What one needs to know about the United States Military’s Recruiting Command?
...erm soldiers has declined. The Army continued to rely in 1986 on adequate compensation, re-enlistment bonuses, and educational incentives to retain the type of soldier it needs.”(Department of the Army Historical Summery, Fiscal year 1986) One of the most important incentives to enlistment is the new G.I. Bill, which became effective on 1 July 1985. This measure pays benefits of up to $10,800 for active duty personnel and authorizes the Army to pay to certain qualified enlistees additional educational incentives over and above the basic active duty benefit. These additional benefits, referred to as the New Army College Fund, are $8,000, $12,000, and $14,000 for two-, three-, and four-year enlistments, respectively. Cash bonuses of up to $8,000 for a four-year active duty enlistment are also available to qualified individuals who enlist in a designated skill. Use of an enlistment bonus and the Army College Fund for the same individual in the past has enabled the Army to attract high quality enlistees in hard to fill skills for longer enlistments. But the fiscal year 1986 Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibited such dual payments to individuals; as a result, the Army expected to see migration from four-year to three-year and from three-year to two-year terms of service. Following a record year for program strengths for each category of the selected reserve, the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve in fiscal year 1986 continued to make a strong showing in enlistments. This achievement was the result of continued congressional support of the Selected Reserves Incentive Program, increased use of full-time personnel, and the accomplishment of overall recruiting objectives. When the war on terrorism began, fears sprang up that people would stop volunteering for military service, thus requiring reinstatement of the draft. “Not to worry,” says Department of Defense officials, who report that both new volunteers and re-enlistments continue at a “vigorous rate.” http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/022093.htm. Early in the war on terrorism, many critics predicted the United States would have to return to the draft to man the forces. But in this 30th year of the all-volunteer force, the military continues to meet recruiting and retention goals. (http://usgovinfo.about.com/) "It is really too early to see what effect Operation Iraqi Freedom will have on recruiting, but the most recent statistics are encouraging," said Maj. Sandy Burr, a Pentagon spokeswoman. Burr said the Department of Defense is making all quality and quantity goals. "We are exceeding the Department of Defense benchmark for percentage of high school graduates and the percentage of people in the upper half of the armed forces entrance exam." http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/022093.htm. The United States Military is still enjoying that success of retaining and also gaining new recruits. An online government site, (http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/022093.htm), stated, “Service officials point to hard work by recruiters as the key to the success, but they also say increased patriotism as a result of the war on terror and a bleak economic picture in many areas also may play a role in attracting young people to the military.” “The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are all on course to make year-end recruiting goals. The Air Force made its recruiting goals for fiscal 2003, enlisting 37,000 new airmen. This was the fourth year in a row it met its goal. Retention also is up across the services. This is true especially of service members making the choice to re-enlist following their first term in the service. Air Force "first-termers" re-enlisted at a 60-percent rate. Service officials were shooting for 55 percent.” (http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/022093.htm) Complicating the retention picture, however, is the end of the Stop-Loss program. The program, which stops separations and retirements in critical specialties during war or crisis, has been lifted. However, Air Force spokeswoman Jennifer Stephens said, “The service has not seen the mass departure many predicted when Stop-Loss ended. In all cases, military leaders are not taking anything for granted. They continue to push to get the best, most qualified people in the service.” (Air Force press release August 29, 2003) Now one would think that if your military was doing well, that one should not touch it, monetarily. In the last session of Congress, when the President, George W. Bush had his budget approved, the budget for the advertising department was slashed by nearly two thirds. A Mr. Theodore Stoup, a retired Army Lieutenant General and former Army Deputy Chief of personnel, had this article in the September 15th, 2003, issue of the Army Times, “Well here we go again. While not a direct quote from former President Regan, it is certainly appropriate to describe the shortsightedness of congress in cutting the Army advertising budget in the ongoing markup. It hasn’t happened yet, but this could be replay of the disaster wrought on the army in 1991 by some shortsighted and misinformed lawmaker. I am hopping from the conference committee will come reality and that the advertising funds for recruiting for all three components will be left untouched and at the level sought by Army leadership.” (Army Times Sept. 2003) “The dynamics and intricacy of recruiting fundamentals have not changed. There is a cause-and-effect relationship among these fundamentals that has proven itself as they were developed over the last thirty years of the volunteer force. It would be an ironic disaster if, in the 30th-annaversery month of today’s magnificent force and effective recruiting system, congress dealt another body blow to today’s success and perhaps tomorrows changing market due to the war on terrorism – although the statistics for recruiting and retention are still rosy.” (Army Times Sept. 2003.) “Fundamentally, maintaining mission success in recruiting as well as end strength requires a careful balance of several factors, including the job market competition, the economy, youth demographics, the competitiveness of military pay and benefits, the recruiting force, the advertising budget and other non-pay incentives to join. All these are dynamically and intricately linked in spider-web fashion such that, if one is cut, there is a reaction and most likely an imbalance in recruiting success.” (Army Times Sept. 2003) “These factors and their relationship have been developed over the last thirty years, with success and failures helping codify them. They have been verified by the General Accounting Office, congressional testimony of Defense Department and Army leaders, the Rand Corp. and several universities.” (Army Times Sept. 2003) In the budget of 1991, the Army was victorious out of the desert, patriotism was high and the economy had not yet turned to the famous quote, “it’s the economy, stupid,” (Los Angeles Times March 1992). All the lights were green for recruiting. At the same time, after the victory parades, the Army began its managed downsize from well over seven hundred eighty thousand to around five hundred thirty five thousand – or lower,(http://usgovinfo.about.gov), depending on which plateau one wants to select. Then Congress slashed the advertising budget from some Eighty million-plus dollars annually to somewhere between Thirty million and Forty million dollars despite protest from civilian and military leadership in the recruiting force and the Pentagon. “Contemporary analysis and results then forecast the recruiting disaster, and post event studies documented it. At the same time, some of the other factors also started to change “downward.” The deep trough for the 1990’s was tough and spelled declining personal readiness and recruiter morale and missed Army end strength at year’s end – all in a short two to three years,”( Army Times April 2003, http://usgovinfo.about/b/a/00019.8732) In the late 1990’s, mission and end strength were in jeopardy. For several years, “mission” in numbers was missed. But the good news is that the Army did not fall off the quality and discipline criteria, nor should it ever. For the “Army of one” to continue to be successful, it needs balance, perspective and adequate funding. To paraphrase President Regan – “Congress, don’t tear down this wall of recruiting successes and lessons learned the past by cutting recruiting advertising and causing another set of crises.” (Stroup, Theodore, Army Times) The US Military now has a program that is like an “out-placement” program, it is called the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). This program is operated out of Edwards Air Force Base to assist separating and retiring military to make a smoother transition from military to civilian life. It is not an "out-placement" program necessarily - that is TAP does not find jobs for people, but does provide counseling and training to help them find their own jobs....