Military Officer - December 2006 - (Page 34)

washingtonscene the consumer price index (CPI). Their purpose is to ensure that whatever purchasing power a member’s retired pay represented on the precise date he or she retired from service isn’t eroded by inﬂation over time. ON THE WEB ■ For more information about the 2007 COLA, visit www.moaa.org/colawatch. Army Meets 2006 Goal But meeting future recruiting missions could be tough. What’s the Outlook for 2007? ■ The Army’s recruit- ing goal for FY 2007 is the same as that for FY 2006 — 80,000 new enlistees. With 14 percent of that goal already in the Delayed Enlistment Program “bank” as of Oct. 1, the Army is starting slightly ahead of last year’s 12-percent mark. T he recruiting goal the Army set for FY 2006 looked daunting as the year began. After falling 6,000 short of its 74,000 goal for FY 2005, the Army raised the bar to 80,000 for FY 2006. It began the ﬁscal year Oct. 1, 2005, with only 12 percent of that goal “banked” in the delayed enlistment program, compared to 25 percent a year earlier. Further, Congress didn’t enact needed new bonus incentives until January, more than three months into the ﬁscal year. Many — including MOAA — doubted whether the new goal was attainable. Even earlier, MOAA was concerned enough to sign a memorandum of understanding with the Army to encourage MOAA chapters to connect local recruiters with willing prospects. While there might not be unanimity on how our forces are used, supporting a strong national defense is a core MOAA value — and that cannot be sustained without strong recruiting and retention programs to maintain the force. The Army met the challenge by adding more than 1,300 recruiters since 2005 and expanding various criteria to widen the prospect pool. MOAA congratulates the Army and other services, all of which met or exceeded their active duty recruiting goals. Nevertheless, other numbers offer reasons for legitimate concerns for FY 2007 and beyond. First, only two of the six reserve components met their goals. The Navy Reserve missed the mark by the largest margin, enlisting 87 percent of its goal. The Army Reserve enlisted 95 percent of goal (an improvement over last year’s 92 percent). The Army National Guard narrowly missed with 99 percent — a big upgrade from 80 percent last year. Second, the Army had to pull out virtually all available stops to get the job done. Recruit quality: DoD quality standards are that 90 percent of entrants should have a high school diploma, and 60 percent should score above average on armed forces aptitude tests. This year, only 82 percent of Army recruits had diplomas, and 61 percent met the aptitude test standard — down from 92 percent and 72 percent, respectively, in 2004. Enlistment standards adjustments: The Army raised its maximum enlistment age from 35 to 40 in January 2006, then up to 42 in June 2006, and increased waivers for previous restrictions on tattoos, legal infractions, etcetera. Increased bonus budgets: Enlistment bonus costs jumped from $166 million in 2005 to $238 million in 2006. Reenlistment bonus expenditures for FY 2006 might exceed $650 million — versus an average of $120 million for FY 2000–FY 2004. If reenlistments drop among overstressed servicemembers and their families, recruiting goals will have to get even bigger. So although it’s good news that the Army met its recruiting goal, the not-sogood news is that service leaders had to stretch every available tool to do so. And some trends — particularly regarding recruit quality — pose signiﬁcant concerns for the future. [CONTINUES ON PAGE 36] 34 MILITARY OFFICER DECEMBER 2006 http://www.moaa.org/colawatch

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Military Officer - December 2006

From the Editor From the President Your Views MOAA Directory Rapid Fire Washington Scene Financial Forum Ask the Doctor Chapter Activities Cover Story: How to Fund the Future Martial Lore Good Night, Sleep Tight Mixed Review Information Exchange Advertising Index Member Books MOAA Calendar Sounding Taps MOAA Member Services

Military Officer - December 2006

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.