Accessible Version

MILITARY 

PERSONNEL

DOD Should Develop 

a Plan to Evaluate the 

Effectiveness of Its 

Career Intermission 

Pilot Program

Report to Congressional Committees

October 2015

GAO-16-35

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-35, a report to 

congressional committees

October 2015

MILITARY PERSONNEL

DOD Should Develop a Plan to Evaluate the 

Effectiveness of Its Career Intermission Pilot Program 

Why GAO Did This Study

Congress authorized CIPP in 2009 to 

provide greater flexibility in career 

paths for servicemembers and to 

enhance retention. CIPP allows 

servicemembers to take sabbaticals of 

up to 3 years in exchange for 2 months 

of obligated service for each month of 

sabbatical taken. The Navy is the only 

service to have participants who have 

completed sabbaticals.

Senate Report 113-211 included a 

provision for GAO to examine CIPP, 

and particularly the Navy’s experience 

with it. This report (1) evaluates the 

extent to which participation in CIPP 

has reached authorized participation 

limits and DOD has developed a plan 

for evaluating whether the program is 

an effective means to retain 

servicemembers; and (2) describes the 

Navy’s reported experience with CIPP 

as a tool for aiding retention by 

providing career flexibility. 

GAO reviewed CIPP legislation and 

implementation guidance, interviewed 

DOD and service officials responsible 

for CIPP, and compared the 

information obtained against key 

features of pilot evaluation plans such 

as clear, measurable objectives and 

standards for determining pilotprogram performance. GAO also 

reviewed Navy efforts to implement 

CIPP and, using a GAO-developed 

questionnaire, collected information 

from Navy CIPP participants who had 

completed their sabbaticals. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD develop 

and implement a plan to evaluate 

whether CIPP is enhancing retention. 

DOD concurred with GAO’s 

recommendation.

What GAO Found

Participation in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Career Intermission Pilot 

Program (CIPP)—a pilot program expiring in 2019 that allows servicemembers to 

take up to a 3-year break in service in exchange for a period of obligated service 

when they return—has remained below statutorily authorized limits, and officials 

have identified factors that could be affecting CIPP participation, but DOD has 

not developed a plan for evaluating whether CIPP is an effective means to retain 

servicemembers. DOD-wide participation in CIPP has been at less than half the 

authorized limit of 160 participants—up to 40 participants for each of the four 

services—per calendar year (see figure below). Service officials stated that 

factors affecting participation include statutory requirements, such as eligibility 

criteria, and military culture, among others. CIPP-authorizing legislation and DOD 

guidance require the services to report on the effectiveness of the pilot, including 

effect on retention and program costs; however, neither DOD nor the services 

have developed a plan for evaluating the pilot program. GAO has reported that a 

pilot program should have a well-developed and documented evaluation plan, 

including key features such as well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives 

and standards for determining pilot-program performance. Moreover DOD has 

proposed expansion of the pilot, and officials stated that CIPP should be made 

available permanently. However, the basis for these proposals is unclear, and 

without a well-developed plan for evaluating the pilot, there will be limited 

assurance that the evaluations conducted will provide the information needed to 

make decisions about the future of CIPP.

Total Number of Participants Approved to Participate by All Military Services for 

Calendar Years 2009 through July 2015 

According to Navy officials, CIPP has provided an option for the Navy to respond 

to the personal needs of servicemembers, and they believe it has helped to 

retain servicemembers who otherwise might have left the military. CIPP 

participants also provided GAO with examples of how the program allowed them 

to address work-life balance challenges, such as managing deployment 

schedules and caring for family, that could not be achieved using other options. 

View GAO-16-35. For more information, 

contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 

farrellb@gao.gov.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Background 4

CIPP Participation Has Been Lower Than Authorized Limits and 

the Military Services Have Identified Factors That Could Affect 

Participation, but DOD Has Not Established a Plan for 

Evaluating the Effect of CIPP on Retention 7

Navy Officials Stated That CIPP Has Provided an Option to 

Respond to Personal Needs of Servicemembers 14

Conclusions 16

Recommendation for Executive Action 16

Agency Comments 16

Appendix I: Status of the Career Intermission Pilot Program (CIPP) Implementation 19

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 21

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 23

GAO Contact 23

Staff Acknowledgments 23

Appendix IV: Accessible Data 24

Agency Comment Letter 24

Data Tables 25

Table

Table 1: Total Number of CIPP Participants Approved by Each 

Military Service as of July 2015 19

Data Table for Highlights and Figure 1: Total Number of CIPP 

Participants Approved by All Military Services for 

Calendar Years 2009 through July 2015 25

Figure

Total Number of Participants Approved to Participate by All 

Military Services for Calendar Years 2009 through July 

2015 2

Figure 1: Total Number of CIPP Participants Approved by All 

Military Services for Calendar Years 2009 through July 

2015 8

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Abbreviations

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
CIPP Career Intermission Pilot Program

DOD Department of Defense

JAG Judge Advocate General’s

OUSD(P&R) Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness

Page iii GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
Page 1 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

October 27, 2015

Congressional Committees

The Secretary of Defense has cited challenges for the Department of 

Defense (DOD) in attracting and retaining servicemembers with skills that 

are in high demand in corporate America, and stated that DOD needs to 

provide more flexible career paths to retain the best troops.1 The Career 

Intermission Pilot Program (CIPP) was authorized by Congress in 2009, 

with the intent of enhancing retention and providing greater flexibility in 

the career path of servicemembers.2 CIPP allows interested 

servicemembers to take a sabbatical of up to 3 years in order to meet 

personal or professional needs, such as pursuing higher education or 

caring for ailing parents or young children, and then return to active duty 

with no adverse career effect. CIPP was initially authorized to accept 

participants beginning January 1, 2009, with no servicemembers to be 

released from active duty under the program after December 31, 2012. 

After subsequent extensions the program is currently authorized until 

December 31, 2019.3 The Navy in 2009 became the first service to 

implement CIPP, followed by the Marine Corps in 2013, and the Air Force 

and the Army in 2014.

Senate Report No. 113-211 included a provision for GAO to examine 

CIPP and the military services’ participation in the program and, in 

particular, to examine the Navy’s experience with the program.4 This 

report (1) evaluates the extent to which participation in CIPP has reached 

authorized participation limits and DOD has developed a plan for 

 

1The Secretary made the comments in a March 30, 2015, speech on the force of the 

future at a high school in Abington, Pennsylvania. For the purposes of this report, we are 

using the term “servicemembers” to include officers and enlisted members of DOD’s 

Armed Service components, and members on active guard and reserve duty.

2Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. No. 

110-417, § 533 (Oct. 14, 2008).

3Carl Levin and Howard P. ‘‘Buck’’ McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal 

Year 2015, Pub. L. No. 113–291, § 522(a) (December 2014).

4S. Rep. No. 113-211, accompanying S. 2437, the Senate’s version of the Department of 

Defense Appropriations Bill (2015).

Letter
evaluating whether the program is an effective means to retain 

servicemembers, and (2) describes the Navy’s reported experience with 

CIPP as a tool for aiding retention by providing career flexibility.

To identify the extent to which CIPP has met authorized participation 

limits and DOD has developed a plan for evaluating whether the program 

is an effective means to retain servicemembers, we reviewed CIPP 

implementation and reporting requirements, including the requirement to 

evaluate the effectiveness of the program, established in the NDAA for 

fiscal years 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2015.

Page 2 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

5 Also, we reviewed Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)) 

guidance provided to the services, as well as service-specific CIPP 

implementation guidance. In addition, we interviewed OUSD(P&R) 

officials and CIPP program managers for each of the four services—

including the Navy’s Military Personnel Plans and Policies office; the Air 

Force’s Military Force Management Policy office; the Army’s Military 

Personnel Management Directorate within the Deputy Chief of Staff Army 

G1 office, and Human Resources Command; and the Marine Corps’ 

Manpower & Reserve Affairs office. We compared the documentation and 

information obtained against key features of program evaluation plans 

developed by GAO and private professional auditing and evaluation 

organizations.6 The key features in the public and private standards 

 

5The pilot program has twice been extended; first through December 31, 2015, in the 

fiscal year 2012 NDAA, and then through December 31, 2019, in the fiscal year 2015 

NDAA. The fiscal year 2013 NDAA extended the program to active guard and reserve 

personnel. See the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, Pub. L. No 

112-81, § 531(a) (Dec. 31, 2011), the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2013 Pub.L.No. 112-239, §522(a) (Jan. 2, 2013), and Pub. L. No. 113-291, § 522(a) (Dec. 

19, 2014).

6GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Strengthen Its Approach for Evaluating the 

SRFMI Data-Sharing Pilot Program. GAO-09-45 (Washington, D.C. Nov. 7, 2008). In this 

report, we were asked to assess the Internal Revenue Service’s plan to evaluate the 

effectiveness of a pilot program. In doing so, we identified key features for evaluating the 

effectiveness of pilot programs by reviewing social science and evaluation literature, along 

with published GAO guidance. Specifically, key features of an evaluation plan were based 

on measures collectively described in the following reports: P.H. Rossi, M.W. Lipsey, and 

H.E. Freeman, Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (Thousand Oaks, Calif.: 2004); GAO, 

Designing Evaluations, GAO/PEMD-10.1.4 (Washington, D.C.: May 1991); GAO, 

Assessing Social Program Impact Evaluations: A Checklist Approach, PAD-79-1 

(Washington, D.C.: October 1978); B.R. Worthen, J.R. Sanders, and J.L. Fitzpatrick, 

Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines (New York, N.Y.: 

1997). Since GAO-09-45 was published, GAO/PEMD-10.1.4 has been superseded by 

GAO, Designing Evaluations, GAO-12-208 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012).
include establishing well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and 

standards for determining pilot-program performance. To identify what 

factors, if any, have affected CIPP participation, we reviewed statutory 

and service-specific guidance to identify eligibility criteria for participating 

in CIPP, and we discussed with CIPP officials the extent to which these 

criteria and other factors affect participation. In addition, we collected and 

reviewed CIPP applicant data by gender, servicemember rank, and 

reason for and length of requested sabbatical, as well as data indicating 

the reasons why applicants were disapproved for the program. We 

interviewed service officials responsible for maintaining CIPP participation 

data to determine the data collection and internal control processes used 

to ensure data accuracy. Based on these conversations and our review of 

available documentation, we determined that these data were sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of this review.

To review the Navy’s reported experience with CIPP as a tool for aiding 

retention of servicemembers by providing career flexibility, we reviewed 

the Navy’s efforts to implement the program from 2009 to the present. We 

reviewed Navy policy and procedures for implementing CIPP as well as 

reports provided to Congress on the implementation and participation of 

Navy personnel in the program, along with preliminary data on the 

program’s effect on retention. In addition, we interviewed Navy 

headquarters officials and officials responsible for implementing CIPP in 

four of the Navy’s servicemember communities—Surface Warfare Officer, 

Aviation Officer, Submarine Officer, and Enlisted personnel. To 

understand the extent to which CIPP has provided flexibility in the 

personal and professional needs of servicemembers, we collected nongeneralizable data through an email questionnaire sent to 33 Navy CIPP 

participants who had completed sabbaticals as of June 2015. We 

received responses from 17 participants.

Page 3 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

7

We conducted this performance audit from March 2015 to October 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

 

7Data collected are non-generalizable, and they allowed us to report anecdotal examples 

of the experiences of CIPP participants. Among the participants, officers responded to the 

questionnaire at a higher percentage rate than did enlisted (i.e., officers represented about 

half the participants—49 percent—but represented a clear majority of the respondents—

63 percent). Additionally, a somewhat higher percentage of women responded relative to 

their representation in the participant population.
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The NDAA for fiscal year 2009 initially authorized CIPP as a pilot program 

through December 31, 2012, establishing basic eligibility criteria for 

participants, providing guidelines for implementing the program, and 

establishing congressional reporting requirements. Specifically:

· For each calendar year from 2009 through 2012, up to 20 officers and 

20 enlisted servicemembers per military service are authorized to 

leave active duty for a period not to exceed 3 years.

Page 4 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

8 For each month 

of sabbatical taken, servicemembers must complete two months of 

obligated service upon their return to active duty.

· Servicemembers who have completed their initial active duty service 

agreement and are not currently receiving a critical skills retention 

bonus are eligible to participate.9

· During their sabbatical, all servicemembers are required to serve in 

the Individual Ready Reserve10 and are required to undergo such 

inactive duty training as shall be required by the Secretary involved in 

order to ensure that the servicemember retains sufficient proficiency 

in the military skills, professional qualifications and physical readiness.

 

8Authorizing legislation and related DOD guidance do not place restrictions on what 

participants can do during their sabbatical. 

9Service obligations generally require that servicemembers who join the armed forces 

serve for a total initial period of not less than 6 years nor more than 8 years (10 USC §

651), but servicemembers in certain career fields may have longer initial service periods. 

Servicemembers who are qualified in a critical military skill or assigned to a high priority 

unit under 37 U.S.C. § 355 are eligible to receive a critical skills bonus in exchange for a 

period of obligated service.

10Individual Ready Reserve is a manpower pool consisting principally of personnel who 

have had training, served previously in the active component or in the selected reserve, 

and have some period of their military service obligation remaining.

Background
· During sabbaticals, servicemembers receive two-thirtieths of their 

salary (i.e. 2-days pay per month) and maintain full health benefits for 

themselves and their dependents. In addition, DOD provides 

participants and their dependents with a paid relocation within the 

United States. For example, if servicemembers are taking a sabbatical 

to attend school, DOD will pay for them to move to the location of their 

educational program. At the end of the servicemember’s sabbatical, 

DOD will pay the costs to relocate the servicemember to his or her 

next assignment.

The NDAA for fiscal year 2015 kept these NDAA fiscal year 2009 

guidelines and extended the program, allowing for servicemembers to 

start sabbaticals through December 31, 2019, returning to active duty no 

later than December 31, 2022. Appendix I shows when each military 

service implemented CIPP and the number of participants approved by 

each service as of July 2015.The fiscal year 2015 NDAA also extended 

the date for DOD to provide a final report to Congress—from March 1, 

2016, to March 1, 2023, and it added additional reporting elements. DOD 

is now required to report the following:

· A description of the number of applicants for the pilot program and the 

criteria used to select individuals for participation in the pilot program.

· An evaluation of whether the authorities of the pilot programs provided 

an effective means to enhance the retention of members of the armed 

forces possessing critical skills, talents, and leadership abilities.

· An evaluation of whether the career progression in the armed forces 

of individuals who participate in the pilot program has been or will be 

adversely affected; and the usefulness of the pilot program in 

responding to the personal and professional needs of individual 

members of the armed forces.

· A description of reasons why servicemembers choose to participate in 

the pilot.

Page 5 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
· A description of the servicemembers, if any, who did not return to 

active duty at the conclusion of their sabbatical, and a statement of 

the reasons why these servicemembers did not return.

Page 6 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

11

· A statement about whether servicemembers were required to perform 

training as part of their participation in the pilot program, and if so, a 

description of the servicemembers who were required to perform 

training, the reasons they were required to perform training, and how 

often they were required to perform training.

· A description of the costs to each military department of each pilot 

program.12

· Recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the 

Secretary concerned considers appropriate for the modification or 

continuation of the pilot programs.

 

11A servicemember choosing not to return to active duty after signing a CIPP agreement 

extending his or her service commitment may be subject to discipline under the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice.

12These costs can include pilot program administrative costs, the pay and benefits 

provided to servicemembers and their families during the sabbatical, servicemember 

retraining (if needed), and travel and transportation costs associated with moving 

servicemembers and their families to a location of their choice during the sabbatical 

period. According to DOD officials, retraining costs are often incurred during a 

servicemember’s career regardless of participation in CIPP; for example, when a 

servicemember takes a rotation in an office position and then has to be retrained in the 

occupation upon return. While not all CIPP participants request moves, for those who do, 

service officials told us they work to schedule sabbatical start dates with previously 

scheduled Permanent Change of Station moves and, therefore, DOD may be paying for 

the servicemembers to move even if they were not taking a sabbatical. In September 2015 

we reported that DOD has experienced an overall increase in Permanent Change of 

Station per-move costs since 2001. See GAO, Military Compensation: DOD Needs More 

Complete and Consistent Data to Assess the Costs and Policies of Relocating Personnel, 

GAO-15-713 (Washington, D.C. Sep. 9, 2015).
Participation in CIPP has remained below statutorily authorized limits, and 

officials have identified factors that could be affecting CIPP participation, 

but DOD has not established a plan for evaluating whether CIPP is an 

effective means to retain servicemembers. The rate of DOD-wide 

participation in CIPP has been at less than half the authorized limit of 160 

participants per calendar year, and officials from each of the services 

stated that factors including statutory requirements, service-specific 

limitations, military culture, and personal financial constraints could be 

affecting participation. Additionally, although DOD officials stated that 

they would like to make CIPP a permanent program, and the services are 

required to provide a final report to Congress on its effectiveness, costs, 

and retention not later than March 1, 2023, DOD has not established a 

plan for evaluating the effect of the pilot program on retention of 

servicemembers.

Page 7 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Since Congress authorized CIPP in fiscal year 2009, participation has 

remained below authorized limits. As shown in figure 1, DOD is 

authorized to enroll up to 160 servicemembers per year in the program 

(up to 40 participants for each of the four services); but DOD-wide, the 

highest number of participants approved for CIPP was 76, in calendar 

year 2014.

CIPP Participation 

Has Been Lower 

Than Authorized 

Limits and the Military 

Services Have 

Identified Factors 

That Could Affect 

Participation, but 

DOD Has Not 

Established a Plan for 

Evaluating the Effect 

of CIPP on Retention

CIPP Participation Has 

Remained Below 

Authorized Limits
Figure 1: Total Number of CIPP Participants Approved by All Military Services for 

Page 8 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Calendar Years 2009 through July 2015

Note: Data are through July 2015. According to service officials, all services except the Air Force 

accept applications on a rolling basis; therefore, total numbers for calendar year 2015 may increase.

From 2009 through 2012, only Navy personnel were participating in CIPP, 

but in 2013, the Marine Corps approved its first applicant, and in 2014, 

personnel from all four services were participating in the pilot. Some of 

the services have had participation levels closer to the authorized limits. 

For example, in 2014, of the 76 participants approved, 30 were Navy and 

35 were Air Force. However, the Army and Marine Corps were below 

authorized limits, with 9 servicemembers approved from the Army and 2 

from the Marine Corps.

Service officials identified four factors that may affect participation in 

CIPP—statutory requirements, service-specific limitations, military culture, 

and financial constraints.

· Statutory Requirements—According to the CIPP authorizing statute, 

servicemembers are not eligible to participate in the program during 

the period of their initial active duty service agreement or if they are 

currently receiving a critical skills retention bonus. These eligibility 

Service Officials Have 

Identified Factors That 

May Affect Participation
criteria reduce the population eligible to apply for CIPP. For example, 

according to Navy officials, as of July 2015, almost 134,000 Navy 

servicemembers were ineligible to participate in CIPP because they 

were in their initial active duty service agreement period. According to 

a DOD budget analysis document, the initial service agreement for a 

Navy sailor typically occurs from 18 to 33 years of age, when 

professional goals compete most strongly with personal goals such as 

family planning. For example, one participant who responded to our 

questionnaire stated that she used CIPP after completing her initial 

service obligation to start her family. However, she would have 

preferred to take a sabbatical during her initial service obligation 

period when she was younger.

According to a DOD budget analysis document, for the Navy, 

retention at a servicemember’s first career reenlistment point is the 

most difficult to achieve. However, if servicemembers elected to 

participate in CIPP during their first service obligation period, they in 

effect would be electing retention during this critical timeframe. 

According to Navy officials, if these servicemembers were able to 

participate in CIPP, the CIPP-obligated service requirement would 

extend each servicemember’s existing period of obligated service, 

which could enhance retention.

Another statutory requirement caps the annual number of participants 

at 40 (20 officers and 20 enlisted) servicemembers per service. An 

Army official and some Navy officials were of the opinion that the 

limitations on the number of participants may reduce participation, 

stating that servicemembers may be hesitant to apply since so few 

people were selected annually. Proposed language in the fiscal year 

2016 NDAA, if enacted, would repeal the prohibition on participation in 

CIPP by servicemembers who are in their initial obligated service 

period or who are receiving a critical military skills retention bonus, 

and it would eliminate program participation caps.

· Service-specific limitations—Each military service has established 

selection processes and eligibility requirements that supplement the 

statutory requirements established by the NDAA for fiscal year 2009. 

For example, the Air Force rates applicants in various categories—

such as job performance, leadership, experience, job responsibility, 

and education. As a result, according to Air Force officials, the most 

competitive applicants were prioritized for participation in CIPP, and 

less competitive applicants were disapproved for participation in the 

program. Further, service-specific guidance includes limitations on 

Page 9 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
participation by servicemembers in certain career fields, such as Army 

medical personnel and some officers in the Navy Chaplain Corps and 

Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, as well as certain enlisted 

nuclear personnel. According to Navy and Air Force officials, 

additional career fields that require sustained proficiency (such as 

operating weapons systems or piloting aircraft), while not restricted 

from participation in CIPP, may have restrictions on breaks in service. 

For example, Navy officials stated that officers in the submarine 

community must receive a waiver to go longer than 3 years without a 

sea tour, and if officers exceed 5 years without a sea tour they can no 

longer work in the submarine community—this could occur if an officer 

took a 3-year sabbatical followed by a 3-year shore tour. According to 

Navy officials, if individuals in these communities participate in CIPP, 

measures are taken to ensure that they do not exceed timeframes 

that would result in the loss of their ability to serve in their community. 

Additionally, Navy and Air Force officials stated that pilots who do not 

have a minimum number of flight hours within a certain time period 

are no longer certified to operate their aircraft, and are required to 

complete additional training to be recertified. A Navy official stated 

that pilots are not disqualified from their position; however, additional 

training further extends the officer’s time out of operational service, 

which may affect the officer’s promotion potential. 

· Military culture—Officials from each service also stated that 

participation may be influenced by military culture, and that 

servicemembers have the perception that a break in service may have 

a negative effect on upward advancement. Specifically, officials from 

all the services stated that servicemembers may not trust assurances 

as to how a break in service would be viewed by promotion boards. 

For example, one participant was concerned that “a break in service 

would be viewed as taking an off-ramp, an easy path, taking [oneself] 

out of the fast lane,” but upon returning from sabbatical has been 

reassured by knowledge of other participants who have returned from 

their sabbaticals and received promotions. Another participant 

reported being “told explicitly by my chain of command [before 

entering the program] that my career would suffer”; and another 

reported that upon returning from sabbatical the servicemember 

would “meet people, sadly even some senior leaders, who are not 

familiar with the program and assume I have decided to prioritize 

family over career or assume I do not want to [remain] competitive for 

advancement.” CIPP authorizing language includes provisions 

designed to mitigate any potential negative effect of a sabbatical on 

career advancement, but according to Army and Navy officials, until 

Page 10 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
more CIPP participants return from sabbaticals and demonstrate 

career advancement, servicemembers may be hesitant to participate. 

· Financial constraints—The salary that servicemembers receive 

during the sabbatical period is equivalent to approximately 2 days of 

pay per month. Additionally, according to DOD policy, service 

members may not receive special or incentive pay or bonus payments

while on sabbatical. Officials from the Army and the Navy stated that 

participation in CIPP likely will remain limited because 

servicemembers need financial resources to support themselves and 

their families during the sabbatical. One of the CIPP participants who 

responded to our questionnaire emphasized the need to have another 

source of income while participating. Another participant reported the 

opinion that CIPP “gives a [servicemember] options that are not 

available in any other program. However, the deal is not that great for

the member—mainly because of the monetary hit. Since a member is 

coming back, I think it is possible to allow a person to receive some 

pay while participating in CIPP.”

In February 2009, OUSD(P&R) issued a directive-type memorandum that 

authorized—but did not require—the Secretary of each military 

department to implement CIPP.

Page 11 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

13 According to the memorandum, if the 

services did implement CIPP, they were required to develop a method to 

evaluate the program. Specifically, the memorandum stated that the 

services should “have the appropriate oversight, analytical rigor, and 

proper evaluation methodologies” to evaluate the pilot. In September 

2015, OUSD(P&R) reissued the memorandum and, among other things, 

included a requirement for each service to report to OUSD(P&R) annually 

on the status and effectiveness of the program. This report is to include 

information on the demographics of CIPP applicants, criteria used for 

selecting applicants, an assessment of the effectiveness of the program, 

and recommendations for legislative or administrative actions for the 

modification or continuation of the CIPP. However, neither DOD nor the 

services have developed a plan for evaluating the extent to which the pilot 

program is an effective means to retain servicemembers. The updated 

memorandum also clarifies DOD’s policy on servicemember benefits 

 

13Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Memorandum, Pilot Programs 

on Career Flexibility to Enhance Retention of Service Members, (Feb 4, 2009). 

DOD Has Not Established 

a Plan for Evaluating 

Whether CIPP Is an 

Effective Means to Retain 

Servicemembers
while on sabbatical and includes a requirement for each service to report 

to OUSD(P&R) on June 1st of each year on the program’s progression.

Page 12 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

14

More specifically, based on the revised guidance, beginning June 1, 

2016, the services will be required to provide OUSD(P&R) an evaluation 

of whether:

· the authorities for CIPP provide an effective means to enhance the 

retention of participant servicemembers possessing critical skills, 

talents, and leadership;

· the career progression of participant servicemembers has been or will 

be adversely affected; and

· CIPP is useful in responding to the personal and professional needs 

of individual servicemembers.

These reporting elements are also required in the services’ final report to 

Congress, due March 2023. Interim reports on the implementation and 

current status of the pilot programs are due in 2017and 2019.15 DOD has 

proposed expansion of the pilot, and the proposed fiscal year 2016 NDAA 

includes language that will remove the pilot’s participation cap and some 

restrictions on participation. Additionally, DOD officials stated that CIPP 

should be made available permanently; however, without an evaluation of 

the program, the basis for DOD’s proposed changes to the program is 

unclear.

 

14Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Directive-type Memorandum 

(DTM) 15-005, Pilot Programs on Career Flexibility to Enhance Retention of Service 

Members, (Sep 8, 2015) directs each military department implementing a CIPP to submit 

to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness an annual 

report discussing current status and assessment of the program. The first report is due 

June 1, 2016.

15The services are also required to submit biennial interim reports to the congressional 

defense committees detailing the implementation and current status of the pilot programs. 

The reports were expected for June 1, 2011, 2013, and 2015, as well as 2017 and 2019. 

The Navy provided reports in 2011, 2013, and 2015. These reports cite positive 

experiences with CIPP, but they do not provide a full evaluation of the program because 

so few servicemembers had completed sabbaticals. The Air Force, Army, and Marine 

Corps provided their first reports in 2015, and similarly, since most servicemembers in 

these services have only recently begun their sabbaticals, they provide a status update on 

program participation, but they do not include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the 

program. 
We have identified key features that should be included in pilot program 

evaluation plans, and along with private professional auditing and 

evaluation organizations, we have found that a well-developed and 

documented evaluation plan can help ensure that agency evaluations 

generate performance information needed to make effective program and 

policy decisions.

Page 13 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

16 Well-developed evaluation plans include key features 

such as:

· well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives;

· criteria or standards for determining pilot-program performance;

· clearly articulated methodology, including sound sampling methods, 

determination of appropriate sample size for the evaluation design, 

and a strategy for comparing the pilot results with other efforts;

· a clear plan that details the type and source of data necessary to 

evaluate the pilot, methods for data collection, and the timing and 

frequency of data collection; and

· a detailed data-analysis plan to track the program’s performance and 

evaluate the final results of the project.

Although the services are required to evaluate the effectiveness of CIPP, 

currently they do not have any plans for evaluating the program. Without 

a plan for evaluating the pilot that includes these key features, there will 

be limited assurance that the evaluations conducted will provide the 

information needed to make decisions about the future of CIPP.

Moreover, the establishment of a plan including key features such as 

well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and standards for 

determining pilot-program performance may aid in addressing some of 

the challenges posed by the pilot’s timeline. Prior to the establishment of 

the June 2016 OUSD(P&R) reporting requirement, officials from all four 

services raised concerns about their ability to evaluate the effectiveness 

of the program so soon after implementation. Specifically, Marine Corps 

and Army officials stated that it is too early to determine the program’s 

effect on retention, and that it can take several years after a participant 

starts a sabbatical to determine whether the program contributed to 

 

16GAO-09-45.
retention. Marine Corps officials stated that if a participant took the 

maximum 3-year sabbatical followed by a 6-year obligated service period, 

it could take up to 9 years to determine whether the individual would 

decide to stay in the armed services beyond his or her period of obligated 

service. As of July 2015, of the 133 program participants, 5 have 

completed the obligated service period. Putting plans in place for how the 

pilot will be evaluated can guide the services on the data they need to 

collect as the pilot progresses, and can better position them to assess the 

pilot’s performance.

According to Navy officials, CIPP has provided an option for the Navy to 

respond to the personal needs of servicemembers, and they believe the 

program has helped to retain servicemembers who otherwise might have 

left the military. Additionally, a DOD budget analysis document states that 

the Navy will retain a servicemember for a longer time period by using a 

combination of monetary and non-monetary incentives than would have 

been possible using only a single incentive. According to this document, 

in the Navy’s experience, financial incentives alone have not been 

adequate to retain certain categories of servicemembers, such as 

nuclear-trained surface warfare officers and senior nuclear-trained 

enlisted sailors serving on submarines and aircraft carriers. Navy CIPP 

participants have come from a range of career fields, including aviators, 

engineers, medical personnel, nuclear-trained surface warfare officers, 

and others.

Navy officials stated that they are not using CIPP to address any specific 

critical skills, but that a servicemember’s occupation is given 

consideration during the CIPP approval process. According to the Navy’s 

2011 interim report to Congress, CIPP applicants need certain 

qualifications, including a record of demonstrating strong and sustained 

performance in challenging positions, leadership, professional skills, 

resourcefulness, ability or potential to contribute to and succeed in the 

Navy, and exemplary personal behavior and integrity. For example, 

according to a Navy CIPP document, a Petty Officer Second Class was 

identified by the JAG Corps as a servicemember who displayed the 

aptitude, work ethic, and talent needed to serve as an attorney. This 

individual was encouraged to take a sabbatical to complete her degree, 

earn a Juris Doctorate, and apply for a commission in the JAG Corps 

upon return from the sabbatical. After a 36-month sabbatical this 

servicemember earned a commission in the JAG Corps and became an 

attorney in the Navy.

Page 14 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Navy Officials Stated 

That CIPP Has 

Provided an Option to 

Respond to Personal 

Needs of 

Servicemembers
In addition, officials stated that a career sabbatical may help to address 

the work-life balance that cannot be achieved through other humancapital programs. For example, one participant who responded to our 

questionnaire reported: “[I] believe [CIPP] provides a suitable option for 

work/life balance that helps offset goals/issues that cannot be addressed 

while on active duty and gives sailors an option besides getting out 

entirely.” In particular, officials stated that they are concerned that the 

Navy’s recurring sea-tour requirement may result in the loss of 

servicemembers with short-term personal needs or skill sets that are in 

demand in the private sector. For example, another respondent reported: 

“[CIPP] is a great option for sailors who need to take a break from the 

arduous duty and demands of the Navy. Additionally, it can give sailors 

who are thinking about leaving the Navy the experience of what it is like 

to be in the civilian sector.”

The Navy collects information from participants, both when they start their 

sabbatical and when they return, about the extent to which CIPP was a 

factor in the participants’ choice to stay in the Navy; whether participants 

intend to make the Navy their career; whether participants would 

recommend CIPP to other servicemembers’ and whether CIPP has 

negatively affected their career. Also, a Navy CIPP document provided 

examples of participants who fared well with their career milestones 

following their return to active duty. For example, according to CIPP 

program managers, one officer was selected for promotion following 

sabbatical, and two other officers were selected for administrative 

screening boards upon their return.

Page 15 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

17 Our questionnaire asked CIPP 

participants if since returning to active duty, they have been told or 

otherwise experienced something specific that indicated CIPP 

participation might affect their career advancement. The responses were 

mixed. We received examples expressing the view that use of a 

sabbatical for educational purposes was positive because the education 

received while on sabbatical was beneficial for career advancement. 

Conversely, there were negative examples reporting that Navy chain of 

command views the break in service as a “lack of commitment,” or 

“leaving community while others continued to work.”

 

17Administrative and screening boards take place at certain points automatically in an 

officer’s career and can result in a servicemember’s advancing in rank (for example, a 

chief being selected for Chief Warrant Officer).
Congress authorized CIPP as a pilot program to help the services offer 

greater flexibility in career paths for servicemembers with the hope of 

increasing the retention of personnel with critical skills. All of the military 

services have implemented CIPP, and DOD officials have stated that the 

program should become permanent. Beginning in June 2016, the 

services will be required to evaluate and report annually on the 

effectiveness of the pilot. However, they do not have a plan to guide 

these evaluation efforts and help determine the extent to which the pilot 

program is an effective means to retain servicemembers. Without a plan 

that includes key features for evaluating CIPP’s value as a retention tool, 

DOD will be unlikely to determine the extent to which CIPP is achieving 

its intended purpose and thereby inform decision makers as to whether it 

should become a permanent program.

To assist DOD in determining whether CIPP is meeting its intended 

purpose of enhancing retention and providing greater flexibility in the 

career path of servicemembers, we recommend that the Secretary of 

Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and 

Readiness, in collaboration with the service secretaries, develop and 

implement a plan to evaluate the pilot that includes key features such as 

well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and standards for 

determining pilot-program performance.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In 

written comments, which are reprinted in their entirety in Appendix II, 

DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD noted that they

recognize the importance of developing well-defined measures to 

evaluate the effectiveness and utility of CIPP. DOD also provided 

technical comments, which we have incorporated in the report where 

appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense 

for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 

and the Secretaries of the military departments. The report also is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Page 16 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix III.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

Page 17 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
List of Committees

Page 18 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate 

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Status of the Career Intermission 

Pilot Program (CIPP) Implementation

The Navy implemented CIPP in 2009, followed by the Marine Corps in 

2013, and the Air Force and Army in 2014; as of July 2015, the services 

had approved 161 servicemembers to participate in CIPP. The Navy has 

approved the highest number of participants, and as of July 2015, 37 

participants have completed sabbaticals and returned to active duty. 

Table 1 shows the number and demographics of CIPP participants for 

each military service.

Table 1: Total Number of CIPP Participants Approved by Each Military Service as of July 2015

Page 19 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Service

Number of 

applicants 

Applicants 

approveda

Actual participants (male)

Actual participants 

(female) Total actual 

Officer Enlisted Officer Enlisted participants

Navy 130 111 9 29 26 29 93

Air Force 46 35 6 9 7 8 30

Army 10 9 1 1 1 3 6

Marine Corps 7 6 2 1 0 1 4

TOTALS 193 161 18 40 34 41 133

Source: GAO analysis of DOD Data. | GAO-16-35

aSome servicemembers withdrew their applications after they were approved; therefore, the number 

approved is greater than the number of actual participants.

Note: According to service officials, all services except the Air Force accept applications on a rolling 

basis; therefore, total numbers for calendar year 2015 may increase.

Navy—From 2009 to July 2015, 130 Navy servicemembers applied to 

participate in CIPP and 111 were approved, 11 were disapproved, 6 

withdrew their applications before a final decision had been made, 

and 2 applications are pending. Of the 111 approved, 18 declined the 

offer. As of July 2015, 37 had completed sabbaticals. Of these 37,

one separated before completing obligated service and 5 have 

completed their CIPP-related obligated service. Of these 5, one has 

since left active duty for the Navy Reserves, and one has since

separated from the Navy. Participants used the program for several 

purposes, including pursuing higher education, supporting family (care 

for ailing parents or caring for young children), and staggering career 

timelines for dual-military spouses.

· Air Force—In 2014, 46 Air Force servicemembers applied to 

participate in CIPP and 35 applicants were approved (1 was removed 

from the program for quality reasons arising after selection to the 

program). Of the remaining 34 selected, 4 declined the offer, and 30 

accepted. As of July 2015, 23 participants had begun a sabbatical. 

The Air Force disapproved 11 applicants because they did not meet 

basic eligibility requirements or, according to Air Force officials, did 

Appendix I: Status of the Career Intermission 

Pilot Program (CIPP) Implementation
Appendix I: Status of the Career Intermission 

Pilot Program (CIPP) Implementation

not have competitive performance ratings. Participants plan to use 

their sabbaticals to, among other things, pursue education, care for a 

family member or start a family, and realign assignment timing or date 

of rank with an active-duty spouse to facilitate joint spouse 

assignment.

· Army—In 2014, 10 Army servicemembers applied to participate in 

CIPP and 1 was determined to be ineligible due to remaining service 

obligation and 9 were approved. Of the 9 selected, 3 declined the 

offer in favor of other personnel actions, and 6 accepted. The 6 

participants were expected to begin sabbaticals in summer 2015. 

Participants plan to use their sabbaticals to pursue higher education, 

address family and medical issues, travel, and align assignment cycle 

with an active-duty spouse.

· Marine Corps—In 2013, 3 Marines applied and were approved, but 

one subsequently withdrew the application. In 2014, 2 applied and 

were approved, but one withdrew. In 2015, 2 applied, 1 was accepted, 

and 1 was determined to be ineligible. As of July 2015, 3 of the 4 total 

participants were on sabbatical. Applicants requested the sabbaticals 

to move with a spouse and attend graduate school, to focus on family 

and children, or to attend seminary.

Page 20 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 21 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 22 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kimberly Seay (Assistant 

Director), Vijay Barnabas, Tim Carr, Amie Lesser, Felicia Lopez, Richard 

Powelson, Tida Reveley, and Michael Silver made major contributions to 

this report.

Page 23 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(352020)
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Page 24 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

Dear Ms. Farrell:

The is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to GAO Draft 

Report.GA0-16-35,

Military Personnel: DoD Should Develop a Plan to Evaluate the 

Effectiveness of its Career Intermission Program, (GAO Code 352020), 

dated September 25, 2015.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the: draft report. 

We appreciate your staff s analysis of the Career Intermission Program 

and recognize the importance of developing well-defined measures to 

evaluate the effectiveness and utility of this pilot program.

The Department’s official written comments for inclusion in the report are 

enclosed.

Sincerely,

Juliet Beyler

Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel

Management

Department of Defense Comments to the GAO Recommendation

To assist DOD in determining whether the Career Intermission Pilot 

Program is meeting it’s intended purpose of enhancing retention and 

providing greater flexibility in the career path of service members, the 

Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Agency Comment 

Letter

Appendix II: Comments 

from the Department of 

Defense

Page 1

Page 2
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense take the following 

action:

RECOMMENDATION: Direct the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness. in collaboration with the Service Secretaries. 

to develop and implement a plan to evaluate the pilot which includes key 

features such as \ell-defined, dear, and measurable objectives and 

standards for determining pi lot program performance.

DoD Response: Concur. The Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Defense for Military Persom1el Policy will collaborate with the Military 

Services to develop common measures of effectiveness for evaluating the 

Career Intermission Pilot Program.

Data Table for Highlights and Figure 1: Total Number of CIPP Participants Approved 

Page 25 GAO-16-35 Servicemember Career Intermissions 

by All Military Services for Calendar Years 2009 through July 2015

Year Number of Personnel

2009 6

2010 11

2011 11

2012 13

2013 16

2014 76

2015 28

Data Tables
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.