USA — Services Meet New Fiscal Year With Recruiting Success

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22, 2010 — Defense Depart­ment offi­cials announced the ser­vices’ recruit­ing and reten­tion num­bers for the first month of the new fis­cal year, as well as a change in the way they report recruit­ing num­bers to the pub­lic.
The ser­vices already are off to a good start, with both active and reserve com­po­nents meet­ing or exceed­ing their year-to-date acces­sion goals, Cur­tis Gilroy, the Pentagon’s acces­sion pol­i­cy direc­tor, said.

Gilroy attrib­ut­es the ser­vices’ recruit­ing suc­cess, in part, to the econ­o­my but also cites oth­er sig­nif­i­cant fac­tors, such as patri­o­tism.

“The improved sit­u­a­tion in Iraq and con­tin­ued sup­port from Con­gress also great­ly enhance recruit­ing efforts,” he said. “Patri­o­tism is one of the con­tribut­ing fac­tors to recruit­ing suc­cess as well, as 4 out of 10 new Army recruits cite ‘ser­vice to coun­try’ for their rea­son for enlist­ing.”

With­in the active duty, the Army made 103 per­cent of its goal with 6,643 recruits against a tar­get of 6,425. The Navy made 100 per­cent of its goal with 2,291 recruits. The Marine Corps made 100 per­cent of its goal with 2,457 recruits against a goal of 2,448. The Air Force also made 100 per­cent of its goal with 1,511 recruits.

The Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force reten­tions are near or above the fis­cal year-to-date goals through Octo­ber, offi­cials said.

With­in the reserve com­po­nents, the Army Nation­al Guard made 110 per­cent of its acces­sion goal, sign­ing up 4,973 recruits against 4,504. The Army Reserve made 108 per­cent of its goal with 2,774 acces­sions against 2,557. The Navy Reserve met its goal of 665 acces­sions. The Marine Corps Reserve was suc­cess­ful, mak­ing 130 per­cent of its goal with 1,154 acces­sions against a goal of 889.

The Air Nation­al Guard made 135 per­cent its goal of 541 with 729 recruits, and the Air Force Reserve made 101 per­cent of its goal with 769 recruits against a goal of 760. As for attri­tion rates, loss­es in all reserve com­po­nents were with­in accept­able lim­its, offi­cials said.

Along with the recruit­ing num­bers, offi­cials announced they will now use fis­cal year-to-date goals rather than month­ly goals to report recruit­ing.

Offi­cials decid­ed to change the way they present the num­bers to offer the pub­lic a more com­pre­hen­sive look at mil­i­tary recruit­ing, Gilroy said.

To derive recruit­ing goals, offi­cials con­sid­er the num­ber of ser­vice­mem­bers who may choose to stay in or leave each month and then fac­tor in a service’s desired end strength. The ser­vices then adjust recruit­ing mis­sion to ensure end-strength goals won’t be exceed­ed, an offi­cial explained.

Ser­vices may pur­pose­ly come in under short-term goals with the big-pic­ture num­bers in mind, Gilroy not­ed, a prac­tice that can be mis­in­ter­pret­ed when looked at on a month-to-month basis.

“In the past, the ser­vices have, on occa­sion, inten­tion­al­ly ‘missed’ their month­ly recruit­ing goals to ensure they don’t come in over end strength,” he explained. “This gives the false impres­sion that recruit­ing goals are not being met, when in fact, for the year, the ser­vices are meet­ing or exceed­ing their goals.

“By report­ing against year-to-date goals, the pub­lic is pro­vid­ed a more com­pre­hen­sive pic­ture of mil­i­tary recruit­ing,” he said.

Source:
U.S. Depart­ment of Defense
Office of the Assis­tant Sec­re­tary of Defense (Pub­lic Affairs)

More news and arti­cles can be found on Face­book and Twit­ter.

Fol­low GlobalDefence.net on Face­book and/or on Twit­ter