Technical Report 1268

Development and Evaluation of the Officer Transition 

Survey and Proxy Group Design

Elizabeth Lentz and U. Christean Kubisiak

Personnel Decisions Research Institute

Peter J. Legree

U.S. Army Research Institute

Kristen E. Horgen

PDRI

Mark C. Young

U.S. Army Research Institute

Tiffany Smith, T. Ryan Dullaghan, 

Jacob E. Sauser and Erin M. Jackson

PDRI

Trueman R. Tremble 

U.S. Army Research Institute

United States Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

 Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited
U.S. Army Research Institute

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

A Directorate of the Department of the Army

Deputy Chief of Staff, G1

Authorized and approved for distribution:

 

 MICHELLE SAMS, Ph.D.

 Director

Research accomplished under contract

for the Department of the Army

PDRI

Technical Review by

Dr. Sharon Ardison, U.S. Army Research Institute

Dr. Kelly Ervin, U.S. Army Research Institute

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this Technical Report has been made by ARI. 

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S. Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Attn: DAPE-ARI-ZXM, 

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This Technical Report may be destroyed when it is no longer 

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral 

and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings in this Technical Report are not to be construed as an official 

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by other authorized documents.
i

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

1. REPORT DATE (dd-mm-yy)

July 2010

2. REPORT TYPE

Final Report

3. DATES COVERED (from. . . to)

July 2008 – March 2009

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Development and Evaluation of the Officer Transition Survey 

and Proxy Group Design

5a. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER

 DASW01-03-D-0015, DO #0049

5b. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

622785

6. AUTHOR(S)

Elizabeth Lentz, U. Christean Kubisiak (PDRI); Peter J. Legree

(U.S. Army Research Institute); Kristen E. Horgen (PDRI); Mark 

C. Young (U.S. Army Research Institute); Tiffany Smith, T. Ryan 

Dullaghan, Jacob E. Sauser, & Erin M. Jackson (PDRI);

Trueman R. Tremble (U.S. Army Research Institute)

5c. PROJECT NUMBER

A790 

5d. TASK NUMBER

270

5e. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

Personnel Decisions Research Institutes, Inc.

100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 375

Tampa, FL 33602

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway

Arlington, VA 22202-3926

Source Code: 597861

10. MONITOR ACRONYM

ARI

11. MONITOR REPORT NUMBER

Technical Report 1268

12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Contracting Officer’s Representative and Subject Matter POC: Peter J. Legree

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words): 

The work described in this report is an extension of the STAY project, with a directed focus on officer career 

continuance. An Officer Transition Survey (OTS) was developed to identify and examine the factors that influence 

junior officers to continue serving beyond their ADSO or separate from the Active Army. Career continuance factors 

and separation motives were identified and documented for 169 Active Army junior officers (O1-O3) who were 

actively out-processing at Army Transition Centers. Data were also collected from proxy samples that were 

comprised of 485 junior officers who were in the process of deciding whether to serve beyond their service 

obligation (officer proxy sample) and 68 experts who work closely with junior officers (expert proxy sample). Results 

indicated the OTS provides valid, empirical information regarding junior officers’ career continuance influences and 

separation motives. Results also show that officer and expert proxy samples can be used to understand and 

quantify the motives of officers who are separating from the Active Army. These findings have important implications 

for collecting valid information using a more efficient, streamlined application of survey methodology that expends 

fewer resources.

15. SUBJECT TERMS

junior officers, lieutenants, captains, career continuance, separation motives, officer transition survey, proxy 

analyses, proxy research design, survey methodology

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF 19. LIMITATION OF 

ABSTRACT

Unlimited

20. NUMBER 

OF PAGES

45

21. RESPONSIBLE PERSON

Ellen Kinzer

Technical Publications Specialist

(703) 602-8049

16. REPORT

Unclassified

17. ABSTRACT

Unclassified

18. THIS PAGE

Unclassified
ii
iii

Technical Report 1268

Development and Evaluation of the Officer Transition Survey 

and Proxy Group Design

Elizabeth Lentz and U. Christean Kubisiak

Personnel Decisions Research Institute

Peter J. Legree

U.S. Army Research Institute

Kristen E. Horgen

PDRI

Mark C. Young

U.S. Army Research Institute

Tiffany Smith, T. Ryan Dullaghan,

Jacob E. Sauser and Erin M. Jackson

PDRI

Trueman R. Tremble

U.S. Army Research Institute

Selection and Assignment Research Unit

Michael G. Rumsey, Chief

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

2511 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, Virginia 22202-3926

July 2010

Army Project Number Personnel, Performance

622785A790 and Training Technology

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

An undertaking of this magnitude can only be accomplished with significant assistance. 

PDRI and ARI wish to acknowledge the contributions of the following individuals and 

organizations for their tremendous support of the Officer Transition Survey project. First, this 

effort would not have been possible without the commissioned officers and Army installation 

points of contact who supported our visits and data collections. Additionally, the guidance and 

support we received from personnel within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 

(especially the Directorate of Military Personnel Management), Installation Management 

Command (especially Mr. Kenric Echols), Human Resources Command (especially LTC 

Douglas Ingros), Training and Doctrine Command, and Forces Command were extremely 

valuable throughout the project. Finally, we gratefully acknowledge the considerable technical 

contributions made by Sharon Meyers (ARI), who designed and executed the web-based survey 

and implementation procedures which supported this effort.
v

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY AND 

PROXY GROUP DESIGN

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Research Requirement:

The U.S. Army has faced a variety of challenges meeting manpower goals and 

maintaining the strength of the All Volunteer Force (AVF). It requires officers who have 

developed or can develop the qualities needed for effective job performance and organizational 

success, and who choose to stay with the Army for significant periods of time. Keeping officers 

in the Army who have been trained in their Branch or Functional Area and who have 

demonstrated a high level of performance provides a number of benefits: (1) the force level is 

maintained; (2) the Army receives a greater return on its training investment; (3) institutional 

knowledge is retained; and (4) a steady supply of new leaders is prepared. Further, the loss of 

officers after their first Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO) is expensive in both monetary 

and non-monetary terms.

In order to help the Army address officer continuance for the long term, ARI sponsored a 

three-year research program titled "Strategies to Enhance Retention" (code named "STAY"). 

STAY was designed to improve the continuance of the Army's junior officers and enlisted 

Soldiers. The STAY project was intended to move the U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) 

beyond studying the underlying causes of attrition and retention decisions to focusing on career 

continuance interventions that would support the future Army (Johnson, Hezlett, Mael & 

Schneider, 2009; Kubisiak, Young, Legree & Tremble, 2010). The work described in this report 

is an extension of the STAY project, with a directed focus on officer career continuance. A goal 

of the present research was to examine factors that influence junior officers either to continue 

serving beyond their ADSO or to separate from the Active Army. A second primary objective of 

the research was to examine the feasibility of using proxy samples as alternative sources of 

information in order to understand the separation motives of junior officers. This effort builds on 

past and current work done by ARI, PDRI and others to develop survey instruments that 

efficiently and effectively measure influences on career continuance decisions (Johnson et al., 

2009; Kubisiak et al., 2010), including a similar survey design evaluated as part of the Enlisted 

STAY project (Lentz et al., 2010).

For the current project, an Officer Transition Survey (OTS) was developed, and a proxy 

research design was utilized for examining officer career continuance decision processes. 

Specifically, we developed a survey instrument to identify the career continuance factors and 

separation motives of junior officers with less than 10 years of active duty service as 

commissioned officers who were actively out-processing at U.S. Army Transition Centers (target 

sample). Additionally, we gathered data from junior officers and experts who work closely with 

junior officers (proxy samples) and evaluated the validity of these proxy responses.
vi

Procedure:

The content development of the OTS instruments was an iterative process that

incorporated multiple sources of information. We began by reviewing civilian and military 

separation motive research and relevant officer career continuance research, including reviews of 

surveys and reports to capture Soldier and officer career data, such as the Sample Survey of 

Military Personnel (SSMP) and the Survey on Officer Careers (SOC; Jones, 1999; U.S. Army 

Personnel Survey Office, 2006). Based on this review, we derived initial content areas and 

survey items.

Next, we conducted multiple focus group sessions with Army subject matter experts 

(SMEs), including lieutenants, captains, and Human Resources Command (HRC) Career 

Managers/Assignment Officers, asking them to review the draft OTS and provide feedback and 

suggestions for improvement. Based on this information, we identified nine content areas that 

appeared related to the career continuance decisions and separation motives of junior officers: 

(1) Branch/Functional Area/Assignment; (2) Army Career Progression; (3) Deployments; (4) 

Leadership Experiences and Development; (5) Peers; (6) Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie; (7) 

Quality of Personal/Family Life; (8) Quality of Army Life; and (9) Alternatives to Army Career. 

In addition, we included items addressing demographics and career intentions. Finally, we 

assessed the OTS content in comparison to the SOC and SSMP. Overall, this comparison 

supported the coverage of the OTS.

Because the goals of this effort were to examine the career continuance decision and 

separation motives of junior officers while evaluating efficient and valid alternative sources for 

gathering this type of information, our efforts involved examining responses from target and 

proxy samples. To meet these goals, we developed three parallel forms of the OTS: (1) an Exit 

Form; (2) a General Form; and (3) an Expert Form. The Exit Form was developed to capture 

career continuance decision and separation motive data from exiting officers (target sample) who 

were actively out-processing at Army Transition Centers. Items on the Exit Form utilized a selfreport format in which respondents indicated the importance of a variety of factors in their 

individual decisions to stay in or separate from the Active Army. The General Form was 

developed to obtain responses from a junior officer proxy sample (i.e., officers who were in the 

process of deciding whether to serve beyond their service obligation). The General Form was 

also administered through the Web to officers who had submitted separation packages to the 

Human Resources Command (HRC). Items on the General Form utilized a self-report format in 

which respondents indicated the importance of a variety of factors in their upcoming decisions to 

stay in or separate from the Active Army. Finally, the Expert Form was administered to an expert 

proxy sample that worked closely with junior officers and had direct knowledge of junior officer 

separation motives. These experts included senior commissioned officers attached to operational 

units, HRC Career Managers/ Assignment Officers, and Army Career Alumni Program (ACAP) 

Transition Services Managers (TSMs). The experts were directed to make judgments regarding 

junior officer career continuance decisions based upon their knowledge and experience working 

with junior officers. Items on the Expert Form instructed respondents to indicate how most 

separating officers would respond regarding the importance of a variety of factors in their 

decisions to stay in or leave the Active Army.
vii

Findings:

We examined survey responses from: (1) 169 junior officers who were actively outprocessing at Army Transition Centers (target sample); (2) 485 junior officers who were in the 

process of deciding whether to serve beyond their service obligation (officer proxy sample); and 

(3) 68 experts who work closely with junior officers (expert proxy sample). Results indicated 

that the OTS provides useful empirical information regarding career continuance influences and 

separation motives. Further, the survey content appeared to capture the broad array of factors that 

play a role in officers’ career continuance decisions. For example, the impact of Army life on 

family stability and family well-being, and length of deployments were identified as significant 

influences on decisions to separate from the Army. Highly rated reasons for staying in the Army 

included the opportunity to serve, lead and train Soldiers, and work with fellow officers.

The proxy sample analyses indicated that officer and expert proxy samples could be used 

to understand and quantify the separation motives of officers who were leaving the Army. The 

proxy sample composed of officers who submitted, or planned to submit, separation packages to 

HRC most closely approximated the responses of separating officers who completed the survey 

at the Army Transition Centers. With regard to the expert proxy subgroups, senior officers who 

work closely with junior officers on a daily basis provided highly valid judgments regarding the 

motives of exiting officers, followed by the judgments of HRC Career Manager/Assignment 

Officers and ACAP TSMs. The consistency of results across all the data sources adds to the 

credibility of each individual data source and highlights the validity of the survey results.

Utilization and Dissemination of Findings:

The findings and approach suggest important implications for future applications of the 

OTS and proxy-sample research design in the Army. First, this research supports the use of the 

OTS as an effective tool for collecting timely, accurate officer separation motive data. 

Accordingly, we recommend integrating the OTS into the current separation process by having 

HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers require survey participation as part of the routine 

operational procedure for separation package submission. Utilization of the OTS in the officer 

separation process would allow the Army to identify, forecast, and manage officer career 

continuance and separation trends.

Second, proxy analyses suggest that small samples of alternative sources can also be used 

to collect valid information on junior officer career continuance decisions and separation 

motives. These results have a number of implications for moving toward a more integrated, 

streamlined and efficient use of survey research. For example, separating officers are typically 

less accessible and may be less motivated to provide key insight into reasons they decided to 

separate from the Active Army. Further, they may be reluctant to complete a lengthy survey, 

given the many demands on their time. Thus, utilizing smaller proxy samples offers a method to 

collect information with a high degree of convergence with the target sample (and other related 

survey efforts such as the Survey on Officer Careers (SOC)) while expending fewer resources 

and minimizing officer survey burden hours.
viii

Finally, we recommend that the development and implementation of this type of survey 

and proxy-sample design be coordinated with survey efforts intended for other target groups 

within the Army. These efforts could be expanded to other groups such as senior NCOs and 

more senior officers, which are also likely experiencing changes in retention behavior (cf. 

Kubisiak, Young, Legree & Tremble, 2010). The Army would benefit from developing and 

evaluating similar survey instruments and research designs in order to more efficiently 

understand and manage separation trends.
ix

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY AND 

PROXY GROUP DESIGN

CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

Overview of Report..........................................................................................................................2

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXIT SURVEYS .............................................................................3

Overview..........................................................................................................................................3

Accuracy of Exit Surveys ................................................................................................................3

Exit Surveys in the Military.............................................................................................................4

Exit Surveys in the Army.................................................................................................................5

Alternative Sources of Information .................................................................................................7

OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY (OTS) DEVELOPMENT .....................................................7

Content Development ......................................................................................................................7

Comparison to the Sample Survey of Military Personnel (SSMP) and Survey on Officer Careers 

(SOC)...............................................................................................................................................9

Sample Specification and Data Collection Design ..........................................................................9

OTS ADMINISTRATION ............................................................................................................10

Response Rate................................................................................................................................11

Sample Characteristics...................................................................................................................12

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES ......................................................................................................18

Factor Structure..............................................................................................................................18

Junior Officer Response Comparisons...........................................................................................19

CAREER CONTINUANCE AND SEPARATION ANALYSES ................................................21

Composite-level Means and Standard Deviations.........................................................................21

Item-level Means and Standard Deviations...................................................................................22

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment Items...................................................................................22

Army Career Progression Items.....................................................................................................22

Deployment Items..........................................................................................................................23

Leadership Experiences and Development Items..........................................................................24

Peers Items.....................................................................................................................................25

Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie Items..........................................................................................26

Quality of Personal/Family Life Items ..........................................................................................26

Quality of Army Life Items ...........................................................................................................27

Alternatives to Army Career Items................................................................................................28

Most Important Reasons to Stay in or Leave the Active Army.....................................................29
x

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

PROXY ANALYSES ....................................................................................................................32

Proxy Sample Comparisons – Composite-Level Analyses ...........................................................32

Proxy Sample Comparisons – Item-Level Analyses .....................................................................39 

SURVEY EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................42

Survey Evaluation Summary .........................................................................................................42

Challenges to Implementation .......................................................................................................43

Future Research and Applications.................................................................................................44

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................47

APPENDIX A: OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY FORMS AND E-MAIL

SOLICITATION......................................................................................................................... A-1

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF JUNIOR OFFICER SAMPLES........ 13

TABLE 2. PARTICIPANT CAREER INFORMATION............................................................. 14

TABLE 3. PARTICIPANT CAREER INTENTIONS ................................................................. 15

TABLE 4. FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS OF SAMPLES....................................................... 16

TABLE 5. PARTICIPANT DEPLOYMENT INFORMATION.................................................. 17

TABLE 6. COMPOSITE SCORE RELIABILITIES ................................................................... 19

TABLE 7. MEAN RATINGS FOR COMPOSITE SCORES...................................................... 21

TABLE 8. MEAN RATINGS FOR BRANCH/FUNCTIONAL AREA/ASSIGNMENT

ITEMS......................................................................................................................... 22

TABLE 9. MEAN RATINGS FOR ARMY CAREER PROGRESSION ITEMS....................... 23

TABLE 10. MEAN RATINGS FOR DEPLOYMENTS ITEMS ................................................ 24
xi

TABLE 11. MEAN RATINGS FOR LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCES AND DEVELOPMENT 

ITEMS ....................................................................................................................... 25

CONTENTS (continued)

Page

TABLE 12. MEAN RATINGS FOR PEERS ITEMS.................................................................. 25

TABLE 13. MEAN RATINGS FOR UNIT COHESION AND CAMARADERIE ITEMS....... 26

TABLE 14. MEAN RATINGS FOR QUALITY OF PERSONAL/FAMILY LIFE ITEMS ...... 27

TABLE 15. MEAN RATINGS FOR QUALITY OF ARMY LIFE ITEMS ............................... 28

TABLE 16. MEAN RATINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO ARMY CAREER ITEMS............ 29

TABLE 17. MOST IMPORTANT REASONS TO STAY IN THE ACTIVE ARMY – TOP 15 

ITEMS ....................................................................................................................... 30

TABLE 18. MOST IMPORTANT REASONS TO LEAVE THE ACTIVE ARMY – TOP 15 

ITEMS ....................................................................................................................... 31

TABLE 19. PROXY GROUPS .................................................................................................... 32

TABLE 20. PROXY ANALYSES – COMPOSITE SCORE MEANS AND STANDARD 

DEVIATIONS ........................................................................................................... 35

TABLE 21. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN TARGET AND PROXY SAMPLE IMPORTANCE 

ITEM-LEVEL MEANS............................................................................................. 41

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. MEAN COMPOSITE SCORE COMPARISONS ACROSS JUNIOR OFFICER 

RANKS...................................................................................................................... 19

FIGURE 2. PROXY ANALYSES – MEAN COMPOSITE SCORE COMPARISONS FOR 

EXITING, OFFICER PROXY, AND EXPERT PROXY SAMPLES...................... 36

FIGURE 3. PROXY ANALYSES – MEAN COMPOSITE SCORE COMPARISONS FOR 

TARGET AND OFFICER PROXY SAMPLES - DETAILED SUBGROUPS ....... 37

FIGURE 4. PROXY ANALYSES – MEAN COMPOSITE SCORE COMPARISONS FOR 

TARGET AND EXPERT PROXY SAMPLES - DETAILED SUBGROUPS......... 38
xii
1

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF THE OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY AND 

PROXY GROUP DESIGN

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Army has faced a variety of challenges meeting manpower goals and 

maintaining the strength of the All Volunteer Force (AVF). It requires officers who have 

developed or can develop the qualities needed for effective job performance and organizational 

success, and who choose to stay with the Army for significant periods of time. According to the 

Army Training and Leader Development Panel (ATLDP) Officer Study Report to the Army 

(2003), retention is a significant issue for lieutenants and captains as they contemplate remaining 

in the Army after completion of their first Active Duty Service Obligation (ADSO). While 

officer personnel strength projections are improving, the Army projects personnel shortages for 

captains through 2011 and majors through 2013 (Rochelle, 2009).

Keeping officers in the Army who have been trained in their Branch or Functional Area 

and who have demonstrated a high level of performance provides a number of benefits: (1) the 

force level is maintained; (2) the Army receives a greater return on its investment in their 

training; (3) institutional knowledge is retained; and (4) a steady supply of new leaders is 

prepared. Further, the loss of officers after their first ADSO is expensive in both monetary and 

non-monetary terms. In monetary terms, a great deal of money is invested in officer training, 

both pre- and post-commission; losing those officers to the civilian sector is expensive. In nonmonetary terms, loss of officers results in loss of training and experience, lower overall 

productivity, and reduced military readiness (Gencer, 2002). These factors have made improving 

officer retention a critically important need.

In order to help the Army address these issues for the long term, ARI sponsored a threeyear research program, titled "Strategies to Enhance Retention" (code named "STAY"). STAY 

was designed to improve the continuance of the Army's junior officers and enlisted Soldiers. The 

goals of the STAY project were to create a scientifically defensible conceptual model or models 

for understanding the career continuance decision process and to develop sustainable 

interventions that the Army could use to enhance the career continuance of qualified officers and 

enlisted Soldiers, with a focus on the Active Army. The STAY project was intended to move the 

U.S. Army Research Institute (ARI) beyond studying the underlying causes of attrition and 

retention decisions to focusing on career continuance interventions that would support the future 

Army (Johnson, Hezlett, Mael & Schneider, 2009; Kubisiak, Young, Legree & Tremble, 2010).

The work described in this report is an extension of the STAY project, with a directed 

focus on officer career continuance. A goal of the present research was to examine factors that 

influence junior officers to continue serving beyond their initial ADSO or separate from the 

Active Army. In doing so, career continuance factors and separation motives were identified and 

documented for Active Army junior officers (O1-O3) with less than 10 years of active duty 

service as commissioned officers. A second primary objective of the research was to examine the 

feasibility of using proxy samples as alternative sources of information to understand the motives 

of separating junior officers; proxy samples might serve as a valid, efficient, alternative source 
2

for capturing reasons junior officers decide to stay in or separate from the Active Army. These 

findings would also inform ARI’s objective of moving toward a more integrated, streamlined, 

and efficient application of survey research methodology.

This effort builds on past and current work done by ARI, PDRI and others to develop 

survey instruments that efficiently and effectively measure influences on career continuance 

decisions (Johnson et al., 2009; Kubisiak et al., 2010). More specifically, a similar research 

approach and survey design was evaluated as part of the Enlisted STAY project (Lentz, Horgen, 

Bryant, Kubisiak, Jackson, Smith, Dullaghan, Legree, & Young, 2010). In this work, a Soldier 

Transition Survey was developed to identify the primary reasons junior enlisted Soldiers (E1-E4) 

and non-commissioned officers (NCOs; E5-E6) considered when making the decision to reenlist 

in the Active Army. Additionally, junior Soldiers and NCOs who were in their reenlistment 

window (i.e., within 24 months of completing their current service obligation), career counselors, 

and Army Career Alumni Program (ACAP) Transition Services Managers (TSMs) were 

examined as potential proxy sources for gathering junior Soldier and NCO career continuance 

information. Results indicated the Soldier Transition Survey provided useful empirical 

information regarding reasons junior Soldiers and NCOs decided to stay in or leave upon 

completion of their contract term. Moreover, proxy sample analyses identified a high degree of 

convergence between junior Soldiers and NCOs who recently made their reenlistment decision 

(target sample), Soldiers and NCOs in their reenlistment window (Soldier proxy samples), and 

career counselors and TSMs (expert proxy samples). These findings suggest that the Soldier 

Transition Survey, combined with a proxy research design, offers the Army an efficient solution 

for capturing valid enlisted career continuance information.

For the current project, an Officer Transition Survey (OTS) was developed, and a similar 

proxy research design was utilized, to examine officer career continuance decision processes. 

Specifically, we developed a survey instrument to identify the career continuance factors and 

separation motives of junior officers with less than 10 years of active duty service as 

commissioned officers who were actively out-processing at the Transition Centers (target 

sample). Additionally, we gathered data from junior officers and experts who work closely with 

junior officers (proxy samples) and evaluated the validity of these proxy responses. The findings 

and approach suggest important implications for future applications of survey research in the 

Army.

Overview of Report

We first review relevant literature on exit surveys with a focus on their use in the military 

in order to introduce the major issues addressed by this project. We then describe the OTS 

content, item generation procedures, and the administration design. In addition, the OTS is 

compared to other Army surveys. Next, the samples that were surveyed and the factor structure 

of the OTS are described. We then summarize the reasons junior officers may decide to leave or 

stay in the Active Army. Next, we assess the validity of utilizing different types of proxy groups 

as sources of information about exiting officer separation motives. Finally, we provide a 

summary evaluation of the OTS effort and recommendations for future research on officer career 

continuance survey research.
3

GENERAL OVERVIEW OF EXIT SURVEYS

The following paragraphs review the use of exit surveys, summarize their use in the 

military, and discuss their use in the Army. In our review, we focus on the utility of exit surveys 

and the issues associated with surveying members who have decided to leave the organization. 

This information provides context regarding both the advantages and potential challenges 

associated with capturing career continuance and separation motive information.

Overview

Army leaders need timely, reliable, and scientifically-based information to understand, 

forecast, and manage the retention of junior officers. One method for gathering this information 

is through exit surveys. Exit surveys have been widely used by both civilian and military 

organizations to gather information from separating personnel. This information can be gathered 

in several ways, including an interview or a survey that consists of multiple choice, checklist, 

and open-ended response formats. In addition, these methods can be administered at the time of 

separation, after a specified time period, or both. Although the interviews and surveys are often 

administered by human resource professionals within the organization, they can be administered 

by a third party as well. The content of information gathered through this process varies across 

organizations, but may include the reason for separation, as well as opinions regarding positive 

and negative aspects of the job, supervision, compensation, working conditions, and career 

development (Garrison & Ferguson, 1977). Exit surveys can provide a forum for exiting 

employees to discuss problems encountered during employment and reasons for leaving. If 

conducted effectively, the survey results can help employers identify major problem areas to be 

addressed, and may thereby reduce turnover rates and improve morale (Garrison & Ferguson, 

1977).

Accuracy of Exit Surveys

The utility of information gathered via exit interviewing and surveying has been well 

supported. For example, in a major study by the Department of Defense, exit surveys identified 

theft and procedures that made the organization susceptible to theft. Analyses also indicated that 

these data were not susceptible to bias that might invalidate the results (Giacalone, 1993). 

However, the accuracy of exit surveys can vary for a variety of reasons. Researchers and 

practitioners have expressed concerns regarding the validity, reliability, and representativeness of 

exit interviews and surveys (e.g., Giacalone, Elig, Ginexi, & Bright, 1995; Giacalone, 

Jurkiewicz, & Knouse, 2003; Hinrichs, 1971; Lefkowitz & Katz, 1969).

Giacalone and his colleagues (2003) noted that the issues with exit surveys generally fall 

into administrative and methodological areas. Administrative issues center on problems with the 

way the surveys are administered or the way the results are reported and utilized. Often 

organizations fail to consider their goals for exit surveys, rush employees through the survey 

administrations, fail to carefully analyze the data, or fail to act on survey results (Giacalone et al., 

2003).

Methodological flaws are described as inherent to the exit survey process itself. One of 

the concerns mentioned by researchers is that separating personnel may not provide accurate 
4

feedback or may distort their responses. These individuals may be unwilling to report sensitive 

issues, be concerned about negative information harming friends or colleagues remaining in the 

organization, or be concerned about their own future opportunities (Giacalone et al., 2003). 

Separating individuals may also exaggerate negative information as a way to justify their 

separation decisions. They may distort their responses to fit with what they believe 

administrators want to hear, or they may underreport negative information because they do not 

believe that the organization will actually act on any of the reported problems (Giacalone et al., 

2003). Finally, responses from separating individuals may be distorted by the emotional 

reactions to the separation process. Several researchers have found that reported reasons for 

separation given during exit interviews are often different from those reported a month or more 

after separation (e.g., accepted another job vs. unable to cope with pressure; Lefkowitz & Katz, 

1969; Hinrichs, 1971).

Based on extensive data analyses, it is believed that these problems can be mitigated 

through a well-designed survey data collection process. For example, Woods and Macaulay 

(1987) suggest that using a survey format, rather than an interview format, can increase exiting 

employees’ willingness to provide candid responses. In addition, Jurkiewicz, Knouse, and 

Giacalone (2001) recommend that having a neutral third party administer the survey can help 

improve the accuracy of responses. In terms of content, Giacalone (1989) recommends avoiding 

questions that could potentially get the interviewee or someone they know in trouble, could 

embarrass or offend, or involve probing into highly personal areas. Giacalone and Knouse (1989)

advise that the approach should focus on the job, work, and company environment and avoid 

personal issues.

Exit Surveys in the Military

Surveys have frequently been used to monitor reasons service members stay in or exit the 

military. Issues addressed in these surveys include job assignments, promotion opportunities, pay 

and benefits, training and educational opportunities, spouse and family issues, and inequitable 

treatment. In this section, we provide a few examples of recent joint service, Air Force, Navy, 

Marine Corps, and Coast Guard exit surveys to illustrate the type of information collected and 

some of the results that were found.

The Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) conducted one of the most extensive 

military exit surveys to date. The 2000 Military Exit Survey was a joint-service exit survey and 

was administered to approximately 16,000 respondents (response rate of 20%). The survey 

contained four sections, which addressed reasons for leaving; command climate and leadership; 

satisfaction with military pay, benefits, and work; and plans after active duty service. Subgroup 

differences based on branch of service, paygrade, gender, and retirement/separation intentions 

were also examined (Hoover, Randolph, Elig, & Klein, 2001).

Individual branches of the Armed Forces have also conducted separate efforts. In one 

recent example, the 2000 Air Force Careers and New Directions Surveys examined members’ 

reasons for staying in and leaving the Air Force, respectively (Hamilton & Datko, 2000). Results 

indicated that patriotism and retirement benefits were the top reasons to stay, whereas 
5

assignments, pay, and perceived civilian opportunities were identified as the most important 

reasons to leave.

The Navy has made use of several different exit surveys. The Navy Separation/Retention 

Survey (NSRS) was administered to service members at the time of their departure from the 

Navy. Researchers were concerned that the results might not be representative of the separating 

population due to a low response rate (less than nine percent; Hoover et. al, 2001). The NSRS 

was replaced by a web-based survey called the Argus Retention Survey (Navy Personnel 

Research, Studies, and Technology (NPRST), 2000), which tracks service members’ career 

decisions at transition points throughout their careers. It includes demographics, key factors in 

the decision to leave or stay, and career intentions. Results from 2002 data collected from 

officers demonstrated that promotional opportunities, availability of supplies, trust in leadership, 

red tape, and job satisfaction were top reasons to leave. Family support, job satisfaction, 

promotional opportunities, job interest, and senior officer leadership quality were top reasons to 

stay. However, reasons for leaving or staying varied according to subgroup and years of service 

(Supko, 2003).

In 1999, the Marine Corps employed a web-based exit survey to examine various factors 

contributing to the decision to leave active duty service (N=2537). Overall, the three factors that 

were most influential in enlisted members’ decision to leave were civilian career opportunities, 

pay, and limitations on personal freedom (Hocevar, 2000). In addition, the Marine Corps has 

examined officers’ reasons for leaving. The Officer Separation Questionnaire gathers ratings of 

the importance of dimensions in officers’ decision to leave the Marine Corps as well as a ranking 

of the three most important reasons to leave (Powell, 1987). In 2001, the Marine Corps Retention 

Survey was administered to enlisted and officer active duty Marines. The survey contains items 

on leadership, careers, current job and working conditions, personal and family life, military pay 

and benefits, military culture, and employment opportunities.

In 2001 the Coast Guard utilized the web-based Coast Guard Career Intentions Survey 

for enlisted, officer, and civilian personnel leaving the organization. Results from approximately 

1,200 respondents indicated that key factors for those who were staying included job security, 

health care, morale, workload, and organizational climate. Key factors for those who were 

leaving included dissatisfaction with their Coast Guard experience and the amount of control 

over their jobs (Wehrenberg, 2001).

Exit Surveys in the Army

Exit surveys have also been used to identify issues associated with Soldiers’ decisions to 

stay in or leave the Army. These efforts have varied in terms of the issues addressed and the 

population surveyed. Next, we provide a few recent examples of Army exit surveys.

The Army Career Transition Survey (ACTS) was designed to assess Soldiers’ satisfaction 

and dissatisfaction with various aspects of Army life and determine whether these factors were 

associated with their decision to leave the Army. It was administered to separating Soldiers from 

1990 to 1995. Major reasons for leaving included issues pertaining to family, leadership, respect, 
6

promotion/advancement opportunity, overall quality of Army life, recognition for 

accomplishments, and control over job assignments. Although there were few demographic 

subgroup differences in reasons for leaving, Giacalone and his colleagues (1995) revealed that 

those separating involuntarily were less satisfied than those separating voluntarily. Because 

analyses did not reveal statistically significant differences between similar items on the ACTS 

and the Sample Survey of Military Personnel (SSMP), Giacalone (2000) recommended 

discontinuing the ACTS. The SSMP includes items on retention, reasons for leaving the Army, 

quality of life, leadership, command climate, job satisfaction, morale, family matters, and career 

advancement. It is administered semi-annually to Active Army personnel by the Army Personnel 

Survey Office to help guide and inform Army policies, programs, and services (U.S. Army 

Personnel Survey Office, 2006).

Several more recent surveys include the Survey on Officer Careers (SOC), Project First 

Term Exit Survey, and the Army Soldier Transition Survey. The SOC, which was developed 

from the Longitudinal Research on Officer Careers Survey (LROC; in use 1988-1992; Harris, 

Wochinger, Schwartz, & Parham, 1993), tracks the attitudes and experiences of officers during 

their careers in the Active Army, covering a wide range of issues related to officers’ jobs, 

officers’ careers, and the Army. The SOC, which has been administered intermittently from 1996 

to the present, gives officers the opportunity to provide input into the policy and program 

decisions impacting all competitive category and warrant officers (Jones, 1999). The results are

provided to senior Army leaders for their planning, policy, and program decisions.

Project First Term was one of the first comprehensive longitudinal studies of Army 

personnel attrition. It involved a six-year effort that followed Soldiers from the FY99 accession 

cohort through their first term of service. Exit surveys were administered to Soldiers who 

prematurely exited Initial Entry Training (IET). Results showed that attrition in the first 6 

months was primarily due to medical/physical factors. After the first 6 months, moral character 

attrition, pregnancy/parenthood attrition, and attrition due to deviance-related issues were more 

prevalent. A follow-up study based on the FY03 cohort indicated that the FY99 and FY03 

cohorts were quite similar in the factors that led to attrition during the first term of service (Putka 

& Strickland, 2005).

The Soldier Transition Survey was developed as part of Project STAY with the aim of 

increasing career continuance of junior enlisted Soldiers and junior NCOs. The survey was 

created to assist the Army in better understanding the issues that affect junior Soldiers’ and 

NCOs’ decisions to stay in the Army or leave upon contract completion. The survey items cover 

10 content areas, including MOS/assignment, career progression, deployments, unit leadership, 

peers, unit cohesion, family support and concern, quality of life, Army benefits, and Army career 

alternatives. Top reasons to stay in the Army reported by recently reenlisted or those considering 

reenlistment included military benefits, comparisons to civilian alternatives, patriotism, and 

peers. Exiting Soldiers reported the Army's "Stop-Loss" policy, deployments, family-related 

issues, and poor unit morale as top reasons to leave the Army (Lentz et al., 2010).

Several Army exit surveys have focused on specific populations or topics. For example, a 

1999-2001 exit survey examined the effects of operations tempo (OPTEMPO) on reenlistment 
7

decisions of 288 U.S. Soldiers in Europe within six months of their reenlistment window. Results 

indicated that OPTEMPO can have differential effects on reenlistment decisions depending on its 

level, Soldiers’ personal expectations and family situations, and individual attitudes toward such 

experiences (Huffman, Adler, Dolan, & Castro, 2005). In another example, the Army Nurse 

Corps Research Department conducted a survey of 161 Army nurses between 2002 and 2004. 

Results revealed direct relationships between attrition of Army Nurse Corps officers and 

deployments, increased OPTEMPO, limited and/or lack of incentive pay and special bonus, lack 

of compensation for extra hours work, and the civilian nursing shortage (Gahol, 2005).

Alternative Sources of Information

As noted in the previous section, there are several issues associated with collecting 

accurate information from personnel exiting the organization. However, this information is 

critical to developing strategies to manage retention of highly qualified and trained personnel. 

One option proposed to address this concern is the use of proxy sources of information. As far as 

we know, few researchers have explored the use of a proxy research design for exit surveys. The 

notion is that other individuals within the organization may be able to provide accurate and valid 

information regarding reasons individuals decide to leave the organization. Further, their 

collective judgments may accurately describe the reasons individuals are exiting the 

organization.

In a study of enlisted Army Soldiers, researchers found that the results from several

proxy groups closely matched the pattern of results from the target groups surveyed. More 

specifically, career counselor and TSM responses correlated significantly with exiting Soldiers 

responses (r=.84). The researchers concluded that individuals who work closely with Soldiers 

and NCOs are valid, alternative sources of information for providing insight into separation and 

reenlistment motives and decisions (Lentz et al., 2010).

Using proxy groups may also mitigate some of the administrative and methodological 

issues associated with the use of exit surveys. Identification of appropriate proxy groups may be 

a challenge in some organizations; however, the Army is particularly well-suited to examining 

the use of proxy groups for collecting information regarding separation motives. In the remaining 

sections of this report, we describe the development of an exit survey for junior officers (called 

the OTS) and the effort to identify and evaluate efficient and valid alternative sources for 

gathering career continuance data and separation motives of junior officers.

OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY (OTS) DEVELOPMENT

Content Development

Content development of the OTS instruments involved an iterative process utilizing 

multiple sources of information. This ensured the survey items: (1) conveyed the correct 

meaning; (2) covered the appropriate content; (3) were interpretable by the target officer 

population; and (4) provided useful and important information.
8

First, we reviewed civilian and military separation motive research and relevant officer 

career continuance research (e.g., Officer STAY notes and reports; Johnson et al., 2009). This 

also included extensive review of surveys and reports to capture Soldier and officer career data, 

such as the SSMP and SOC. Based upon this review, we derived initial content areas and survey 

items.

Next, we conducted multiple focus group sessions with Army Subject Matter Experts 

(SMEs) in 2008. Army SMEs included lieutenants, captains, and Human Resources Command 

(HRC) Career Managers/Assignment Officers. We met with lieutenants and captains across 

multiple Army posts to gain additional insight into the current issues and factors that influence 

their career continuance decisions. HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers also served as 

SMEs in the content development process because of their experience working with junior 

officers as they reach important career milestones, such as whether to extend their ADSO. 

During the focus group sessions, we asked all participants to review the draft OTS and provide 

feedback and suggestions for improvement. In total, we conducted 12 survey review sessions 

with 19 lieutenants and 91 captains across 3 Army posts. We also received support from 18 

captains, 4 majors, and 2 lieutenant colonels from HRC.

Throughout this process, the project team closely reviewed SME feedback and revised 

survey items accordingly. The focus group sessions were conducted consecutively in order to 

incorporate feedback from each session into subsequent sessions. Consistent feedback gathered 

from the majority of participants was given more weight and priority than feedback obtained 

from one or two individuals. Additional considerations included survey length and intended, 

long-term applications of the survey.

We identified nine content areas that appeared related to the career continuance decisions 

and separation motives of junior officers. These content areas included: (1) Branch/Functional 

Area/Assignment; (2) Army Career Progression; (3) Deployments; (4) Leadership Experiences 

and Development; (5) Peers; (6) Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie; (7) Quality of Personal/Family 

Life; (8) Quality of Army Life; and (9) Alternatives to Army Career. Across content areas, 94 

items were examined as important reasons to leave or stay in the Active Army. Survey items 

used a 9-point response scale with responses ranging from "Extremely Important Reason to 

LEAVE (1)" to "NOT an Important Reason to LEAVE or STAY (5)" to "Extremely Important 

Reason to STAY (9)".

In addition to the items in the nine content areas, we included demographic and 

background items, and items pertaining to deployment experience (e.g., months deployed, 

number of times deployed), officer and job experiences (e.g., current branch/functional area, 

positions and assignments, completion of Captain’s Career Course), and career intentions.
9

Comparison to the Sample Survey of Military Personnel (SSMP)

and Survey on Officer Careers (SOC)

To further assess the OTS content, design, and methodology, the SOC and SSMP were 

reviewed (Jones, 1999; U.S. Army Personnel Survey Office, 2006). The SOC tracks the attitudes 

and experiences of officers during their careers in the Active Army, covering a wide range of 

issues related to officers’ jobs, officers’ careers, and the Army. The SSMP gathers information 

on a broad array of issues important to Active Army policy and Soldier and family well-being. 

The SSMP is administered twice a year; and the SOC is administered every other year to Active 

Army personnel by the Army Personnel Survey Office to help guide and inform Army policies, 

programs, and services.

There are several similarities between the OTS and SOC. Both surveys require 

participation from Active Army Officers, although the SOC has broader participation than the 

OTS. The items in both surveys assess similar content areas, such as deployments, family 

matters, army life, and assignments. The OTS is also similar in terms of content to the SSMP. 

Items in both surveys assess deployments, family issues, and unit issues, among other content 

areas.

However, there are also differences in item-level content, organization, and presentation 

between the surveys. Because the goal of the OTS is to capture career continuance decision 

information, the items provide more detail and coverage within certain content areas than do the 

items in the SOC and SSMP. Also, the SSMP is only administered to enlisted Soldiers and 

NCOs. Further, both the SOC and the SSMP provide reports of aggregated self-report data, 

whereas the OTS also uses a proxy sample design and methodology. Thus, the review of the 

SOC and SSMP did not identify significant gaps or areas that needed further coverage and 

consideration within the OTS. These comparisons support the depth of coverage of the OTS and 

do not identify additional survey items or content that would provide additional information 

beyond the current OTS form and design.

Probably the most important difference between the OTS and the SOC is that the OTS 

was designed to document officer separation motives using small samples of respondents 

(N < 500), while the SOC (and SSMP) was designed to explore a variety of issues using much 

larger samples of respondents. For example, in the most recent administration, the SOC census 

included approximately 67,000 officers and resulted in over 27,000 completed surveys (U.S. 

Army Personnel Survey Office, n.d.). It follows that the OTS may provide a much more 

economical method to document trends that influence officer retention decisions and develop 

related personnel policy.

Sample Specification and Data Collection Design

The goals of this effort were to examine the career continuance decision and separation 

motives of junior officers and to evaluate efficient and valid alternative sources for gathering this 

type of information. Thus, our efforts involved examining responses from a target sample and 
10

proxy samples. To meet these goals, we developed three parallel forms of the OTS: (1) an Exit 

Form; (2) a General Form; and (3) an Expert Form. These forms are available in the appendix to 

this report.

Target Sample - Exit Form. The Exit Form was developed to capture career continuance 

decision and separation motive data from exiting officers. Because we were interested in 

focusing on officers who made the final decision to leave the Active Army, this sample was 

limited to junior officers who were actively out-processing at Army Transition Centers. Items on 

the Exit Form utilized a self-report format in which respondents indicated the importance of a 

variety of issues to their individual decisions to leave or stay in Active Army.

Proxy Sample - General Form. A General Form was developed to obtain responses from a 

junior officer proxy sample. This sample represents officers who were in the process of making 

the decision to continue serving beyond their service obligation and included a mix of officers 

who: (1) indicated that they planned to stay in the Active Army; (2) submitted their separation 

paperwork but changed their mind and decided to stay in the Active Army; (3) were undecided 

about their decision to stay in or separate from the Active Army; (4) indicated they planned to 

separate but had not yet submitted separation paperwork; and (5) had submitted their separation 

paperwork. Items on the General Form also utilized a self-report format in which respondents 

indicated the importance of a variety of issues to their future or upcoming decisions to leave or 

stay in the Active Army.

Proxy Sample - Expert Form. Finally, we obtained samples of experts who worked closely with 

junior officers and had direct knowledge of junior officer separation motives. Rather than 

provide self-report data, this sample was directed to make judgments regarding junior officer 

career continuance decisions based upon their knowledge and experience working with junior 

officers. Specifically, the experts were asked to indicate how most separating officers would 

respond regarding the importance of a variety of issues related to their decisions to leave or stay 

in the Active Army. We utilized three types of experts: (1) senior commissioned officers 

attached to operational units; (2) HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers; and (3) ACAP 

TSMs. We selected senior officers, such as battalion and brigade commanders because these 

officers directly supervise, have daily interactions with, and likely serve in a mentoring capacity 

to junior officers. HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers were selected based upon their 

duties associated with providing support and assistance to junior officers on important career 

decisions, such as whether to extend their service obligation. Finally, ACAP personnel are 

responsible for managing the services that support officers who are separating from the Active 

Army.

OTS ADMINISTRATION

Exit, General, and Expert Form data were collected during Spring and Summer 2009. 

Data collections were organized with support and coordination from U.S. Army Forces 

Command (FORSCOM) umbrella weeks, Installation Management Command (IMCOM, 

including individual Army Transition Centers), and HRC. Paper-and-pencil versions of the 
11

surveys were administered to participants completing the Exit and Expert Forms. Paper and webbased versions were administered to officers completing the General Form.

Response Rate

Exit Form. Exit Form surveys were administered to separating junior officers as they were outprocessing through Army Transition Centers. Exit Form surveys were sent to Transition Center 

Managers at 15 posts throughout the continental United States, along with specific instructions to 

hand out surveys to junior officers as they completed their out-processing paperwork. The 

Transition Center Managers sent the individually sealed surveys back to the project staff for data 

entry and analyses.

A total of 195 exiting officers completed the Exit Form across 12 Army posts. Of those, 

26 cases were flagged and removed. Specifically, 15 cases were identified as lacking variance in 

responding based on a standard deviation of zero across multiple sections of the survey; 10 cases 

were not part of our target sample (i.e., they had more than 10 years of service as a 

commissioned officer in the Active Army and/or a rank higher than O-3); and 4 cases indicated 

their separation was involuntary. Thus, the final Exit Form dataset included responses from 169 

junior officers exiting the Active Army.

General Form. The research team administered both paper- and web-based OTS General Forms. 

The paper version was administered to junior officers serving in their units during onsite data 

collections conducted by project staff at five Army posts. This sample included a mix of officers 

with varying career plans regarding their intentions to stay in or separate from the Active Army. 

The web version was administered to junior officers who intended to separate from the Active 

Army. Because officers are required to submit separation paperwork 12 months in advance of 

their voluntary separation date, we identified this sample by targeting officers who had submitted 

resignation packets to HRC. The email solicitation request for the web-based General Form is 

included in the appendix to this report. Together, the General Form sample included junior 

officers who were considering or were in the process of making the decision to stay in or 

separate from the Active Army.

Of the 236 officers who took the paper-based General Form, 9 cases were flagged and 

removed from the dataset due to a lack of variance across multiple sections of the survey and/or 

these cases were not identified as part of our target sample (i.e., they had more than 10 years of 

service as a commissioned officer in the Active Army and/or a rank higher than O-3). For the 

286 officers who completed the web-based General Form, 28 cases were removed because of a 

lack of variance and/or the target sample inclusion criteria. Thus, the combined General Form 

sample included responses from 485 junior officers (N=227 paper survey; N=258 web survey).

Expert Form. A sample of officers and personnel who have direct knowledge of junior officer 

separation motives was asked to complete the OTS Expert Form. More specifically, we 

requested support from senior commissioned officers who were attached to operational units, 

HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers, and ACAP TSMs.
12

We utilized multiple data collection strategies for the Expert Form. We collected 

responses from senior commissioned officers attached to operational units during onsite data 

collections conducted by project staff at five Army posts. During these onsite data collections, 

we administered OTS Expert Forms to battalion and brigade level commanders, executive 

officers (XOs), and staff. Onsite data collections were also conducted by members of the project 

team at HRC to administer these forms to HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers. Finally, 

ACAP personnel were mailed survey packets with individual instructions for completing the 

Expert Form.

A total of 69 officers and personnel completed the OTS Expert Form. One case was 

dropped based upon uniform responding across multiple sections of the survey. This resulted in a 

final sample of 68 participants completing the Expert Form (N=31 battalion/brigade 

commanders, XOs, staff; N=19 HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers; N=18 ACAP 

TSMs).

Sample Characteristics

Sample characteristics by survey form are presented in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4. The Exit and 

General Forms included a larger number of officer demographic items, resulting in more 

information on the characteristics of the officer samples than for participants completing the 

Expert Form.

Table 1 provides information on final sample sizes, gender, age, Hispanic declaration, 

and race/ethnicity for the officer Exit and General Form samples. Table 2 highlights career 

information for all three samples including source of commission, officer rank, and 

branch/functional area. Please note, responses from experts reflect descriptions of the junior 

officers with whom they worked. For example, 13 experts indicated working with separating 

second lieutenants, 37 experts worked with first lieutenants, and almost all of the sample (N=65) 

identified themselves as working closely with separating captains. Table 3 presents exiting 

officer and officer proxy career intentions information, including primary reasons they became a 

commissioned officer in the Active Army, career plans when first commissioned, and average 

time spent as a commissioned officer in the Active Army. Next, Table 4 highlights family 

characteristics (i.e., marital status, spouse military status, number of dependents). Finally, Table 

5 provides information on deployment and temporary duty assignments (TDY).
13

Table 1. Demographic Characteristics of Junior Officer Samples

Exit General

N % N %

Sample Size 169 -- 485 --

Gender

Male 135 79.9 351 72.4

Female 34 20.1 128 26.4

Missing 0 0.0 6 1.2

Age

20-24 3 1.8 55 11.3

25-29 126 74.6 281 57.9

30-34 25 14.8 94 19.4

35-39 13 7.7 40 8.2

40-44 2 1.2 7 1.4

45-49 0 0.0 4 0.8

50+ 0 0.0 4 0.8

Hispanic Declaration

No 148 87.6 427 88.0

Yes – Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano 3 1.8 24 4.9

Yes – Puerto Rican 1 0.6 11 2.3

Yes – Cuban 1 0.6 0 0.0

Yes – Other 5 3.0 21 4.3

Missing 11 6.5 2 0.0

Race

American Indian or Alaskan Native 0 0.0 2 0.4

Asian 9 5.3 31 6.4

African-American 8 4.7 49 10.1

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0 0.0 0 0.0

White 139 82.2 367 75.7

2 or more selected 4 2.4 13 2.7

Missing 9 5.3 23 4.7
14

Table 2. Participant Career Information

Exit General Expert

N % N % N %

Sample Size 169 -- 485 -- 68 --

Source of Army Commission (Expert Sample May Select More Than One Option)

ROTC 82 48.5 248 51.1 54 79.4

USMA 36 21.3 84 17.3 42 61.8

OCS 37 21.9 92 19.0 27 39.7

Direct 8 4.7 44 9.1 7 10.3

Other 6 3.6 16 3.3 3 4.4

Missing 0 0.0 1 0.2 0 0.0

Rank (Expert Sample May Select More Than One Option)

2LT 4 2.4 54 11.1 13 19.1

1LT 11 6.5 122 25.2 37 54.4

CPT 153 90.5 308 63.5 65 95.6

Missing 1 0.6 1 0.2 0 0.0

Branch/Functional Area (Expert Sample May Select More Than One Option)

Maneuver Fires and Effects 104 61.5 205 42.3 33 48.5

Operational Support 12 7.1 72 14.8 21 30.9

Force Sustainment 27 16.0 102 21.0 29 42.6

Other 24 14.2 89 18.4 6 8.8

Missing 2 1.2 17 3.5 0 0.0

Assigned to Preferred Branch/Functional Area

Yes 121 71.6 345 71.1 -- --

No 48 28.4 139 28.7 -- --

Missing 0 0.0 1 0.2 -- --

Note. Branch/Functional Areas reflect new labels to categorize units. Categories were renamed as follows:

Maneuver Fires and Effects was Combat Arms; Operational Support was Combat Support; and Force

Sustainment was Combat Service Support. Expert responses reflect the characteristics of junior

officers that experts work closely with.
15

Table 3. Participant Career Intentions

Exit General

N % N %

Sample Size 169 -- 485 --

Primary Reason Became Army Commissioned Officer (May Select More Than One Option)

Desire to serve country 117 69.2 315 64.9

Desire to fight the GWOT 30 17.8 61 12.6

Desire to be a military officer 59 34.9 169 34.8

Develop self-discipline 6 3.6 18 3.7

Develop leadership qualities/skills 36 21.3 130 26.8

Do something exciting/interesting 47 27.8 131 27.0

Earn more money than from previous job(s) 2 1.2 28 5.8

Educational benefits 42 24.9 140 28.9

Family support services 0 0.0 2 0.4

Get away from/solve a personal problem 4 2.4 4 0.8

Influence of family 7 4.1 18 3.7

Influence of friends 2 1.2 3 0.6

Lack of civilian employment opportunities 2 1.2 5 1.0

Leadership opportunities 40 23.7 98 20.2

Medical care 0 0.0 10 2.1

Military tradition in family 22 13.0 70 14.4

Need to be on my own 1 0.6 15 3.1

Pay and allowances 2 1.2 27 5.6

Retirement pay and benefits 4 2.4 41 8.5

Security and stability of a job 3 1.8 55 11.3

Training in job skills 8 4.7 55 11.3

Travel 9 5.3 44 9.1

Other 8 4.7 32 6.6

Career Plans When First Commissioned

Was undecided about Army career plans 72 42.6 178 36.7

Complete initial obligation and leave 36 21.3 93 19.2

Stay beyond initial obligation, but no 

necessarily until retirement 33 19.5 92 19.0

Stay until eligible for retirement (or beyond) 28 16.6 122 25.2

Years on Active Duty as Army Commissioned Officer

Mean 4.70 4.02

Standard Deviation 1.55 2.08
16

Table 4. Family Characteristics of Samples

Exit General

N % N %

Sample Size 169 -- 485 --

Marital Status

Single, never married 70 41.4 198 40.8

Married 85 50.3 254 52.4

Legally separated or filing for divorce 0 0.0 8 1.6

Divorced 14 8.3 25 5.2

Spouse in U.S. Armed Forces

Does Not Apply; No Spouse 77 45.6 199 41.0

No 68 40.2 218 44.9

Yes, on active duty in Army 19 11.2 48 9.9

Yes, in Army Reserve or Army National Guard 5 3.0 12 2.5

Yes, on active duty in another military 

branch

0 0.0 4 0.8

Missing 0 0.0 4 0.8

Number of Dependents

0 121 71.6 343 70.7

1 21 12.4 66 13.6

2 23 13.6 46 9.5

3 2 1.2 18 3.7

4+ 2 1.2 12 2.5
17

Table 5. Participant Deployment Information

Exit General

N % N %

Sample Size 169 -- 485 --

Number of Deployments Within Last 5 Years

0 16 9.5 82 16.9

1 76 45.0 233 48.0

2 60 35.5 129 26.6

3 12 7.1 36 7.4

4+ 4 2.4 5 1.0

Missing 1 0.6 0 0.0

Total Months Deployed Within Last 5 Years

0 16 9.5 79 16.3

> 6 6 3.6 23 4.7

7-11 6 3.6 36 7.4

12-17 74 43.8 193 39.8

18-23 23 13.6 40 8.2

24-30 41 24.3 85 17.5

31+ 3 1.8 28 5.8

Missing 0 0.0 1 0.2

Total Months in TDY/Training Within Last 5 Years

0 18 10.7 74 15.3

> 6 96 56.8 226 46.6

7-11 19 11.2 80 16.5

12-17 18 10.7 59 12.2

18-23 9 5.3 23 4.7

24-30 7 4.1 12 2.5

31+ 2 1.2 10 2.1

Missing 0 0.0 1 0.2

Ever Received Stop-Loss/Stop-Movement Orders

Yes 54 32.0 147 30.3

No 115 68.0 338 69.7
18

PRELIMINARY ANALYSES

Factor Structure

The items included in the surveys were developed based on reviews of civilian and 

military separation and officer career continuance research, and were subsequently reviewed in a 

series of SME focus groups. The project team grouped the items into 9 areas based on their 

similarity in content: (1) Branch/Functional Area/Assignment; (2) Army Career Progression; (3) 

Deployments; (4) Leadership Experiences and Development; (5) Peers; (6) Unit Cohesion and 

Camaraderie; (7) Quality of Personal/Family Life; (8) Quality of Army Life; and (9) Alternatives 

to Army Career.

Factor analyses were conducted to empirically support the rationally-derived content 

areas. Our goal was to reduce the 94 items into a consolidated set of composites to efficiently 

and meaningfully describe the survey results. For examination of the underlying structure of the 

surveys, the Exit and General Forms were analyzed separately using principle axis factoring. We 

were unable to conduct a factor analysis on the Expert Form due to the number of variables 

exceeding the sample size (N=68). Results of the factor analyses provided support for computing 

9 composite scores, confirming the original content area structure.

We also conducted reliability (coefficient alpha) analyses on the items contained in the 9 

content areas. Results of these analyses indicated that two of the survey items did not fit well 

with the remaining items in the content area. The first item, “number of deployments-too few”, 

in the Deployments content area had negative (General and Exit Forms) or zero (Expert Form) 

item-total correlations. The second item, “opportunity to serve my country” had near-zero itemtotal correlations with the items in the Quality of Army Life content area.

We computed 9 composite scores by averaging the Likert-scale items within each content 

area. When we computed the Deployments and Quality of Army Life composites, the two items 

listed above were not included in the final composite scores. The final number of items within 

each composite score (content area), and internal consistency estimates are presented in Table 6. 

The number of items in each composite score ranged from 4 to 15 items with internal 

consistency (alpha) estimates in the moderate to high range for all three survey forms.
19

Table 6. Composite Score Reliabilities 

Content Area/Composite Scores # of Items

Exit Form 

Alpha

General 

Form Alpha

Expert 

Form Alpha

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment 9 .85 .87 .81

Career Progression 7 .86 .87 .88

Deployments 14 .87 .89 .88

Leadership Experiences & Development 13 .91 .91 .93

Peers 4 .95 .94 .95

Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie 7 .86 .89 .92

Quality of Personal/Family Life 13 .87 .89 .92

Army Quality of Life 10 .77 .89 .89

Alternatives to Army Career 15 .90 .93 .87

Junior Officer Response Comparisons

In order to assess whether second lieutenant (2LT), first lieutenant (1LT), and captain 

(CPT) survey responses (O1-O3, respectively) could be aggregated within survey forms, we 

examined response pattern differences between the three ranks for the General and Exit Forms. 

More specifically, we examined composite score level differences for the three groups by 

computing a series of ANOVAs with Bonferroni post-hoc tests. We also plotted composite-level 

means to visually explore the response pattern characteristics. As described in the previous 

section, the composite means were computed by averaging the Likert-scaled items within each 

content area.

Although composite score comparisons suggested significant differences for most of the 

nine content areas, these effects were small to moderate. A closer examination of the composite 

means revealed that 2LTs, 1LTs, and CPTs exhibited similar response patterns to these sets of 

items. The elevation differences are a function of CPTs using the lower end of the response scale 

to rate item importance. That is, the same items were highlighted as the most important in the 

decision to stay in or leave the Active Army, but CPTs typically responded more negatively than 

2LTs or 1LTs. Second lieutenant and 1LT responses were similar to one another, with only two 

composite score differences between the 2LT and 1LT samples. 

Composite means were plotted in Figure 1 to illustrate response differences across the 

groups. Again, although small elevation differences can be noted, the response pattern for 2LT, 

1LT, and CPT is clearly similar. Given these results, presenting separate results for 2LTs, 1LTs, 

and CPTs is not warranted for the purposes of this report. Thus, subsequent analyses combine 

these ranks for examining career continuance influencers and separation motives.
20

Figure 1. Mean Composite Score Comparisons Across Junior Officer Ranks

Note. N=58 for the 2LT sample; N=132-133 for the 1LT sample; N=460-461 for the CPT sample. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to 

LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00 Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

Army CareerProgression

DeploymentsLeadership

Experiences 

& Development Peers Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie Quality of Personal/

Family Life

Quality of Army Life Alternatives to Army Career Means

2LT 1LT CPT
21

CAREER CONTINUANCE AND SEPARATION ANALYSES

OTS career continuance and separation motive analyses included examination of 

importance ratings at both the composite and item level. Because we were interested in 

identifying and documenting career continuance factors and separation motive data for exiting 

officers, only responses from junior officers actively out-processing at the Transition Center 

(Exit Form) are included in this section.

First, we present importance composite-level means and standard deviations, followed by 

importance item-level means and standard deviations within each of the content areas. Then, we 

identify the primary influences across content areas by providing rank-ordered lists of the top 15 

items identified as reasons to stay in or separate from the Active Army.

Composite-level Means and Standard Deviations

The computed composite scores were used to highlight the importance of each of the 

content areas in the career continuance decision process. Table 7 presents the means and 

standard deviations for the content area composite scores. Exiting junior officers indicated that 

items related to Quality of Personal/Family Life (M=3.43, SD=1.13) and Deployments (M=3.74, 

SD=1.12) were most influential in the decision to leave the Active Army. Alternately, items 

assessing Peers (M=5.34, SD=2.00), Leadership Experiences and Development (M=5.14, 

SD=1.64), and Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie (M=5.07, SD=1.59) were more important in the 

decision to stay in the Active Army.

Table 7. Mean Ratings for Composite Scores

Composite Score M SD

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment 4.63 1.53

Career Progression 4.45 1.61

Deployments 3.74 1.12

Leadership Experiences & Development 5.14 1.64

Peers 5.34 2.00

Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie 5.07 1.59

Quality of Personal/Family Life 3.43 1.13

Army Quality of Life 4.33 1.12

Alternatives to Army Career 4.05 1.29

Note. N=168-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT

an Important Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”
22

Item-level Means and Standard Deviations

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment Items

A total of nine items pertaining to Branch or Functional Area characteristics were 

included in the Exit Form of the survey. These items assessed officer perceptions of specific job 

characteristics as well as satisfaction with their branch overall. Table 8 provides means and 

standard deviations for the importance levels of these items. Items are sorted by most important 

reasons to leave (lowest rated items) to most important reasons to stay (highest rated items) in 

the Active Army. Exiting junior officers reported that the length and number of working hours 

(M = 3.67, SD = 1.88) and day-to-day work-related tasks (M = 4.33, SD = 2.08) were the most 

important reasons to leave the Active Army. The amount of challenge from the job (M = 5.11, 

SD = 2.18) and the branch/functional area itself (M = 5.30, SD = 2.37) were rated as the most 

important reasons to stay.

Table 8. Mean Ratings for Branch/Functional Area/Assignment Items

Item M SD

Length/number of working hours 3.67 1.88

Day-to-day work-related tasks 4.33 2.08

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from job 4.39 2.67

Use of skills and abilities on the job 4.51 2.41

Duty assignment/mission 4.57 2.52

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform job 4.84 2.01

Quality of training to perform in job 4.93 2.15

Amount of challenge from job 5.11 2.18

Branch/Functional Area 5.30 2.37

Note. N=169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to

LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Army Career Progression Items

Table 9 provides means and standard deviations for the seven survey items related to 

Army Career Progression, including officer attitudes regarding the Army promotional system 

and training/educational opportunities in both the military and civilian sector. Items are ranked 

from most important reasons to leave to most important reasons to stay, according to exiting 

officers. The most influential reason for leaving the Army within this content area was the lack 

of fairness of the Army promotion system (M = 3.98, SD = 2.35) followed by a lack of 

communication regarding career-related advancement information (M = 4.03, SD = 2.09). 

Exiting officers rated the availability and timeliness of Army promotion/advancement 

opportunities as the most important reason to stay (M = 4.99, SD = 2.26). Availability of quality 
23

military training and educational opportunities was also ranked highly (M = 4.87, SD = 2.18). 

However, all Career Progression items had mean importance ratings below 5, indicating that they 

were perceived more as reasons to leave than as reasons to stay in the Active Army.

Table 9. Mean Ratings for Army Career Progression Items

Item M SD

Fairness of Army promotion system 3.98 2.35

Communication/support from assignment officers/career managers 4.03 2.09

Communication regarding career-related/advancement information 4.30 2.01

Availability of/assignment to key development positions 4.32 2.08

Availability of quality civilian training/educational opportunities 4.60 2.30

Availability of quality military training/educational opportunities 4.87 2.18

Availability/timeliness of Army promotions/advancement opportunities 4.99 2.26

Note. N=167-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to LEAVE 

or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Deployment Items

A total of 15 items were used to assess attitudes regarding Army Deployments among 

junior officers completing the Exit Form. These items included perceptions of deployment 

characteristics as well as deployment preparation and dwell time activity. Table 10 lists the 

means and standard deviations for Army Deployment items, ranked from most important reasons 

to leave the Active Army to most important reasons to stay. Across items in this content area, 

means were consistently low, and 14 of 15 items were rated as greater reasons to leave than 

reasons to stay. The length of deployments (M = 2.71, SD = 1.71) and the quality of dwell time 

between deployments (M = 2.83, SD = 1.83) were rated as the most important reasons to leave, 

while having too few deployments was rated as a reason to stay in the Active Army (M = 5.51, 

SD = 1.52). Interestingly, experiences during deployments also had a fairly high rating on the 

importance scale (M = 4.90, SD = 2.37).
24

Table 10. Mean Ratings for Deployments Items

Item M SD

Length of deployments 2.71 1.71

Quality of dwell time between deployments 2.83 1.83

Length of dwell time between deployments 3.08 1.76

Number of deployments - too many 3.21 1.80

Predictability of deployments 3.40 1.84

Army "Stop-Loss"/"Stop-Movement” policy 3.44 1.82

Communication regarding scheduling/timing of deployments 3.71 1.81

Location of deployments 3.86 1.82

Amount of operational stress during deployments 4.10 1.77

Officer training/preparation for deployments 4.19 1.81

Amount of combat stress during deployments 4.26 1.67

Communication with family during deployments 4.27 1.93

Enlisted Soldier training/preparation for deployments 4.45 1.69

Experiences during deployments 4.90 2.37

Number of deployments - too few 5.51 1.52

Note. N=167-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Leadership Experiences and Development Items

Attitudes about Leadership Experiences and Development were assessed with a total of 

13 items on the Exit Form. The means and standard deviations for these items, which pertain 

both to perceived support from higher command as well as the opportunity for the officers to 

develop their own leadership skills, are listed in Table 11. Items are listed from most important 

reasons to leave the Active Army to most important reasons to stay. Exiting officers rated more 

items as reasons to stay than as reasons to leave within this content area. Leadership pressure to 

stay in the Army was rated as the most important reason to leave (M = 4.49, SD = 1.67), 

followed by mentorship within the chain of command (M = 4.62, SD = 2.57). The most 

important reasons to stay in the Active Army included the opportunities to train and lead Soldiers 

(M = 6.00, SD = 2.29) and develop leadership skills (M = 5.52, SD = 2.19).
25

Table 11. Mean Ratings for Leadership Experiences and Development Items

Item M SD

Leadership pressure to stay in the Army 4.49 1.67

Mentorship within chain of command 4.62 2.57

Leadership skills of Rater 4.77 2.61

Technical/tactical competence of Rater 4.94 2.52

Leadership skills of Senior Rater 4.98 2.61

Mentorship outside of chain of command 5.02 2.18

Technical/tactical competence of Senior Rater 5.10 2.48

Amount of decision-making authority/autonomy 5.19 2.42

Supportiveness of Senior Rater 5.21 2.53

NCO support and interaction 5.45 2.28

Supportiveness of Rater 5.47 2.55

Opportunities to develop leadership skills 5.52 2.19

Opportunities to lead and train Soldiers 6.00 2.29

Note. N=168-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Peers Items

Officer attitudes toward peers were assessed with four items on the Exit Form. Means 

and standard deviations for these items are provided in Table 12, ranked from most important 

reasons to leave the Active Army to most important reasons to stay. Mean importance levels 

across all four items were fairly similar, with all items perceived as greater reasons to stay than 

as reasons to leave. The most important reason to stay was the help and support provided by 

fellow officers (M = 5.56, SD = 2.06), followed by trust in fellow officers (M = 5.38, SD = 2.25). 

Table 12. Mean Ratings for Peers Items

Item M SD

Technical/tactical competence of fellow Officers 5.21 2.16

Leadership skills of fellow Officers 5.22 2.13

Trust in fellow Officers 5.38 2.25

Help and support given by fellow Officers 5.56 2.06

Note. N=169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”
26

Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie Items

A total of seven items related to unit cohesion and camaraderie were included in the Exit 

Form. Table 13 provides means and standard deviations for these items, which include 

perceptions of unit climate and morale as well as attitudes toward peers and subordinates within 

the unit. Items are ranked from most important reasons to leave the Active Army to most 

important reasons to stay. Exiting officers rated the majority of items as a reason to stay in the 

Army. The most important reasons to stay were the quality of NCOs (M = 5.49, SD = 2.27) and 

officers (M = 5.33, SD = 2.06). Unit command climate (M = 4.46, SD = 2.18) and the quality of 

the chain of command (M = 4.89, SD = 2.23) were rated as less important influences.

Table 13. Mean Ratings for Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie Items

Item M SD

Unit command climate 4.46 2.18

Quality of chain of command 4.89 2.23

Unit teamwork/camaraderie/morale 4.98 2.14

Unit prestige 5.13 1.98

Quality of enlisted Soldiers in unit 5.18 2.21

Quality of Officers working with 5.33 2.06

Quality of NCOs working with 5.49 2.27

Note. N=168-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Quality of Personal/Family Life Items

Attitudes pertaining to the quality of personal and family life were assessed with a total 

of 13 items. Table 14 shows means and standard deviations for these items, sorted by most 

influential for leaving the Active Army to most influential for staying. The mean importance 

ratings for all items were relatively low, indicating that, on average, officers perceived personal 

and family life issues to be greater reasons to leave the Active Army than to stay. The most 

important reason influencing officers to leave the Active Army was the impact of Army life on 

the ability to start or maintain personal relationships (M = 2.24, SD = 1.56). The impact of Army 

life on the well-being of officers’ significant others and families (M = 2.50, SD = 1.69) and plans 

to have children (M = 2.51, SD = 1.81) were also important reasons to leave.
27

Table 14. Mean Ratings for Quality of Personal/Family Life Items

Item M SD

Impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain personal relationships 2.24 1.56

Impact of Army life on significant other/family well-being 2.50 1.69

Impact of Army life on plans to have children 2.51 1.81

Amount of time away from significant other/family while deployed 2.59 1.73

Amount of personal/family time while in garrison 3.21 2.03

Army support of personal/family life 3.62 1.98

Significant other/family support for future deployment(s) 3.62 1.91

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's career 3.67 1.84

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's education 3.93 1.75

Unit support of personal/family life 3.95 1.91

Significant other/family support of decision to serve 4.23 1.71

Installation support of personal/family life 4.27 1.94

Army support for dual-military couples (e.g., deployment/stabilization schedule, 

duty station)

4.28 1.65

Note. N=167-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Quality of Army Life Items

Quality of Army Life perceptions were assessed with 11 items. Means and standard 

deviations for these items are listed in Table 15. Items are rank ordered by mean, with low means 

reflecting reasons to leave the Active Army. Mean ratings for the items within this content area 

varied widely, with opportunity to serve the country (M = 7.61, SD = 1.60) being rated as the 

most important reason to stay. Other reasons to stay included monetary compensation (M = 5.37, 

SD = 2.18) and the quality of healthcare services (M = 5.29, SD = 2.34). The most important 

reasons to leave included a lack of stability or predictability of the next assignment (M = 3.19, 

SD = 1.79) and of Army life in general (M = 3.27, SD = 1.87).
28

Table 15. Mean Ratings for Quality of Army Life Items

Item M SD

Stability/predictability of next assignment 3.19 1.79

Stability/predictability of Army life 3.27 1.87

Army respect and concern for well-being 3.63 1.96

Choice of duty station 3.95 2.34

Number/impact of PCS locations 4.08 1.90

Overall quality of Army life 4.58 1.97

Availability/quality of childcare (on- or off-post) 4.98 1.25

Availability/quality of housing (on- or off-post) 4.99 1.63

Quality of healthcare services 5.29 2.34

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) 5.37 2.18

Opportunity to serve country 7.61 1.60

Note. N=167-168. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Alternatives to Army Career Items

A total of 15 items pertaining to Army career alternatives were included in the Exit Form. 

Table 16 provides means and standard deviations for this set of items, which reflect perceptions 

of opportunities in the civilian sector compared to the Army. Exiting junior officers rated 

retirement benefits (M = 5.49, SD = 1.89), job security (M = 5.41, SD = 1.84), and healthcare 

benefits (M = 5.19, SD = 2.08) in the civilian sector as the most influential reasons to stay in the 

Active Army, indicating that these characteristics are perceived to be more favorable within the 

Army than in the civilian sector. However, opportunities to attain personal (M = 3.04, SD = 2.13) 

and career goals (M = 3.33, SD = 2.24) in the civilian sector were listed as important reasons to 

leave. Quality of life in the civilian sector was also rated as an important reason to leave the 

Active Army (M = 3.11, SD = 2.13).
29

Table 16. Mean Ratings for Alternatives to Army Career Items

Item M SD

Opportunities to attain personal goals in the civilian sector 3.04 2.13

Quality of life in the civilian sector 3.11 2.13

Opportunities to attain career goals in the civilian sector 3.33 2.24

Use of skills and abilities in the civilian sector 3.45 1.99

Opportunities to change career path in the civilian sector 3.56 2.08

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from jobs in the civilian sector 3.70 2.06

Opportunities for education and self-development in the civilian sector 3.70 2.29

Length/number of working hours in the civilian sector 3.92 1.86

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform jobs in the civilian sector 3.98 1.74

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) in the civilian sector 4.12 1.89

Day-to-day work-related tasks in the civilian sector 4.22 1.93

Opportunities in the current civilian job/labor market 4.58 2.19

Healthcare benefits in the civilian sector 5.19 2.08

Job security in the civilian sector 5.41 1.84

Retirement benefits in the civilian sector 5.49 1.89

Note. N=168-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

Most Important Reasons to Stay in or Leave the Active Army

Item-level importance means were also examined and ranked across all content areas to 

identify the primary reasons exiting junior officers considered when deciding to stay in or leave 

the Active Army. Table 17 presents the rank-ordered means and standard deviations for the top 

15 reasons to stay in the Active Army. The most influential reason to stay was the opportunity 

for officers to serve their country (M = 7.61, SD = 1.60), followed by the opportunity to lead and 

train Soldiers (M = 6.00, SD = 2.29). Support provided by peers, NCOs, and raters, as well as 

compensation, benefits, and job security offered to officers by the Army also emerged as 

important reasons to stay.

Table 18 provides means and standard deviations for the top 15 reasons to leave the 

Active Army. The top four reasons to leave all pertained to quality of family life, including the 

impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain personal relationships (M = 2.24, SD = 1.56), on 

significant other/family well-being (M = 2.50, SD = 1.69), and on plans to have children (M = 

2.51, SD = 1.81). Other factors which were rated as top reasons to leave the Army included 

perceptions of several deployment characteristics and quality of life.
30

Table 17. Most Important Reasons to Stay in the Active Army – Top 15 Items

Item M SD

Opportunity to serve country 7.61 1.60

Opportunities to lead and train Soldiers 6.00 2.29

Help and support given by fellow Officers 5.56 2.06

Opportunities to develop leadership skills 5.52 2.19

Number of deployments - too few 5.51 1.52

Quality of NCOs working with 5.49 2.27

Retirement benefits in the civilian sector 5.49 1.89

Supportiveness of Rater 5.47 2.55

NCO support and interaction 5.45 2.28

Job security in the civilian sector 5.41 1.84

Trust in fellow Officers 5.38 2.25

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) 5.37 2.18

Quality of Officers working with 5.33 2.06

Branch/Functional Area 5.30 2.37

Quality of healthcare services 5.29 2.34

Note. N=167-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”
31

Table 18. Most Important Reasons to Leave the Active Army – Top 15 Items

Item M SD

Impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain personal relationships 2.24 1.56

Impact of Army life on significant other/family well-being 2.50 1.69

Impact of Army life on plans to have children 2.51 1.81

Amount of time away from significant other/family while deployed 2.59 1.73

Length of deployments 2.71 1.71

Quality of dwell time between deployments 2.83 1.83

Opportunities to attain personal goals in the civilian sector 3.04 2.13

Length of dwell time between deployments 3.08 1.76

Quality of life in the civilian sector 3.11 2.13

Stability/predictability of next assignment 3.19 1.79

Amount of personal/family time while in garrison 3.21 2.03

Number of deployments - too many 3.21 1.80

Stability/predictability of Army life 3.27 1.87

Opportunities to attain career goals in the civilian sector 3.33 2.24

Predictability of deployments 3.40 1.84

Note. N=167-169. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important

Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”
32

PROXY ANALYSES

A major goal of this project was to examine the feasibility of using alternative sources of 

information as proxies in place of surveying exiting officers themselves. The purpose of these 

analyses was to evaluate the validity of the survey instrument and investigate whether 

individuals who are knowledgeable about officer career decision-making could serve as proxies 

for exiting officers and provide meaningful and valid information regarding officer separation 

motives. 

Our target group was junior officers who had decided to leave the Active Army and were 

actively out-processing at the Transition Centers (N=169; Exit Form). We also collected data 

from two groups of proxy samples, an officer proxy sample (N=485; General Form), and an 

expert proxy sample (N=68; Expert Form). The officer proxy sample included officers who were 

in the process of deciding whether or not to continue serving beyond their ADSO and included a 

mix of officers who: (1) had submitted their separation paperwork; (2) indicated they planned to 

separate but had not yet submitted separation paperwork; (3) submitted their separation 

paperwork but changed their mind; (4) indicated they planned to stay in the Active Army; and 

(5) were undecided about their decision to separate from or stay in the Active Army. For the 

purposes of our analyses, we combined the first two groups of officers who had planned to leave 

the Army. The expert proxy sample included the following three groups: (1) senior 

commissioned officers attached to operational units (e.g., battalion and brigade commanders, 

XOs, and staff); (2) HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers; and (3) ACAP TSMs. Table 19 

provides the sample sizes for each of these groups. We compared exiting officers composite- and 

item-level responses to the officer proxy and expert proxy samples, as well as to each of the 

subgroups listed below.

Table 19. Proxy Groups

Officer Proxy Sample N Expert Proxy Sample N

Officers who planned to stay 106 Senior commissioned officers attached to 

operational units

31

Officers who had changed mind and planned 

to stay

20 HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers 19

Officers who were undecided 74 ACAP Transition Services Managers 18

Officers who planned to leave 282

Missing 3

Total 485 Total 68

Proxy Sample Comparisons – Composite-Level Analyses

First, we compared the exiting officers’ composite scores to the composite scores from 

each of our nine proxy groups. These proxy groups included both the higher grouping level and 
33

more specific subgroup level: (1) officer proxy sample (combined); (2) expert proxy sample 

(combined); (3) officers who planned to stay (officer proxy sample subgroup); (4) officers who 

submitted their separation packet but changed their mind and planned to stay (officer proxy 

sample subgroup); (5) officers who were undecided (officer proxy sample subgroup); (6) officers 

who planned to leave (officer proxy sample subgroup); (7) senior commissioned officers (expert 

proxy sample subgroup); (8) HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers (expert proxy sample 

subgroup); and (9) ACAP TSMs (expert proxy sample subgroup).Table 20 provides the 

composite score means and standard deviations for the target and proxy samples. Figure 2 also 

illustrates the convergence of these composite score means.

Focusing on important reasons to leave the Active Army, all three samples rated items 

pertaining to the Quality of Personal & Family Life as the most important reasons to leave the 

(M=3.43, SD=1.13 for exiting officers; M=3.72, SD=1.49 for officer proxy sample; and M=3.67, 

SD=1.53 for expert proxy sample). Note that lower mean scores indicate more important reasons

for leaving. Deployments were rated as the next lowest for all three samples (M=3.74, SD=1.12 

for exiting officers; M=3.87, SD=1.32 for officer proxy sample; and M=3.71, SD=1.10 for expert 

proxy sample).

We also examined composite score ratings of important reasons to stay in the Active 

Army for the three samples. Exiting officers rated items pertaining to Peers highest (M=5.34, 

SD=2.00). This composite was also highly rated among the two proxy groups (M=5.37, SD=2.07 

for officer proxy sample; M=6.49, SD=1.55 for expert proxy sample). Leadership Experiences 

and Development and Unit Cohesion were the next highest rated reasons for exiting officers 

(M=5.14, SD=1.64 and M=5.07, SD=1.59, respectively). The officer proxy sample and the expert 

proxy sample had similar patterns of results. However, the expert proxy samples rated Army 

Career Progression, Peers, and Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie higher than the other two samples 

(M=5.68, SD=1.55, M=6.49, SD=1.55 and M=6.50, SD=1.51, respectively for expert proxy 

sample).

Further examination of the composite scores suggest the officer proxy sample responses 

were slightly more similar to the exiting officer target sample (r=.96, p<.01) than responses 

between the expert proxy sample and exiting officer sample (r=.94, p<.01), but both proxy 

samples demonstrated patterns of results that closely matched exiting officer responses.

We also compared exiting officer responses to the subgroups making up the two main 

proxy groups. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate a very similar pattern of responses across the composites 

for the target and proxy subgroups. Officers who indicated that they intended to stay in the Army 

demonstrated the most positive responses across most of the composite scores. Officers who 

intended to leave (submitted separation paperwork or intended to submit) had the lowest ratings 

across all the composite scores. Further, officers who intended to leave were the most closely 

related to the exiting officer target sample (r=.97, p<.01), followed by officers that once decided 

to leave and later changed their mind (r=.95, p<.01), officers who were undecided (r=.91, 

p<.01), and officers who indicated they planned to stay in the Active Army (r=.89, p<.01). A 

similar pattern or results was also observed when comparing composite scores from the target to 

expert proxy subgroups; officers that worked closely with junior officers were the most closely 
34

related to the exiting officer target sample (r=.97, p<.01), followed by HRC Career 

Manager/Assignment Officer responses (r=.91, p<.01) and ACAP TSM responses (r=.85, 

p<.01).

These findings provide support for using both officer and expert proxy samples to 

approximate exiting junior officer responses. The results show that the proxy samples have the 

knowledge and experience to provide valid information regarding the reasons officers are exiting 

from the Active Army
35

Table 20. Proxy Analyses – Composite Score Means and Standard Deviations

Composite Scores

Branch/FA/

Assignment

Career 

Progression Deployments

Leadership 

Experiences/ 

Development Peers

Unit 

Cohesion

Quality of 

Personal/

Family Life

Army 

Quality of 

Life

Alternatives 

to Army 

Career

Sample M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

Target Sample Exiting 

Officers

4.63 1.53 4.45 1.61 3.74 1.12 5.14 1.64 5.34 2.00 5.07 1.59 3.43 1.13 4.33 1.12 4.05 1.29

Officer Proxy Sample 

Combined

4.85 1.75 5.04 1.72 3.87 1.32 5.39 1.67 5.37 2.07 5.19 1.84 3.72 1.49 4.85 1.68 4.37 1.65

Expert Proxy Sample 

Combined

5.20 1.20 5.68 1.55 3.71 1.10 5.64 1.38 6.49 1.55 6.50 1.51 3.67 1.53 5.20 1.42 4.49 1.10

Officer Proxy Samples

Planned to stay 6.28 1.28 6.44 1.66 4.64 1.24 6.49 1.38 6.39 1.76 6.44 1.55 4.81 1.48 6.10 1.67 5.50 1.56

Changed mind & 

planned to stay

5.07 1.84 4.68 1.33 4.08 1.02 5.39 1.76 5.18 2.03 5.39 1.78 3.78 1.44 4.90 1.23 4.52 1.04

Undecided 5.26 1.42 5.36 1.58 4.14 1.35 5.60 1.39 5.52 1.70 5.56 1.64 4.14 1.29 5.32 1.66 4.95 1.40

Planned to leave 4.19 1.62 4.47 1.47 3.51 1.22 4.92 1.64 4.97 2.14 4.62 1.75 3.20 1.29 4.26 1.42 3.79 1.51

Expert Proxy Samples

Senior 

commissioned 

officers

5.10 1.21 5.41 1.58 4.00 1.03 5.78 1.36 6.37 1.38 6.43 1.34 3.47 1.20 4.89 1.15 4.43 .96

HRC Career 

Managers/Assignme

nt Officers

5.06 .99 5.96 1.35 3.51 .92 5.42 1.24 6.54 1.70 6.66 1.53 3.42 1.43 4.92 1.09 4.50 .85

ACAP TSMs 5.53 1.39 5.83 1.69 3.42 1.30 5.64 1.61 6.63 1.73 6.43 1.82 4.26 2.01 6.02 1.84 4.59 1.52

Note. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important 

Reason to STAY(9).”
36

Figure 2. Proxy Analyses – Mean Composite Score Comparisons for Exiting, Officer Proxy, and Expert Proxy Samples

Note. N=168-169 for the exiting officers target sample; N=484-485 for the officer proxy sample; N=67-68 for the expert proxy sample. Responses ranged from 

“ExtremelyImportant Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00 Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

Army Career

Progression

Deployments

Leadership

Experiences

& Development Peers Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie Quality of Personal/Family Life

Quality of Army Life Alternatives to Army Career Means

Exiting Officers Officer Proxy Sample Expert Proxy Sample
37

Figure 3. Proxy Analyses – Mean Composite Score Comparisons for Target and Officer Proxy Samples - Detailed Subgroups

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00 Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

Army Career 

Progression

Deployments

Leadership 

Experiences 

& Development Peers Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie Quality of Personal/

Family Life

Quality of Army Life Alternatives to Army Career Means

Exit Target Sample Officer Stay Officer Changed Mind to Stay

Officer Undecided Officer Leave

Note. N=168-169 for exiting officers; N=105-106 for officers planning to stay; N=67-68 for officers that changed mind and decided to stay; N=73-74 for officers

undecided; N=282 for officers planning to leave. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to 

LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely Important Reason to STAY(9).”
38

Figure 4. Proxy Analyses – Mean Composite Score Comparisons for Target and Expert Proxy Samples - Detailed Subgroups

Note. N=31 for expert senior commissioned officers; N=19 for HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers; and N=17-18 for ACAP Transition Services 

Managers. Responses ranged from “Extremely Important Reason to LEAVE(1)” to “NOT an Important Reason to LEAVE or STAY(5)” to “Extremely 

Important Reason to STAY(9).”

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

Branch/Functional 

Area/Assignment

Army Career Progression

Deployments

Leadership Experiences 

& Development

Peers

Unit Cohesion 

& Camaraderie

Quality of Personal/

Family Life

Quality of Army Life

Alternatives to

Army Career

Means

Exit Target Sample Expert BN/BDE CDR, XO,Staff

Expert HRC Career Manager/Assignment Officer Expert ACAP Transition Services Manager
39

Proxy Sample Comparisons – Item-Level Analyses

Target and proxy sample responses were also examined at the item level. For each 

sample, an average item score was computed to represent the mean response of each item for 

each group. For the proxy samples, these scores were again computed at both the higher 

grouping level and more specific subgroup level. Accordingly, mean scores were computed for 

the: (1) target sample of exiting officers; (2) officer proxy sample (combined); (3) expert proxy 

sample (combined); (4) officers who planned to leave (officer proxy sample subgroup); (5) 

officers who were undecided (officer proxy sample subgroup); (6) officers who submitted their 

separation packets but changed their minds (officer proxy sample subgroup); (7) officers who 

planned to stay (officer proxy sample subgroup); (8) senior commissioned officers (expert proxy 

sample subgroup); (9) HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers (expert proxy sample 

subgroup); and (10) ACAP TSMs (expert proxy sample subgroup).

Table 21 presents the correlations between the target and proxy sample item-level means. 

Overall, correlations between exiting officer responses and officer and expert proxy responses 

were significant, with exiting officer means more highly correlated with officer proxy means 

(r=.96) than with expert proxy means (r=.85). Further, the officer proxy group who had career 

intentions most similar to exiting officers represented the highest correlation. For example, 

means were most highly correlated between exiting officers and officers who indicated they 

planned to separate from the Active Army (r=.98), followed by officers who once wanted to 

separate but changed their mind and decided to stay in the Army (r=.92), followed by officers 

who were undecided about their career plans (r=.89), and finally by officers who indicated they 

planned to stay in the Active Army (r=.81).

Expert proxy subgroup analyses also revealed an expected pattern of results. Findings 

suggest senior officers who work closely with junior officers on a daily basis (i.e., battalion and 

brigade commanders, XOs, and staff) provided highly valid judgments and approximations for 

exiting officer responses (r=.87), followed by HRC Career Manager/Assignment Officer 

responses (r=.82) and ACAP TSM responses (r=.74).

It is important to note that these results are based on uncorrected correlations. 

Accordingly, differences in the magnitude of correlations may in part reflect differences in proxy 

subgroup sample sizes (i.e., N = 18 vs. N = 282). However, these sample size differences reflect 

true subgroup differences (i.e., there are fewer expert proxies than officer proxies within the 

Active Army).

Taken together, these results illustrate that proxy samples can serve as an excellent source 

of information with regard to collecting junior officer career continuance influencers and 

separation motives. Not only do fellow junior officers serve as valid proxies, but expert samples 

also highly converged with the target sample. This finding is important because it demonstrates 

that expert proxy samples, such as brigade commanders, HRC Career Managers/Assignment 

Officers, and ACAP TSMs, by virtue of their daily experiences with separating officers, develop 

understanding, knowledge, and expertise regarding the career continuance decisions of officers. 
40

Also, by virtue of their expertise, their collective judgments are very accurate regarding the 

motives of separating junior officers. Because SMEs can be surveyed much more quickly and 

easily than exiting officers, these results show that their opinions have potential to provide valid 

input to short suspense inquires regarding the separation motives of junior officers.
41

`Table 21. Correlations Between Target and Proxy Sample Importance Item-Level Means

Samples

Exiting 

Officers

Officer 

Proxy 

Sample

Expert 

Proxy 

Sample

Officer 

Planned

to Leave

Officer 

Undecided

Officer 

Changed 

Mind to 

Stay

Officer 

Planned

to Stay

Sr. 

Commissioned 

Officer

HRC 

Career 

Managers/

Assignment 

Officers

ACAP 

TSMs

Target 

Sample

Officer 

Proxy 

Combined

Expert Proxy 

Combined

Officer Proxy Subgroups Expert Proxy Subgroups

Sample

Exiting Officers 

Target Sample

Officer Proxy Sample 

Comb. 

.96

Expert Proxy Sample 

Comb.

.85 .90

Officer Proxy Subgroups

Officer Planned to Leave .98 .98 .85

Officer Undecided .89 .96 .88 .89

Officer Changed Mind to 

Stay

.92 .94 .83 .91 .90

Officer Planned to Stay .81 .92 .89 .81 .95 .85

Expert Proxy Subgroups

Sr Comm Officers .87 .90 .97 .86 .87 .84 .87

HRC CMs/AOs .82 .87 .97 .82 .86 .80 .85 .93

ACAP TSMs .74 .82 .94 .76 .82 .74 .84 .85 .89

Note. N=94. All correlations are significant (p<.01)
42

SURVEY EVALUATION & RECOMMENDATIONS

The career continuance of officers reflects a complex and dynamic decision process, 

influenced by a broad array of individual and contextual factors and experiences. This project 

involved the utilization and evaluation of the OTS, a survey designed to identify a variety of 

influences while exploring ways for the Army to efficiently gather those data.

The OTS is a promising instrument that Army leadership can use to understand, forecast, 

and manage the individual-level career continuance or separation trends of junior officers, 

especially those in their initial ADSO. To conclude this report, we briefly summarize major 

project findings, discuss potential challenges to implementation, and offer suggestions to guide 

future research and applications.

Survey Evaluation Summary

The OTS consists of items covering nine content areas: Branch/Functional 

Area/Assignment; Army Career Progression; Deployment; Leadership Experiences and 

Development; Peers; Unit Cohesion and Camaraderie; Quality of Personal/Family Life; Quality 

of Army Life; and Alternatives to Army Career.

Surveys were administered to junior officers who were in the process of actively outprocessing at Army Transition Centers. In addition, we surveyed proxy groups which included 

both junior officers and experts who work closely with junior officers. The survey results 

indicated that the OTS provides useful empirical information regarding career continuance 

influences and separation motives. Further, the survey content appears to adequately capture the 

broad array of factors that play a role in officers’ career continuance decisions. For example, the 

impact of Army life on family stability and family well-being and length of deployments were 

clearly indicated as significant influences on decisions to leave the Army. Highly rated reasons 

for staying in the military included the opportunity to serve, lead and train Soldiers, and work 

with fellow officers. This type of feedback can be of considerable utility to Army leadership as 

they make decisions about how to most effectively influence officer career decisions.

In addition, the proxy sample analyses indicated that both officer and expert proxy 

samples could be used to closely approximate the career continuance perceptions of officers who 

are leaving the Army. The data reflected an expected pattern of results among the target and 

proxy groups. With regard to the target sample and the officer proxy subgroups, samples with 

career intentions most similar to exiting officers represented the highest correlations. For the 

expert proxy subgroups, the senior officers’ responses correlated most highly with the target 

group, followed by the HRC managers, and the ACAP TSMs.

These results have a number of implications for moving toward a more integrated, 

streamlined, and efficient use of survey research. For example, separating officers are typically 

less accessible and may be less motivated to provide key insight into reasons they decided to 

separate from the Active Army. Further, these officers are likely less willing to complete a 

detailed survey on their separation motives. Thus, utilizing proxy samples offers a method to 
43

collect information that will have a high degree of convergence with the target sample while 

expending fewer resources.

In summary, the data analyses suggest the OTS offers Army leadership a tool to collect 

timely, accurate officer separation motive data while reducing the costs and resources associated 

with capturing this type of critical information.

Challenges to Implementation

The data obtained on the OTS yielded promising results for its use in assessing officers’ 

reasons for making career continuance decisions. The effort also provided significant steps 

forward in advancing the Army’s capabilities for efficiently and effectively obtaining data to 

make such assessments. However, there are several challenges to implementing the OTS more 

broadly that must be addressed.

One important issue relates to obtaining Army-wide acceptance of the survey. Not only is 

it important for officers to perceive their responses and feedback on the survey as meaningful, it 

is equally important that Army leadership value and act on the information that is being captured 

by the OTS. This may be particularly challenging given the current Army mission and 

environment. For example, deployments were cited as a primary reason officers were making the 

decision to separate from the Active Army. Although deployments are an Army policy issue, 

having a greater understanding of these issues should enable leaders to more effectively deal 

with officers as they make their career decisions, as well as inform policy about incentives that 

may mitigate the effects of some deployment experiences or perceptions.

Another point is that the interpretation of survey items must be as standardized as 

possible. That is, policies, programs and procedures must be described in such a way that officers 

in different geographic locations and in varying branches and functional areas agree on their 

meaning. Without this consistency, comparison of results across groups becomes less 

meaningful. This type of refinement can be accomplished through broader implementation of the 

focus groups and sensing sessions.

We also recommend that, as the survey is utilized, trends should be examined in the data. 

Over time, the need for refinements in particular content areas will likely become clear, and 

Army leadership can take those opportunities to explore areas of interest in more depth. This 

may take the form of more specific items or modified response options, depending on need. 

Given the high correspondence between expert judgments and the responses of exiting officers, 

expert judgment may be particularly useful in providing in-depth analyses of topics uncovered 

by a broader survey.

Further, utilization of the OTS would be enhanced by integrating it into the current 

separation process that involves HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers. For example, as 

officers make the decision to leave the Active Army they are required to submit separation 

packets to HRC. One way to incorporate the OTS into the current system would be to have HRC 
44

Career Managers/Assignment Officers require survey participation as part of the routine 

operational procedure for separation package submission.

Another challenge, and perhaps most important, is the question of how to utilize the 

results of the survey. Given the challenges the Army can anticipate facing, the results of the 

current survey likely reflect circumstances that will fluctuate over time. That is, the primary 

content areas may be consistently identified as influential by officers, but the weight and 

influence each officer gives them may change with time and circumstances. If the Army truly 

wishes to forecast and manage career trends, leadership must be proactive in conducting these 

assessments, accurately interpreting the results, and taking action accordingly.

A final consideration is the use of proxy groups. For this approach to be effective, an 

appropriately knowledgeable and readily accessible group of experts must be identified. They 

must be familiar with the day-to-day life and perceptions of junior officers. Further, they must be 

able to respond to survey items from that perspective without biasing their responses with their 

own views.

Future Research and Applications

We recommend application of this proxy-sample methodology for future survey research 

by the Army to monitor officer separation motives. Additional research is needed to further 

explore the feasibility and usefulness of the OTS. To begin, data should be collected on the Exit, 

General, and Expert Forms to ensure that survey results are replicated. The additional survey 

responses would provide further evidence of validity, offer support for the survey content, and 

facilitate more meaningful comparisons with existing Army career surveys such as the SSMP 

and SOC. Additional data would also enhance the demographic representativeness of the data 

accumulated over time, and could eventually be utilized to address diversity issues beyond what 

is possible with convenience samples. Additional OTS data might also be useful for refinement 

of the Officer Career Continuance Model developed by Johnson and colleagues (2009).

Our analyses suggest that proxy samples consisting of knowledgeable experts are valid, 

alternative sources of information for survey content. This finding has several important 

implications for sample participation in future career decision research. For example, the Army 

may not need to invest the time and resources required to collect information from exiting 

officers. Expert samples could be more efficiently utilized. Thus, in order to maximize the 

usefulness of the OTS, larger expert samples (e.g., battalion and brigade leaders, HRC Career 

Managers/Assignment Officers) should be collected to support the convergence of officer and 

proxy sample responses.

Going forward, modifications to the survey methodology may be of interest. The current 

project demonstrated that web-based and paper-and-pencil formats could be used jointly to 

conduct the survey. Future efforts may explore the utility of branching survey designs to make 

data collection more efficient for the participants. Or, new survey forms may involve interview 

components to obtain more detailed information on specific areas of interest.
45

Finally, we recommend that the development and implementation of this type of survey 

be coordinated with survey efforts intended for other target groups within the Army. Although 

the scope of the current work focused on junior officers, other portions of STAY have focused 

on enlisted Soldiers and junior NCOs (Kubisiak et al., 2010). These efforts could be expanded to 

other groups such as senior NCOs and more senior officers. These groups are also likely 

experiencing changes in retention behavior and the Army would benefit from developing and 

evaluating similar survey instruments and research designs to better understand and manage 

separation trends.
46
47

REFERENCES

Gahol, P. R. (2005). Attrition of army nurse corps officers: Looking at factors that affect 

retention and recruitment of army nurse corps officers. Ft. Leavenworth, KS: U.S. Army 

Command and General Staff College.

Garrison, L., & Ferguson, J. (1977). Separation interviews. Personnel Journal, 56, 438-442.

Gencer, U. (2002). An analysis of factors affecting the retention plans of junior male U.S. Army 

officers: Evidence from the 1999 DOD survey of active-duty personnel. Unpublished Masters 

Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

Giacalone, R. A. (1989). The exit interview: Changing your expectations. SuperVision, 50(9), 

12-13, 26.

Giacalone, R. A. (1993). Developing an exit survey instrument for identifying and decreasing 

theft susceptibility risks in the Department of Defense: The results at SIMA, Norfolk.

Richmond, VA: Defense Personnel Security Research Center.

Giacalone, R. A. (2000). Analysis of the revised army career transitions survey (ACTS) and 

comparison with the fall 1996 Sample Survey of Military Personnel (SSMP): Results and 

reccomendations. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina - Charlotte.

Giacalone, R. A., Elig, T. W., Ginexi, E. M., & Bright, A. J. (1995). The impact of identification 

and type of separation on measures of satisfaction and missing data in the exit survey 

process. Military Psychology, 7, 235-252.

Giacalone, R. A., Jurkiewicz, C. L., & Knouse, S. B. (2003). Exit surveys as assessments of 

organizational ethicality. Public Personnel Management, 32(3), 397–410.

Giacalone, R. A., & Knouse, S. B. (1989). Farewell to fruitless exit interviews. Personnel, 66,

60-62.

Hamilton, C. H., & Datko, L. M. (2000). Report on career decisions in the Air Force: Results of 

the 2000 Careers and New Directions Surveys. Randolph AFB, TX: Survey Branch, Air 

Force Personnel Center.

Harris, B. C., Wochinger, K., Schwartz, J. P., & Parham, L. (1993). Longitudinal research on 

officer careers: Volume 1, Technical manual for 1988-1992 surveys (ARI Research Product 

93-10). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences.

Hinrichs, J. R. (1971). Employees going and coming: The exit interview. Personnel, 30-35.

Hocevar, S. P. (2000). A preliminary analysis of the 1999 USMC web-based exit survey.

Monteray, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.
48

Hoover, E. C., Randolph, J. S., Elig, T. W., & Klein, P. M. (2001). Overview of the 2000 

Military Exit Survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Huffman, A. H., Adler, A. B., Dolan, C. A., & Castro, C. A. (2005). The impact of operations 

tempo on turnover intentions of Army personnel. Military Psychology, 17, 175-202.

Johnson, J. W., Hezlett, S. A., Mael, F. A., & Schneider, R. J. (2009). Recommendations for 

enhancing U.S. Army company grade officer career continuance (ARI Technical Report 

number pending). Arlington, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences.

Jones, J. T. (1999). Findings from the Survey on Officer Careers-1996 (ARI Study Report 99-

03). Alexandria, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Jurkiewicz, Knouse, & Giacalone (2001). When an employee leave: The effectiveness of 

clinician exit interviews and surveys. Clinical Leadership and Management Review, 15(2), 

81-84.

Kubisiak, U. C., Young, M. C., Legree, P. & Tremble, T. R. (2010). Understanding and 

Managing the Career Continuance of Enlisted Soldiers (ARI Technical Report number 

pending). Arlington, VA: U. S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences. 

Lefkowitz, J. & Katz, M. (1969). Validity of exit interviews. Personnel Psychology, winter, 445-

455.

Lentz, E., Horgen, K. E., Bryant, R. H., Kubisiak, U. C., Jackson, E. M., Smith, T., Dullaghan, 

T. R., Legree, P. J., & Young, M. C. (2010). Soldier Transition Survey. In U.C. Kubisiak, 

M.C. Young, P.J. Legree, & T.R. Tremble (Eds.), Understanding and managing the career 

continuance of enlisted Soldiers. Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the 

Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Navy Personnel Research, Studies, & Technology, (2000). Argus Career Milestone Tracking 

System Briefing Outline, NPRST & CCD.

Powell, C. J. (1987). A framework for the analysis of the reserve officer augmentation process in 

the U.S. Marine Corps. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

Putka, D. J., & Strickland, W. J. (2005). A comparison of the FY03 and FY99 first term attrition 

study cohorts. Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral Sciences.

Rochelle, M. D. (2009). Growing and rebalancing our Army during a time of persistent conflict. 

Army Magazine, 59,177-180.
49

Supko, M. J. (2003). Factors affecting the retention of junior officer fixed wing naval aviators.

Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.

The Army Training and Leadership Development Panel Officer Study Report to the Army 

(2003).

U.S. Army Personnel Survey Office (n.d.). Sample Survey of Military Personnel. Arlington, VA: 

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

U.S. Army Personnel Survey Office (2006). Spring 2006 Sample Survey of

Military Personnel. Arlington, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and 

Social Sciences.

Wehrenberg, S. B. (2001). Results of the Career Intentions Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Coast Guard Human Resource Capability Development.

Woods, R. H., & Macaulay, J. F. (1987). Exit interviews: How to turn a file filler into a 

management tool. The Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 28, 39-46.
50

APPENDIX A

OFFICER TRANSITION SURVEY FORMS

AND E-MAIL SOLICITATION

A-1

;;;

Officer Transition Survey: Exiting Officer Form

How To Fill Out This Survey

This survey is composed of multiple choice and fill in the blank questions. Read each 

question carefully and mark your answers directly on this booklet. Please be sure to clearly 

mark and/or print each of your responses and be frank when answering these items. 

Survey Approval Authority:

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Survey Control Number: DAPE-ARI-AO-09-13B

RCS: MILPC-3

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the U.S. Army Research Institute 

(Dr. Peter Legree at 703-602-7936, peter.legree@hqda.army.mil; or Dr. Mark Young at (703) 

602-7969, mark.young@hqda.army.mil.)

Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), this notice informs you 

of the purpose of this study and how the findings will be used.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences may collect the 

information requested in this survey under the authority of 10 U.S. Code 2358, "Research 

and Development Projects."

The purpose of this research is to collect information regarding the reasons junior officers 

separate from the Active Army. This research project will provide the Army with survey 

results to forecast, understand, and manage junior officer retention. 

Providing information on this survey is voluntary. Failure to respond to any particular 

question will not result in any penalty. All of your responses will be kept anonymous 

and confidential. Only group-level information and statistics will be reported. Your 

responses will not become part of your Army record and will have no impact on your 

Army career.

A-3
TFTF
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

 

_

 

_

_

 

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

3.

For questions 1 - 24, mark the response option that best describes you.

What is your gender?

Male

Female

Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin or

ancestry (of any race)? (Mark All That Apply)

1.

7.

6.

Yes, on active duty in the Army

No

Does not apply; I have no spouse

4.

American Indian or Alaska Native (e.g.,

Eskimo, Aleut)

What is your race? (Mark All That Apply)

Section 1: Background Information and Military Experiences

35 - 39 years old

30 - 34 years old

25 - 29 years old

20 - 24 years old

Under 20

2. What was your age on your last birthday?

40 - 44 years old

45 - 49 years old

50 or older

Asian (e.g., Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino,

Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese)

Black or African-American

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

(e.g., Samoan, Guamanian, Chamorro)

White

5. What is your current marital status?

Single, never married

Married

Legally separated or filing for divorce

Divorced

Widowed

Yes, in the Army Reserve or Army National Guard

Yes, on active duty in another military branch

4 or more

3

2

1

0

Yes, in the reserve component of another

military branch

8.

Desire to serve my country

Desire to fight the GWOT

Desire to be a military officer

Develop self-discipline

Develop leadership qualities/skills

Do something exciting/interesting

Earn more money than from previous job(s)

Educational benefits

Family support services

Get away from/solve a personal problem

Influence of family

Influence of friends

Lack of civilian employment opportunities

Leadership opportunities

Medical care

Military tradition in family

Need to be on my own

Pay and allowances

Retirement pay and benefits

Security and stability of a job

Training in job skills

Travel

Other; please specify ____________________

How many dependent children do you have?

Is your spouse currently serving in the U.S.

Armed Forces?

No, not Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ancestry

Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Cuban

Yes, other Hispanic/Spanish

What was the primary reason(s) you became an Army

Commissioned Officer? (Mark Up To 3 Options)

A-5
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

 

_

_

 

_

 

_

 

_

 

_

0

1

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

9. What was the source of your Army commission?

ROTC scholarship

ROTC non-scholarship

USMA

OCS

Direct

Other; please specify ____________________

10.

3 years

4 years

5 years

Other; please specify ____________________

11.

I was undecided about my Army career plans

Complete my initial obligation and then leave

Stay beyond my initial obligation, but not

necessarily until eligible for retirement

Stay until eligible for retirement (or beyond)

12. Please describe your military service experience.

(Mark All That Apply)

I have served in non-U.S. military services.

I have served as a Commissioned Officer in the

U.S. Active Army.

I have served as an enlisted Soldier in the

U.S. Active Army.

I have served in the Army Reserve or Army

National Guard.

I have served in the U.S. Air Force, Navy,

Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

14. How many total years have you served on active duty

with the Army as a Commissioned Officer?

Years

15. What is your current rank?

2LT

1LT

CPT

MAJ

Other; please specify ____________________

16. What was your last position prior to separation?

Platoon Leader

Company/Battery/Troop XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron Staff

Brigade Staff

Division Staff

Corps Staff

Transition Team Member/Leader

Other; please specify ____________________

Other; please specify ____________________

Transition Team Member/Leader

Corps Staff

Division Staff

Brigade Staff

Battalion/Squadron Staff

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

Company/Battery/Troop XO

Platoon Leader

In which of the following positions have you served

during your active duty career in the Army? (Mark All

That Apply)

17.

Years

13. How many total years have you served with the

U.S. Armed Forces?

When you were first commissioned as an Army

Officer, what were your Army career plans? 

When you were first commissioned, how many

years was your initial obligation to the Active Army?

A-6
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

19.

I have not been deployed with the Army

1 time

2 times

3 times

4 or more times

20. Within the past 5 years, how many total months

have you been deployed with the Army

(including unaccompanied PCS moves)?

I have not been deployed with the Army

6 months or less

7 - 11 months

12 - 17 months

18 - 23 months

24 - 30 months

31 months or more

31 months or more

24 - 30 months

18 - 23 months

12 - 17 months

7 - 11 months

6 months or less

I have not been away from my duty station

Within the past 5 years, how many total months

have you been away from your Army duty station

for TDY/Training (excluding deployments)?

21.

22. Have you ever been under "Stop-Loss"/

"Stop-Movement" orders with the Army?

Yes

No

23.

No

Yes

24. What is your current Branch/Functional Area?

BR 11 - Infantry

BR 12 - (formerly BR21) Corps of Engineers

BR 13 - Field Artillery

BR 14 - Air Defense Artillery

BR 15 - Aviation

BR 18 - Special Forces

BR 19 - Armor

FA 30 - Information Operations

BR 31 - Military Police

BR 37 - Psychological Operations

BR 38 - Civil Affairs

FA 46 - Public Affairs

BR 74 - CBRN

FA 57 - Simulation Operations

FA 53 - Systems Automation Officer

FA 52 - Nuclear & Counterproliferation

FA 50 - Force Management

FA 49 - ORSA

FA 48 - Foreign Area Officer

FA 47 - USMA Stabilized Faculty

FA 40 - Space Operations

BR 35 - Military Intelligence

FA 34 - Strategic Intelligence

BR 25 - Signal Corps

FA 24 - Telecommunications Systems Engineering

FA 59 - Strategic Plans & Policy

BR 36 - Financial Management

BR 42 - Adjutant General Corps

FA 51 - Research, Development & Acquisition

BR 88 - Transportation Corps

FA 90 - Logistics

BR 91 - Ordnance

BR 92 - Quartermaster Corps

FA 89 - Ammunition

Other Branch/Functional Area; please specify

______________________________________

No

Yes

18. Have you completed the Captain's Career Course?

Within the past 5 years, how many times

have you been deployed with the Army

(including unaccompanied PCS moves)?

Are you currently assigned to your preferred

Branch/Functional Area?

Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE)

Operations Support (OS)

Force Sustainment (FS)

A-7
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Availability of/assignment to key development positions

Fairness of Army promotion system

Availability of quality civilian training/educational

opportunities

Availability of quality military training/educational

opportunities

Army Career Progression

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform my

job

Quality of training to perform in my job

Amount of challenge from my job

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from my job

Day-to-day work-related tasks

My duty assignment/mission

My Branch/Functional Area

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

Section 2

6. Use of my skills and abilities on the job

15. Communication regarding career-related/advancement

information

16. Communication/support from assignment officers/career

managers

Length/number of working hours

Availability/timeliness of my Army promotions/advancement

opportunities

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

Below are some factors that may have influenced your Army career plans. For the following items, please use the

9-point scale to indicate the importance of each factor in your decision to LEAVE or STAY in the Active Army.

A-8
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leadership Experiences & Development

Amount of operational stress during deployments

Amount of combat stress during deployments

Experiences during deployments

Enlisted Soldier training/preparation for deployments

Officer training/preparation for deployments

22.

23.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

Deployments

Predictability of deployments

Location of deployments

Length of deployments

Number of deployments - too many

17. Number of deployments - too few

18.

19.

20.

21.

Quality of dwell time between deployments

Length of dwell time between deployments

Communication regarding scheduling/timing of deployments

24.

30.

31.

Communication with family during deployments

Army "Stop-Loss"/"Stop-Movement" policy

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

Technical/tactical competence of my Rater

Technical/tactical competence of my Senior Rater

Leadership skills of my Rater

Leadership skills of my Senior Rater

Supportiveness of my Rater

Supportiveness of my Senior Rater

Mentorship within chain of command

Mentorship outside of chain of command

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

A-9
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

57.

58.

59.

60.

50.

51.

52.

53.

56.

Quality of Personal/Family Life

Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie

Peers

NCO support and interaction

49.

48.

47.

46.

45.

43.

42.

Leadership Experiences & Development (cont.)

Amount of decision-making authority/autonomy

Opportunities to develop my leadership skills

Opportunities to lead and train Soldiers

40.

41.

44. Leadership pressure to stay in the Army

Trust in my fellow Officers

Technical/tactical competence of fellow Officers

Leadership skills of my fellow Officers

Help and support given to me by fellow Officers

54.

Quality of enlisted Soldiers in my unit

Quality of NCOs I work with

Quality of Officers I work with

Quality of my chain of command

Unit command climate

Unit teamwork/camaraderie/morale

55. Unit prestige

Army support of personal/family life

Installation support of personal/family life

Unit support of personal/family life

Amount of personal/family time while in garrison

Amount of time away from significant other/family while

deployed

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

A-10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

77.

78.

79.

70.

71.

72.

73.

76.

Quality of Army Life

Significant other/family support of my decision to serve

69.

68.

67.

66.

64.

63.

Quality of Personal/Family Life (cont.)

Impact of Army life on plans to have children

Impact of Army life on significant other/family well-being

Impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain personal

relationships

61.

62.

65. Significant other/family support for future deployment(s)

74.

75.

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's career

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's education

Army support for dual-military couples (e.g., deployment/

stabilization schedule, duty station)

Choice of duty station

Number/impact of PCS locations

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses)

Quality of healthcare services

Availability/quality of housing (on- or off-post)

Availability/quality of childcare (on- or off-post)

Stability/predictability of Army life

Stability/predictability of next assignment

Army respect and concern for my well-being

Opportunity to serve my country

Overall quality of Army life

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

A-11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

90.

91.

92.

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) in the civilian

sector

89.

88.

87.

86.

85.

83.

82.

Alternatives to Army Career

Opportunites to attain personal goals in the civilian sector

Opportunities for education and self-development in the civilian

sector

Opportunities to attain career goals in the civilian sector

80.

84. Opportunities in the current civilian job/labor market

Day-to-day work-related tasks in the civilian sector

Length/number of working hours in the civilian sector

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from jobs in the civilian sector

93.

Use of my skills and abilities in the civilian sector

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform jobs

in the civilian sector

Healthcare benefits in the civilian sector

Retirement benefits in the civilian sector

Opportunities to change career path in the civilian sector

94. Quality of life in the civilian sector

Job security in the civilian sector

95.

Reasons to Leave:

Reasons to Stay:

81.

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

Besides the reasons listed above, there may be other major factors that are influencing your decision to

LEAVE or STAY in the Active Army. If so, please describe them.

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

A-12
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

96.

I got what I wanted from my Army active duty officer experience (e.g., training, educational suport, leadership

experience, serving my country) and am now ready to move on to a life/career outside of the Army.

I have come to realize that I am not well suited to be an Army officer.

A career/professional opportunity has motivated me to leave Army active duty service.

An Army reserve-component opportunity (e.g., National Guard, Reserve) has motivated me to leave Army

active duty service.

Another military branch opportunity (e.g., Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) has motivated me

to leave Army active duty service.

I have concluded that I do not fit into the Army organization.

Other; please specify

97. Which of the following describe your plans during the next few years? (Mark All That Apply)

Pursue educational goals

Pursue professional goals

Run a family business

Start/raise a family

98. Do you plan to:

Join the Army Reserve?

Join the Army National Guard?

Join the Air Force, Navy, Marines, or Coast Guard?

Leave the military service entirely?

99. Are there any incentives/bonuses/benefits or changes the Army could make that would have influenced you to

stay in the Active Army?

Other; please specify 

100. I would recommend that others pursue a career in the Active Army as a Commissioned Officer.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!

Pressure from my family or significant other.

Which of the following best describes the primary reason you are separating from the Active Army? (Mark One)

Additional Comments: If you would like to make any additional comments on the topics of this survey, please provide 

them in the space below.

A-13

;;;

Officer Transition Survey: General Form

How To Fill Out This Survey

This survey is composed of multiple choice and fill in the blank questions. Read each 

question carefully and mark your answers directly on this booklet. Please be sure to clearly 

mark and/or print each of your responses and be frank when answering these items. 

Survey Approval Authority:

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Survey Control Number: DAPE-ARI-AO-09-13A

RCS: MILPC-3

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the U.S. Army Research Institute 

(Dr. Peter Legree at 703-602-7936, peter.legree@hqda.army.mil; or Dr. Mark Young at (703) 

602-7969, mark.young@hqda.army.mil.)

Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), this notice informs you 

of the purpose of this study and how the findings will be used.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences may collect the 

information requested in this survey under the authority of 10 U.S. Code 2358, "Research 

and Development Projects."

The purpose of this research is to collect information regarding the reasons junior officers 

separate from the Active Army. This research project will provide the Army with survey 

results to forecast, understand, and manage junior officer retention. 

Providing information on this survey is voluntary. Failure to respond to any particular 

question will not result in any penalty. All of your responses will be kept anonymous 

and confidential. Only group-level information and statistics will be reported. Your 

responses will not become part of your Army record and will have no impact on your 

Army career.

A-15
TFTF
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

3.

For questions 1 - 27, mark the response option that best describes you.

What is your gender?

Male

Female

Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin or

ancestry (of any race)? (Mark All That Apply)

1.

7.

6.

Yes, on active duty in the Army

No

Does not apply; I have no spouse

4.

American Indian or Alaska Native (e.g.,

Eskimo, Aleut)

What is your race? (Mark All That Apply)

Section 1: Background Information and Military Experiences

35 - 39 years old

30 - 34 years old

25 - 29 years old

20 - 24 years old

Under 20

2. What was your age on your last birthday?

40 - 44 years old

45 - 49 years old

50 or older

Asian (e.g., Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino,

Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese)

Black or African-American

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

(e.g., Samoan, Guamanian, Chamorro)

White

5. What is your current marital status?

Single, never married

Married

Legally separated or filing for divorce

Divorced

Widowed

Yes, in the Army Reserve or Army National Guard

Yes, on active duty in another military branch

4 or more

3

2

1

0

Yes, in the reserve component of another

military branch

8.

Desire to serve my country

Desire to fight the GWOT

Desire to be a military officer

Develop self-discipline

Develop leadership qualities/skills

Do something exciting/interesting

Earn more money than from previous job(s)

Educational benefits

Family support services

Get away from/solve a personal problem

Influence of family

Influence of friends

Lack of civilian employment opportunities

Leadership opportunities

Medical care

Military tradition in family

Need to be on my own

Pay and allowances

Retirement pay and benefits

Security and stability of a job

Training in job skills

Travel

Other; please specify ____________________

How many dependent children do you have?

Is your spouse currently serving in the U.S.

Armed Forces?

No, not Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish ancestry

Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Cuban

Yes, other Hispanic/Spanish

What was the primary reason(s) you became an Army

Commissioned Officer? (Mark Up To 3 Options)

A-17
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

 

_

 

_

 

_

 

_

0

1

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

9. What was the source of your Army commission?

ROTC scholarship

ROTC non-scholarship

USMA

OCS

Direct

Other; please specify ____________________

10.

3 years

4 years

5 years

Other; please specify ____________________

11.

I was undecided about my Army career plans

Complete my initial obligation and then leave

Stay beyond my initial obligation, but not

necessarily until eligible for retirement

Stay until eligible for retirement (or beyond)

15. Please describe your military service experience.

(Mark All That Apply)

I have served in non-U.S. military services.

I have served as a Commissioned Officer in the

U.S. Active Army.

I have served as an enlisted Soldier in the

U.S. Active Army.

I have served in the Army Reserve or Army

National Guard.

I have served in the U.S. Air Force, Navy,

Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

Years

16. How many total years have you served with the

U.S. Armed Forces?

When you were first commissioned as an Army

Officer, what were your Army career plans? 

12.

Does not apply; I am currently mobilized

from the Reserve component to serve on

active duty.

I plan to stay in the Active Army beyond

20 years.

I plan to stay in the Active Army until

retirement (e.g., 20 years or when eligible

to retire).

I plan to stay in the Active Army beyond

my obligation, but am undecided about

staying until retirement.

I am undecided whether I will stay in the

Active Army upon completion of my

obligation.

I will probably leave the Active Army upon

completion of my obligation.

I will definitely leave the Active Army upon

completion of my obligation.

13. How much time do you have left in your current

obligation (including "Stop-Loss" orders)?

0 - 3 months

4 - 6 months

7 - 11 months

12 - 17 months

18 - 23 months

24 months or more

14. Before completion of your current obligation, do

you expect to, or have you, submitted your

separation packet?

No, I am not submitting my separation packet

because I plan to stay beyond my current

obligation.

I am undecided about whether I will submit

my separation packet.

I did submit my separation packet but have

changed my mind and decided to stay beyond

my current obligation.

When you were first commissioned, how many

years was your initial obligation to the Active

Army?

Which of the following best describes

your current Army active duty career 

intentions?

Yes, I plan to submit my separation packet and 

leave the Active Army.

Yes, I have submitted my separation packet 

and plan to leave the Active Army.

A-18
0

1

2

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

17. How many total years have you served on active duty

with the Army as a Commissioned Officer?

Years

18. What is your current rank?

2LT

1LT

CPT

MAJ

Other; please specify ____________________

19. What is your current position?

Platoon Leader

Company/Battery/Troop XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron Staff

Brigade Staff

Division Staff

Corps Staff

Transition Team Member/Leader

Other; please specify ____________________

Other; please specify ____________________

Transition Team Member/Leader

Corps Staff

Division Staff

Brigade Staff

Battalion/Squadron Staff

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

Company/Battery/Troop XO

Platoon Leader

In which of the following positions have you served

during your active duty career in the Army? (Mark All

That Apply)

20.

Are you currently assigned to your preferred

Branch/Functional Area?

Within the past 5 years, how many times

have you been deployed with the Army

(including unaccompanied PCS moves)?

21. Have you completed, or are you currently enrolled

in, the Captain's Career Course?

Yes

No

Yes

No

26.

No

Yes

Have you ever been under "Stop-Loss"/

"Stop-Movement" orders with the Army?

25.

24. Within the past 5 years, how many total months

have you been away from your Army duty station

for TDY/Training (excluding deployments)?

I have not been away from my duty station

6 months or less

7 - 11 months

12 - 17 months

18 - 23 months

24 - 30 months

31 months or more

31 months or more

24 - 30 months

18 - 23 months

12 - 17 months

7 - 11 months

6 months or less

I have not been deployed with the Army

Within the past 5 years, how many total months

have you been deployed with the Army

(including unaccompanied PCS moves)?

23.

4 or more times

3 times

2 times

1 time

I have not been deployed with the Army

22.

A-19
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

27. What is your current Branch/Functional Area?

BR 11 - Infantry

BR 12 - (formerly BR21) Corps of Engineers

BR 13 - Field Artillery

BR 14 - Air Defense Artillery

BR 15 - Aviation

BR 18 - Special Forces

BR 19 - Armor

FA 30 - Information Operations

BR 31 - Military Police

BR 37 - Psychological Operations

BR 38 - Civil Affairs

FA 46 - Public Affairs

BR 74 - CBRN

FA 57 - Simulation Operations

FA 53 - Systems Automation Officer

FA 52 - Nuclear & Counterproliferation

FA 50 - Force Management

FA 49 - ORSA

FA 48 - Foreign Area Officer

FA 47 - USMA Stabilized Faculty

FA 40 - Space Operations

BR 35 - Military Intelligence

FA 34 - Strategic Intelligence

BR 25 - Signal Corps

FA 24 - Telecommunications Systems Engineering

FA 59 - Strategic Plans & Policy

BR 36 - Financial Management

BR 42 - Adjutant General Corps

FA 51 - Research, Development & Acquisition

BR 88 - Transportation Corps

FA 90 - Logistics

BR 91 - Ordnance

BR 92 - Quartermaster Corps

FA 89 - Ammunition

Other Branch/Functional Area; please specify

______________________________________

Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE)

Operations Support (OS)

Force Sustainment (FS)

A-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Availability/timeliness of my Army promotions/advancement

opportunities

Length/number of working hours

Communication/support from assignment officers/career

managers

16.

Communication regarding career-related/advancement

information

15.

6. Use of my skills and abilities on the job

Section 2

14.

13.

12.

11.

10.

9.

8.

7.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

My Branch/Functional Area

My duty assignment/mission

Day-to-day work-related tasks

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from my job

Amount of challenge from my job

Quality of training to perform in my job

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform my

job

Army Career Progression

Availability of quality military training/educational

opportunities

Availability of quality civilian training/educational

opportunities

Fairness of Army promotion system

Availability of/assignment to key development positions

Below are some factors that may influence your Army career plans. For the following items, please use the

9-point scale to indicate the importance of each factor in your decision to LEAVE or STAY in the Active Army.

A-21
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

Mentorship outside of chain of command

Mentorship within chain of command

Supportiveness of my Senior Rater

Supportiveness of my Rater

Leadership skills of my Senior Rater

Leadership skills of my Rater

Technical/tactical competence of my Senior Rater

Technical/tactical competence of my Rater

39.

38.

37.

36.

35.

34.

33.

32.

Army "Stop-Loss"/"Stop-Movement" policy

Communication with family during deployments

31.

30.

24.

Communication regarding scheduling/timing of deployments

Length of dwell time between deployments

Quality of dwell time between deployments

21.

20.

19.

18.

17. Number of deployments - too few

Number of deployments - too many

Length of deployments

Location of deployments

Predictability of deployments

Deployments

29.

28.

27.

26.

25.

23.

22.

Officer training/preparation for deployments

Enlisted Soldier training/preparation for deployments

Experiences during deployments

Amount of combat stress during deployments

Amount of operational stress during deployments

Leadership Experiences & Development

A-22
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

Amount of time away from significant other/family while

deployed

Amount of personal/family time while in garrison

Unit support of personal/family life

Installation support of personal/family life

Army support of personal/family life

55. Unit prestige

Unit teamwork/camaraderie/morale

Unit command climate

Quality of my chain of command

Quality of Officers I work with

Quality of NCOs I work with

Quality of enlisted Soldiers in my unit

54.

Help and support given to me by fellow Officers

Leadership skills of my fellow Officers

Technical/tactical competence of fellow Officers

Trust in my fellow Officers

44. Leadership pressure to stay in the Army

41.

40.

Opportunities to lead and train Soldiers

Opportunities to develop my leadership skills

Amount of decision-making authority/autonomy

Leadership Experiences & Development (cont.)

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

NCO support and interaction

Peers

Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie

Quality of Personal/Family Life

56.

53.

52.

51.

50.

60.

59.

58.

57.

A-23
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Overall quality of Army life

Opportunity to serve my country

Army respect and concern for my well-being

Stability/predictability of next assignment

Stability/predictability of Army life

Availability/quality of childcare (on- or off-post)

Availability/quality of housing (on- or off-post)

Quality of healthcare services

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses)

Number/impact of PCS locations

Choice of duty station

Army support for dual-military couples (e.g., deployment/

stabilization schedule, duty station)

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's education

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's career

75.

74.

65. Significant other/family support for future deployment(s)

62.

61.

Impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain personal

relationships

Impact of Army life on significant other/family well-being

Impact of Army life on plans to have children

Quality of Personal/Family Life (cont.)

63.

64.

66.

67.

68.

69.

Significant other/family support of my decision to serve

Quality of Army Life

76.

73.

72.

71.

70.

79.

78.

77.

A-24
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

81.

Reasons to Stay:

Reasons to Leave:

95.

Job security in the civilian sector

94. Quality of life in the civilian sector

Opportunities to change career path in the civilian sector

Retirement benefits in the civilian sector

Healthcare benefits in the civilian sector

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform jobs

in the civilian sector

Use of my skills and abilities in the civilian sector

93.

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from jobs in the civilian sector

Length/number of working hours in the civilian sector

Day-to-day work-related tasks in the civilian sector

84. Opportunities in the current civilian job/labor market

80.

Opportunities to attain career goals in the civilian sector

Opportunities for education and self-development in the civilian

sector

Opportunites to attain personal goals in the civilian sector

Alternatives to Army Career

82.

83.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) in the civilian

sector

92.

91.

90.

Besides the reasons listed above, there may be other major factors that influence your decision to LEAVE or STAY in

the Active Army. If so, please describe them.

A-25
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!

Strongly disagree

Disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Strongly agree

I would recommend that others pursue a career in the Active Army as a Commissioned Officer.

Other; please specify 

99.

Leave the military service entirely?

Join the Air Force, Navy, Marines, or Coast Guard?

Join the Army National Guard?

Join the Army Reserve?

When/if you decide to leave the Active Army, do you plan to:

98.

Start/raise a family

Run a family business

Pursue professional goals

Pursue educational goals

Which of the following describe your plans during the next few years? (Mark All That Apply)

97.

96.

Are there any incentives/bonuses/benefits or changes the Army could make that may influence you to

stay in the Active Army?

Additional Comments: If you would like to make any additional comments on the topics of this survey, please provide 

them in the space below.

A-26
Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), this notice informs you of 

the purpose of this study and how the findings will be used.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences may collect the 

information requested in this survey under the authority of 10 U.S. Code 2358, “Research and 

Development Projects.”

The purpose of this research is to collect information regarding the reasons junior officers stay 

in or separate from the Active Army. This research project will provide the Army with survey 

results to forecast, understand, and manage junior officer retention. 

Providing information on this survey is voluntary. Failure to respond to any particular question 

will not result in any penalty. All of your responses will be kept anonymous and confidential.

Only group-level information and statistics will be reported. Your responses will not become 

part of your Army record and will have no impact on your Army career.

How To Fill Out This Survey

READ CAREFULLY EACH QUESTION AND ALL THE POSSIBLE RESPONSES before 

selecting your response.

PLEASE BE FRANK because your responses will not be tracked back to you. Only persons 

involved in collecting or preparing the information for analyses will have access to completed 

surveys. Only group statistics will be reported. 

Survey Approval Authority:

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Survey Control Number: DAPE-ARI-AO-09-13D

RCS: MILPC-3

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the U. S. Army Research Institute 

(Dr. Peter Legree at 703-602-7936, peter.legree@hqda.army.mil; or Dr. Mark Young at (703) 

602-7969, mark.young@hqda.army.mil.)

Officer Transition Survey: General Web-based Form

A-27

For questions 1 - 27, mark the response option that best describes you.

1. What is your gender?

Male

Female

2. What was your age on your last birthday?

Under 20

20-24 years old

25-29 years old

30-34 years old

35-39 years old

40-44 years old

45-49 years old

50 or over

3. Are you of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 

origin or ancestry (of any race)? 

(Mark All That Apply)

No, not Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish 

ancestry

Yes, Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano

Yes, Puerto Rican

Yes, Cuban

 Yes, other Hispanic/Spanish

4. What is your race? (Mark All That Apply)

American Indian or Alaska Native (e.g., 

Eskimo, Aleut)

Asian (e.g., Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, 

Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese)

Black or African-American

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander 

(e.g., Samoan, Guamanian, Chamorro)

White

5. What is your current marital status?

Single, never married

Married

Legally separated or filing for divorce

Divorced

Widowed

6. Is your spouse currently serving in the U.S. 

Armed Forces?

Does not apply; I have no spouse.

No

Yes, on active duty in the Army

Yes, in the Army Reserve or Army 

National Guard 

Yes, on active duty in another military 

branch

Yes, in the reserve component of another 

military branch 

7. How many dependent children do you have?

0

1

2 

3

4 or more

8. What was the primary reason(s) you became 

an Army Commissioned Officer? 

(Mark up to 3 options)

Desire to serve my country

Desire to fight the GWOT

Desire to be a military officer

Develop self-discipline

Develop leadership qualities/skills

Do something exciting/interesting

Earn more money than from previous job(s)

Educational benefits

Family support services

Get away from/solve a personal problem

Influence of family

Influence of friends

Lack of civilian employment opportunities

Leadership opportunities

Medical care

Military tradition in family

Need to be on my own

Pay and allowances

Retirement pay and benefits

Security and stability of a job

Training in job skills

Travel

Other; please specify ________

Section 1: Background Information and Military Experiences 

A-29
9. What was the source of your Army 

commission?

ROTC scholarship

ROTC non-scholarship

USMA

OCS

Direct

Other; please specify ________

10. When you were first commissioned, how 

many years was your initial obligation to the 

Active Army? 

3 years

4 years

5 years

Other; please specify ________

11. When you were first commissioned as an 

Army Officer, what were your Army career 

plans?

I was undecided about my Army career 

plans

Complete my initial obligation and then 

leave

Stay beyond my initial obligation, but not 

necessarily until eligible for retirement

Stay until eligible for retirement (or 

beyond)

12. Which of the following best describes your 

current Army active duty career intentions? 

I will definitely leave the Active Army 

upon completion of my obligation.

I will probably leave the Active Army upon 

completion of my obligation.

I am undecided whether I will stay in the 

Active Army upon completion of my 

obligation.

I plan to stay in the Active Army beyond 

my obligation, but am undecided about 

staying until retirement.

I plan to stay in the Active Army until 

retirement (e.g., 20 years or when eligible 

to retire).

I plan to stay in the Active Army beyond 20 

years.

Does not apply; I am currently mobilized 

from the Reserve component to serve on 

active duty.

13. How much time do you have left in your 

current obligation (including “Stop-Loss” 

orders)?

0 – 3 months

4 – 6 months

7 – 11 months

12 – 17 months

18 – 23 months

24 months or more

14. Before completion of your current obligation, 

do you expect to, or have you, submitted your 

separation packet?

Yes, I have submitted my separation 

packet and plan to leave the Active 

Army.

Yes, I plan to submit my separation 

packet and leave the Active Army.

I did submit my separation packet but have 

changed my mind and decided to stay 

beyond my current obligation.

I am undecided about whether I will 

submit my separation packet.

No, I am not submitting my separation 

packet because I plan to stay beyond my 

current obligation.

15. Please describe your military service

experience. (Mark All That Apply)

I have served as a Commissioned Officer in 

the U.S. Active Army.

I have served as an enlisted Soldier in the 

U.S. Active Army.

I have served in the Army Reserve or Army 

National Guard.

I have served in the U.S. Air Force, Navy, 

Marine Corps, or Coast Guard.

I have served in non-U.S. military services.

16. How many total years have you served with 

the U.S. Armed Forces?

 NUMBER OF YEARS 0 1 2 

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

17. How many total years have you served on 

active duty with the Army as a 

Commissioned Officer?

 NUMBER OF YEARS 0 1 2 

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A-30
18. What is your current rank?

2LT

1LT

CPT

MAJ

Other; please specify ________

19. What is your current position?

Platoon Leader

Company/Battery/Troop XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron Staff

Brigade Staff

Division Staff

Corps Staff

Transition Team Member/Leader

Other; please specify ________

20. In which of the following positions have you 

served during your active duty career in the 

Army? (Mark All That Apply)

Platoon Leader

Company/Battery/Troop XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron Staff

Brigade Staff

Division Staff

Corps Staff

Transition Team Member/Leader

Other; please specify ________

21. Have you completed, or are you currently 

enrolled in, the Captain’s Career Course?

Yes

No

22. Within the past 5 years, how many times have 

you been deployed with the Army (including 

unaccompanied PCS moves)?

I have not been deployed with the Army

1 time

2 times

3 times

4 or more times

23. Within the past 5 years, how many total 

months have you been deployed with the 

Army (including unaccompanied PCS 

moves)?

I have not been deployed with the Army

6 months or less

7 – 11 months

12 – 17 months

18 – 23 months

24 – 30 months

31 months or more

24. Within the past 5 years, how many total 

months have you been away from your Army 

duty station for TDY/Training (excluding 

deployments)?

I have not been away from my duty station

6 months or less

7 – 11 months

12 – 17 months

18 – 23 months

24 – 30 months

31 months or more

25. Have you ever been under “StopLoss”/“Stop-Movement” orders with the 

Army?

Yes

No

26. Are you currently assigned to your preferred 

Branch/Functional Area?

Yes

No

A-31
27. What is your current Branch/Functional 

Area? 

Maneuver, Fires and Effects (MFE)

BR 11 – Infantry

BR 12 – (Formerly BR21) Corps of 

Engineers

BR 13 – Field Artillery

BR 14 – Air Defense Artillery

BR 15 – Aviation

BR 18 – Special Forces

BR 19 – Armor

FA 30 – Information Operations

BR 31 – Military Police

BR 37 – Psychological Operations

BR 38 – Civil Affairs

FA 46 – Public Affairs

BR 74 – CBRN

Operations Support (OS)

FA 24 – Telecommunications Systems

Engineering

BR 25 – Signal Corps

FA 34 – Strategic Intelligence

BR 35 – Military Intelligence

FA 40 – Space Operations

FA 47 – USMA Stabilized Faculty

FA 48 – Foreign Area Officer

FA 49 – ORSA

FA 50 – Force Management

FA 52 – Nuclear & Counterproliferation

FA 53 – Systems Automation Officer

FA 57 – Simulation Operations

FA 59 – Strategic Plans & Policy

Force Sustainment (FS)

BR 36 – Financial Management

BR 42 – Adjutant General Corps

FA 51 – Research, Development & 

Acquisition

BR 88 – Transportation Corps

FA 89 – Ammunition

FA 90 – Logistics

BR 91 – Ordnance

BR 92 – Quartermaster Corps

 Other Branch/Functional Area; 

please specify:

__________________________

A-32
Below are some factors that may have influenced your Army career plans. For the following items, please use 

the 9-point scale to indicate the importance of each factor in your decision to LEAVE or STAY in the Active 

Army.

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

1. My Branch/Functional Area 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2. My duty assignment/mission 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

3. Day-to-day work-related tasks 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

4. Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

5. Amount of challenge from my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

6. Use of my skills and abilities on the job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

7. Quality of training to perform in my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

8. Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to 

perform my job 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

9. Length/number of working hours 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Army Career Progression

10. Availability of quality military training/educational 

opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

11. Availability of quality civilian training/educational 

opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

12. Availability/timeliness of my Army 

promotions/advancement opportunities 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

13. Fairness of Army promotion system 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

14. Availability of/assignment to key development

positions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

15. Communication regarding careerrelated/advancement information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

16. Communication/support from assignment 

officers/career managers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Deployments

17. Number of deployments – too few 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

18. Number of deployments – too many 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely 

Important 

Reason to 

LEAVE

(1)

NOT an 

Important 

Reason to 

LEAVE or 

STAY

(5)

Extremely 

Important 

Reason to 

STAY

(9)

Section 2

A-33
19. Length of deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

20. Location of deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

21. Predictability of deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

22. Communication regarding scheduling/timing of 

deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

23. Length of dwell time between deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

24. Quality of dwell time between deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

25. Officer training/preparation for deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

26. Enlisted Soldier training/preparation for deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

27. Experiences during deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

28. Amount of combat stress during deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

29. Amount of operational stress during deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

30. Communication with family during deployments 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

31. Army “Stop-Loss”/“Stop-Movement” policy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Leadership Experiences & Development

32. Technical/tactical competence of my Rater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

33. Technical/tactical competence of my Senior Rater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

34. Leadership skills of my Rater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

35. Leadership skills of my Senior Rater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

36. Supportiveness of my Rater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

37. Supportiveness of my Senior Rater 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

38. Mentorship within chain of command 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

39. Mentorship outside of chain of command 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

40. Opportunities to develop my leadership skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

41. Opportunities to lead and train Soldiers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

42. Amount of decision-making authority/autonomy 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

43. NCO support and interaction 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

44. Leadership pressure to stay in the Army 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Peers 

45. Trust in my fellow Officers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

46. Technical/tactical competence of fellow Officers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

47. Leadership skills of my fellow Officers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

48. Help and support given to me by fellow Officers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A-34
Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie

49. Quality of enlisted Soldiers in my unit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

50. Quality of NCOs I work with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

51. Quality of Officers I work with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

52. Quality of my chain of command 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

53. Unit command climate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

54. Unit teamwork/camaraderie/morale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

55. Unit prestige 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Quality of Personal/Family Life

56. Army support of personal/family life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

57. Installation support of personal/family life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

58. Unit support of personal/family life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

59. Amount of personal/family time while in garrison 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

60. Amount of time away from significant other/family 

while deployed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

61. Impact of Army life on significant other/family wellbeing 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

62. Impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain 

personal relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

63. Impact of Army life on plans to have children 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

64. Significant other/family support of my decision to 

serve

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

65. Significant other/family support for future 

deployment(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

66. Opportunities for spouse/significant other’s career 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

67. Opportunities for spouse/significant other’s 

education 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

68. Army support for dual-military couples (e.g., 

deployment/stabilization schedule, duty station) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Quality of Army Life

69. Choice of duty station 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

70. Number/impact of PCS relocations 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

71. Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

72. Quality of healthcare services 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

73. Availability/quality of housing (on- or off-post) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

74. Availability/quality of childcare (on- or off-post) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

75. Stability/predictability of Army life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A-35
76. Stability/predictability of next assignment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

77. Army respect and concern for my well-being 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

78. Opportunity to serve my country 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

79. Overall quality of Army life 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Alternatives to Army Career

80. Opportunities for education and self-development in 

the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

81. Opportunities to attain career goals in the civilian 

sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

82. Opportunities to attain personal goals in the civilian 

sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

83. Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) in the 

civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

84. Opportunities in current civilian job/labor market 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

85. Job security in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

86. Day-to-day work-related tasks in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

87. Length/number of working hours in the civilian 

sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

88. Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from jobs in the 

civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

89. Use of my skills and abilities in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

90. Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to 

perform jobs in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

91. Healthcare benefits in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

92. Retirement benefits in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

93. Opportunities to change career path in the civilian 

sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

94. Quality of life in the civilian sector 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

95. Besides the reasons listed above, there may be other major factors that are influencing your 

decision to LEAVE or STAY in the Active Army. If so, please describe them.

Reasons to Leave:

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Reasons to Stay: 

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

A-36
96. Which of the following best describes the primary reason you submitted your separation packet? 

(Mark One)

I got what I wanted from my Army active duty officer experience (e.g., training, educational 

support, leadership experience, serving my country) and am now ready to move on to a life/career 

outside of the Army.

I have come to realize that I am not well suited to be an Army officer.

A career/professional civilian opportunity has motivated me to leave Army active duty service.

An Army reserve-component opportunity (e.g. National Guard, Reserve) has motivated me to 

leave Army active duty service.

Another military branch opportunity (e.g. Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard) has 

motivated me to leave Army active duty service.

I have concluded that I do not fit into the Army organization. 

Pressure from my family or significant other.

Other; please specify ______________________________________________

Does not apply; I have not submitted my separation packet.

97. Which of the following describe your plans during the next few years? 

(Mark All That Apply)

Pursue educational goals

Pursue professional goals

Run a family business

Start/raise a family

Other; please specify ___________________________________________________

98. When/if you decide to leave the Active Army, do you plan to: 

Join the Army Reserve?

Join the Army National Guard?

Join the Air Force, Navy, Marines, or Coast Guard?

Leave the military service entirely?

99. Are there any incentives/bonuses/benefits or changes the Army could make that may influence you 

to stay in the Active Army?

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

100. I would recommend that others pursue a career in the Active Army as a Commissioned Officer.

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nor disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

A-37
101. Where are you currently located?

Afghanistan

Kuwait

Iraq

Elsewhere in Asia

Europe

Korea

At another OCONUS site

At a CONUS site

Other location; please specify _____________________________________________

102. How many months have you been at your current location?

NUMBER OF MONTHS 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Additional Comments: If you would like to make any additional comments on the topics of 

this survey, please provide them in the space below.

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!

A-38
T

F

T

F

;;;

Officer Transition Survey: Expert Form

Privacy Act Statement

In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-579), this notice informs you 

of the purpose of this study and how the findings will be used.

The U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences may collect the 

information requested in this survey under the authority of 10 U.S. Code 2358, "Research 

and Development Projects."

The purpose of this research is to collect information regarding the reasons junior officers 

separate from the Active Army. This research project will provide the Army with survey 

results to forecast, understand, and manage junior officer retention. 

Providing information on this survey is voluntary. Failure to respond to any particular 

question will not result in any penalty. All of your responses will be kept anonymous 

and confidential. Only group-level information and statistics will be reported.

If you have any questions about this survey, please contact the U.S. Army Research Institute 

(Dr. Peter Legree at 703-602-7936, peter.legree@hqda.army.mil; or Dr. Mark Young at (703) 

602-7969, mark.young@hqda.army.mil.)

Survey Approval Authority:

U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

Survey Control Number: DAPE-ARI-AO-09-13C

RCS: MILPC-3

How To Fill Out This Survey

This survey is composed of multiple choice and fill in the blank questions. Read each 

question carefully and mark your answers directly on this booklet. Please be sure to clearly 

mark and/or print each of your responses and be frank when answering these items. 

A-39

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

Section 1: Background Information

Brigade CDR

Brigade XO

Battalion/Squadron CDR

Battalion/Squadron XO

Company/Battery/Troop CDR

1. Please indicate your current position:

HRC Career Manager/Assignment Officer

ACAP Transition Services Manager (TSM)

Other; please specify _________________________

2. How long have you been in your current position?

0 - 3 months

4 - 6 months

7 - 11 months

12 - 17 months

18 - 23 months

24 months or more

3. On average, how many hours per week do you spend talking with junior officers about the reasons they are

separating, or thinking about separating, from the Active Army?

0 hours

1 to 2 hours

3 to 4 hours

5 to 6 hours

7 to 8 hours

9 to 10 hours

11 + hours

4. Typically, the separating junior officers you spend time talking to/working with come from which type of

Branch/Functional Area? (Mark All That Apply)

Maneuver, Fires, and Effects (MFE)

Operations Support (OS)

Force Sustainment (FS)

Other; please specify _________________________

5. Typically, the separating junior officers you spend time talking to/working with are holding which of the

following ranks? (Mark All That Apply)

2LT (O1)

1LT (O2)

CPT (O3)

Instructions: We are trying to identify factors that influence junior officers (O1- O3), who have less than 10 years of 

active duty service as a Commissioned Officer, to separate from the Active Army. As you complete this survey, please 

answer each question based on your professional experiences over the last 12 months with junior Active Army

Commissioned Officers (O1- O3) who have separated, or have considered separating, from the Active Army.

A-41
_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

_

6. Typically, the separating officers you spend time talking to/working with are from which type of commissioning

source? (Mark All That Apply)

ROTC

USMA

OCS

Direct

Other; please specify ____________________

Not sure

HRC Career Managers/Assignment Officers and ACAP Transition Services Managers/Personnel,

please skip to Section 2.

7. How would you describe the retention plans of junior officers in your unit?

The majority of junior officers in my unit are planning to stay beyond their ADSO

About half of the junior officers in my unit are planning to stay beyond their ADSO

The majority of junior officers in my unit are planning to leave at the end of their ADSO

Not sure

8. Within your unit, what are the general thoughts regarding the costs and benefits of junior officers staying in

the Active Army?

Benefits for staying outweigh the costs

Benefits and costs of staying are about equal

Costs for staying outweigh the benefits

Not sure

A-42
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Availability/timeliness of their Army promotions/advancement

opportunities

Length/number of working hours

Communication/support from assignment officers/career

managers

16.

Communication regarding career-related/advancement

information

15.

6. Use of their skills and abilities on the job

Section 2

14.

13.

12.

11.

10.

9.

8.

7.

5.

4.

3.

2.

1.

Branch/Functional Area/Assignment

Their Branch/Functional Area

Their duty assignment/mission

Day-to-day work-related tasks

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from their job

Amount of challenge from their job

Quality of training to perform in their job

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform their

job

Army Career Progression

Availability of quality military training/educational

opportunities

Availability of quality civilian training/educational

opportunities

Fairness of Army promotion system

Availability of/assignment to key development positions

Please use the 9-point scale to indicate how MOST separating junior officers would respond to the following items. As you 

answer these items, be sure to focus on junior officers (O1-O3), who have less than 10 years of active duty service as a 

Commissioned officr, and are separating from the Active Army.

A-43
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

Mentorship outside of chain of command

Mentorship within chain of command

Supportiveness of their Senior Rater

Supportiveness of their Rater

Leadership skills of their Senior Rater

Leadership skills of their Rater

Technical/tactical competence of their Senior Rater

Technical/tactical competence of their Rater

39.

38.

37.

36.

35.

34.

33.

32.

Army "Stop-Loss"/"Stop-Movement" policy

Communication with family during deployments

31.

30.

24.

Communication regarding scheduling/timing of deployments

Length of dwell time between deployments

Quality of dwell time between deployments

21.

20.

19.

18.

17. Number of deployments - too few

Number of deployments - too many

Length of deployments

Location of deployments

Predictability of deployments

Deployments

29.

28.

27.

26.

25.

23.

22.

Officer training/preparation for deployments

Enlisted Soldier training/preparation for deployments

Experiences during deployments

Amount of combat stress during deployments

Amount of operational stress during deployments

Leadership Experiences & Development

A-44
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Ð Ð 

Amount of time away from significant other/family while

deployed

Amount of personal/family time while in garrison

Unit support of personal/family life

Installation support of personal/family life

Army support of personal/family life

55. Unit prestige

Unit teamwork/camaraderie/morale

Unit command climate

Quality of their chain of command

Quality of Officers they work with

Quality of NCOs they work with

Quality of enlisted Soldiers in their unit

54.

Help and support given to them by fellow Officers

Leadership skills of their fellow Officers

Technical/tactical competence of fellow Officers

Trust in their fellow Officers

44. Leadership pressure to stay in the Army

41.

40.

Opportunities to lead and train Soldiers

Opportunities to develop their leadership skills

Amount of decision-making authority/autonomy

Leadership Experiences & Development (cont.)

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

NCO support and interaction

Peers

Unit Cohesion & Camaraderie

Quality of Personal/Family Life

56.

53.

52.

51.

50.

60.

59.

58.

57.

A-45
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Overall quality of Army life

Opportunity to serve their country

Army respect and concern for their well-being

Stability/predictability of next assignment

Stability/predictability of Army life

Availability/quality of childcare (on- or off-post)

Availability/quality of housing (on- or off-post)

Quality of healthcare services

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses)

Number/impact of PCS locations

Choice of duty station

Army support for dual-military couples (e.g., deployment/

stabilization schedule, duty station)

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's education

Opportunities for spouse/significant other's career

75.

74.

65. Significant other/family support for future deployment(s)

62.

61.

Impact of Army life on ability to start/maintain personal

relationships

Impact of Army life on significant other/family well-being

Impact of Army life on plans to have children

Quality of Personal/Family Life (cont.)

63.

64.

66.

67.

68.

69.

Significant other/family support of their decision to serve

Quality of Army Life

76.

73.

72.

71.

70.

79.

78.

77.

A-46
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Extremely

Important

Reason to

LEAVE

Ð Ð Ð

NOT an

Important

Reason to

LEAVE or

STAY

Extremely

Important

Reason to

STAY

81.

Job security in the civilian sector

94. Quality of life in the civilian sector

Opportunities to change career path in the civilian sector

Retirement benefits in the civilian sector

Healthcare benefits in the civilian sector

Availability of equipment/resources/personnel to perform jobs

in the civilian sector

Use of their skills and abilities in the civilian sector

93.

Amount of enjoyment/fulfillment from jobs in the civilian sector

Length/number of working hours in the civilian sector

Day-to-day work-related tasks in the civilian sector

84. Opportunities in the current civilian job/labor market

80.

Opportunities to attain career goals in the civilian sector

Opportunities for education and self-development in the civilian

sector

Opportunites to attain personal goals in the civilian sector

Alternatives to Army Career

82.

83.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

Total monetary compensation (pay, bonuses) in the civilian

sector

92.

91.

90.

A-47
0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND PARTICIPATION!

Based on your experiences, what percentage of separating junior officers would recommend a career in the

Active Army as a Commissioned Officer?

96.

Based on your experiences with separating junior officers, what incentives/bonuses/benefits or changes could the

Army implement to convince them to stay in the Active Army?

95.

Percentage

Additional Comments: If you would like to make any additional comments on the topics of this survey, please provide 

them in the space below.

A-48
EMAIL SOLICITATION FOR WEB-BASED GENERAL FORM:

Because you requested release from active duty, the Army is asking you to complete a survey to 

describe your reasons for separation. Your answers are important because they will help the 

Army develop programs that are responsive to the needs and concerns of officers like you. 

The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept 

confidential, and individual responses will never be reported. Please complete the survey as soon 

as possible.

 

You can begin the survey by clicking on one of the links below and entering your User ID. The 

links and the User ID are at the bottom of this page.

If you are interrupted while completing the survey, you should log back into the website and 

reenter your User ID (and password) to complete any unanswered items. 

If you have any questions about the survey, please do not reply to this email. Instead please 

contact Dr. Peter Legree (pete.legree@us.army.mil) with the U.S. Army Research Institute.

Thank you for your support in this important effort.

Very Respectfully,

Chief, Retirements and Separations Branch

A-49