10th

Recruiting and Retention

June 2009

Many times in the last few months, there has been spirited debate about the need for a draft.  One of the great issues was a perceived problem with recruiting into the armed forces.  Below is the announcement of the recruiting and retention statistics DoD wide for May 2009.  Seems the armed forces are on track and have been so for quite some time.  See below:

DoD Announces Recruiting and Retention Numbers for May 2009

The Department of Defense announced today its recruiting and retention statistics for the active and reserve components for the month of May.

· Active Component.

· Recruiting. All four active services met or exceeded their recruiting goals for May.

· Army – 4,044 accessions with a goal of 3,900; 104 percent

· Navy – 2,542 accessions with a goal of 2,542; 100 percent

· Marine Corps – 2,146 accessions with a goal of 1,516; 142 percent

· Air Force – 2,289 accessions with a goal of 2,279; 100 percent

· Retention. Retention continues to be very strong as all four active component services met or exceeded their May retention goals. The Marine Corps has met its year-end first and subsequent goals and Army has met its year-end initial, mid-career and career goals.

· Reserve Component.

· Accessions. Three of the six components met or exceeded their accession goals for the month of May 2009. While the Army National Guard, Army Reserve, and Air National Guard figures were less than their planned monthly goal, a! ll three are well above their fiscal 2009 annual recruiting goals to date.

· Army National Guard – 3,026 accessions with a goal of 3,649; 83 percent

· Army Reserve – 3,178 accessions with a goal of 3,326; 96 percent

· Navy Reserve – 574 accessions with a goal of 574; 100 percent

· Marine Corps Reserve – 1,196 accessions with a goal of 565; 212 percent

· Air National Guard – 766 accessions with a goal of 805; 95 percent

· Air Force Reserve – 770 accessions with a goal of 718; 107 percent

· Attrition. Losses in all reserve components were within acceptable limits.


«
»


Posted by UltimaRatioReg in Uncategorized

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • Tim

    Is there USCG info on Recruiting and Retention?

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Likely, but it is Title 14 and not Title 10/32.

  • RickWilmes

    I wonder how many individuals are joining the military because of the poor economy and poor private job opportunities?

  • Fouled Anchor

    URR, thanks for these numbers. You are likely to continue seeing good recruiting numbers during poor economic conditions. And, not surprisingly, recruiting gets more difficult during a good economy. I would guess that any calls for a draft, especially when the services are getting the numbers they need (and hopefully the quality too) are simply politically driven rubish.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Fouled,

    If I hadn’t deleted them, the numbers have been good for quite some time. Even during the “good times” when unemployment was under 5% a few years ago and we had two “wars”, the services made annual mission.

  • Fouled Anchor

    I don’t doubt it…but I will tell you, it’s much harder during good financial times.

  • Natty Bowditch

    It’s a result of the poor economy.

    In the recent past, the services either barely met goals or missed them. And that was after the services lowered standards (age, education, criminal bkgrd., etc.) for recruits. Plus, the services had offered pretty lucrative bonuses for qualified recruits.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    Natty,

    You will have to show me documentation on that. What I know and have been a part of tells me a far different story. So… any stats to back that up?

    Fouled, my experiences training recruits brushed me against the accessions process. Wouldn’t wanna do that job for all the whiskey in Ireland. More power to those folks out there.

  • Fouled Anchor

    @Natty: What’s your point with saying the services have “barely met goals?” They are either met or not. In fact, exceeding goals has about as negative an impact on targeted end strength as missing them. I may be wrong, but I’m only aware of the Army having lowered standards; specifically lowering the required ASVAB score and raising th maximum enlistment age. Lowering standards does not necessarily mean they recruited a large number of recruits because of that policy change. Obviously they recruited some, but how many? Was there any negative effect on combat effectiveness?

    The fact is, poor economy or not, recruiting is tough and the services just got through the toughest part of the year. Feb-May is a bad time to be a recruiter…always has been, always will be. The numbers are great…about 9000 Americans shipped off last month to serve this country. BZ to them. And as long there are still young Americans willing to do so, talk of a draft is nonsensical and a political stunt.

    @URR: Had all the whiskey in Ireland been an option…heck, that’s an easy call.

  • UltimaRatioReg

    @Fouled- bet it would have been indeed!

  • Charlie Gonce

    The draft; perfect example of quality vs. quantity.

Subscribe

Get blog posts delivered to your inbox
* = required field

video title


© 2008 - 2013 U.S. NAVAL INSTITUTE
Contact: blog@usni.org
Powered By Unleashed Technologies