year to meet its congressionally authorized end-
strength. There are two principal quality goals: at least 90% of new recruits be high school
diploma graduates and at least 60% score above average on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.
Quality goals are only for recruits without any previous military service (“non-prior service”).
Retention performance for enlisted personnel is principally measured by meeting one or more
quantity goals. For the Active Components, quantity goals are based on career phase (for
example, initial term, mid-career, and career) and are stated in numerical terms. For the Reserve
Components, retention is tracked via overall attrition rates, which measure the ratio of people
who leave in a given year. Reserve Component retention goals establish a maximum attrition rate
or “ceiling” which should not be exceeded. They are stated in percentage terms and are not
broken out by career phase.
Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results
In FY2012 and FY2013, all of the Active Components achieved their recruit quantity goals and
recruit quality was very strong. Virtually all new recruits had high school diplomas, and about
three-quarters scored above average on the Armed Forces Qualification Test. Recruit quality in
the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force in these years has been among the highest levels
experienced since the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973; Army recruit quality has
been quite high as well. Retention has remained generally strong, although the Navy has
experienced some shortfalls. All of the Reserve Components except the Army Reserve met or
exceeded their quantity goals while quality remained high. The Army Reserve fell short of its
recruit quantity goals in both FY2012 and FY2013, contributing to a decline in its personnel
strength. All of the Reserve Components remained below their targeted attrition ceilings in
FY2012, with three slightly exceeding their ceilings in FY2013. The Army Reserve finished
FY2013 about 3.5% below its authorized end-strength, indicating a need for stronger recruiting
and retention in the future. It is unclear at this time whether the recruiting shortfalls experienced
by the Army Reserve are specific to that organization, or portend broader recruiting difficulties in
the future.


Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Contents
Recruiting ........................................................................................................................................ 2
Active Components ................................................................................................................... 2
Historical Context ............................................................................................................... 4
Reserve Components ................................................................................................................. 6
Historical Context ............................................................................................................... 7
Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 10
Retention ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Active Components ................................................................................................................. 11
Reserve Components ............................................................................................................... 13
Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 14
Historical Perspective: The Post-Cold War Drawdown and Its Impact on Recruiting and
Retention ..................................................................................................................................... 16
Options for Congress ..................................................................................................................... 17

Tables
Table 1. Accession Data (Quantity) for Active Component Enlisted Personnel, FY2012
and FY2013 .................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 2. Accession Data (Quality) for Non-Prior Service Active Component Enlisted
Personnel, FY2012 and FY2013 ................................................................................................... 3
Table 3. Accession Data (Quantity) for Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel, FY2012
and FY2013 .................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 4. Accession Data (Quality) for Non-Prior Service Reserve Component Enlisted
Personnel, FY2012 and FY2013 ................................................................................................... 7
Table 5. Retention Data for Active Component Enlisted Personnel, FY2012 and FY2013 .......... 13
Table 6. Attrition Data for Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel, FY2012 and FY2013 .......... 14

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 18

Congressional Research Service
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

ongress has historically been very interested in the recruiting and retention of personnel in
the nation’s Armed Forces, as maintaining a fully manned and capable workforce is a key
C component of military readiness. Congress exercises a powerful influence on recruiting
and retention goals through its establishment of personnel strength levels for each of the active
and reserve components. It influences the achievement of these goals primarily through setting
military compensation levels (which may include recruiting and retention bonuses, educational
benefits, and separation incentives), establishing criteria that affect eligibility for enlistment and
retention (for example, age, cognitive, behavioral, and citizenship standards), and by authorizing
and funding recruiting and retention programs (for example, providing for dedicated recruiters
and career counselors, military entrance processing stations, market research, and advertising).
Through its oversight powers, Congress also closely monitors the performance of the executive
branch in managing the size and quality of the military workforce.
Since 2001, the United States has conducted 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, Army National Guard, Marine Corps, and Marine Corps
Reserve, which have shouldered the bulk of the manpower burden associated with operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Many observers expressed concern that these factors would lead to lower
recruiting and retention rates and jeopardize the vitality of today’s all-volunteer military,
particularly in the FY2005-FY2007 timeframe, when the Army had difficulty meeting its recruit
quantity goals and began accepting lower quality recruits. However, starting in 2008 these
concerns were alleviated by the more favorable recruiting and retention environment brought
about by comparatively high unemployment rates in the civilian economy, by the improved
security situation in Iraq, and by reduced recruiting goals for the Army and Marine Corps as both
of those services completed major expansions.
Looking to the future, the ongoing withdrawal from Afghanistan scheduled to be largely complete
by 2014, projected cuts in active1 and reserve force2 structure, and a still recovering labor market

1 The authorized end-strength for the Active Components for FY2012 was as follows: Army (562,000), Navy
(325,700), Air Force (332,800), and Marine Corps (202,100). In the FY2013 Budget Request, the Administration
proposed reducing the end-strength of the Active Components between FY2012 and FY2017 by the following
amounts: Army (-72,000), Navy (-6,200), Marine Corps (-20,000), Air Force (-4,200). See the FY2013 Department of
Defense Budget Overview document, pages 4-13 , available at
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2013/FY2013_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pd
f. Congress approved reductions in strength for the Active Components in section 401 of the FY2013 National Defense
Authorization Act (P.L. 112-239) and Section 401 of the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 113-66).
The authorized end-strength for the Active Components for FY2014 were as follows: Army (520,000), Navy (323,600),
Air Force (327,600), and Marine Corps (190,200). In the FY15 Budget Request, the Administration proposed
continuing reductions to three of the active components, recommending FY15 end-strengths of 490,000 for the Army,
184,100 for the Marine Corps, and 310,900 for the Air Force, while recommending no strength change for the Navy.
The FY15 Budget Request also envisioned Army end-strength being reduced to between 420,000 and 450,000 over the
following few years (depending on budgetary circumstances), and Marine Corps end strength in the range of 175,000-
182,600. See slide 11 of this document:
http://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudget/fy2015/fy2015_Budget_Request.pdf. Additional
information is contained in this DOD budget briefing transcript, about halfway down:
http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5384
2 Section 411 of P.L. 112-81, the FY2012 National Defense Authorization Act, set Reserve Component end-strengths
for FY2012 as follows: 358,200 for the Army National Guard ; 205,00 for the Army Reserve; 66,200 for Navy
Reserve; 39,600 for the Marine Corps Reserve; 106,700 for the Air National Guard; 71,400 for the Air Force Reserve;
and 10,000 for the Coast Guard Reserve. Section 411 of P.L. 113-66, the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act,
set the following Reserve Component end-strengths for FY2014: 354,200 for the Army National Guard ; 205,000 for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

will likely contribute to a favorable environment for recruiting and retention in the near term.
After that, however, the situation is less clear. Robust economic growth could make civilian work
comparatively more attractive than military work, thereby making recruiting and retention more
challenging. The substantial and ongoing drawdown of the Army has led to lower recruiting goals
for that service at present; but once complete it may need to increase these goals to stabilize the
force at planned levels. Additionally, the experience of the post-Cold War drawdown raises some
cautionary flags: if a drawdown is carried out in such a way as to undermine job satisfaction or to
create a perception of limited career prospects, it could have a negative effect on recruiting and
retention.
Recruiting
Recruiting has been called the life blood of the military. Without a robust ability to bring new
members into the military, the services 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”3 each fiscal year. Officer and
enlisted goals are set separately. There are both “quantity”4 and “quality”5 goals for the enlisted
force.
Active Components
The recruiting data presented in Table 1 below show that all of the Active Components met their
enlisted accession quantity goals in both FY2012 and FY2013. The recruiting data presented in
Table 2 show the performance of the Active Components with respect to the Department of
Defense (DOD) enlisted accession quality benchmarks for those same years. 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

(...continued)
the Army Reserve; 59,100 for Navy Reserve; 39,600 for the Marine Corps Reserve; 105,400 for the Air National
Guard; 70,400 for the Air Force Reserve; and 9,000 for the Coast Guard Reserve.
3 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 a servicemember transfers from an Active Component to a Reserve
Component.
4 This “quantity” goal is normally based primarily on the difference between the congressionally 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.
5 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% of
new recruits must be high school diploma graduates and at least 60% must score above average on the AFQT.
Congressional Research Service
2
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Qualification Test (AFQT Categories I-IIIA).6 All of the Active Components exceeded their
quality goals in FY2012 and FY2013, often by large margins. In fact, over the past few years, the
Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force have experienced the highest recruit quality levels achieved
since the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. The Army is also experiencing its highest
recruit quality since 1973 with respect to the HSDG metric, but its performance with respect to
the AFQT metric is more consistent with its historical average.7
Table 1. Accession Data (Quantity) for Active Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2012 and FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
FY2012
FY2012
(Percent
FY2013
FY2013
(Percent
Service
(Goal)
(Achieved)
of Goal)
(Goal)
(Achieved)
of Goal)
Army
58,000 60,490 104.3% 69,000 69,154 100.2%
Navy
36,275 36,329 100.1% 40,112 40,112 100.0%
Marine Corps
30,500 30,514 100.0% 32,200 32,215 100.0%
Air Force
29,037 29,037 100.0% 26,275 26,275 100.0%
Source: Department of Defense.

Table 2. Accession Data (Quality) for Non-Prior Service Active Component Enlisted
Personnel, FY2012 and FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
DOD Quality Benchmarks
(Achieved)
(Achieved)
AFQT
AFQT
AFQT
Service
HSDG
CAT I-IIIA
HSDG
CAT I-IIIA
HSDG
CAT I-IIIA
Army
90% 60%
100%
64.5%
99.9%
62.2%
Navy
90% 60%
99.5%
90.3%
98.9%
84.3%
Marine Corps
90% 60%
99.9%
74.8%
99.7%
73.5%
Air Force
90% 60%
99.5%
98.3%
99.5%
97.7%
Source: Department of Defense.
Notes: HSDG = High School Diploma Graduate; AFQT = Armed Forces Qualification Test; CAT I-IIIA =
Categories I-IIIA (above average scores).

6 Other metrics that are used less frequently include the percentage of non-prior service enlistees who score well below
average on the AFQT (Category IV) and the number and types of enlistment waivers granted to enlistees. However,
these measures are secondary to HSDG and above average AFQT and, in the case of waivers, there is no official
benchmark.
7 For historical data on recruit quality, see this table entitled “Recruit Quality Over Time” from the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel & Readiness), http://prhome.defense.gov/RFM/MPP/ACCESSION%20POLICY/docs/
Quality%20by%20FY%20from%201973.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Historical Context
In the three years immediately following the terrorist attacks of 2001—which saw a dramatic
increase in the use of U.S. military forces—all of the services achieved their quantity goals while
increasing their quality levels. In fact, recruit quality for all the services in the FY2003-FY2004
time frame reached levels not seen since the low accession goals of the post-Cold War drawdown
(early to mid-1990s) allowed the services to be highly selective in who they allowed to join. This
was followed by the very challenging recruiting environment of FY2005-FY2007, when a variety
of factors forced some of the services to accept a lower level of recruit quality in order to meet
their quantity goals. This decline in quality was most notable with respect to the Army. As the
Army’s recruiting difficulties were the primary source of concern during that time, a specific
discussion of its recruiting challenges and performance is provided below, followed by a brief
summary of the other services’ results.
Army
In FY2004, the Army slightly exceeded its quantity goal of 77,000. Of these individuals, 92% had
high school diplomas (above the DOD benchmark of 90%) and 72% scored above average on the
Armed Forces Qualification Test or AFQT (well above the DOD benchmark of 60%). Only 0.5%
of Army recruits had AFQT scores in Category IV (the 10th through 30th percentile). The HSDG
figure was about the same as the Army had experienced for the preceding seven years, while the
AFQT figure was about the same as that of the preceding year, but higher than the Army had
experienced in the 10 years prior to that (FY1993-FY2002). However, for a number of reasons—
including the challenge of recruiting during wartime, competition from civilian employers during
an economic boom, and an effort to expand the size of the Army which necessitated bringing in
more recruits—the Army struggled to meet its recruiting goals from FY2005 to FY2007. In
FY2005, it failed to meet its quantity goal by 8% and the quality of its recruits fell. While
achieving its quantity goals in FY2006 and FY2007, Army recruit quality continued to slide. By
the end of FY2007, the Army reported that only 79% of its recruits were high school diploma
graduates and 61% had scored above average on the AFQT, levels not seen since the 1980s.
Additionally, the proportion of Category IV recruits rose from less than 1% in FY2003-FY2004
to about 4% in FY2005-FY2007.8 This decline in recruit quality occurred at a time when the
Army applied extraordinary resources to its recruiting efforts: it added over 2,500 recruiters to the
existing recruiting force, increased its advertising budget, raised the maximum age for enlistees
from 35 to 42,9 relaxed some existing standards (such as the prohibition on tattoos on the neck
and hands), increased enlistment bonus maximums from $20,000 to $40,000,10 and increased the
number of medical and conduct11 waivers being granted.12

8 DOD regulations require that no more than 4% of an annual enlistment cohort may be Category IV (10th -30th
percentile on the AFQT). In addition, no one in Category V (1st-9th percentile on the AFQT) may be admitted. DOD
Instruction 1145.01, Qualitative Distribution of Military Manpower, September 20, 2005, paragraph 4.1,
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/114501p.pdf.
9 P.L. 109-163, §543, increased the maximum allowable age for enlistment from 35 to 42.
10 P.L. 109-163, §635.
11 Conduct waivers are used for a wide range of preenlistment misconduct. Until 2008, conduct waivers included drug
use, traffic violations, misdemeanors, and felonies, although each of the services had different rules for categorizing
specific types of misconduct and different criteria for granting conduct waivers. DOD established an enlistment waiver
policy effective at the start of FY2009 which revised the waiver categories, standardized the definitions of the various
types of misconduct across the services, made drug use its own waiver category, and set minimum standards for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
4
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

The Army began to reverse this quality decline in FY2008, when it met its accession quantity
goal while also increasing the proportion who were high school diploma graduates to 83% and
slightly increasing the proportion who scored above average on the AFQT to 62%. Additionally,
the Army allowed fewer Category IV recruits (3.5%) and was able to reduce the number of
individuals who were enlisted with waivers for conduct by about 10%.13
Improvements in Army recruit quality accelerated markedly in FY2009 and FY2010. Aided by a
more favorable recruiting environment—generated by comparatively high unemployment rates
and an improved security situation in Iraq—and needing fewer recruits due to the completion of
the major force expansion which occurred during FY2004-FY2008, the Army was able to be
much more selective. As a result, the Army was able to exceed its quantity goal in FY2009 by 8%
while recruit quality shot up dramatically: 95% of new accessions were high school diploma
graduates, 66% scored above average on the AFQT, and just 1.5% were Category IV. For
FY2010, 100% of the Army’s recruits were high school diploma graduates, 64% scored above
average on the AFQT, and less than 1% were Category IV. Army recruit quality in FY2011-
FY2013 was nearly the same as FY2010.
Marine Corps
While the Marine Corps experienced some of the same recruiting stresses as the Army in the
FY2005-FY2007 timeframe—heavy involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan coupled with a major
force expansion that required a greater number of new recruits—the impact was not as great. In
FY2004, 97% of Marine Corps recruits were high school diploma graduates and 69% scored
above average on the AFQT. These figures dropped slightly to 95% and 65%, respectively, by
FY2007 but were still well above the DOD benchmarks and not substantially different from the
quality levels achieved by the Marine Corps since the mid-1990s. The Marine Corps did,
however, increase the proportion of Category IV recruits to 3% in FY2007, the highest level it
had accepted since 1985, and it did accept more individuals with records of serious misconduct
(although its overall ratio of waivered individuals remained relatively stable). Marine Corps
recruiting in FY2008 showed some small improvements in quality, while FY2009 saw much
larger improvements. In FY2009, 99% of Marine Corps recruits were high school diploma
graduates and 71% of them scored above average on the AFQT. In FY2010, 100% were high
school diploma graduates, 72% scored above average on the AFQT, and less than 1% were
Category IV. Marine Corps recruit quality in FY2011-FY2013 was nearly the same as FY2010.

(...continued)
requiring drug and conduct waivers. See Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 08-018 – Enlistment Waivers, June 27,
2008, available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/DTM-08-018.pdf.
12 The following are the number and the percentage of Army non-prior service accessions enlisted accessions with a
waiver of any type in the cited fiscal year: FY2003 (8,836/12.7%); FY2004 (8,918/12.3%); FY2005 (10,185/ 15.7%);
FY2006 (13,518/19.5%); FY2007 (14,820/22.0%); FY2008 (14,929/21.5%). The percentage of non-prior service
enlisted accessions with waivers was relatively stable for the other three services during this period. The Army waiver
figures for subsequent years are as follows: FY2009 (9,938/15.6%); FY2010 (6,080/8.7%); FY2011 (6,653/10.7%),
FY2012 (6,014/10.1%), FY2013 (8,009/11.8%). However, these figures are not directly comparable to those of
previous years due to a change in the methodology for counting waivers (see discussion in footnote 11)
13 While the FY2008 conduct waiver figures were still above the levels for FY2006 – and well above the levels for
FY2003-FY2005 – the downward movement from FY2007 was noteworthy. Of particular significance, in FY2008 the
Army reduced the number of waivers for felony convictions from 511 to 372. With the change in methodology brought
about by Directive Type Memorandum (DTM) 08-018 (see footnote 11), directly comparable conduct waiver data for
subsequent years is not available. Under the new methodology, the Army reported 220 waivers for “Major Misconduct
(Conviction)” in FY2009, just 7 in FY2010, and none in FY2011- 2013.
Congressional Research Service
5
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Navy and Air Force
The Navy and the Air Force were the least affected by the recruiting stresses of the FY2005-
FY2007 time frame. While deeply involved in the ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
their role in these conflicts resulted in far fewer casualties than experienced by the Army and
Marine Corps. Additionally, both of these services were undergoing force reductions during this
time frame, in contrast to the force expansions of the Army and Marine Corps. As such, they
experienced less pressure to trade off quality to achieve quantity goals, enabling both services to
meet their quantity goals while suffering little change in their quality metrics.
The Navy’s HSDG rate declined from 96% in FY2004 to 93% in FY2007, but its above-average
AFQT rate improved from 70% to 73%. The Air Force’s HSDG metric remained at 99% between
FY2004 and FY2007, while its AFQT metric dropped from 82% to 79%. Neither service allowed
in any Category IV personnel during this period.
The Navy and the Air Force both met their accession quantity goals during the FY2008-FY2013
time frame, and both experienced improvements in recruit quality. The Navy’s HSDG rate rose
from 93% in FY2007 to 99% in FY2011-FY2013, while its above-average AFQT rate rose from
73% in FY2007 to 89% in FY2011 and 90% in FY2012, before tapering off to 84% in FY2013.
The Air Force’s HSDG rate remained between 98% and 100% in FY2008-FY2013, while its
above-average AFQT rate rose from 79% in FY2007 to 99% in FY2011 and 98% in FY2012-
FY2013.14
Reserve Components
The recruiting data presented in Table 3 show the performance of the Reserve Components with
respect to their enlisted accession quantity goals in FY2012 and FY2013. The recruiting data
presented in Table 4 show the performance of the Reserve Components with respect to the
Department of Defense (DOD) enlisted accession quality benchmarks for those same years.15 All
of the Reserve Components met their quality goals in FY2012 and FY2013. Most of the Reserve
Components also met their quantity goals in these years, the exceptions being the Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve. The Army National Guard shortfall in FY2013 was quite small and
may not be significant in light of the Army Guard’s ability to maintain a personnel strength quite
close to its authorized level. The Army Reserve’s quantity shortfall in FY2012, while also quite
modest (only about 800 recruits below goal), raised concerns because of its substantial drop in
strength over the course of FY2012. Additionally, the Army Reserve’s quantity shortfall grew in
FY2013 (about 3,700 short of goal), and coincided with a continued decline of Army Reserve
strength to about 3.3% below its authorized end-strength.16 The Army Reserve will need to
demonstrate improved recruiting and retention to reverse this decline, and it may take some time
to restore its strength, even if Congress approves the Administration’s request to reduce Army
Reserve end-strength to 202,000 for FY2015. It is unclear whether the recruiting shortfalls

14 The Air Force’s above-average AFQT rates of 99% in FY2011 and 98% in FY2012-2013 are unusually high, even
given the exceptionally strong recruiting environment. These three years represents the highest “above-average AFQT”
accession cohorts of any service since the inception of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973. Previously, the highest scoring
accession cohort was the Air Force in 2010, with 90% above-average on the AFQT.
15 See the section entitled “Active Components” earlier in this report for a description of the DOD quality benchmarks.
16 The Army Reserve’s authorized end-strength for FY2011, FY2012 and FY2013 was 205,000. Its actual strengths at
the end of these fiscal years were as follows: 204,803 (FY2011), 201,166 (FY2012), and 198,209 (FY2013).
Congressional Research Service
6
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

experienced by the Army Reserve are specific to that organization, or portend broader recruiting
issues, as occurred in the first half of the last decade when the Army Reserve and Army National
Guard experienced recruiting problems two years before the active Army (discussed below).
Table 3. Accession Data (Quantity) for Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2012 and FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
Reserve
FY2012
FY2012
(Percent
FY2013
FY2013
(Percent
Component
(Goal)
(Achieved)
of Goal)
(Goal)
(Achieved)
of Goal)
Army National Guard
46,000 47,997 104.3% 49,650 49,299 99.3%
Army Reserve
26,875 26,041 96.9% 29,880 26,191 87.7%
Navy Reserve
8,255 8,269 100.2% 5,504 5,584 101.5%
Marine Corps Reserve
8,910 8,910 100.0% 8,798 8,798 100.0%
Air National Guard
8,210 9,437 114.9% 10,500 10,737 102.3%
Air Force Reserve
8,031 8,116 101.1% 5,817 7,846 134.9%
Source: Department of Defense.
Table 4. Accession Data (Quality) for Non-Prior Service Reserve Component
Enlisted Personnel, FY2012 and FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
DOD Quality Benchmarks
(Achieved)
(Achieved)
AFQT
AFQT
AFQT
Reserve Component
HSDG
CAT I-IIIA
HSDG
CAT I-IIIA
HSDG
CAT I-IIIA
Army National Guard
90% 60%
95%
65%
95.7%
62.8%
Army Reserve
90% 60%
98%
64%
95.6%
60.7%
Navy Reserve
90% 60%
98%
89%
97.7%
87.7%
Marine Corps Reserve
90% 60%
98%
77%
99.7%
76.2%
Air National Guard
90%
60% 100% 79% 100% 77.1%
Air Force Reserve
90% 60%
100%
78%
99.4%
79.6%
Source: Department of Defense.

Historical Context
The recruiting trends for the Reserve Components were similar to those of their Active
Component counterparts in some respects, although the indicators of recruiting difficulties
appeared earlier (FY2003) than for the Active Components and began rebounding earlier as well
(FY2006). The Reserve Components of the Army—the Army Reserve and the Army National
Guard—experienced the most significant recruiting problems particularly with respect to meeting
their quantity goals from FY2003 to FY2005. The Marine Corps Reserves met their quantity
goals in those years while seeing a slight decline in one of the quality metrics. The Air Force
Congressional Research Service
7
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Reserves and Air National Guard briefly experienced some recruiting difficulties as well. Reserve
Component recruiting has been quite strong across all components in FY2009-FY2012.
Army National Guard and Army Reserve
Recruiting difficulties for the Army National Guard began in FY2003, when it fell short of its
recruit quantity goal of 62,000 by 13%; it also missed its FY2004 recruit quantity goal of 56,002
by 13%. In FY2005, both the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve missed their quantity
goals by 20% and 16%, respectively. Largely as a result of these shortfalls, both the Army
National Guard and the Army Reserve were well below their congressionally authorized end-
strength at the end of FY2005.17 There were also declines in recruit quality during this period.
The Army National Guard’s HSDG rate decline from 86% in FY2002 to 83% in FY2005, while
its AFQT metric dropped from 60% to 57%. During this same period, the HSDG rate for the
Army Reserve dropped from 94% to 88% and its above-average AFQT rate declined from 69%
to 67%.
Recruiting for the Army National Guard began improving in FY2006. From FY2006 to FY2009,
the Army National Guard met, or came close to meeting, robust recruit quantity goals. This
allowed it to slightly exceed its authorized end-strength by FY2007, and to significantly exceed
its authorized end-strength in FY2008 and FY2009. For FY2010 and FY2011, retention was
strong enough in the Army Guard that it cut back on its recruiting in the last few months of the
year in order to keep from exceeding it authorized end-strength by too great a margin, and the
recruiting goal for FY2012 was markedly lower than the preceding two years for the same
reason.18 Recruit quality also improved during this time frame, with the HSDG metric rising from
83% in FY2005 to 92%-96% in FY2010-FY2013. Its proportion of recruits with above average
AFQT scores remained just under the DOD benchmark of 60% in FY2006-FY2008, but jumped
dramatically to 76% in FY2009 and gradually dropped to 63% by FY2013.
The Army Reserve also improved its recruiting from the perspective of quantity from FY2006 to
FY2011, meeting or nearly meeting all of its quantity goals in these years. This allowed the Army
Reserve to stabilize its strength at around 190,000 personnel in FY2006 and FY2007 (about 7%
below its authorized end-strength), and to begin increasing its personnel strength in FY2008. In
FY2009, the Army Reserve was finally able to meet its authorized end-strength after four years of
operating under-strength, and it maintained this during FY2010-FY2011. However, in both
FY2012 and FY2013, the Army Reserve again experienced strength declines of about 3,000
soldiers per year.19 The quality of Army Reserve recruits declined from FY2006 to FY2008, with

17 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”). As of September 2005, the actual personnel
strength of the Army National Guard was 333,177—about 95% of its authorized end-strength of 350,000. The actual
strength of the Army Reserve was 189,005 in September, 2005—about 92% of its authorized end-strength of 205,000.
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.
18 The end-strength figures for the Army National Guard are as follows: FY2006 (350,000 authorized, 346,288 actual);
FY2007 (350,000 authorized, 352,707 actual); FY2008 (351,300 authorized, 360,351 actual); FY2009 (352,600
authorized, 358,391 actual), FY2010 (358,200 authorized, 362,015 actual), FY2011 (358,200 authorized, 361,561
actual); FY2012 (358,200 authorized, 358,078 actual); FY2013 (358,200 authorized, 357,735 actual).
19 The end-strength figures for the Army Reserve are as follows: FY2006 (205,000 authorized, 189,975 actual);
FY2007 (200,000 authorized, 189,882 actual); FY2008 (205,000 authorized, 197,024 actual); FY2009 (205,000
authorized, 205,297 actual); FY2010 (205,000 authorized, actual strength 205,281); FY2011 (205,000 authorized,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

the HSDG metric remaining close to the FY2005 level of 88% and the percentage of recruits
scoring above-average on the AFQT declining from 67% in FY2005 to 58% in FY2008. Recruit
quality improved dramatically in the next few years. The percentage of recruits with a high school
diploma shot up to 96%-100% in FY2009-FY2013. The percentage scoring above average on the
AFQT increased to 63% in FY2009 and continued upward to 71% in FY2010, before dropping to
69% in FY2011, 64% in FY2012, and 61% in FY2013. The AFQT figure for FY2013 is just
slightly above the DOD benchmark of 60%, which raises some concerns when coupled with the
Army Reserve’s shortfalls in recruit quantity. The causes of the Army Reserve’s recruiting
shortfalls are not entirely clear, but may be specific to that organization.20 However, it is also
possible that they are an early symptom of recruiting challenges that may affect other reserve and
active component forces.
Other Reserve Components
The remaining Reserve Components appear to have been much less affected by the recruiting
stresses of the FY2003-FY2005 period; they likewise saw less of a rebound afterwards. The
Marine Corps Reserve and Air Force Reserve met their quantity goals in every year from FY2003
to FY2013. The Air National Guard missed its quantity goals by an average of about 7% from
FY2004 to FY2007, but nonetheless maintained a fairly stable strength level consistent with its
authorized end-strength. The Navy Reserve missed its quantity goals in FY2005 and FY2006, but
the significance of this shortfall should be assessed in light of the reductions in the size of the
Navy Reserve related to restructuring initiatives.21
Recruit quality in the Reserve Components overall has exhibited a positive trend in recent years,
though this trend may be fading somewhat. In FY2003, two Reserve Components failed to meet
one or both of its quality goals. That dropped to one Reserve Component in FY2004, rose to three
in FY2005 and FY2006, and dropped back to two in FY2007 and FY2008. For FY2009-FY2013,
every Reserve Component met both of its quality goals, in many cases by substantial margins.
However, for FY2013, the AFQT metric for the Army’s reserve components (the Army National
Guard and the Army Reserve) was only slightly higher than the goal of 60%.22

(...continued)
204,803 actual); FY2012 (205,000 authorized, 201,166 actual); FY 2013 (205,000 authorized, 198,209 actual).
20 Analysts with the Army Reserve have noted a number of factors that contributed to these shortfalls. Several factors
were specific to the organization: for example, an attempt to decrease recruitment of non-prior-service individuals and
increase recruitment of soldiers leaving the active component Army, which was not fully successful, and enactment of
a policy which limited the ability of recruiters to “overman” units (subsequently repealed). However, other factors
noted relate to the recruiting environment more broadly, including an improving economy, decreasing youth interest in
military service, and a limited pool of youth who can meet military entrance standards. Author’s discussions with
USAR manpower analysts, July 2014.
21 The authorized end-strength for the Navy Reserve has declined by nearly 26,000 from 2003 through 2013, dropping
from 88,156 at the end of FY2003 to 62,444 at the end of FY2013, with the largest declines occurring in FY2004-2006.
According to testimony by Navy leaders before Congress, this was largely the result of force realignments related to
greater integration of the Navy and the Navy Reserve. However, this testimony also indicated that the Navy Reserve
had recruiting difficulties in some of these years related to a lower flow of recruits from the Navy due to high retention
among active duty sailors, competition from the Army and Marine Corps, and low civilian unemployment. See
testimony of Vice Admiral John G. Cotton, Chief of Navy Reserve, before the Senate Armed Services Personnel
Subcommittee on March 31, 2004; April 13, 2005; and March 30, 2006. See also testimony of Vice Admiral Dirk J.
Debbink, Chief of Navy Reserve, before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on March 3, 2009.
22 The components failing to meet one or both quality metrics were as follows: the Army National Guard and the Navy
Reserve in FY2003; the Army National Guard in FY2004; the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Air
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
9
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Analysis
Concerns about the health of military recruiting efforts were substantial in the FY2005-FY2007
timeframe, but these concerns have been mitigated by the more favorable results experienced in
subsequent years. Taken as a whole, FY2009-FY2013 were remarkably strong recruiting years,
most clearly with regards to recruit quality.
There are a number of likely causes for this recruiting success. One factor that has 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 the unemployment rate dropped from 2003 through 2007 (falling from 6.0% in 2003
to 4.6% for 2006 and 2007) and then climbed to 5.8% in 2008, 9.3% in 2009, and 9.6% in 2010.
While the unemployment rate dropped to 8.9% for 2011, 8.1% for 2012, and 7.4% in 2013, it was
likely still high enough to benefit military recruiting efforts.23 However, the unemployment rate—
6.1% in June of 2014—is reaching a point where it may no longer have a positive impact on
recruiting. Indeed, in the near future it may well drop to a point where it has a detrimental effect
on recruiting; that is, improving civilian employment prospects could undercut military recruiting
efforts.
Another factor was likely the cumulative effect of the substantial increases in military
compensation that have occurred over the past decade or so. In most years between FY2001 and
FY2010, Congress increased basic pay by an amount that was at least 0.5% higher than the
annual increase in the employment cost index (a common measure of increases in wages for
private-sector employees). Congress initiated a multi-year reform of housing allowances between
FY1998 and FY2005 to raise housing allowance rates in order to bring them line with actual
housing costs. Congress also increased the amount of hostile fire pay and family separation
allowance in 2002, authorized premium-based TRICARE coverage for non-activated reservists in
2006, and enacted a generous new educational benefit in 2008. Cumulatively, these changes have
made the military compensation package much more attractive.
A third important factor was likely the improved security situation in Iraq, which resulted in a
rapid decline in casualties. From 2004 to 2007, roughly 700 servicemembers were killed in action
each year while serving in Iraq, with about 70% of them serving in the Army and its Reserve
Components. However, as security improved in Iraq, the number of those killed in action in Iraq
dropped to 218 in 2008, 74 in 2009, 19 in 2010, and 34 in 2011, when the U.S. military mission
in Iraq essentially ended.24 While casualties in Afghanistan rose significantly in the 2008-2010
time frame, the increase was substantially less than the decline in casualties in Iraq. Combat
deaths in Afghanistan declined after 2010, with 91 in 2013.25

(...continued)
Force Reserve in FY2005; the Army National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Navy Reserve in FY2006; the Army
National Guard and the Army Reserve in FY2007 and FY2008.
23 Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, available at http://www.bls.gov/.
24 DOD casualty data for Iraq available https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_oif_month.xhtml (for Operation
Iraqi Freedom) and https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_ond_month.xhtml (for Operation New Dawn). The
U.S. combat mission in Iraq ended in December 2011, although a small residual force remained to provide embassy
security and security cooperation. In 2013, an additional 300 personnel were assigned to Iraq as observers in response
to the military success of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
25 From 2005 to 2007, about 70 servicemembers on average were killed in action each year while serving in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

One more factor which positively affected recruiting in FY2009 and subsequent years was the
completion of the major multi-year efforts by the Army and the Marine Corps to increase their
personnel strength. These growth initiatives required those services to set higher goals for the
number of new accessions. With the successful completion of its “Grow the Army” initiative, the
Army was able to lower its accession goal from 80,000 per year in FY2005-FY2008 to an
average of about 68,000 per year in FY2009-FY2011. Likewise, the Marine Corps was able to
reduce its accession goal from 35,576 in FY2007 and 37,967 in FY2008 to an average of about
30,000 per year in FY2009-FY2011. In the FY2013 and FY2014 National Defense Authorization
Act, Congress approved substantial reductions in end-strength for the Army and the Marine
Corps, which continued to limit the need for new enlisted accessions. This lowered demand for
recruits may well continue over the next few years, if Congress continues to support DOD plans
to reduce the size of the ground forces.
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.26 Imbalances in the retention rate
can cause problems within the military personnel system. 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. This was a particular concern during the middle part of
the last decade, as the stress of combat deployments raised concerns about the willingness of
military personnel to continue serving. The opposite concern—more salient today in light of
reductions in force structure—is that too many people will stay in, thereby decreasing promotion
opportunities and possibly requiring involuntarily separations in order to prevent the organization
from becoming “top heavy” with middle and upper level leaders, or to comply with end-strength
limitations. Each of these outcomes can have a negative impact on recruiting by making the
military a less attractive career option.
Active Components
The data presented in Table 5 show that the Army essentially met or exceeded its retention goals
for enlisted personnel in FY2012 and FY2013. These results are a continuation of a strong
retention trend in the Army over the past decade, which has been particularly remarkable in light
of the heavy stress placed on Army personnel during that time by combat operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The Marine Corps has likewise borne a heavy share of the manpower burden
associated with operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it too has exhibited strong retention over
the past decade.27 It also essentially met or exceeded its retention goals in FY2012 and FY2013.

(...continued)
Afghanistan; that figure rose to 131 in 2008, 271 in 2009, and 437 for 2010, before declining to 360 in 2011, 237 in
2012, and in 91 in 2013. DOD casualty data for Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom) available at
https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/dcas/pages/report_oef_month.xhtml.
26 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 Instruction 1304.25.
27It did fall about 13% short of its “first term” goal in FY2008 and about 8% short in FY2007, but this was due to
exceptionally high retention goals associated with increasing the size of the Marine Corps rather than poor retention.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

As background, after some difficulties in FY2008,28 the Air Force met, or nearly met, all of its
reenlistment goals in FY2009. It met, or nearly met, two of three reenlistment goals in FY2010.
Its results for Zone A (initial term) reenlistments in FY2010 were substantially below goal, but
Air Force analysts point out that the Air Force was trying to reduce its force at this time in order
to stay under its end-strength limits. To achieve these reductions, several thousand airmen were
given incentives to separate from the Air Force. In FY2011, the Air Force exceeded its goals for
Zone A and Zone B (mid-career) personnel, but was slightly short of its goal for Zone C (career)
personnel, while in FY2012 it exceeded all of its goals. In FY2013, the Air Force fell slightly
short of its Zone A and Zone B retention goals, but this is unlikely to have significant negative
effects in light of Air Force plans to cut nearly 17,000 positions in FY2015.29
The Navy exceeded its retention goals in FY2009 by a comfortable margin, and by even larger
margins in FY2010 and FY2011. It changed its methodology for setting retention goals and
measuring achievement about midway through FY2012 in order to focus solely on those who
were completing their term of obligated service in that fiscal year. (Under its previous
methodology, those who were scheduled to complete their term of obligated service in later years,
but who chose to reenlist early, were considered when setting annual goals and calculating goal
achievement.) One effect of this new methodology was to lower the total numeric goal and the
total number reenlisted for FY2012; as such, the raw numbers are not directly comparable to
previous years. However, the “percent of goal” figure showed strong reenlistment behavior in
Zone A and Zone C for FY2012, with reenlistments in Zone B about 5% below goal. In FY2013,
the Navy showed weaker retention, achieving only 83% of its Zone A and 91% of its Zone B
goals. Navy personnel analysts noted that while these results were significantly below goal, the
Navy maintained an actual strength (324,308 at the end of FY2013) which was slightly above to
its authorized end-strength (322,700), and that the Navy was able to mitigate issues of grade
imbalance with short-term extensions of additional personnel in these zones.30 However, the
shortfall in Zone A for FY2013 was substantial and may result in manning shortages in certain
occupational specialties.


(...continued)
While the Marine Corps had a “first term” retention goal of 5,892 in FY2006, it was increased to 8,298 in FY2007 and
to 9,507 in FY2008. While it did not meet these sharply increased retention goals, it nonetheless achieved a much
higher retention rate than it did in FY2006. See U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee
on Military Personnel, Fiscal Year 2010 National Defense Authorization Budget Request on Military Personnel
Overview
, 111th Cong., 1st sess., May 21, 2009, Statement of Lieutenant General Ronald S. Coleman, Deputy
Commandant for Manpower & Reserve Affairs, http://armedservices.house.gov/pdfs/MP052109/
Coleman_Testimony052109.pdf, p. 6.
28 The Air Force missed all three of its FY2008 retention goals by large margins, although the magnitude of this
shortfall appears to have been distorted by the implementation of new goal-setting and achievement-measuring
methodologies. Specifically, the Air Force changed its goal setting methodology from one based on historical
reenlistment rates to goals based on specific skill and grade needs, and narrowed the criteria for counting whether a
reenlistment “counted” towards a goal. This new counting methodology reportedly failed to count thousands of actual
reenlistments towards the Air Force’s goals. (Author’s discussion with Air Force enlisted analysis staff). The Air Force
tripled its funding for new Selective Reenlistment Bonuses in FY2009 and refined its methodology for counting
reenlistments to include some previously omitted.
29 The Administration’s FY2015 budget requests a reduction of Air Force end-strength from 327,600 in FY2014 to
310,900 in FY2015. The House-passed version of the FY2015 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4435)
approved a reduction to 311,220, while the Senate Armed Service Committee reported version (S. 2410) approved a
reduction to 310,900.
30 Author’s discussion with Navy personnel analysts, July 25, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
12
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Table 5. Retention Data for Active Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2012 and FY2013
Service/
Retention FY2012
FY2012
FY2012
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
Category
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Percent of Goal)
(Goal)
(Achieved)
(Percent of Goal)
Armya
Initial
Term
27,293
29,606 108.5%
19,400
24,954 128.6%
Mid-Career 23,162 22,982
99.2%
20,520 20,872
101.7%
Career
11,345
11,430 100.7%
11,880
12,913 108.7%
Navyb
Zone A
5,850
6,154
105.2%
8,991
7,468
83.1%
Zone
B
4,612
4,362 94.6%
4,833
4,418 91.4%
Zone
C
2,225
3,284 147.6%
2,664
3,083 115.7%
Air Forcec
Zone A
15,927
18,071
113.5%
16,791
15,980
95.2%
Zone B
9,543
10,948
114.7%
11,482
11,298
98.4%
Zone
C
8,315
8,761 105.4%
8,954
8,985 100.4%
Marine Corpsd
First Term
6,266
6,251
99.8%
5,976
6,057
101.4%
Subsequent
6,800
6,989 102.8%
7,471
7,471 100.0%
Source: Department of Defense.
a. 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 10 years of service), and career
(second or subsequent enlistment with 10 or more years of service).
b. The Navy’s most important retention categories are Zone A (up to 6 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).
c. The Air Force’s most important retention categories are Zone A (17 months to under 6 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).
d. The Marine Corps tracks retention rates in two categories: first term (serving in first enlistment) and
subsequent (second or subsequent enlistment).
Reserve Components
The Department of Defense tracks Reserve Component retention via overall attrition rates.
Attrition rates measure the percentage of people who leave in a given year, rather than the number
of people who stay. Reserve Component retention goals establish a maximum attrition rate or
“ceiling” which should not be exceeded. They are stated in percentage terms and are not broken
out by career phase. The data show all of the Reserve Components achieved enlisted attrition
rates below their ceilings for FY2012 (see Table 6). This is consistent with reserve component
retention results over the past decade: the Reserve Components have typically stayed under their
Congressional Research Service
13
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

attrition ceilings, often by substantial margins.31 For FY2013, the Army National Guard, Army
Reserve, and Navy Reserve were above their attrition ceilings, though this was partly due to a
lower ceiling rather than just an increase in attrition. Still, attrition increased slightly in nearly all
of reserve components in comparison to FY2012.
Table 6. Attrition Data for Reserve Component Enlisted Personnel,
FY2012 and FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
Attrition Goal
FY2012
Attrition Goal
FY2013
Reserve Component
(Ceiling)
(Achieved)
(Ceiling)
(Achieved)
Army National Guard
19.5% 17.8% 16.3% 17.5%
Army Reserve
18.0% 17.4% 17.2% 18.1%
Navy Reserve
36.0% 20.5% 18.9% 21.3%
Marine Corps Reserve
31.5% 25.9% 31.5% 26.3%
Air National Guard
10.1% 9.8% 10.1% 10.0%
Air Force Reserve
18.0% 14.3% 18.0% 14.7%
Source: Department of Defense.
Analysis
Retention has been positively affected by some of the same factors which have led to strong
recruiting (see “Recruiting”). Put simply, for a number of years, a relatively weak civilian job
market coupled with an attractive military compensation package has provided fewer incentives
for members to leave the military. These two factors should continue to have a favorable effect on
all of the services’ retention rates for the near future, although improvements in the
unemployment picture and recent efforts to reduce spending on military compensation may
weaken this over time.
Additionally, the ongoing drawdown of the Army has had a positive effect on its achieving
retention goals. Planned reductions in its active component force structure have allowed the Army
to maintain fairly modest retention goals, thereby making it easier to achieve them.32 The Marine
Corps also reduced its retention goals modestly between FY2009 and FY2010, and they have
stayed approximately at the lower level since then. If Congress continues to approve Army and
Marine Corps proposals to reduce their personnel strength through over the next several years,
these services will continue to have relatively modest retention goals.33 Additionally, the reserve

31 There were some instances were a reserve component slightly exceeded its enlisted attrition ceiling over the past
decade (FY2001-2011): the Army National Guard in FY2002 (20.6%), FY2005 (20.2%), and FY2007 (19.7%); the Air
Force Reserve in FY2008 (18.7%); and the Air National Guard in FY2003 (12.7%).
32 For example, there was a substantial drop in retention goals for the Army between FY2010 and FY2011. This was
followed by a dramatic increase in goals the following year (FY2012), apparently related to the very large cohort of
personnel who had enlisted or reenlisted during the peak years of the Army’s force expansion, thus generating a much
larger retention-eligible population. (Author’s discussion with Headquarters, Department of the Army retention
official.) The FY2013 retention goals are well below the FY2012 figures for initial term, slightly below the FY2012
figure for mid-career, and slightly higher than the 2012 figure for career personnel.
33 The Army achieved a peak strength of about 571,000 in 2011, while the Marine Corps achieved a peak strength of
about 205,000 in 2010. On January 6, 2011, then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates proposed a drawdown of Army to
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

components will likely benefit from an increased stream of personnel leaving active duty and
desiring to continue their military careers in the reserves. However, the force structure reductions
will also lead to decreased promotion opportunity in some career fields and to involuntary
separation for some, thereby potentially providing a retention disincentive in future years. To put
it another way, major reductions in force structure can lead servicemembers to conclude that they
have limited career prospects in the military and encourage them to look for more promising
opportunities in the civilian economy.
Although it may seem counterintuitive, the high operational tempo and large scale reserve
mobilizations that have occurred since September 11, 2001, may also have had a positive impact
on retention. A number of studies indicate that deployments can enhance retention, perhaps by
providing participants with a sense of accomplishment.34 With the U.S. mission in Iraq completed

(...continued)
520,000 and a drawdown of the Marine Corps to 182,000-187,000 by FY2016. The FY2013 budget request proposed
reducing Army strength to 552,100 and Marine Corps strength to 197,300 by the end of the fiscal year, which Congress
approved in section 401 of the FY2013 National Defense Authorization Act. The FY2014 budget request proposed
reducing Army strength to 520,000 and Marine Corps strength to 190,000 by the end of the fiscal year, which Congress
approved in the FY2014 National Defense Authorization Act. Both the FY2013 and FY2014 budget requests proposed
an end to the drawdown for the Army in FY2017 at a strength level of 490,000 and an end to the drawdown for the
Marine Corps in 2016 at a strength level of 182,100. However, the FY2015 budget request proposed deeper reductions
in Army and Marine Corps, recommending reductions in Army end-strength to between 420,000 and 450,000 over the
following few years (depending on budgetary circumstances), and Marine Corps end strength in the range of 175,000-
182,600. See footnote 1 for references.
34 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 Lewis, Voluntary Enlisted Retention and
PERSTEMPO: An Empirical Analysis of Army Administrative Data
, The Lewin Group. However, some of these studies
also indicate that after a certain threshold level, this positive effect diminishes or becomes negative. Additionally, these
studies focused on retention behavior during the 1990s, when deployments were generally shorter and less hostile than
during the last eleven years. A more contemporary report looks at more current data, contrasting the relationship
between deployment and retention during the periods 1996-2001 versus 2002-2007. Its findings, in part, are
summarized below:
Analysis of the survey data indicates that survey respondents who had a deployment involving
hostile duty in the year prior to the survey experienced higher-than-usual work stress and higher-
than-usual personal stress. They also reported a lower intention to stay in the military.
However, the lower intention to stay was not borne out by analysis of actual reenlistment. Using
hostile deployment in the year before a reenlistment decision as an indicator, the study found that
the Air Force and Navy experienced no real effect on first-term reenlistment numbers, and the same
was true of the Marine Corps until 2005–2007, when the effect of deployment was positive.
Deployment had a positive but decreasing effect on Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps second-
term reenlistments through 2003, when the effect neared zero, but it then rebounded and was
positive in 2004–2007.
The Army’s trends were different, however. The effect of deployment on Army reenlistment had
been positive before 2002 and during the first few years of the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
but the effect decreased after 2002 and turned negative in 2006. The pattern was similar for second-
term reenlistment.... The estimate for 2006 shows that hostile deployment in the previous 12
months reduced reenlistment by eight percentage points—a large decrease....
More than any other Service, the Army increased the number of occupations eligible for a bonus as
well as the dollar amount of bonuses, raising the number of reenlisting soldiers who received a
bonus from 15 percent in 2003–2004 to nearly 80 percent in 2005–2007; in that same period, the
average value of bonuses increased by more than 50 percent.
The Army’s extended use of reenlistment bonuses helped to offset the decreasing and (by 2006)
negative effect of deployments on reenlistment for both first- and second-term personnel.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
15
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

in 2011, and a drawdown of forces in Afghanistan underway, some current servicemembers may
become dissatisfied with military life in a garrison environment and therefore be less inclined to
continue their military service.
Historical Perspective:
The Post-Cold War Drawdown and Its Impact
on Recruiting and Retention

The nation’s most recent experience with force structure cuts illustrates some of the potential
impacts which such cuts can have on recruiting and retention. In the aftermath of the Cold War,
all of the services embarked on major force reduction efforts. Needing fewer people, the services
significantly reduced their recruiting and retention goals, which in turn made it easier for them to
meet these goals. As a result, the services all reported excellent recruiting and retention results in
the early 1990s. However, by the late 1990s, the Army, Navy, and Air Force began to experience
some difficulties. In FY1998 the Army and the Navy failed to meet their quantity goals for
enlisted recruits, as did the Army and the Air Force in FY1999. Retention shortfalls also surfaced
in the Army, Navy, and Air Force.35 There was a wide array of perceived causes for these
recruiting and retention shortfalls, including competition with a robust civilian economy and a
perceived “pay gap” between civilian and military compensation, competition with institutions of
higher education, and demographic and attitudinal changes among younger Americans. Other
cited causes included limited recruiting resources and dissatisfaction with military life, due to the
nature of military service and pace of operations (e.g., Bosnia and Kosovo) and a lack of critical
supplies and equipment.36
In comparison to the Cold War drawdown mentioned above, the currently planned drawdown is
smaller in scope for the Army, about the same magnitude of reduction for the Marine Corps, and
is focused mainly on these two services rather than all four services; but a similar dynamic could
occur.37 In such a scenario, recruiting and retention would likely remain strong in the near term

(...continued)
James Hosek and Francisco Martorell, How Have Deployments During the War on Terrorism Affected Reenlistment,
RAND National Defense Research Institute, 2009, p. 1 of Research Brief, http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/
2009/RAND_RB9468.pdf. Full report available at http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG873.pdf.
35 Specifically, from FY1996-98 the Army missed its retention goals for career personnel by between 2 and 5%. The
Air Force did not meet its retention goals for first term personnel in FY1998-2000; for second term personnel in
FY1997-2001; and for career personnel in FY1998-2001. The shortfall was most pronounced with respect to second
term personnel, where the Air Force fell short of its goal by about six percentage points per year. The Navy did not
have specific retention goals during the late 1990s, but the Chief of Naval Operations testified in 2001 that retention
rates were not at a “steady state” level.
36 However, the data used to underpin these various claims were often rather limited. For more information on
recruiting and retention in the late 1990s, see CRS Report RL31297, Recruiting and Retention in the Active Component
Military: Are There Problems?
, by Lawrence Kapp.
37 For comparative purposes, the Army went from a strength of about 770,000 in 1989 to a strength of about 480,000 by
1999 (a 38% reduction), with most of the reductions occurring between 1990 and 1994. The Marine Corps dropped
from 196,000 to 172,000 in that same period (a 12% reduction), with most of the reductions occurring between 1992
and 1994. In more recent years, the Army achieved a peak strength of about 571,000 in 2011, while the Marine Corps
achieved a peak strength of about 205,000 in 2010. If approved, the plan contained in the Administration FY15 budget
request would bring the Army to between 420,000 and 450,000 soldiers by 2019 (-26% for the lower figure, -21% for
the higher figure) while the Marine Corps would drop to between 175,000 and 182,000 marines (-15% for the lower
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

due to force reductions and sluggish competition from the civilian economy, but challenges would
arise once these factors faded. Specifically, recruiting and retention requirements could increase
as the drawdown neared completion in order to stabilize the force at its designated personnel
strength level. Meeting these requirements might also be made more difficult due to increased
competition from a more robust economy, fewer resources allocated to recruiting and retention, or
the development of negative attitudes about military career prospects and job satisfaction. If such
a scenario were to occur, its impact on recruiting and retention would likely not be manifest until
the latter half of this decade.
Another cautionary flag raised by the post-Cold War drawdown relates to managing force
structure so as to hedge against future contingencies. To paraphrase the comments of a former
Chief of Staff of the Army, you can reduce force structure quickly, but it takes time to re-grow
quality soldiers and leaders.38 One way to hedge against this is to retain somewhat more mid-
grade officers and noncommissioned officers than is strictly necessary in order to allow for the
rapid addition of force structure if the situation requires it. This is what the Department of
Defense proposed to do in 2012 with the Army and Marine Corps as part of its “reversibility”
concept. As Secretary of Defense Panetta stated at that time:
The force structure shifts I've outlined today entail some risks to be sure. But to manage that
risk we will ensure that we can mobilize, surge and adapt our force to meet the requirements
of an uncertain future. To that end, the Army will retain more mid-level, mid-grade officers
and NCOs. These are the guys who have the experience. And they will maintain them even
as their overall strength decreases to ensure that we have the structure and experienced
leaders necessary to re-grow the force quickly if we have to.39
Such a policy also provides a hedge against potential retention problems associated with limited
promotion opportunity, at least for junior grade personnel who will compete for a larger number
of higher grade positions. Conversely, it could have an adverse effect on promotion opportunity
for mid-grade officers and noncommissioned officers, as there will be proportionately more of
them competing for promotion to higher grade positions. However, the continuing reductions in
Army and Marine Corps strength proposed by the Administration’s FY2015 budget request may
limit the ability of those services to maintain this additional mid-grade force structure.
Options for Congress
Congress exercises a powerful influence on recruiting and retention goals through its
establishment of personnel strength levels for each of the active and reserve components. As such,

(...continued)
figure, -11% for the higher figure). However, strength levels are set by Congress and could end up being lower or
higher than those proposed by the Administration.
38 General Peter Schoomaker testified before Congress in 2005: “from the end of the first Gulf War until the end of the
1990’s, we reduced the active Army force by 300,000 people…If you cut down 300,000 trees, you can do that pretty
quick. But now grow 30,000 of them back. But there is an analogy there that is pretty apt. It takes time, as you know, to
grow the quality soldier, quality leaders that we have.” U.S. Congress, House Committee on Armed Services, Hearings
on the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2006—Budget Request from the U.S. Army
, committee print, 109th
Cong., 1st sess., February 9, 2005, H.A.S.C. No. 109-2.
39 “Major Budget Decisions Briefing from the Pentagon,” Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, January 26, 2102,
available at http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4962 .
Congressional Research Service
17
c11173008

.
Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY2012 and FY2013 Results

Congress’s response to the Administration’s drawdown plans will have a major impact on each of
the services’ recruiting and retention goals. If Congress approves a smaller or more slowly
implemented reduction in military forces than what the Administration proposes, then the services
will need to increase their recruiting and retention goals; conversely, if Congress adopts a larger
or more rapidly implemented reduction in military forces, the services will need to decrease their
goals.40
Congress also influences the achievement of these goals through setting military compensation
levels (which may include recruiting and retention bonuses, educational benefits, and separation
incentives), establishing criteria that affect eligibility for enlistment and retention (for example,
age, cognitive, behavioral, and citizenship standards), and by authorizing and funding recruiting
and retention programs (for example, providing for dedicated recruiters and career counselors,
military entrance processing stations, market research, and advertising). Through its oversight
powers, Congress also closely monitors the performance of the executive branch in managing the
size and quality of the military workforce.
The policy levers most commonly used by Congress and DOD to manage recruiting and retention
in the near term include varying the number of recruiters, funding for advertising, and funding for
enlistment and reenlistment bonuses. When recruiting or retention shortfalls occur, or are
anticipated, Congress may elect to apply additional resources to these mechanisms, as it did
during the last decade. Conversely, when recruiting or retention are expected to be strong,
Congress may elect to shift resources away from these areas, as it has done in recent years.
The completion of the Iraq mission in 2011, a drawdown of forces in Afghanistan, robust military
compensation, planned cuts in manpower, and weakness in the labor market have contributed to a
favorable environment for recruiting and retention for the past several years. However, some of
these favorable influences appear to be waning. Additionally, the experience of the post-Cold War
drawdown raises some cautionary flags. If the drawdown is carried out in such a way as to
undermine job satisfaction or to create a perception of limited career prospects, or if an improving
economy makes civilian work comparatively more attractive than military work, the services may
face a more challenging recruiting and retention environment within a few years.


Author Contact Information

Lawrence Kapp

Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
lkapp@crs.loc.gov, 7-7609



40 See footnote 1 for an overview of the services’ proposed force structure changes.
Congressional Research Service
18
c11173008