The U.S. Army Can’t Attract Able Minds or Able Bodies. Its Fix

Almost nobody wants to join the Army and the majority of Americans who might enlist are too physically unfit and too poorly educated to qualify. As a result, the Army can’t get enough people to turn into Soldiers and is shrinking.

That reality was articulated in a Department of the Army memo released last Friday signed by Army Chief of Staff, General James C. McConville and Secretary of the Army, Christine E. Wormuth. The memorandum’s opening paragraph calls the state of the recruiting market “the most challenging since the All-Volunteer Force was established in 1973.”

According to the Army, only 23 percent of 17- to 24-year-old Americans are fully qualified to serve. Its struggle to attract mentally and physically qualified recruits is “driven in part by the post-COVID labor market, intense competition with the private sector, and a declining number of young Americans interested in uniformed service.”

The Army could also have cited its own messaging, trumpeted by the media, signaling that it prioritizes social engineering/social justice above combat efficacy and an aggressive fighting force. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Army General Mark A. Milley, is arguably best known to the American people for projecting such an outlook, amplified by the Biden Administration.

On Friday, the New York Post pulled no punches with the headline, “America’s woke Army is facing a recruiting nightmare”.

Army sensitivity to the perception is reflected in the memo’s concluding “Call to Service” section which declares that the Army “exists for one purpose, to protect the Nation by fighting and winning our Nation’s wars as a member of the Joint Force…”

Another factor the service could have pointed to in explaining its recruiting challenge is the broad-based extension of unemployment benefits initiated by the federal CARES Act passed in March 2020 and of subsequent federal and state benefits extensions with which it must compete.

Most states provide 26 weeks of uninterrupted unemployment benefits according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. In states like Washington and Massachusetts the maximum weekly unemployment insurance payments are $929 and $974 per week respectively.

Low Fitness, Low Trust Yield a Smaller Force

The memorandum lays out an unsettling landscape for Army recruiting and its impact on declining end strength.

• “Pandemic-driven constraints like virtual learning have further limited access to the recruiting population in high schools and exacerbated a decline in academic and physical fitness levels. Preliminary data suggests remote schooling may have lowered overall Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) scores by as much as 9 percent. These conditions have negatively affected the Army’s ability to meet its recruiting targets.”

The Army identifies what it sees as three underlying “gaps” in public motivation to consider Army service. It posits a “Knowledge Gap” claiming its story/brand are not reaching an American populace increasingly remote from exposure to currently serving Soldiers or veterans. An “Identity Gap” stemming from misplaced assumptions about Army life and culture limits service consideration as does a “Trust Gap” reflected in the broader loss of trust and confidence in American institutions, including the military.

These have created a situation in which the service has met only half of its recruiting goal this fiscal year, the end of which is rapidly approaching in September. The Army notes in the memo that it anticipates end strength will be approximately 466,400 at the end of FY22 – a reduction of 10,000 troops from its target of 476,000. The service says it has already taken steps to improve its recruiting efforts but it projects that its manpower may further decrease to approximately 445,000-452,000 by the end of FY23.

For perspective, that’s a shortfall of roughly two divisions.

Firm Standards

It’s expected that the Army will further elaborate on how it will solve its recruiting problems and address its public perception this week and I’ll follow-up with its leaders on the fixes they propose. One thing the memorandum seeks to make clear is that the Army’s proposed initiatives will not degrade the caliber of people it inducts.

The Army asserts that, “We will not sacrifice quality for quantity. We will not lower our standards…”

This is a quick turnabout from last month when the Army was prepared to do just that.

On June 23 the service announced that individuals could enlist without a high school diploma or GED certificate if they shipped to basic training this fiscal year. A week later, the Army reversed that decision in such a low-key fashion that confusion continued over whether these certifications were still waived.

After a couple queries, Army spokesman Hank Minitrez, confirmed that recruits must be high school graduates by the time of induction into the Army. However, the idea that the Army will not sacrifice quality for quantity remains a message it has not effectively put across.

A scan of the service’s Eligibility and Requirements web page reveals that “You won’t need to meet any physical fitness requirements before joining the Army as an enlisted Soldier.”

Army spokeswoman, Heather J. Hagan, notes that before joining the Army as an enlisted Soldier, all recruits are required to pass the Army’s Occupational Physical Assessment Test after swearing in and before the individual begins initial entry training. What happens to sworn-in recruits who do not pass the test isn’t clear.

This surprising physical-requirements sentence is followed further down the page by a hedge on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) exam, scores on which the Army notes have declined in its memorandum.

To the frequently-asked question – “Can I no longer join if I score too low on the ASVAB placement exam?” – the service states, “The Army understands that some circumstances can impact your ability to score well, and a waiver can be requested in those situations.” How commonly such a waiver is granted is a worthwhile question.

For a service that declares that it will not lower standards, the Army has recently lowered its broad standards for weight and its physical standards for women and older soldiers, a move blasted by one of its first female infantry officers when initially proposed in 2021 – these are conflicting signals that make volunteer service less attractive.

The Fix

The Army’s memo says it will make the proposition more attractive by increasing funding for targeted enlistment bonuses (up to $50,000) including incentives for critical Military Occupational Skill (MOS) career fields and providing quick-ship bonuses ($35,000) for recruits willing to ship within 45 days.

Additional funding for “national, regional, and local marketing in key priority population centers, including funding for recruiting events to engage with youth” will be made available alongside funding for implementation of the service’s Know your Army and Passions marketing campaigns.

Ironically, the money for these and other organizational changes/incentives will come from the recruiting shortfall itself. The Army says that approximately $890 million to $1.28 billion originally budgeted for end strength in its FY23 Military Personnel appropriation will be applied to the recruiting/retention problem.

That’s a billion dollars that will not be spent on the Army’s modernization priorities, sustainment, or munitions replenishment – a reminder that the cost of a population unmotivated to volunteer for service in a military portrayed by its own leadership as socially flawed and potentially extremist is measured by more than just a lack of boots on the ground.

The Army reckons that implementing a revised tattoo policy will enable more of America’s youth population to serve. The service has recently begun allowing tattoos in visible areas (hands, neck, behind the ears) in addition to parts of the body covered by the uniform. Army spokesperson Heather Hagan says the policy “brings us in line with the policies of the other military branches.”

In a 2021 Army press release, Sgt. Maj. Mark Anthony Clark from the Army’s Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (G-1) affirmed that, “The Army has maintained a longstanding tradition of Soldiers presenting a clean and professional appearance. A professional appearance is an outward manifestation of the pride they have in themselves and in service to our country.”

How facial, neck and hand tattoos comport with the “clean and professional appearance” Sgt. Clark referenced is a question many will ask. Another question is whether the Army is concerned about gang-related tattoo symbology within its ranks?

Hagan responded that, “The Army prohibits extremist [including gang-related], sexist, racist and indecent tattoos. Tattoos and brands are reviewed, photographed and annotated upon entry into the Army and yearly by the commander thereafter.”

Whether that’s enough to keep up with evolving gang-related symbology is worth considering. So too is a recent revision to Army Regulation 670-1 which permits the optional wear of clear nail polish for men. The Army provided no answer for what precipitated this change or the question; why would male Soldiers wear clear nail polish?

The third of the major recruitment initiatives laid out in the memo is establishment of a Future Soldier Preparatory Course (FSPC) pilot program. Its objective, the Army says, will be “better preparing recruits physically and academically to meet accessions standards, investing in those with a desire to serve so they can enlist in the Army without lowering quality.”

How this will be executed was not explained in the memo, whether the FSPC would be given prior to or after enlistment. Based on potential results, the Army may expand and scale the FSPC program going forward, a possibility the Army could give more details on this week. To those familiar with U.S. Army history, the course may echo the 1970s-80s era in which the service was referred to as “the world’s largest remedial reading class”.

Whatever the witticism of the moment may be, the Army will have to devote energy and divert significant resources just to get people in the door. We’ll know more about its plans this week and ultimately whether it can attract high quality American recruits willing to serve in a force principally dedicated to “fighting and winning our Nation’s wars.”