Military Leadership Diversity Commission

Decision Paper #3: Retention

February 2011

MLDC decision papers present the Commission-approved, subcommittee-specific recommendations. 

These recommendations are the product not only of the logic and evidence presented in the decision 

papers but also the values and judgments of the Commissioners. Legally imposed time constraints 

naturally limited the Commission’s ability to undertake extensive research. Thus, the decision papers 

present the evidence that was available and that could be collected during the discovery phase of the 

Commission. The decision papers were reviewed by subject-matter experts external to the Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

CONTENTS

Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

Strategy to Address the Charter Task.................................................................................................. 1

Commission-Approved Recommendations Related to Retention....................................................... 2

Organization of This Paper ................................................................................................................. 2

Evaluating Retention Behavior in the Military....................................................................4

Approach and Data Sources ................................................................................................................ 4

Retention Behavior of Enlisted Personnel........................................................................................... 6

Officer Retention Behavior................................................................................................................ 20

Officer Retention: Recent Cumulative Continuation Rates.............................................................. 21

Summary of Findings on Retention Behavior ................................................................................... 29

Evaluating Servicemembers’ Attitudes About Retention ...................................................31

Data from the Status of Forces Survey .............................................................................................. 31

Summary of Findings Regarding Servicemembers’ Attitudes Toward Retention.................39

Additional Data on Attitudes Collected by the Retention Subcommittee ........................................ 39

Current Retention Policies in the Armed Services.............................................................48

Recommendations and Conclusion ..................................................................................49

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 49

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 52

Appendix A: Mean Importance Scores for Reasons for Leaving Active-Duty Service ..........53

Appendix B: Write-In Responses to Most Important Reason for Leaving ..........................55

References ......................................................................................................................57
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

1

INTRODUCTION

In the military’s closed personnel system, the demographic diversity of leadership depends largely on 

the relative career progression rates of members of each demographic group: If women and racial and 

ethnic minorities advance at lower rates than white men, they will not be represented in the top 

ranks. Career progression in the military has two components: rates of retention to each promotion 

window and rates of promotion to each pay grade. To explore the role that retention rates play in 

determining the demographic profiles of senior leadership, the Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission (MLDC) created a subcommittee tasked with determining whether there are racial, 

ethnic, and gender differences in retention rates, and, if so, why such differences exist. The goal of 

this decision paper is to provide an overview of the subcommittee’s findings and to show how they 

support the Commission’s final recommendations related to retention.1

Strategy to Address the Charter Task

The MLDC charter contained one task directly related to retention: “Examine the ability of current 

activities to increase continuation rates for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed 

Forces.”

To address the charter task, the Retention Subcommittee collected information from many 

different sources, including data on recent retention behavior from the Defense Manpower Data 

Center (DMDC), information on past retention behavior from publicly available studies by military 

personnel researchers, data on retention attitudes from surveys conducted by DMDC and the 

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI), and updates on current retention 

policies from Service representatives. This fact-finding mission served two fundamental purposes: 

• First, it allowed the Commission to ascertain whether or not differences in actual 

retention behavior (i.e., retention rates), as well as attitudes about retention (e.g., career 

intentions), exist between men and women and between minority race and ethnicity 

groups and whites.

• Second, when differences between demographic groups were found, it provided the 

Commission with an opportunity to develop recommendations aimed at better 

understanding why those disparities exist.

Ultimately, the Commission used this information to formulate two retention-related 

recommendations. These recommendations were judged based on six criteria set forth by the 

chairman of the Commission, General Lester Lyles. All recommendations were judged on whether 

they

• are relevant to the charter and congressional intent

• are supported by empirical evidence

• are strategic rather than tactical

• are executable

 1

 Most of these findings are also documented in MLDC issue papers, which are available on the MLDC website 

(Military Leadership Diversity Commission, n.d.).
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

2

• meet legal requirements

• have a quantifiable component.

Commission-Approved Recommendations Related to Retention2

From the information gleaned during its fact-finding mission, the Retention Subcommittee 

concluded that retaining female servicemembers poses more challenges to the Department of 

Defense (DoD) than retaining servicemembers from minority groups defined by race or ethnicity. 

Specifically, the evidence did not support the implicit assumption in the MLDC charter task that 

racial and ethnic minorities have lower retention rates than whites. In contrast, female officers and 

enlisted personnel have had persistently lower retention rates than their male counterparts. Underlying this 

gender gap in retention behavior, survey results show that female officers and enlisted 

servicemembers are less likely than their male peers to see the military as a career. The subcommittee 

did not find an explanation for this gender gap in attitudes or any other explanation for the gender 

gap in behavior.

Based on these findings, the Commission approved two recommendations regarding retention 

and its relationship to the racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of top leadership: 

Recommendation 1—

DACOWITS should expand its current focus on retention to include an explanation of the 

gender gap in retention. As part of this renewed focus, DACOWITS should examine the 

effects of retention programs, such as the sabbatical programs currently offered by the 

Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as any other innovative Service-specific approaches to 

retention. Findings and recommendations from this research should be presented to the 

Secretary of Defense.

Recommendation 2—

DoD shall establish a universal qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis 

system that tracks career progression over time, including branching and assignments, 

promotion, and retention.

These recommendations were determined to meet the criteria outlined above and reflect the 

Commission’s position that DoD must better understand the gender gap in retention before 

implementing policy changes aimed at changing retention behavior among female servicemembers.

Organization of This Paper

In the remaining sections of this decision paper, the Commission presents the data and information 

that were used to formulate the recommendations listed above. First, the subcommittee addressed the 

issue of racial, ethnic, and gender differences in actual retention behavior. This analysis includes a 

 2

 The recommendations discussed in this decision paper are the Commission-approved, topic-specific 

recommendations that resulted from the Commission’s understanding and interpretation of the findings from this 

subcommittee. Following the approval of all of the subcommittee-specific recommendations, the Commission 

developed its final recommendations by combining recommendations across subcommittees to reduce overlap and 

repetition. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this paper do not map directly to the recommendations 

presented in the Commission’s forthcoming final report.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

3

literature review of existing retention studies, as well as a cross-Service analysis of recent retention 

outcomes. Second, the Commission addressed the issue of retention attitudes in an attempt to explain 

observed differences in retention behavior. This analysis utilized data from surveys, as well as 

information sessions with servicemembers. Third, the Commission gathered information on the 

Services’ existing retention-related policies and programs to determine whether any of them are 

intended or are likely to differentially affect retention behavior by race, ethnicity, or gender. Finally, 

the decision paper concludes with a discussion of the recommendations in light of the evidence 

collected by the subcommittee and the Commission’s interpretation and evaluation of that evidence.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

4

EVALUATING RETENTION BEHAVIOR IN THE MILITARY

The subcommittee’s first step in addressing its charter task was to determine whether or not there are 

differences in retention behavior by race, ethnicity, and gender. Here, the focus was not on absolute 

levels of retention but rather on the differences between men and women and between whites and 

members of minority race and ethnicity groups. Thus, the analysis conducted by the Commission 

was not intended to address the adequacy of current retention rates for Service needs. Rather, 

emphasis was placed on locating where gaps in retention may exist. The amassed evidence led the 

Commission to conclude that there is no consistent or large gap between white and minority 

retention rates; however, large and persistent gaps do exist between men and women such that 

women have lower retention rates than their male counterparts across all Services and ranks, and this 

gap has existed for at least the past decade. The following subsections address the data, methods, and 

results used to assess retention of the demographically diverse officers and enlisted personnel in the 

military.

Approach and Data Sources

To identify possible gaps in retention rates, the Retention Subcommittee used a two-pronged 

approach. First, the subcommittee analyzed recent retention behavior for men and women and for 

whites and minorities, applying a consistent methodology for all four DoD Services; Coast Guard 

rates were calculated separately. Second, the subcommittee reviewed publicly available literature on 

retention among enlisted servicemembers and officers to add depth to the analysis.3

Analyzing Current Retention Behavior

Before discussing retention among enlisted servicemembers and among officers, it is important to 

explain how personnel management differs for these two communities. Enlisted servicemembers 

enlist for a set period of time and after the completion of that term of service must make the decision 

to leave or to reenlist for another term. If the servicemember chooses to stay, another stay-leave 

decision will be made at the end of the second service obligation, and so on. Therefore, retention 

behavior among enlisted servicemembers can be studied at the time of a decision point using 

reenlistment rates or at times in between decision points using attrition rates. In contrast, officers are 

free to leave active-duty service at any point after an initial obligation period. Officers do not have to 

make specific recommitment decisions at any particular point. Therefore, retention behavior among 

officers is usually measured as continuation rates. Ultimately, the Commission decided to focus on 

reenlistment rates among enlisted servicemembers and continuation rates among officers. The 

sections below will define reenlistment, attrition, and continuation rates in more detail, as well as 

discuss the implications of using each type of measure of retention behavior.

Data for the Commission’s calculations of cross-Service reenlistment and continuation rates came 

from a personnel file called the Proxy Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO) file provided by DMDC. 

The file was built using extracts from the active-duty personnel and pay files maintained by DMDC 

 3

 Issue Paper #27 summarizes the results of peer-reviewed studies of enlisted retention. Issue Paper #24 and Issue 

Paper #31 provide original data analysis and present retention rates by race, ethnicity, and gender.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

5

and includes records from fiscal years (FYs) 2000 through 2008.4 Using a common data set and 

methodology for making its calculations allowed the subcommittee to analyze recent retention 

behavior across the DoD Services. Because the DMDC data did not contain information from the 

Coast Guard, the Commission sent a specific request for comparable retention data for officers and 

the enlisted corps. Although the Coast Guard rates are not directly comparable to the rates calculated 

for the DoD Services, they are useful in determining whether trends in retention by race, ethnicity, 

and gender in the Coast Guard are similar to those in the DoD Services. 

The following race and ethnicity categories were used to analyze differences in retention 

behavior:

• white non-Hispanic

• black non-Hispanic

• Asian and Pacific Islander (API) non-Hispanic

• other non-Hispanic (which includes American Indians, Alaska natives, and individuals of 

more than one race) 

• Hispanic.5

For ease of readability, the following shorthand is used for each race and ethnicity group: white 

for white non-Hispanic; black for black non-Hispanic; Asian/Pacific Islander, Asian/PI, or API for 

Asian non-Hispanic; and “other” for other non-Hispanic.

Using Existing Literature

The review of retention studies added to the retention subcommittee’s own analysis of current 

retention rates (described in more detail below) in three key ways. First, the reviewed studies cover a 

longer time span than the analysis of current retention data. This allowed the subcommittee to assess 

whether demographic differences in retention have been persistent over time. Second, the studies 

used a statistical methodology called regression analysis to isolate the effect of demographic 

characteristics from the effects of other personal characteristics and career experiences on retention 

behavior. These studies identify the effect of being a female or a minority on retention behavior by 

holding constant the effect of other individual characteristics (e.g., marital status, the presence of 

dependents, years of service [YOS], civilian education level, Armed Forces Qualification Test score, 

expected promotion rates, and pay grade) on retention behavior. For example, an individual’s 

deployment history and eligibility for a selective reenlistment bonus (SRB) may differentially affect 

retention behavior; enlisted servicemembers who have previously been deployed may be more likely 

to remain on active-duty service. Likewise, individuals in certain occupations targeted by SRBs may 

also be more likely to remain in the military. These more-comprehensive studies are able to isolate 

the separate effect of demographic characteristics from other factors that may be associated with both 

demographic characteristics and retention behavior.6 Finally, for enlisted personnel, studies of 

reenlistment and first-term attrition provided a complete picture of enlisted retention, and for 

officers, one study helps disentangle the effects of retention from those of promotion.

 4

 Because of differences in the data-cleaning procedures and measurement techniques used by individual MLDC 

subcommittees, some results using the same data sources may be slightly inconsistent across issue papers.

5

 See Issue Paper #1. For the present analysis, Asian and Pacific Islander are combined into a single category because 

data collected before 2003 do not separate Pacific Islanders from Asians. 

6

 For a discussion of how to interpret raw rates, see Issue Paper #17.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

6

Retention Behavior of Enlisted Personnel

Retention, Reenlistment, and Attrition

As indicated above, enlisted retention has two components: completion of the obligated period of 

service and reenlistment at the end of the obligated period of service. Members who do not complete 

their obligations are considered to have attrited. Attrition can occur for many reasons and can be 

both voluntary (e.g., for personal reasons) and involuntary (e.g., for health or performance reasons). 

In some cases, enlisted personnel attrite from active duty but complete their service obligations by 

affiliating with a National Guard or Reserve unit.7

Once a servicemember fulfills an obligated period of service (i.e., as the expiration of term of 

service [ETS] date approaches), he or she has four options: (1) reenlist, (2) extend the current service 

contract, (3) transition to the officer ranks, or (4) exit the military. Reenlistment can occur only if the 

servicemember is eligible—specifically, if he or she has no legal or health problems and meets his or 

her Service’s and/or occupation’s specific requirements (e.g., high-year tenure [HYT]/retention 

control-point cutoffs, recommendations and evaluations, examinations, selection boards at senior 

enlisted ranks). Servicemembers who are ineligible because of legal or health problems, a failure to 

meet requirements, or both separate from active-duty service. The others are considered eligible to 

reenlist. Some of these eligible personnel separate and leave active-duty service.8 Thus, reenlistment 

rates only capture the choice of individuals who have reached a decision point and who are eligible to reenlist.

Initial and subsequent obligations vary in length, so servicemembers who make enlistment 

decisions after an initial obligation, a second obligation, or a later obligation make these decisions at 

different points in their careers. Thus, reenlistment decisions can be made in different periods, or 

zones, that roughly correspond to first enlistments, second enlistments, etc. Zone A is composed of 

reenlistments executed between 17 months and six years of active service. Zone B is composed of 

reenlistments executed between six and ten years of active service. Zone C is composed of 

reenlistments executed between ten and 14 years of active service. 

An enlisted servicemember’s zone is important because it affects his or her eligibility for an SRB 

and the expected size of that bonus. Although there are many common requirements for reenlistment 

eligibility across zones, some requirements are zone specific. In addition, many of the unique 

requirements vary by pay grade within a single zone. Furthermore, enlisted servicemembers are 

subject to certain promotion schedules that delineate the maximum YOS that an enlisted 

servicemember can serve, and these tenure barriers are pay grade–specific. After reaching a cutoff 

point, members must either be promoted to the next pay grade or separate from the Service. This 

point in a servicemember’s career is known as HYT. Table 1 shows the HYT for pay grades E-5 

through E-9 in each of the five Services.

 7

 In general, there is no punishment for voluntary early attrition, but servicemembers who do not fulfill specified 

obligations associated with certain benefits (e.g., enlistment bonuses or educational benefits through the 

Montgomery GI Bill) will forfeit those benefits. In many cases, the obligation associated with benefits is shorter 

than the overall service obligation.

8

 These are often referred to as voluntary separations. Involuntary separations occur when individuals leave active-duty 

service after completing their service obligation because they are ineligible to reenlist.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

7

Table 1. HYT, by Pay Grade and Service

E-5 E-6 E-7 E-8 E-9

Army 15 23 26 29 32

Air Force 20 24 26 28 30

Coast Guard 20 22 26 28 30

Navy 14 20 24 26 30

Marine Corps 13 20 24 26 30

SOURCES: Army and Air Force information from Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010; Coast Guard information from U.S. 

Coast Guard, 1993; Navy information from U.S. Department of the Navy, 2007; Marine Corps information from U.S. Marine Corps, 2004. 

NOTE: HYT is called the retention control point in the Army and the enlisted career force control in the Marine Corps.

Based on these descriptions of attrition and reenlistment, it is clear that individuals who leave 

before their current contract is up (i.e., prior to ETS) are included in the calculation of attrition rates 

but are not included in the calculation of reenlistment rates. This means that reenlistment rates are 

an incomplete measure of overall retention. Nevertheless, the Commission chose to use reenlistment 

rates as its primary indicator of enlisted retention behavior. This could be problematic if racial, 

ethnic, and gender trends in reenlistment rates are the opposite of racial, ethnic, and gender trends in 

attrition rates. That is, any racial, ethnic, and gender differences in the rates of leaving before 

completion of the first term of enlisted service could be masked by using reenlistment rates (or vice 

versa). To check this possibility, the literature review covers studies of both reenlistment and firstterm attrition.

Retention of Enlisted Personnel: Recent Reenlistment Rates

By definition, the focus on reenlistment restricts the analysis to servicemembers who are eligible to 

both voluntarily leave active-duty service and to reenlist. For the purposes of the Commission 

analysis, an “eligible” servicemember is one who has completed at least 17 months of service and is 

within six months of zero ETS. The PERSTEMPO data do not indicate whether a servicemember 

is “eligible” in the sense that he or she meets his or her Service’s requirements to reenlist. 

Reenlistment rates are presented by zone and fiscal year.9

The subcommittee defined reenlistment as a change in ETS date of 36 months or more. This 

cutoff was chosen because the PERSTEMPO data do not indicate if an ETS change is the result of 

an extension of service or a true reenlistment, and a change of fewer than 36 months may reflect the 

former.10 This definition of reenlistment could be problematic for three reasons. First, it may 

underestimate reenlistment rates because it does not include reenlistments of shorter than 36 months. 

Second, it may underestimate retention rates because servicemembers who extend up to the 35th 

month are not captured even though they remain on active duty. Third, if certain demographic 

groups (e.g., women or minorities) are disproportionately more likely to extend, the results presented 

here may misrepresent race, ethnicity, or gender differences in retention rates.11 For example, if 

 9

 Although results for Zones D (14–20 YOS) and E (20+ YOS) are not presented here, reenlistment rates for these 

zones can be found in Issue Paper #31.

10 Thus, the reenlistment rates can be defined as the number of servicemembers who reenlist for 36 months or more 

divided by the number of servicemembers who do not reenlist plus those servicemembers included in the numerator. 

11 The same would be true if one demographic group were more likely to move to the officer corps than another.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

8

women have higher extension rates than men, relying only on reenlistment rates, which are higher 

among men than women, may result in overestimated gender differences in overall retention. 

However, when the subcommittee examined the percentages of men and women who extended, a 

larger percentage of men extended than women in all Services other than the Navy. This finding 

suggests that the gender gap in retention would be even larger if extensions were included. Similarly, 

a slightly larger percentage of minorities extend their contracts compared with whites, implying that 

the reenlistment rates presented here may underestimate white-minority differences in retention. 

Taken together, these results suggest that the definition of reenlistment the Commission used does 

not misrepresent racial, ethnic, and gender differences in retention rates.

Overall, the results show two general trends in reenlistment rates across the Services. First, 

moving from Zone A to Zone B to Zone C, reenlistment rates increased regardless of branch of 

Service, race, ethnicity, or gender. Second, reenlistment rates were generally highest among airmen 

regardless of zone, but there was considerable variability among soldiers, sailors, and marines. Among 

Zone A reenlistments, marines typically had the lowest reenlistment rates, but in Zones B and C, 

soldiers and sailors typically had the lowest reenlistment rates. These trends tended to hold for men 

and women, as well as whites and minorities.

Reenlistment Rates by Gender

Figures 1–4 show reenlistment rates by Service, zone, and gender from FY 2000 through FY 2008. 

In all of the figures, women’s reenlistment rates are lower than men’s. That is, regardless of Service 

branch, the dashed lines are generally always lower than the solid lines.12 There are two notable 

exceptions: In the Air Force, women’s Zone A reenlistment was higher than men’s during the mid2000s, and, in the Marine Corps, Zone A men and women had very similar reenlistment rates over 

the period observed.

 12 Actual reenlistment rates by gender and zone are presented in Issue Paper #31. Note that none of the calculations 

focus on the statistical significance of differences in reenlistment rates between gender, race, and ethnicity groups, 

primarily because of small sample sizes that could skew significance tests.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

9

Figure 1. Reenlistment Rates, by Gender and Zone, Army, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 2. Reenlistment Rates, by Gender and Zone, Navy, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

10

Figure 3. Reenlistment Rates, by Gender and Zone, Marine Corps, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 4. Reenlistment Rates, by Gender and Zone, Air Force, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

11

Reenlistment Rates by Race and Ethnicity

The next 12 figures show reenlistment rates by Service, zone, race, and ethnicity.13 Results for Zone 

A (Figures 5–8) show that, regardless of Service branch or FY, racial and ethnic minorities (i.e., 

blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific Islanders [Asian/PI]) had the highest reenlistment rates, and 

whites and servicemembers who classify themselves as being of “other” race or ethnicity had the 

lowest reenlistment rates.

Results for Zone B (Figures 9–12) are similar to results for Zone A: Blacks, Hispanics, and 

Asian/Pacific Islanders had higher reenlistment rates than either whites or members of other races 

and ethnicities. The one exception occurred in the Navy after 2003. From that point, trend lines for 

whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other races and ethnicities were roughly equal through 2008. 

Reenlistment rates for Zone B Asian/Pacific Islander sailors were consistently higher than those of 

the other race and ethnicity groups.

Figure 5. Zone A Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Army, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

 13 Actual reenlistment rates by race, ethnicity, and zone are presented in Issue Paper #31.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

12

Figure 6. Zone A Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Navy, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

 Figure 7. Zone A Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Marine Corps, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

13

Figure 8. Zone A Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Air Force, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 9. Zone B Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Army, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

14

Figure 10. Zone B Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Navy, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 11. Zone B Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Marine Corps, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

15

Figure 12. Zone B Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Air Force, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Finally, Figures 13–16 show Zone C reenlistment rates, or what are sometimes referred to as 

career reenlistments. These are individuals who, after 14 years of service, are likely to continue in 

service until eligible for full military retirement at 20 years of service.14 In general, the racial and 

ethnic trends for Zone C are similar to those for Zones A and B, with a few notable exceptions. 

First, in the Navy, reenlistment rates for blacks, Hispanics, and whites clustered together after FY 

2000, with no group showing consistently higher rates than the others. However, reenlistment rates 

among Asian/Pacific Islander sailors were consistently above those of the other race and ethnicity 

groups. Second, among marines, black and Asian/Pacific Islander reenlistment rates trended with 

those of their white counterparts, but Hispanic rates were consistently higher than white rates after 

FY 2000. Third, reenlistment rates for black and white servicemembers in the Air Force are virtually 

indistinguishable between FY 2000 and FY 2008, but reenlistment rates among Hispanics and 

Asian/Pacific Islanders remained above those of both whites and blacks. Thus, in the earlier stages of 

the career, racial and ethnic minority reenlistment rates are equal to or greater than those of whites. 

By later career stages, these differences diminish. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this 

convergence may not reflect a change in behavior over time. Rather, convergence may be the result of 

a selection effect: individuals who are best suited to a military career may be more likely to reenlist, 

thus resulting in higher reenlistment rates among all groups in higher zones. 

 14 However, because the promotion system also plays an important role in the development of senior leadership, one 

cannot always assume that simply because an individual has remained in service until YOS 14 and is likely to 

continue that he or she will advance to the senior enlisted ranks. Thus, YOS does not always equal rank.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

16

Figure 13. Zone C Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Army, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 14. Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Navy, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

17

Figure 15. Zone C Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Marine Corps, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 16. Zone C Reenlistment Rates, by Race and Ethnicity, Air Force, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Reenlistment in the Coast Guard

As noted earlier, the Coast Guard provided the Commission with data on retention. Table 2 presents 

reenlistment rates for FY 2008 and FY 2009 by race, ethnicity, gender, and term. The first term is 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

18

comparable to Zone A, and the subsequent term is comparable to Zone B. Based on these data, 

women in the Coast Guard currently have lower reenlistment rates than men, regardless of term, and, 

with a few exceptions, racial and ethnic minorities have higher reenlistment rates than whites. Thus, 

although the data are not directly comparable, the racial, ethnic, and gender reenlistment patterns in 

the Coast Guard are broadly consistent with those of the other Services.15

Table 2. Coast Guard Reenlistment Rates (Percentages), by FY and Term

FY 2008 FY 2009

First Term Subsequent Term First Term Subsequent Term

Gender

Male 65 89 71 90

Female 62 84 66 85

Race

Black 68 84 75 92

American Indian/Alaska Native 69 89 69 87

Asian 67 67 71 100

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 75 100 93 80

White 64 88 69 89

Multiracial 73 90 75 93

Ethnicity

Hispanic 67 88 74 88

Non-Hispanic 65 88 69 90

SOURCE: Based on Coast Guard information from Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010.

NOTE: The first term is comparable to Zone A, and the subsequent term is comparable to Zone B.

Retention of Enlisted Personnel: Literature Review

Studies of Reenlistment

The subcommittee’s review of the literature on reenlistment behavior draws from ten publicly 

available, peer-reviewed studies spanning reenlistment decisions from 1979 to 2007.16 Of these ten 

studies, five focus explicitly on demographic differences in retention behavior. The other five include 

race, ethnicity, and gender only as control variables; thus, identifying demographic differences in 

retention behavior was a secondary objective for these studies. Fewer of the reviewed studies address 

gender than race and ethnicity.

 15 Incomparability between the Coast Guard data and the DMDC data is mainly due to differences in definitions of 

race and ethnicity categories: First, in the Coast Guard data, Hispanic is not a mutually exclusive category, and thus 

a servicemember can be counted as both Hispanic and in one of the race categories. Second, the Asian group does 

not include Pacific Islanders. 16 The ten studies are Asch et al., 2009; Buddin et al., 1992; Cooke et al., 1992; Hattiangadi et al., 2004; Hogan et 

al., 2005; Hosek & Martorell, 2009; Kraus et al., 2004; Quester & Adedeji (1991); Quester et al., 2006; and Tsui et 

al., 2006. Hosek et al., 2001, is also included in the review; however, it focuses on retention behavior among officers.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

19

The review finds that, across the Services, blacks and Hispanics have been more likely to reenlist 

than their white counterparts, although the size of these differences decreases as time in service 

increases (i.e., as zone changes from A to C).17

In terms of gender differences in reenlistment rates, the review finds mixed evidence of a gap. 

Analyses that only control for differences in the retention behavior of men and women (i.e., those 

that rely on gender differences in raw rates) typically report a much larger reenlistment rate among 

men than women compared with studies that control for other factors, such as marital and parental 

status.18

Thus, studies that control for other factors and that cover a longer time span than that covered by 

the Commission data found similar results regarding racial, ethnic, and gender differences in 

reenlistment rates.

Studies of First-Term Attrition19

First-term attrition is defined as leaving before the end of the first contracted term of service. The 

actual operationalization of where in the first term attrition is observed varies from study to study, 

but most focus on 36- or 48-month attrition rates. Thus, the rates capture individuals who leave at or 

before the three- or four-year mark in terms of YOS.

Evidence suggests that first-term attrition has been higher among women than men (Asch et al., 

2009; Buddin, 1998, 2005; Wenger & Hodari, 2004), but there is also some evidence that this varies 

across the Services. For example, in one Navy study, attrition rates during the earliest months of 

terms of service were higher for women, but as time in service increased, attrition rates between men 

and women converged (Fletcher et al., 1994). Martin (1995) found similar results in the Army, once 

attrition due to pregnancy was excluded. When pregnancy-related attrition was included, the gender 

convergence in attrition rates did not occur. These studies suggest that women do in fact have higher 

first-term attrition than their male counterparts, which indicates that reenlistment rates are likely to 

underestimate the gender gap in retention.

In terms of race and ethnicity, prior research suggests that minorities have lower first-term 

attrition than their white counterparts (Asch et al., 2010; Buddin, 2005; Schmitz et al., 2008).20 For 

example, Martin (1994) found that minority recruits in the Army generally have lower first-term 

attrition than whites. Being a black female was particularly predictive of continuation. At least one 

study has reported no difference between white and nonwhite minority attrition rates (Antel et al., 

1987). In a study of enlisted sailors, Wenger and Hodari (2004) found that Hispanics, Asian/Pacific 

Islanders, and those of other races and ethnicities had significantly lower 36-month attrition than 

whites but that blacks had significantly higher attrition than whites. Despite these inconsistent 

findings, the majority of studies appears to support the idea that minority first-term attrition is at or 

below the attrition level of whites. If this is true, the higher minority reenlistment rates found by the 

Retention Subcommittee will not have been offset by losses occurring before the end of the first term 

of service.

 17 See Asch et al., 2009; Hattiangadi et al., 2004; Hogan et al., 2005; Hosek & Martorell, 2009; Kraus et al., 2004; 

and Quester et al., 2006. 18 See Hogan et al., 2005; Quester et al., 2006; and Tsui et al., 2006.

19 Note that the articles reviewed in this section are not included in Issue Paper #27, which reviews studies of 

reenlistment outcomes. 

20 Schmitz et al. (2008) use data from the Navy and find that all racial and ethnic minorities, with the exception of 

Native Americans, have higher 48-month continuation rates than whites. Continuation rates can be thought of as 

the opposite of attrition. Thus, lower attrition is comparable to higher continuation, and vice versa.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

20

Officer Retention Behavior

Continuation Rates: Conditional and Cumulative

Once commissioned, officers do not incur the same type of service obligation as enlisted personnel. 

The Defense Officer Personnel Management Act (DOPMA) defines a minimum service 

requirement (MSR) of six to eight years for most officers, which can be filled with either active-duty 

or reserve service. After completing the MSR, however, officers can generally resign their 

commissions at any point. Thus, the concept of reenlistment does not apply to officers. Instead, 

continuation rates are the most common measure of retention for officers and the measure used by 

the Commission.

Continuation rates are calculated as the percentage of officers in the same Service observed at 

year t and again at year t + 1. Because they measure the likelihood of continuing to year t +1 

conditional on having reached year t, these rates are also known as conditional continuation rates. For 

example, the continuation rate of officers to YOS 5 measures the proportion of officers who reached 

YOS 4 and remained on active duty into a fifth year. Conditional continuation rates do not 

distinguish between voluntary and involuntary separation, nor do they distinguish between the effects 

of retention and promotion on overall career progression.

Conditional continuation rates are frequently presented as cumulative continuation rates (CCRs). 

These are the successive products of consecutive YOS-specific conditional rates. Specifically, the 

conditional rates for each YOS are transformed to cumulative, or continuous, rates by successively 

applying each YOS-specific conditional rate to a starting point of 100 percent. Thus, CCRs capture 

the average rates at which officers remain on active duty in a specific Service branch through a given 

year of service.

Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or branch of Service, CCRs decline as years of service 

increase because of the cumulative effect of the previous years’ losses. Thus, CCR curves are 

downward-sloping. Their shapes are further defined by various features of officer personnel 

management as defined by Title 10 and DOPMA, especially the promotion and retirement systems.

In the figures below, the curves have a slight downward slope from YOS 0 (or accession) to YOS 

3 or YOS 4, and this is followed by a steeper decline from that point to YOS 10. At YOS 10, the 

curves level off and are almost flat until YOS 19 (which marks the probability of continuing to 20 

years of service). At that point, after which officers are completely vested in the military retirement 

system, the slope of the CCR drops off again through YOS 22 but ultimately flattens as it 

approaches YOS 30. 

The general downward trend can be explained by DOPMA’s up-or-out system, in which officers 

must be promoted in order to continue past certain YOS milestones. Promotion to ranks O-2 and 

O-3 is based on being “fully qualified,” and promotion to the rank of O-4 and beyond is based on 

being “best and fully qualified.” Further, DOPMA defines specific promotion probabilities at each 

rank above O-3, and those probabilities decrease as rank increases. CCRs also decline over time 

because members voluntarily resign their commissions or move to the Guard or Reserve Components 

for any number of reasons. In addition, some officers leave involuntarily for such reasons as health or 

behavioral problems. Taken together, all of these factors result in CCRs of less than one at all YOS 

points. 

Other features of the officer personnel management system address key points in officer career 

progression and define the inflection points seen in CCR curves (i.e., points where they change 

slope). First, consistently high continuation rates are seen before YOS 3, but steep declines occur 

from YOS 4 through YOS 10. Leaving during this period can be attributed to completion of the 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

21

MSR, a failure to pass training, a failure to fulfill the requirements needed to advance to the rank of 

O-2 or O-3, or to health or behavioral problems.

The second inflection point occurs after YOS 10, where CCR curves level off. Officers who 

remain on active duty beyond the MSR are likely choosing the military as a long-term career. In 

addition, between YOS 10 and YOS 19, officers become increasingly motivated to stay to qualify for 

full retirement benefits. The third inflection point occurs after YOS 19, when CCR curves drop 

precipitously. At this point, military members become vested in the retirement system and may 

voluntarily retire with benefits.21

The promotion system affects interpretation of the CCR curves in another key way. The first 

competitive promotion point is O-4, which occurs at roughly YOS 10. Until this point, promotion is 

guaranteed for all who are fully qualified and who present no issues. This means that demographic 

differences in conditional and cumulative continuation from YOS 0 to YOS 10 would be primarily 

the result of demographic differences in retention behavior rather than in the promotion outcomes. 

Beyond YOS 10, however, demographic differences in continuation rates would be the combined 

result of differences in retention and promotion outcomes. 

Officer Retention: Recent Cumulative Continuation Rates

The Retention Subcommittee’s focus on the role of retention in determining the demographic 

diversity of senior leaders defined its approach to calculating CCRs. 

First, the focus on senior leaders required the subcommittee to analyze continuation for the full 

length of the officer career—from YOS 0 (less than one complete YOS) to YOS 30 (the year at 

which an O-6 must retire if he or she is not promoted to O-7).22

Second, the need to look at differences by race, ethnicity, and gender, combined with the need to 

analyze continuation behavior for the full career, led the subcommittee to analyze the data using 

“synthetic” cohorts. Synthetic cohorts combine data for officers from all the different accession 

cohorts (i.e., year groups) who are in the inventory at the beginning of a particular FY. By observing 

the continuation behavior of the entire inventory over the next year, all the CCRs from YOS 1 

through YOS 30 can be calculated to estimate the continuation behavior over an entire career.23 The 

synthetic cohort approach offers several advantages. First, it increases the sample size for each 

demographic group, permitting race-, ethnic-, and gender-specific analyses. Second, and related, the 

synthetic cohort approach allows for smoothing across years.24 Finally, synthetic cohorts allow for the 

behavior of very recently accessed cohorts to be incorporated in the calculation of continuation rates.

 21 See Warner, 2006, for a more detailed discussion of the way the retirement system affects continuation patterns.

22 See 10 U.S.C. 634.

23 For example, the CCR at YOS 4 is calculated by multiplying the single-year CCRs from accession to YOS 1, 

YOS 1 to YOS 2, YOS 2 to YOS 3, and YOS 3 to YOS 4 using all the data from FY 2000–FY 2008. Note that no 

actual single-accession cohort would necessarily follow this precise CCR pattern over an entire career because the 

synthetic cohort CCRs combine data from multiple year groups and average the behavior over all the FYs in the 

sample. 24 For example, if a single cohort contains only four women, then the continuation outcomes for just two women 

will have a profound impact on the calculation of the CCR.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

22

Cumulative Continuation Rates by Gender

As shown in Figures 17–20, female officers have lower continuation rates than male officers. That is, 

regardless of Service branch, the red lines are always lower than the orange lines.25

Through the first three years of service, men and women in the sample had similar continuation 

rates. By the time they completed their fourth year of service, however, gender differences in 

continuation rates began to emerge and increased with YOS through roughly YOS 8 to YOS 12, 

depending on the branch of Service. By YOS 10, the percentage-point difference between male and 

female CCRs is 10 in the Army, 15 in the Navy, and 20 in both the Marine Corps and the Air 

Force. In other words, although continuation rates decreased as YOS increased for both men and 

women, women’s continuation rates declined at a faster rate than men’s. This difference in slopes is 

likely the result of retention rather than promotion because it occurs before the first competitive 

promotion point.26

Figure 17. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates for Men and Women in the Army, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

 25 The annual rates from which the cumulative rates are calculated, as well as the CCRs, are presented in Issue Paper 

#24. Note that none of the calculations focus on the statistical significance of differences in continuation rates 

between race, ethnicity, and gender groups, primarily because of small sample sizes that could skew significance 

tests.

26 This may not be true if women are not becoming fully qualified or are leaving in anticipation of not being 

promoted.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

23

Figure 18. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates for Men and Women in the Navy, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 19. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates for Men and Women in the Marine Corps, FY 2000–FY 

2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

24

Figure 20. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates for Men and Women in the Air Force, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Between YOS 12 and YOS 19, the gender gap remained almost constant. At YOS 19, the malefemale differences were similar to those at YOS 10: 10 percentage points in the Army, 13 percentage 

points in the Navy, 18 percentage points in the Marine Corps, and 15 percentage points in the Air 

Force. These roughly parallel cumulative continuation rates suggest that continuation behavior was 

similar for men and women during these years and that the factors that differentially affect 

continuation occurred earlier, between four and ten years of service.

After YOS 20, the gender gap narrowed. At YOS 30, the difference in CCRs between men and 

women was less than 5 percentage points across all components. This convergence suggests that 

women’s continuation rates were higher than men’s during this late-career period. It should be noted, 

however, that the sample of men and women who remain on active duty past the 25-year mark is a 

small and select group of people.

Cumulative Continuation Rates by Race and Ethnicity

Figures 21–24 present CCRs by race and ethnicity for each Service branch.27 As the charts for most 

of the Services show, after YOS 4, blacks and Hispanics had consistently higher rates of continuation 

than whites and other minority groups. The difference between blacks and Hispanics and whites 

became more pronounced as YOS increased but tapered again after reaching YOS 20. The one 

exception to this trend is found in the Air Force, where blacks had consistently lower continuation 

rates than whites, although the gap did close after YOS 20. 

The picture for Asians and Pacific Islanders is more complicated. In the Army, API continuation 

rates were very similar to those of whites, especially after YOS 13. In the Navy, members of the API 

group and whites had similar continuation rates across all YOS points. In the Marine Corps and the 

 27 The annual rates from which the cumulative rates are calculated, as well as actual CCRs, are presented in Issue 

Paper #24. When reviewing the results for race and ethnicity, it is important to keep in mind that sample sizes for 

some minority groups (e.g., Asian/Pacific Islander, other) is quite small at higher YOSs.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

25

Air Force, Asians and Pacific Islanders had higher continuation rates than whites, but this difference 

did not emerge until after roughly YOS 8 to YOS 10. 

Those in the “other” non-Hispanic race and ethnicity group had lower continuation rates than 

did whites and other minority groups in both the Army and the Air Force, but continuation rates 

among this group in the Navy tracked much more closely with those of blacks and Hispanics. In the 

Marine Corps, this group’s continuation rates were similar to those of whites.

Two other patterns are worth noting. First, the spread of continuation rates across race and 

ethnicity groups was larger for the Army and the Air Force than for the Navy and the Marine Corps. 

Second, continuation rates among minority officers, primarily blacks and Hispanics, were highest in 

the Air Force, followed by the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy.28

Figure 21. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates in the Army, by Racial and Ethnic Status, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

 28 Although black continuation rates are lower than those of whites in the Air Force, blacks in the Air Force remain 

on active duty at higher rates than do blacks in the other branches. At the same time, blacks in the other Services 

still have higher continuation rates than do their white counterparts. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

26

Figure 22. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates in the Navy, by Racial and Ethnic Status, FY 2000–FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Figure 23. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates in the Marine Corps, by Racial and Ethnic Status, FY 2000–

FY 2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

27

Figure 24. Officer Cumulative Continuation Rates in the Air Force, by Racial and Ethnic Status, FY 2000–FY 

2008

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center West, 2000–2008.

Officer Continuation in the Coast Guard

The Coast Guard provided the Commission with five- and ten-year continuation rates by race and 

ethnicity (but not gender) for officers who accessed in FY 2000 through FY 2004 and FY 1995 

through FY 1999, respectively. Table 3 shows the percentage (or continuation rate) of different 

cohorts from the Coast Guard Academy (commissioned officers) who were still on active-duty 

service five or ten years later. For example, in 2004, the Coast Guard Academy commissioned five 

black officers (as shown in the parentheses). As of October 1, 2009, all of those individuals were still 

serving on active duty, resulting in a 100-percent continuation rate.

The data in the table show that, in general, continuation among racial and ethnic minority 

officers in the Coast Guard has not been consistently or persistently lower than that of their white 

counterparts, which is consistent with the patterns for the other Services. This interpretation of the 

data should be balanced with the caveat that the sample sizes for racial and ethnic minorities and 

Hispanic officers are quite small.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

28

Table 3. Coast Guard Officer Continuation Rates (Percentages and Sample Sizes) by Race, Ethnicity, and 

Year of Commissioning

Retention Following Initial Five-Year Obligated Service by Year of Accession 

FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004

Race

Black 67

(2/3)

86

(6/7)

100

(10/10)

80

(4/5)

100

(5/5)

American Indian/Alaska Native 67

(2/3)

100

(2/2)

N/A

(0/0)

100

(2/2)

100

(1/1)

Asian 69

(9/13)

100

(1/1)

100

(1/1)

100

(1/1)

100

(1/1)

White 87

(130/149)

82

(112/136)

89

(109/122)

93

(128/137)

91

(114/158)

Multiracial 50

(1/2)

75

(3/4)

63

(10/16)

35

(7/20)

91

(10/11)

Ethnicity

Hispanic 63

(5/8)

78

(7/9)

100

(7/7)

92

(12/13)

100

(8/8)

Non-Hispanic 86

(141/164)

86

(122/142)

91

(127/140)

92

(135/146)

91

(154/169)

Retention Following Initial Ten-Year Obligated Service

FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 FY 1999

Race

Black 50

(2/4)

63

(5/8)

63

(5/8)

67

(4/6)

75

(3/4)

American Indian/Alaska Native 100

(2/2)

100

(1/1)

67

(2/3)

0

(0/1)

50

(1/2)

Asian 69

(11/16)

0

(0/5)

50

(1/2)

67

(2/3)

0

(0/2)

White 59

(84/142)

64

(115/181)

67

(85/127)

64

(87/137)

62

(67/108)

Multiracial 100

(1/1)

88

(7/8)

80

(12/15)

64

(7/11)

100

(5/5)

Ethnicity

Hispanic 50

(3/6)

0

(0/6)

90

(9/10)

83

(5/6)

57

(4/7)

Non-Hispanic 60

(99/164)

63

(126/200)

68

(99/146)

64

(94/148)

62

(73/118)

SOURCE: Based on Coast Guard information from Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010.

NOTES: Percentages are reported in the table. Actual sample sizes are presented in parentheses below the continuation rate.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

29

Officer Retention: Literature Review

Compared to studies on reenlistment and enlisted attrition, there are fewer studies that report or 

focus on demographic differences in retention or continuation among officers. Thus, the literature 

review for officers summarizes the results of one 2001 study by the RAND Corporation (Hosek et 

al., 2001) that covers all four DoD Services and directly addresses the issue of officer retention 

among women and minorities compared to their white male peers. This study used personnel records 

from officers commissioned between 1967 and 1991 to assess the separate effects of promotion and 

retention on overall continuation.29 Promotion and retention were both defined by rank such that 

officers could, for example, promote to O-2, retain through O-2, and subsequently promote to O-3. 

These promotion points and retention windows were examined up to the rank of O-6. The report 

found two important retention trends. First, compared with white men, black men were 20 percent

more likely to stay in the military during retention windows, and black women were 14 percent more 

likely to remain. Second, also compared with white men, white women were 14 percent more likely 

to leave during retention windows.

Also relevant to this investigation are the Hosek et al. findings regarding overall continuation. 

When the effects of promotion and retention were combined, this study found that the higher 

retention rates for black male officers were offset by lower promotion rates, thus resulting in very 

similar overall continuation rates, as found by the Commission. For female officers, low promotion 

rates counteracted the higher retention rates of black women and exacerbated the lower retention 

rates of white women, thus implying lower overall female continuation rates compared with white 

men.

Summary of Findings on Retention Behavior

Enlisted

Reenlistment rates were calculated by zone to assess whether female and minority enlisted 

servicemembers have been less likely to remain in active-duty service at key decision points. Two 

general conclusions can be drawn:30

• Reenlistment rates among women are lower than among men, and this holds regardless of 

Service branch or zone; the gender gap in reenlistment rates grows from Zone A to Zone 

B, then shrinks once servicemembers reach Zone C. 

• Across the Services, reenlistment rates are higher for blacks, Hispanics, and Asian/Pacific 

Islanders than for whites, but the gap shrinks as time in service (or zone) increases.

Officers

The Commission estimated CCRs by YOS to assess whether female and minority officers are less 

likely to remain in active-duty service at different points throughout their military careers. Two 

general conclusions can be drawn:

• Continuation rates among women are lower than among men. On average, regardless of 

Service branch, women’s CCRs are lower than men’s for every YOS beyond YOS 2 or 

 29 The Promotion Subcommittee also reviews this report in its decision paper. Note also that Hosek et al. (2009) 

limit analyzed retention and promotion outcomes by race and gender simultaneously for whites, blacks, and others. 

The results for others were, however, limited because of small sample sizes.

30 Again, differences are not tested for statistical significance because of sample size issues.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

30

YOS 3. The divergence occurs between YOS 3 through YOS 10, which indicates that 

the career-long difference in cumulative continuation is the result of early career 

differences in retention rather than promotion.

• On average, blacks’ and Hispanics’ CCRs are greater than or equal to whites’ rates at every YOS 

point, while Asian/PIs’ and others’ rates are less than or equal to whites’ rates. There are some 

exceptions (e.g., blacks in the Air Force), but, in general, these data indicate that 

retention among minority officers is not lower than among white officers.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

31

EVALUATING SERVICEMEMBERS’ ATTITUDES ABOUT 

RETENTION

Based on the results of the Commission’s analysis of retention behavior among enlisted personnel 

and officers, the Services do not need to act to increase the retention rates of racial and ethnic 

minorities: There is no white/minority gap to close. In contrast, retention rates among women, both 

officers and enlisted, are consistently lower than the rates of their male counterparts. Therefore, the 

Commission focused its attention on examining why this gender gap in retention exists and what, if 

anything, can be done to close it.

One possible explanation for gender differences in retention behavior is gender differences in 

retention attitudes. Closer examination of these attitudes may be informative in addressing not only 

why women are more likely to leave active-duty service but also in highlighting areas for policy 

intervention. Retention attitudes are closely related to retention intentions. Retention intentions, in 

turn, have proven to be a strong predictor of actual retention behavior among military samples 

(Guthrie, 1992; Marsh, 1989; Janega & Olmstead, 2003). Although intentions based on survey data 

tend to overestimate the likelihood of separating, individuals who report a desire to leave an 

organization are more likely to actually leave the organization than counterparts who do not express a 

desire to leave (Jans & Frazer-Jans, 2006). Thus, retention attitudes influence retention intentions, 

and together attitudes and intentions are reflected in retention behavior. According to Jaros (1997), 

in a study of civilians, “turnover intention is the strongest, most direct precursor of turnover behavior, 

and mediates the relationship between attitudes like job satisfaction and organizational commitment 

and turnover behavior” (p. 321).

Data from the Status of Forces Survey

The first analysis in this section addresses whether there are differences in job satisfaction 

(specifically, satisfaction with the military way of life) and organizational commitment that may 

indicate that climate is perceived and experienced differently by women versus men.31 If this is the

case, then retention attitudes, and especially career intentions, may be one important contributing 

factor to unequal representation by gender at higher ranks.

The data for this analysis come from DMDC’s November 2008 Status of Forces Survey (SOFS) 

of Active Duty Members (Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009). The sample consisted of 37,494 

active-duty members of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force who had 

completed at least six months of service and were below flag rank six months prior to data collection. 

The Coast Guard does not participate in the SOFS. A total of 10,435 eligible members returned 

usable surveys (3,474 officers, 6,303 enlisted servicemembers, and 658 warrant officers).32

 31 The Commission also investigated servicemembers’ attitudes toward retention and intentions to remain in the 

military by race and ethnicity. It did so for two important reasons. First, by examining current retention attitudes and 

intentions, one can assess whether potential future differences in actual retention rates may occur. Second, retention 

intentions can be a signal of job satisfaction, or lack thereof, and may indicate problems with morale and perceptions 

of climate. Racial and ethnic differences in retention attitudes can be found in Issue Paper #40 (enlisted) and Issue 

Paper #41 (officers). In general, no significant differences in retention attitudes emerged between whites and 

minorities.

32 A usable survey is one in which at least 50 percent of applicable survey questions are answered. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

32

The data contain four indirect measures of retention attitudes:

• satisfaction: i.e., satisfaction with the military way of life 

• affective commitment: an individual’s emotional attachment to, identification with, or 

involvement with the military33

• continuance commitment: an individual’s attachment to the military based on the perceived 

costs of leaving that organization34

• normative commitment: an individual’s sense of obligation to remain in the military.35

The active-duty SOFS also contains two questions regarding retention intentions. The first asks 

respondents how likely they would be to remain on active duty if they were faced with that decision. 

The second asks respondents how much they agree (or disagree) with a statement indicating positive 

commitment to the military as a career. For ease of presentation, answer categories are combined for 

all relevant survey items into three categories: “very satisfied and satisfied” (or “very likely and 

likely/strongly agree and agree”), “neither satisfied nor dissatisfied” (or “neither likely nor 

unlikely/neither agree nor disagree”), and “very dissatisfied and dissatisfied” (or “very unlikely and 

unlikely/strongly disagree and disagree”). Figures generally present only those who are very satisfied 

and satisfied (although there are some exceptions). Issue Papers #40 and #41 contain figures for those 

who are very dissatisfied and dissatisfied. In the figures and tables that follow, an asterisk indicates a 

significant difference between men and women.36

Enlisted Retention Attitudes

Gender Differences in Satisfaction with Military Life

Figure 25 shows the percentages of male and female enlisted members across all Services who were 

(very) satisfied or (very) dissatisfied with the military way of life. Overall, the majority of men and 

women reported being satisfied with the military way of life. There were no statistically significant 

differences between male and female personnel.

 33 Affective commitment was the mean of five survey items: “I enjoy serving in the military”; “Serving in the military is 

consistent with my personal goals”; “Generally, on a day-to-day basis, I am happy with my life in the military”; “I 

really feel as if the military’s values are my own”; and “Generally, on a day-to-day basis, I am proud to be in the 

military.” The range of the scale was 1 to 5, with five indicating a higher level of commitment. The scale was created 

by DMDC.

34 Continuance commitment was the mean of five survey items: “If I left the military, I would feel like I am starting all 

over again”; “It would be difficult for me to leave the military and give up the benefits that are available in the 

Service”; “I would have difficulty finding a job if I left the military”; “I continue to serve in the military because 

leaving would require considerable sacrifice”; and “One of the problems with leaving the military would be the lack 

of available alternatives.” The range of the scale was 1 to 5, with five indicating a higher level of commitment. The 

scale was created by DMDC. 

35 Normative commitment was the mean of three survey items: “I would feel guilty if I left the military”; “I would not 

leave the military right now because I have a sense of obligation to the people in it”; and “If I left the military, I 

would feel like I had let my country down.” The response categories to all of these items were “strongly agree,” 

“agree,” “neither agree nor disagree,” “disagree,” and “strongly disagree.” The range of the scale was 1 to 5, with five 

indicating a higher level of commitment. The scale was created by DMDC. 

36 In order to identify these significant differences, the 95-percent confidence interval around subgroup parameters 

(e.g., percentages or means) was estimated. When confidence intervals overlap between males and females, the 

difference in percentages (or means) is not statistically significant. When confidence intervals do not overlap, the 

difference between groups is statistically significant.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

33

Figure 25. Satisfaction with the Military Way of Life, by Service and Gender, Enlisted

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

Gender Differences in Commitment to the Military

Both men and women report high levels of satisfaction with the military. Given this finding, one 

might also expect similarly high levels of organizational commitment for both groups. By Service and 

gender, Table 4 shows means for the three measures of organizational commitment in the SOFS: 

affective, continuance, and normative. The data show no significant gender differences for any of the 

three measures in any Service.

Table 4. Means of Organizational Commitment for Enlisted Personnel, by Service and Gender

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Affective Commitment

Male 2.19 2.36 2.25 2.13

Female 2.29 2.33 2.26 2.14

Continuance Commitment

Male 2.84 2.96 2.83 3.11

Female 3.01 3.15 3.06 3.12

Normative Commitment

Male 3.42 3.43 3.52 3.41

Female 3.36 3.42 3.41 3.42

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

NOTES: The range is 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher levels of commitment.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

34

Gender Differences in Retention Intentions

Given that men and women in the survey sample had similar levels of satisfaction with military life 

and similar commitment attitudes, it is reasonable to expect that they would have similar retention 

intentions as well. Figure 26 presents the percentages of male and female enlisted servicemembers 

who were (very) likely or (very) unlikely to stay in active-duty service. Across all the Services, there 

were no statistically significant differences in the percentages of male and female enlisted 

servicemembers who were likely (or unlikely) to continue their active-duty service, although a smaller 

percentage of women in all Services reported that they were likely to stay (and a larger percentage 

reported that they were unlikely to stay).

Figure 26. Retention Intentions, by Service and Gender, Enlisted

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

Gender Differences in Career Intentions

Even though most enlisted servicemembers reported positive retention intentions, reenlisting for 

another term of service is not the same as making the military a career. Thus, the Commission 

examined whether there are gender differences in intentions to making military service a career. 

Specifically, SOFS asks individuals to indicate how committed they are to making the military a 

career. Figure 27 shows career commitment by gender and Service. Career commitment is lower 

among some female enlisted servicemembers: Compared to their male counterparts, significantly 

fewer female soldiers and sailors reported that they (strongly) agree that they are committed to 

making the military a career. These differences are indicated by an asterisk in the figure.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

35

Figure 27. Percentage Who Agreed/Disagreed with the Statement “I Am Committed to Making the Military 

My Career,” by Service and Gender, Enlisted

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

NOTE: * indicates a statistically significant difference between males and females at the p < 0.05 level.

Officer Retention Attitudes

Gender Differences in Satisfaction with Military Life

Figure 28 shows the percentages of male and female officers across all Services who were (very) 

satisfied or (very) dissatisfied with the military way of life. Overall, the majority of men and women 

reported being satisfied with the military way of life. Only one significant difference occurred: In the 

Army, significantly more female officers than male officers said that they were dissatisfied with the 

military way of life, and significantly fewer said that they were satisfied.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

36

Figure 28. Satisfaction with the Military Way of Life, by Service and Gender, Officers 

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

NOTE: * indicates a statistically significant difference between males and females at the p < 0.05 level.

Gender Differences in Commitment to the Military

As did enlisted servicemembers, both male and female officers reported high levels of job satisfaction. 

By Service and gender, Table 5 presents means for the three measures of organizational commitment 

in SOFS: affective, continuance, and normative. 

Table 5. Means of Organizational Commitment for Officers, by Service and Gender

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Affective Commitment

Male 1.99 1.99 1.82 1.86

Female 2.28* 2.19* 1.96 2.04*

Continuance Commitment

Male 2.39 2.52 2.59 2.62

Female 2.35 2.20* 2.71 2.52

Normative Commitment

Male 3.38 3.57 3.36 3.50

Female 3.53 3.58 3.42 3.48

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

NOTES: The range is 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating higher levels of commitment. * indicates a statistically significant difference 

between males and females at the p < 0.05 level.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

37

Overall, there are few significant gender differences across the three measures of organizational 

commitment. The one fairly consistent difference is that women in the Army, the Navy, and the Air 

Force displayed significantly higher levels of affective commitment (i.e., an individual’s emotional 

attachment to, identification with, or involvement with the military) than their male counterparts. In 

terms of continuance commitment, the results suggest that women in the Navy saw fewer obstacles 

to shifting to a civilian career than did their male counterparts. No statistically significant differences 

emerged between men and women in terms of normative commitment.

Gender Differences in Retention Intentions

Figure 29 presents the percentages of male and female officers who indicated that they were (very) 

likely or (very) unlikely to stay in active-duty service. Across all the Services, both male and female 

officers indicated that they were more likely to stay than to leave. However, in the Army, 

significantly fewer female than male officers reported positive retention intentions.

Figure 29. Retention Intentions, by Service and Gender, Officers

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

NOTE: * indicates a statistically significant difference between males and females at the p < 0.05 level.

Gender Differences in Career Intentions

Even though most officers reported positive retention intentions, as for enlisted servicemembers, 

continuing for additional years of service is not the same as making the military a career. Thus, the 

Commission next examined whether there are gender differences in intentions to making military 

service a career. Figure 30 shows career commitment by gender and Service. 

Regardless of Service, significantly fewer women than men reported that they (strongly) agreed 

that they were committed to making the military a career. This finding is consistent with the 

Commission’s estimates of continuation rates among officers, where female rates were consistently 

lower than those of their male counterparts, especially during the early career phase (i.e., between 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

38

YOS 3 and YOS 10). It also highlights a specific area for future study—why women are less likely to 

view the military as a career.

Figure 30. Percentage Who Agreed/Disagreed with the Statement, “I Am Committed to Making the Military 

My Career”

SOURCE: Defense Manpower Data Center, 2009.

NOTE: * indicates a statistically significant difference between males and females at the p < 0.05 level.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

39

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS REGARDING SERVICEMEMBERS’ 

ATTITUDES TOWARD RETENTION

Using DMDC’s 2008 Status of Forces Survey among active-duty servicemembers (Defense 

Manpower Data Center, 2009), the Commission assessed whether there were gender differences in 

satisfaction with military life, organizational commitment, and retention intentions. 

For enlisted personnel, the data show that

• Female enlisted servicemembers were as likely as their male counterparts in the Army, the 

Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force both to be satisfied with the military way of 

life and to report that they intend to remain in the Armed Forces. 

• The results also show, however, that enlisted female soldiers and sailors were less likely 

than their male counterparts to report positive career intentions. That is, enlisted women 

in the Army and the Navy were less likely to report that they see the military as a career. 

For officers, the data show that

• Across all four Services, female officers reported being less satisfied with the military way 

of life, as well as less likely to remain in the Armed Forces, than their male counterparts. 

However, these gender differences only reached statistical significance in the Army. 

• Across all four Services, women were significantly less likely than men to report positive 

career intentions. That is, female officers were less likely to report that they saw the 

military as a career.

Additional Data on Attitudes Collected by the Retention Subcommittee

As the findings in the previous sections of this decision paper show, compared with men, women 

leave active-duty service at a higher rate and are less likely to view the military as a career. This is 

despite the fact that men and women report being equally satisfied with military life and report 

equally positive retention intentions. To try to understand the underlying reasons for these gender 

differences, the Subcommittee on Retention engaged in two additional fact-finding activities. First, it 

analyzed data collected via a supplement to DEOMI’s Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS). 

The DEOCS is designed to assess a number of aspects of organizational climate, including military 

equal opportunity, civilian equal employment opportunity, and organizational effectiveness. Second, 

researchers and subcommittee members held information sessions with male and female 

servicemembers who were making the transition to the civilian world. 

DEOCS Survey Data

To a gain a better understanding of why women leave active-duty service at a higher rate than men, 

the Commission added two retention-related questions to the online DEOCS. The first was, “To 

what extent was each of the following a reason for your decision to leave the service, using the 

numbers provided in the rating scale below?” The item was followed by a list of 36 factors. For each,

respondents indicated the extent to which the factor was related to their decision to leave: not at all 

(1), a slight extent (2), a moderate extent (3), a great extent (4), or a very great extent (5) (see 

Appendix A for the list of factors). For each factor a mean score, or average importance score, was 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

40

calculated.37 The higher the mean score, the more influential the factor was for making the decision 

to leave. It is important to note that the reasons for leaving encompass both voluntary (e.g., low job 

satisfaction) and involuntary (e.g., failure to promote) reasons. Although voluntary reasons may tell 

us something about individuals’ attitudes about military service, involuntary reasons may highlight 

organizational issues that may be keeping women from a career in the military. 

The second item asked respondents to rank the top five reasons why they were leaving the service 

using the same 36 factors as above. This question also allowed individuals to write in their own 

responses if they felt that their most important reason for leaving was not represented in the list of 

factors.

Survey data were collected in two periods during February/March and May 2010. Although a 

total of 3,419 servicemembers completed the survey during this time frame, the Commission focused 

its attention on the 1,111 active-duty officers and enlisted servicemembers who reported that they 

were either leaving at the end of their current obligation (n = 592) or were not sure if they were 

leaving at the end of their current obligation (n = 519) and who had no missing data on race, 

ethnicity, gender, branch of Service, or rank. 

Just over half of the servicemembers in the analytic sample were in the Army (616) and just over 

one-fourth were in the Navy (315). The rest were spread throughout the Marine Corps (87), Coast 

Guard (70), and the Air Force (23). The distribution of respondents across Services reflects 

differences in how each of the Services uses the DEOCS. It is typically not used by the Air Force, 

which relies on its own internal climate survey. Therefore, it is likely that the Air Force respondents 

in the sample were in a cross-Service command. In the Navy and the Marine Corps, unit 

participation in the DEOCS is required within 90 days of a new commander taking command and 

annually thereafter.38 The Army has its own climate survey that must be given to units within 90 days 

of a new commander taking command, but the DEOCS is also available to commanders, should they 

choose to use it.39 The Coast Guard requires administration of the DEOCS to each unit annually, as 

long as the unit contains at least 16 members. In general, DEOMI does not generate a DEOCS 

report unless at least 16 assigned personnel complete the survey.40

In terms of rank, 15 percent were officers (46 percent were between O-1 and O-3, and 54 

percent were between O-4 and O-6), and 85 percent were enlisted (68 percent were between E-1 

and E-5, and 32 percent were between E-6 and E-9).41 The sample contained 738 male enlisted 

servicemembers, 203 female enlisted servicemembers, 138 male officers, and 32 female officers. The 

small number of female officers suggests that any analysis using this data should be interpreted with 

caution. Also, keep in mind that none of the data is representative but rather represents a 

 37 Table A.1 presents mean importance factors for each of the 36 factors by gender for officers and enlisted 

servicemembers.

38 According to the U.S. Department of the Navy (2007), “commanders” are defined as “Commanders, 

Commanding Officers (COs), and Officers-in-Charge (OICs).”

39 This policy is set to change in the near future. The Army will then require use of the DEOCS and discontinue 

use of the Army’s Command Climate Survey. Current policy requires commanders of company-size units to assess 

command climate via the Army’s Command Climate Survey (U.S. Department of the Army, 2010). 

40 For purposes of conducting a unit climate assessment, a “unit” is any command possessing a Unit Identification 

Number (UIC), independent of the number of personnel assigned to that unit. It is also important to note that 

regardless of a Service’s stated policy on utilizing the DEOCS or any other climate survey, the degree to which these 

policies are enforced varies.

41 Although the analysis separates officers and enlisted servicemembers, sample size does not permit examination of 

Service-specific groups.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

41

nonrepresentative, convenience sample of servicemembers whose units participated in the survey at 

the time when the Commission supplement was available.42 As such, the results should not be 

generalized to all servicemembers.

Reasons for Leaving by Gender: Enlisted

The following list presents, overall and by gender, the five highest-rated factors for leaving by gender 

among enlisted servicemembers (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 2010). Note 

that the women’s list contains more than five factors because of ties between the second-most and 

third-most important factors:

• Overall (n = 894)

– Low pay and allowances (2.9)

– Poor promotion/advancement opportunities (2.9)

– Low job satisfaction (2.9)

– Desire to continue my education (2.8)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2.7).

• Male (n = 700)

– Low pay and allowances (3.0)

– Poor promotion/advancement opportunities (2.9)

– Low job satisfaction (2.9)

– Desire to continue my education (2.8)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2.7).

• Female (n = 194)

– Desire to continue my education (3.0)

– Poor promotion/advancement opportunities (2.9)

– Low job satisfaction (2.9)

– Low pay and allowances (2.8)

– Inherently unfair level of fairness in performance evaluation system (2.8)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2.8).43

Among enlisted servicemembers, regardless of gender, low pay, perception of poor advancement 

and promotion opportunities, and low job satisfaction are given the highest average importance 

ratings in terms of reasons for leaving. Men ranked low pay and allowances as their most salient 

reason for leaving (or considering leaving) active duty-service. Women rated a desire to continue 

their education as their most important factor for leaving. It is also worth noting that female enlisted 

servicemembers, but not male enlisted servicemembers, listed unfairness in the performance 

evaluation system as a top five reason for leaving.

 42 Convenience sampling is a type of sampling by which subjects are selected because of their convenient accessibility 

to the researcher. It is a “nonprobability” sampling technique because the probability of being included in the sample 

cannot be accurately determined. This, in turn, means that it is not possible to use convenience samples to make 

scientifically valid generalizations about the total population from which they are drawn.

43 Importance scores are in parentheses. Higher scores indicate a higher influence of the reason on the separation 

decision (range = 1 to 5). Missing data resulted in sample sizes that do not match those reported above. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

42

Recall that a second survey item asked respondents to rank their top five reasons for leaving. The 

following list shows, by gender, the five reasons that were most frequently listed as the primary, or 

top, reason for leaving (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 2010):

• Male (n = 700)

– Low pay and allowances (97)

– Involuntary retirement or separation/ineligibility to reenlist (77)

– Low job satisfaction (77)

– Too many deployments (48)

– Poor promotion/advancement opportunities (46).

• Female (n = 194)

– Involuntary retirement or separation/ineligibility to reenlist (23)

– Low job satisfaction (16)

– Too many deployments (15)

– Low pay and allowances (15)

– Desire to continue education (11).44

For enlisted men and women, a top reason for leaving was involuntary separation, suggesting that 

these were individuals whom the Services had decided not to retain. Note that the survey data did 

not indicate why these individuals were ineligible to reenlist. For some, HYT may have been an 

issue. For others, medical issues may have prevented them from being eligible to reenlist.45 It is also 

possible that some individuals were not offered reenlistment because their occupational specialty, or 

MOS, did not have any available positions when it came time for them to make a reenlistment 

decision. The Commissioners frequently heard this complaint when talking to enlisted 

servicemembers during information sessions. Thus, these “ineligible” individuals were retained in the 

analysis because the reasons for their ineligibility could be associated with personal characteristics 

(e.g., poor performance), Service characteristics (e.g., a full MOS), or both (e.g., lack of promotion 

opportunities combined with low performance ratings). 

Reasons for Leaving by Gender: Officers

The following list presents, overall and by gender, the top five most important factors for leaving 

among officers (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 2010):

• Overall (n = 160)

– Not getting desirable or appropriate assignments (2.9)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2.9)

– Low job satisfaction (2.9)

– Desire to start a second career before becoming too old (2.7)

– Poor promotion/advancement opportunities (2.7)

– Failed to be promoted (2.7).

 44 The number of respondents indicating each reason as the primary reason for leaving is in parentheses.

45 Although medical problems was also a separate option for respondents and among women, it was one of the most 

frequently listed primary reasons for leaving active-duty service. Despite the fact that medical problems was an 

option, we cannot assume that individuals who listed involuntary separation as their primary reason for leaving were 

not eligible to remain because of a medical condition.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

43

• Male (n = 128)

– Not getting desirable or appropriate assignments (2.9)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2.9)

– Desire to start a second career before becoming too old (2.9)

– Low job satisfaction (2.8)

– Poor promotion/advancement opportunities (2.7)

– Failed to be promoted (2.7).

• Female (n = 32)

– Low job satisfaction (3.2)

– Not getting desirable or appropriate assignments (3.1)

– Too many deployments (2.9)

– Not assigned to jobs offering technical/professional development (2.8)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2.8)

– Desire to continue my education (2.8).46

Among officers, regardless of gender, not getting desirable or appropriate assignments, low job 

satisfaction, and a desire to settle in a particular location were among the most common factors in the 

decision to leave (or in some cases, uncertainty about leaving). Although men rated not getting 

desirable or appropriate assignments as their most important reason for leaving, women rated low job 

satisfaction as their most influential factor. Women, but not men, listed deployment tempo and a 

desire to continue an education as a top five most salient factor for leaving active-duty service.

The following list shows, by gender, the five reasons that were most frequently listed as the 

primary, or top, reason for leaving (Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 2010): 

• Male (n = 128)

– Failure to be promoted (17)

– Low job satisfaction (14)

– Poor promotion or advancement opportunities (13)

– Involuntary retirement or separation/not eligible for reenlistment (11)

– Low pay and allowances (9)

– Desire to start a second career before becoming too old (9).

• Female (n = 32)

– Too many deployments (5)

– High level of work/family conflict (4)

– Desire to continue education (3)

– Desire to settle in a particular location (2)

– Too many permanent-change-of-station moves (2)

– Problems with superior(s) (2)

– Low job satisfaction (2)

– Failure to be promoted (2).47

 46 Importance scores are in parentheses. Higher scores indicate a higher influence of that reason on the separation 

decision (range = 1 to 5).

47 The number of respondents indicating each reason as the primary reason for leaving is in parentheses.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

44

Male officers most frequently listed failure to be promoted as their primary reason for leaving 

active-duty service, although it is not clear from the data why these officers did not promote (e.g., 

HYT, limited available promotion opportunities, poor job performance). For female officers, too 

many deployments was the most frequently listed primary reason for leaving. Interestingly, too many 

deployments was ranked sixth on the list for male officers. Although it did not make the top five list 

for men, a high level of work/family conflict was the second most listed primary reason for leaving 

among women. 48 However, it is important to keep in mind that the small number of female officers 

limits the generalizability of the results to the entire population of female officers who leave activeduty service. 

Write-In Responses 

As noted, respondents were also given the option to write in an additional primary reason for leaving 

if they felt it was not covered by the list provided or they wanted to expand on a reason that was 

listed. Appendix B provides those responses. In order to protect confidentiality, the results indicate 

the gender of the servicemember but not officer versus enlisted status. The most common reasons for 

leaving in the write-in section were perception of poor leadership, desire to spend more time with 

family or go to school, lack of advancement opportunities, and an unfair promotion system; these 

reasons crossed gender lines. 

Summary of Findings from DEOCS Data

Overall, the results from the DEOCS survey suggest that men and women cite similar reasons for 

leaving active-duty service. Both reported job dissatisfaction, low pay, and lack of promotion or 

advancement opportunities as reasons for leaving. For male officers, the most frequently cited 

primary reason for leaving was failure to be promoted. Although there were fewer female officers to 

analyze, the high frequency of deployments and the desire to settle in one location were both listed as 

a primary motivation for separating. Among male enlisted servicemembers, low pay and allowances 

was the most frequently cited primary reason for leaving, whereas for females involuntary separation 

or ineligibility to reenlist was the most cited reason. However, two data limitations limit the ability to 

make strong conclusions about reasons for the gender gap in retention based on these findings. First, 

the small number of females in the sample, particularly female officers, severely limits the variance in 

responses. Having responses from just ten more female officers could dramatically change the results. 

Second, without further knowledge about why individuals, especially women, involuntarily separate 

or are ineligible to reenlist, it is not possible to make any conclusions as to whether there may be 

organizational impediments to women’s military careers or whether this reflects a gender difference 

in occupational choice.

Information Sessions and Exit Interviews

Information Sessions

To supplement the data from the DEOCS, the Commission held information sessions with 

servicemembers from the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Commission 

staff contacted representatives from each Service and asked for volunteers from among those who 

were attending Transition Assistance Program (TAP) courses. TAP offices are designed to help 

active-duty servicemembers make the transition to the civilian sector, helping them find jobs and 

 48 Five male officers listed work/family conflict as their primary reason for leaving active-duty service.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

45

apply for veterans’ assistance programs (e.g., the GI Bill, medical benefits). Family members were 

encouraged to attend with their military spouses. Using an interview protocol, these information 

sessions were designed to discover, in servicemembers’ own words, why they chose to leave activeduty service; who, if anyone, spoke to them about their decision to leave; whether they felt that they 

had a mentor (or mentors) throughout their career; and what one policy change they would make to 

increase retention.

The first set of information sessions was held the week of May 10, 2010. Two information 

sessions were conducted at the Norfolk Naval Base in Norfolk, Virginia, and two additional 

information sessions were held at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune in North Carolina. Forty-eight 

sailors, one member of the Coast Guard, and 32 marines attended these sessions. In addition, three 

spouses (two wives and one active-duty marine husband) were present during the sessions at Camp 

Lejeune. The majority of attendees were male; of the 48 sailors, only six were female, and of the 32 

marines, four were female. The final two information sessions were held at Joint Base LewisMcChord near Seattle, Washington, the week of May 24, 2010. In total, seven airmen and 12 

soldiers attended the sessions. Again, the majority were male; of the seven airmen, two were female, 

and of the 12 soldiers, only one was female. Participants across the information sessions ranged from 

first-term enlisted servicemembers to officers retiring after 20 or more years of service.

The information sessions revealed a number of key themes that mirrored those found in the 

DEOCS data. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, rank, or branch of Service, servicemembers 

noted low job satisfaction, lack of fit between their skills and their actual job, not being able to do the 

job they were trained for, poor leadership, deployment cycles and operational tempo (OPTEMPO), 

and lack of promotion opportunities as reasons for leaving active-duty service. A number of 

individuals simply stated that it was “time to go.”

One of the most common reasons the subcommittee heard for leaving was HYT. Each Service 

sets the maximum number of years of service that an enlisted servicemember or officer can serve at a 

specific rank. This ties retention to the promotion system because if a servicemember fails to be 

promoted to the next rank, he or she will eventually meet HYT requirements and will be forced to 

involuntarily separate. 

Enlisted promotion is also tied to the number of vacancies that are available for each MOS. 

Often, enlisted attendees noted that they would have remained on active-duty service had positions 

been available to them. In the case of the Marine Corps, several of the younger first-term enlisted 

marines noted that by the time they were able to complete their paperwork, all of the slots in their 

MOS were full. Several admitted that they had been told that their MOS might fill up but did not 

actually believe that would be the case. As seen in the MLDC calculation of reenlistment rates, the 

Marine Corps has lower first-term reenlistment rates than other services, and this is deliberate on the 

part of the Corps.

During the information sessions, the Commissioners also asked attendees whether anyone had 

helped them during the period in which they made the decision to leave. Many noted high levels of 

support and mentorship from senior officers and senior NCOs. Among sailors, several mentioned 

having a “sea daddy” or a “sea mama,” an out-of-date term used for informal mentors. Some sought 

advice from their military peers. Some mentioned talking their decision over with family members, 

especially spouses in dual-military couples. In terms of more-formal mentoring, a number of 

servicemembers stated that their branch of Service had some type of career development board or 

panel, but attendees said that this was just a formality. 

In contrast, other participants reported that no one talked with them during their decisionmaking 

process. It was not clear from the information sessions how many of those individuals who said that 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

46

they had no form of mentorship throughout the decisionmaking process had available mentors but 

simply chose not to reach out to that person or persons. And at least one individual suggested that 

formal mentoring, where a senior service member is assigned to a subordinate, does not actually 

benefit the mentee. 

More generally, attendees also noted that poor mentoring and poor leadership were problems 

that led to lower retention. Many of the junior enlisted sailors, marines, airmen, and soldiers felt that 

their commanding officers did not listen to them and suggested that too many lacked the experience 

necessary to truly lead others. Other attendees noted that their senior NCOs were only interested in 

retention, and once it was known that an enlisted servicemember did not plan to reenlist, he or she 

would be treated differently. One attendee suggested that the pace of promotions was so fast that 

individuals were not ready to be leaders and to mentor individuals below them. These sentiments 

were not exclusive to enlisted servicemembers. As one female officer stated, “Leaders need leaders.” 

The idea that, even among officers, senior leadership was not as effective as it could be was echoed by 

a number of attendees across all branches of Service.

Attendees offered a number of suggestions for policy changes that they believed would increase 

retention. However, we caution that the Commissioners did not specifically ask for changes that 

would differentially affect females. Thus, it is not clear that any of the ideas would in fact close the 

gender gap in retention. 

Some suggestions, like revamping the Navy’s Perform to Serve Program (PTS) or the Marine 

Corps Lifelong Learning Program, were service-specific.49 Others could be implemented DoD-wide. 

For example, a number of attendees suggested policy changes that affect how the Services are staffed 

or are related to personnel issues—allotting more down time between deployments, allowing 

individuals to pick their rating or MOS only after some work experience, changing HYT rules, and 

creating tests used for promotion that more accurately reflect ability. Some mentioned reevaluating 

the fitness and weight standards, suggesting that fit individuals were being removed from active-duty 

service because they were just above cutoff scores. Offering more military educational opportunities 

was also mentioned, including leadership training and familiarization with new technology. And for 

many of the servicemembers, there was no single policy change that they believed would influence 

retention. 

Coast Guard Exit Interviews

Because of low attendance by Coast Guard members in the Commission information sessions, the 

Coast Guard provided the subcommittee with additional information from a small sample of thirdparty exit interviews.50 Data from 22 participants were gathered using an online virtual conference 

 49 The PTS program is a force-shaping tool used by the Navy that levels overmanned and undermanned rates (or 

occupations). It is also intended to act as a quality control by screening reenlistments for all sailors in Zones A, B, 

and C. However, many of the sailors with whom the subcommittee spoke anecdotally said that PTS was not 

working in the way in which it was intended. Through the Marine Corps Lifelong Learning Program, the Corps 

has taken a “cradle-to-grave” approach in training marines to maximize combat efficiency. The idea is that from the 

beginning of their military career through the end of their career, marines are trained continuously. Again, 

anecdotally, attendees at the information sessions suggested that, in practice, this policy was not living up to its 

expectations.

50 Though the Coast Guard schedules exit interviews prior to a servicemember’s departure, the information has not 

traditionally been formally collected and analyzed. However, the Coast Guard is moving toward a third-party exit 

interview process so that the data can be analyzed and used to address barriers to retention. The information 

summarized here is from preliminary results from this new process.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

47

room (VCR) in which exiting Coast Guard members could log in to a secure account and respond to 

a series of questions, as well as respond to the comments that others in the VCR had submitted. 

Given the small sample size, racial, ethnic, and gender differences in responses were not computed. 

Nonetheless, the results do give us some insight into why these individuals chose to leave active-duty

service in the Coast Guard. 

The five most common reasons for leaving involved difficulties managing a career and 

dissatisfaction with human resources policies, poor leadership, pursuing higher education, work-life 

balance, and low job satisfaction. Nine of the 14 respondents who cited work-life balance as a reason 

for leaving also mentioned that the problems they experienced were associated with the frequency of 

moving. 

Participants in the VCR also addressed what the Coast Guard could have done to prevent them 

from leaving. Individuals suggested that they might have remained on active duty if more 

opportunities for professional development had been available; if moves were less frequent; if they 

had experienced a better match between their skills and their jobs; and if they had better quality 

leadership, as well as better relationships with superiors and leaders. Some said that there was 

nothing that the Coast Guard could have done to have kept them in active-duty service.

Finally, VCR participants were asked about what the Coast Guard actually did to prevent them from 

leaving. Some participants said that they were approached by supervisors and others and asked to 

stay, some said that supervisors offered more job flexibility (i.e., working from home and 

telecommuting), some were reminded of the poor civilian job market and guaranteed retirement 

benefits after 20 years of service, some were offered a transfer or a civilian position, and, for some, 

nothing was done. One individual, who was approached by his chain of command to discuss his 

decision to leave, agreed to join the Reserves after leaving active-duty status.

Summary of Findings from Information Sessions and Exit Interviews

Although the subcommittee was not able to draw on a representative sample of servicemembers, the 

information sessions along with the Coast Guard’s exit interviews provided supplemental information 

to the data collected from DEOCS. Key themes that emerged from the qualitative data—low job 

satisfaction, lack of fit between skills and actual job, not being able to do the job for which they were 

trained, poor leadership, deployment cycles and OPTEMPO, HYT, and lack of promotion 

opportunities—mirrored those gleaned from the quantitative DEOCS data. None of the attendees 

suggested that they had been treated unfairly, and many noted that they were proud of their service 

and had only positive things to say about their experiences. More importantly for the Commission, 

men and women cited similar reasons for leaving active-duty service. Yet, according to the retention 

rates the subcommittee calculated, retention is lower among female servicemembers than their male 

counterparts. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

48

CURRENT RETENTION POLICIES IN THE ARMED SERVICES 

The final fact-finding mission of the subcommittee was to ascertain what, if any, existing retention 

policies were specifically targeted at women (or other minorities). Specifically, the subcommittee 

asked each Service, including the Coast Guard, “What policies, practices, or initiatives do you 

currently have in place to increase retention?” and “Are any of these focused specifically on women or 

minorities?” These questions were answered during the January 2010 MLDC meeting at which each 

Service presented briefings on the programs and incentives it is using to retain personnel in both the 

enlisted and officer communities. Details of the briefings can be found on the MLDC web page.51

When necessary, the subcommittee engaged in follow-up contact with Service representatives for 

further information with respect to these policies, practices, and programs.

Overall, the briefings showed that the Services’ retention policies are generally gender-, race-, 

and ethnicity-neutral. Rather than focusing on diversity, the emphasis of retention policies is on end 

strength and force shaping. One new program in the Navy and two existing programs in the Coast 

Guard, however, did appear to have the potential for decreasing the gender gap. These policies are 

gender-, race-, and ethnicity-neutral by design and promote equal treatment but, in actuality, may 

have a disparate impact on retention.

Both the Navy and the Coast Guard currently have sabbatical, or extended leave, programs. In 

FY 2009, the Navy began the Career Intermission Pilot Program to encourage retention through 

enhanced career flexibility.52 The program allows 20 officers and 20 enlisted sailors, male or female, 

to temporarily take time off from active duty for a period of up to three years. During the sabbatical 

period sailors transition to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) and do not receive active-duty pay or 

allowances but do retain both medical and dental care benefits, as well as continued access to 

commissaries; exchanges; and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR) programs. Sailors who 

participate in the sabbatical program are required to complete an additional active-duty service 

obligation of two months for every month spent in the IRR on sabbatical. Once they return to active 

duty, participants are reinstated at the same rank as when they left. A key provision for officers is that 

their seniority (date of rank) is adjusted to account for the time away, which ensures that they do not 

go up for promotion at the same time as their counterparts who did not take a career intermission.

The Coast Guard has two sabbatical programs, both available to men and women: Care for 

Newborn Children (CNC) and the Temporary Separation Program. Both are restricted to personnel 

who are at the rank of E-4/O-3 or above, and both have YOS requirements: four years of active-duty 

service in the Coast Guard for CNC and six years for the Temporary Separation Program. Both 

programs allow for up to a 24-month absence, and the servicemember receives no pay or benefits 

while he or she is away. On return, individuals are reinstated at the same rank they left, assuming 

they meet physical fitness requirements and return within two years of leaving. Servicemembers can 

use one sabbatical program but not both.

 51 See Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 2010. 52 The pilot was authorized in the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (10 

U.S. Code § 533, 2008).
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

49

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Recommendations

Based on the evidence it collected, the Commission concluded that, currently, retention is primarily 

an issue among female servicemembers, both officers and enlisted personnel, who leave active-duty 

service sooner than their male counterparts. The data indicate that the broad reason for lower female 

retention may be that women are less likely than men to be committed to a military career. However, 

none of the data that were collected points to a single reason, or even a set of reasons, that can 

explain why this may be so.

Recommendation 1—

DACOWITS should expand its current focus on retention to include an explanation of the 

gender gap in retention. As part of this renewed focus, DACOWITS should examine the 

effects of retention programs, such as the sabbatical programs currently offered by the 

Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as any other innovative Service-specific approaches to 

retention. Findings and recommendations from this research should be presented to the 

Secretary of Defense.

Because the data do not clearly indicate why women leave active-duty service earlier and at 

greater rates than men, the first recommendation of the Commission is to put retention on the list of 

focus areas covered by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). 

Specifically, the Commission recommends that DACOWITS should expand its current focus on 

retention to include an explanation of the gender gap in retention. As part of this renewed focus, 

DACOWITS should examine the effects of retention programs, such as the sabbatical programs currently 

offered by the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as any other innovative Service-specific approaches to 

retention. Findings and recommendations from this research should be presented to the Secretary of Defense.

According to its charter, DACOWITS “shall examine and advise on matters relating to women 

in the Armed Forces of the United States.” With recent authorization to increase its number of 

members from 15 to 35, DACOWITS may be able to expand its focus. Currently, retention is not 

explicitly mentioned in the charter, although it is explicitly acknowledged in the Mission Statement 

provided on the DACOWITS web page,53 and it has been the focus of attention in previous 

DACOWITS annual reports.

In particular, two DACOWITS annual reports from early in the decade put special emphasis on 

retention. In 2003, DACOWITS analyzed DMDC data and conducted 61 focus groups with men 

and women to discuss retention issues. The personnel data showed that women had lower retention 

rates than men. The report also noted that “[f]amily considerations remain key to retention for both 

men and women” (p. iv). Ultimately, the report concluded that more work was needed to understand 

why female retention rates are lower before any recommendations could be made. However, the 

report also noted that leave programs may be an option to address low rates of female attrition, 

especially among officers. At the time, only the Coast Guard had sabbatical programs.

 53 See Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, n.d.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

50

Based on the findings of the 2003 report, DACOWITS expanded its investigation in the 2004 

report, which devotes an entire section specifically to retention. New focus groups found that men 

and women cite similar reasons for leaving: work/family balance, workload and schedule, frequency 

of moves, poor leadership, and career and job opportunities both within and outside the military. It is 

worthwhile to note that the Retention Subcommittee found very similar results, six years later.54

The 2004 DACOWITS report formally recommended leave programs as an answer to 

family/life imbalance. In addition, the notion that leave or sabbatical programs might be especially 

effective for women is supported by the academic literature, which generally finds that women are 

more susceptible to experiencing work/life, or work/family, conflict because they are typically viewed 

as primary caretakers of children and other family members, such as elderly parents (Bianchi & 

Milkie, 2010). Thus, as part of DACOWITS’s continued investigation of female retention, the 

Commission particularly recommends that it examine the available data on the previously described 

Navy and Coast Guard sabbatical programs to assess whether they have had a positive, negative, or 

neutral impact on female retention.

Of course, the Services may have other policies or programs that may influence retention 

decisions. For example, some servicemembers have the opportunity to telecommute, or work from 

home, when necessary (i.e., when a child is sick), or to have flexible hours where they may only be in 

a work environment four rather than five days a week. Another example is increased flexibility in 

career paths, allowing individuals to be cross-trained and/or shift fields if one provides more forward 

advancement than the other. Although such programs are typically considered to be general retention 

tools, they may be particularly appealing to certain groups of individuals, such as working mothers. 

Thus, the Commission also encourages DACOWITS to include these types of programs in their 

evaluation of female retention and to focus specifically on whether they have the potential to close 

the gender gap.

If the sabbatical or any other programs are deemed effective at reducing the gender gap in 

retention, the Commission further encourages DoD to create model programs that would be 

available to servicemembers across all branches of Service. Such programs, however, must be 

designed with careful consideration of what options will and will not be legally permissible: Any 

program that is available only to women (or any other protected group) could be challenged and, if 

tested in court, would be subject to strict scrutiny.55

Finally, whatever findings and recommendations the DACOWITS review produces should be 

disseminated to a wide audience, including the Secretary of Defense. This will facilitate the 

development of retention policies that close the gender gap across Services.

Clearly, the examinations by DACOWITS and the Commission indicate that women have 

lower actual retention rates than their male counterparts, but they also indicate that men and women 

cite similar reasons for leaving the service. Thus, what is still needed is research that can explain how 

the link between attitudes and retention differs for men versus women. This should be the key focus 

of any future investigation on retention: the linkage of attitudes to behavior, with the intent of 

explaining the gender gap.

 54 Since the 2003 and 2004 reports, DACOWITS has focused on more-specific retention issues: the effect of 

deployment on retention in 2005; retention among female doctors, lawyers, and clergy in 2006; the effect of spouses’

employment opportunities on retention in 2007; and the association between educational opportunities and 

retention in 2008. The most recent report, in 2009, did not address retention.

55 See the issue papers written for the Legal Subcommittee for more information on how the law informs and shapes 

diversity and equal opportunity policies and programs.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

51

Recommendation 2—

DoD shall establish a universal qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis 

system that tracks career progression over time, including branching and assignments, 

promotion, and retention.

In its attempt to address its charter task, the largest obstacle the Retention Subcommittee faced 

was getting comparable retention statistics from all Services: The Services do not use the same 

procedures for estimating retention rates or even consistent race and ethnicity categories for making 

their calculations, nor do they regularly release to the public reports on retention results. This made it 

very difficult to make comparisons across Services, but, more importantly, it also made it difficult to 

formulate any DoD-wide assessments of retention patterns. Thus, this Commission recommendation asks DoD to establish a universal system of data collection, analysis, and reporting that will 

allow for meaningful comparisons and aggregations across the Services of not only retention rates but 

also other important aspects of career progression. The system should, however, be flexible enough to 

allow the Services to calculate whatever statistics may be required to meet their Service-specific 

needs. 

The Commission recommends that three different types of data be collected for the purpose of 

tracking career progression across diverse groups: personnel data, survey data, and focused qualitative 

data. First, personnel data can be used to show actual behavior and outcomes. For example, in this 

decision paper, the Retention Subcommittee used personnel data from DMDC to calculate 

comparable reenlistment and continuation rates across all of the DoD Services, using the same race 

and ethnic categories. Relevant demographic trends should not be limited to only race, ethnicity, and 

gender, however. Personnel data should also include other aspects of diversity as need dictates (e.g., 

religion, language ability, or other low-density, high-demand skills).

Second, survey data that shows attitudes and opinions can be used to assess why group-level 

differences in career progression may be occurring. For example, exit surveys could be used to collect 

information about reasons for leaving active-duty service. Currently, not all Services conduct exit 

surveys and, in instances where exit data is available, it is often specific to a particular unit. Thus, 

there is no centralized system for collection or analysis of this type of data. In the National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY 2000, Congress required that every member separating from active-duty 

service during a six-month period be surveyed regarding his or her reasons for leaving. The survey 

was conducted once by DMDC and never repeated (see Deak, Helba, et al., 2001). 

Although each individual Service may wish to gather different information from its members, 

utilizing a core set of survey items will facilitate comparable data analysis across Services. For 

example, at a minimum, a Service-wide exit survey should include items about the specific reasons 

why individuals leave, with what aspects of military life the respondent was and was not satisfied, 

who influenced the decision to leave, and what, if anything, would have altered the decision to leave. 

It is also important to link these surveys to servicemembers’ administrative records so analysts can 

link characteristics like race, ethnicity, gender, YOS, MOS, deployment history, and promotions to 

retention decisions and reasons for leaving. The subcommittee also notes that there currently exists a 

natural forum for an exit survey. All Services have their own versions of Transition Assistance 

Programs and Classes (TAP). These TAP activities could be used to provide respondents for exit 

surveys.

Third, focused qualitative data can more specifically address the issues identified by personnel 

and/or survey data. Although exit surveys can be helpful in terms of quantitative analysis, they 

sometimes cannot provide the nuanced reasons why an individual chooses to leave active-duty 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

52

service. And, as shown in this chapter, raw statistics alone cannot untangle why women leave the 

Services at a higher rate than their male counterparts. Thus, the Commission also recommends the 

use of focused qualitative data to study personnel and manpower issues. For example, information 

sessions, similar to those used in the Commission analysis of retention, are often quite helpful at 

providing detailed information that is sometimes missed in more-restrictive quantitative survey 

methods where selecting a response from a list is the respondent’s only option. 

Regardless of the type of data that is collected, it must be consistent not only across Services but 

also over time. This can be achieved through the use of common methodologies (e.g., a universal exit 

survey), variable definitions (e.g., the Office of Management and Budget’s race and ethnicity 

categories), and reporting conventions (e.g., cumulative continuation rates). Although retention 

among minority racial and ethnic groups does not currently appear to be problem, this may not 

always be the case. As such, part of the Commission’s recommendation about data collection is 

continued monitoring of trends in retention.

Conclusion

This decision paper has reviewed the results of the Commission’s effort to address the charter task on 

retention: “examine the ability of current activities to increase continuation rates for ethnic- and 

gender-specific members of the Armed Forces.” Based on calculations of continuation and 

reenlistment rates, the Commission determined that women have consistently lower retention than 

their male counterparts, but the same is not true of racial and ethnic minorities compared with their 

white peers. The investigation also found that women are less likely to report that they have career 

aspirations for the military. Therefore, the Commission focused its attention on uncovering why the 

gender gap in retention exists. Through the use of survey data from DEOMI’s Climate Survey, as 

well as information sessions with servicemembers across DoD and the Coast Guard who were ending 

their military careers, the Commission found that the reasons that men and women cite for leaving 

are very similar. Both gender groups cited low job satisfaction, low pay, deployment cycles and high 

OPTEMPO, failure to promote and HYT, ineligibility to reenlist and involuntary separation, poor 

leadership, and family as reasons for their separation. 

Because the reasons for leaving were similar across genders and because none of the Services 

reported gender-specific retention policies, the Commission focused its recommendations on 

continued study of the issue and consistent collection and reporting of qualitative and quantitative 

personnel and manpower data and statistics that will allow for comparisons within and across 

Services over time. This will enable the Services to identify emerging trends in retention with the 

goal of taking appropriate action as those trends may shift. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

53

APPENDIX A: MEAN IMPORTANCE SCORES FOR REASONS FOR 

LEAVING ACTIVE-DUTY SERVICE

Table A.1. Mean Importance Scores for Reasons for Leaving, by Officer/Enlisted Status and Gender

Officer Enlisted

Overall Male Female Overall Male Female

Involuntarily retiring or separated/not eligible 

for reenlistment

2.04 2.13 1.72 2.25 2.20 2.43

Approaching maximum age eligible to serve 1.86 1.95 1.50 1.87 1.87 1.88

Sexual harassment 1.778 1.75 1.88 1.85 1.73 2.28

Approaching maximum total time in grade 2.13 2.26 1.63 2.15 2.12 2.25

Religious discrimination 1.62 1.66 1.44 1.81 1.76 1.98

Low job satisfaction 2.90 2.83 3.19 2.85 2.85 2.86

Age discrimination 1.63 1.66 1.50 1.88 1.86 1.95

Low pay and allowances 2.35 2.38 2.25 2.91 2.95 2.83

Racial discrimination 1.79 1.83 1.66 2.01 1.93 2.28

Failed to be promoted 2.66 2.70 2.50 2.68 2.65 2.77

Sex discrimination 1.84 1.78 2.09 1.94 1.82 2.41

Poor promotion/advancement opportunities 2.69 2.72 2.56 2.88 2.88 2.91

Inherently unfair level of fairness in 

performance evaluation

2.32 2.26 2.56 2.68 2.63 2.84

Not getting desirable or appropriate 

assignments

2.94 2.91 3.06 2.66 2.64 2.72

Not assigned to jobs offering 

technical/professional development

2.40 2.29 2.84 2.52 2.50 2.61

Lack of training opportunities 2.32 2.24 2.62 2.49 2.48 2.53

Desire to continue my education 2.34 2.23 2.78 2.82 2.76 3.01

Desire to get out while jobs are easy to get 1.86 1.93 1.59 2.23 2.22 2.29

Desire to start second career before becoming 

too old

2.69 2.86 2.03 2.55 2.59 2.54

Desire to start second career before having to 

pay for children’s education

1.93 2.01 1.63 2.19 2.21 2.10

Desire to settle in a particular location 2.88 2.88 2.84 2.74 2.72 2.80

Family problems at home 2.08 2.02 2.31 2.16 2.14 2.23

Family wanted me to separate/retire 2.33 2.31 2.38 2.28 2.28 2.24

Too many PCS moves 2.20 2.19 2.25 2.04 2.05 1.98

Too many deployments 2.35 2.22 2.88 2.38 2.40 2.30

Too few deployments 1.46 1.51 1.25 1.76 1.80 1.61
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

54

Officer Enlisted

Overall Male Female Overall Male Female

One or more serious (UCMJ) offenses 1.53 1.55 1.41 1.81 1.77 1.93

Minor offenses or disciplinary problems 1.46 1.49 1.34 1.68 1.66 1.77

Homesickness 1.48 1.42 1.66 1.84 1.80 2.00

High level of work/family conflict 2.20 2.15 2.41 2.33 2.28 2.48

Lack of motivation/boredom 2.14 2.18 2.00 2.67 2.64 2.75

Problems with superior(s) 2.10 2.07 2.22 2.45 2.40 2.62

Medical problems 1.76 1.80 1.59 2.21 2.12 2.56

Difficulty meeting physical fitness 

requirements

1.51 1.51 1.53 1.92 1.86 2.12

Difficulty maintaining weight/body fat 

standards

1.53 1.49 1.69 1.83 1.80 1.97

Inadequate access to the Internet/World Wide 

Web

1.51 1.53 1.41 1.67 1.68 1.62

N (group sample size) 160 128 32 894 700 194

SOURCE: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, 2010.

NOTES: Respondents indicated to what extent each item on a list of factors would impact their decision to leave: not at all (1), a slight 

extent (2), a moderate extent (3), a great extent (4), or a very great extent (5).
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

55

APPENDIX B: WRITE-IN RESPONSES TO MOST IMPORTANT 

REASON FOR LEAVING

“68K points are too friggin high. Our job is awesome and we are very smart, but really, 798 is pretty 

ridiculous.” (female)

“Anything to do with family.” (male) 

“Call into full-time ministry—Number [one] reason.” (female)

“Forgetting to take care of their [servicemembers].” (female)

“I want to be able to be with my family, not work so they can live life without me while I earn a paycheck 

that is small to begin with.” (male)

“I will have done 20 years active duty.” (male)

“Keep me in USAREC and you will [lose] a soldier.” (male)

“Officer leadership is very poor. We’ve [built] an Action Officer corps, without leadership skills. 

Meetings, slides, action trackers, and program management are robbing the officer corps of leadership 

skills.” (male)

“Overworked Understaffed” (male)

“THERE IS NEVER ANY TIME TO GO TO SCHOOL OR EVEN DO ONLINE SCHOOL 

BECAUSE WHEN IT’S TIME TO WORK IT’S WORK, THEN I NEED TO DO WORK AT 

HOME FROM WORK, SPEND TIME WITH THE FAMILY, THEN DO HOMEWORK FOR 

SCHOOL, IT’S PRETTY HARD TO TIME MANAGE THAT SCHEDULE. THEN THE 

DEPLOYMENT ISSUE ON TOP OF FAMILY TIME. WELL I GUESS I’M BEING GREEDY 

TO WANT TO BE WITH MY FAMILY MORE, BUT I RARELY HAVE TIME WITH THE 

FAMILY, I HAVE NEVER EXPERIENCED THE LACK OF TIME WITH THE FAMILY 

WORKING A CIVILIAN JOB. WHEN IT’S TIME TO GO HOME IT’S TIME TO GO HOME 

AND THAT’S IT. THERE ARE SOME GOOD THINGS THOUGH ABOUT THIS JOB, SUCH 

AS I CAN LEAVE WORK TO TAKE CARE OF AN EMERGENCY OR APPOINTMENT 

AND STILL GET PAID FOR IT BUT THAT’S ABOUT IT.” (male)

“The main issues that most sailors are facing today are things like High Year Tenure and PTS. Mind you 

that most of the Navy’s good sailors that can’t get promoted due to lack of advancement opportunities for 

their particular rate are forced to separate. Advancement should be fair across the board!! A lot of sailors 

with easy opportunities to advance are not deserving of those promotions and are not qualified to lead 

anyone into the future of the Navy. In fact they are still in need of much leadership due to their lack of.” 

(male)

“Tired of dealing with inept leadership and watching better officers and leaders being passed over to 

promote not as qualified minorities to meet quotas.” (male)

“Truthfully—this unit is unfair and totally ruined life in general for me, and i can’t wait to get the hell 

away from here.” (female)

“Unfortunately the organization is too big—information from above is often disorganized and unclear, 

representation and consideration from above (upper leadership) is nearly impossible for the individual. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

56

The strain of too many local tasking (with questionable utility) make it so local leaders are often too 

stretched [too] thin to be able to know and appreciate individual talent/capability.” (male)

“Watching duds go through the ranks faster than some of my well deserving peers or myself” (male)

“You have family men who have been deployed every other year. When they pcs to a unit that is 

deploying they are seen as [an] undesirable soldier if they do not want to waive their year of stabilization 

in between deployments. There is no reason why the Army should have year long deployments. This is 

why the suicide rate is so high, and there is [an] issue with insubordination.” (male)

“clearance was revoked after completing my LOI and sticking to it.” (female)

“for every good chief in the navy [there] are 5 poor ones. unfortunately these chiefs all hold important 

task[s], for what better way to hide that you suck than to suck at a lot of things.” (male)

“I want to reclass and none of the jobs I would like are open.” (male)

“I’m a single dad. Lost my wife in a divorce after . . . two consecutive short tours.” (male)

“I was raised to always do what I feel is right. My family would be ashamed if they knew how things 

around here really work. I [won’t] disrespect my family by being [a part] of something that I know I am 

better than.” (male)

“Continued IA hits after already serving in combat zone!” (male)

“The way the command ran their company would be my first factor in deciding if I wanted to continue 

my career with the military.” (male)

“Civilian leadership of the military with no military experience being ineffective at leading the military.” 

(male)

“#1 Navy’s obsession with alcohol and how they think everyone has a drinking problem. 

Micromanagement” (male)

“Family/Personal time” (male)

“CMD Leadership” (male)

“I’m just not liking it it has too much drama going on.” (female)

“I am trying to find my opportunity for higher education and leadership as always, however sometimes I 

have to look for what is the best choice for me and for my family while I am [doing] my active duty. 

Thank you for asking.” (female)

“Current Unit has single-handedly destroyed my opinion of the military as a whole” (male)

“3rd discrimination due to profile” (male)

“Number 1 reason is branch assignment” (male)

“get out and buy a home where I want before interest rates sky rocket.” (male)

“Army Culture is set up that it teaches higher enlisted/commissioned personnel to keep vital information 

from the soldier, in order to coerce the mass through empty threats because of their lack of ignorance. 

When the soldier attempts to educate [or] actually educates him/her selves, they find themselves 

intimidated through a series of techniques that allows the leadership to threaten the soldier by making 

them feel isolated in the mass without singling them out.” (male)
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

57

REFERENCES

Antel, J., Hosek, J. R., & Peterson, C. E. (1987). Military enlistment and attrition: An analysis of decision 

reversal [R-3510-FMP]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Asch, B. J., Buck, C., Klerman, J. A., Kleykamp, M., & Loughran, D. S. (2009). Military enlistment of 

Hispanic youth [MG-773-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Asch, B. J., Heaton, P., Hosek, J. R., Martorell, F., Simon, C., & Warner, J. T. (2010). Cash incentives 

and military enlistment, attrition, and reenlistment [MG-950-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Bianchi, S. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2010). Work and family research in the first decade of the 21st century. 

Journal of Marriage and Family, 72, 705–725.

Buddin, R. (1988). Trends in attrition of high-quality military recruits [R-3539-FMP]. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.

Buddin, R. (2005). Success of first-term soldiers: The effects of recruiting practices and recruit characteristics

[MG-262-A]. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Buddin, R., Levy, D. S., Hanley, J. M., & Waldman, D. (1992). Promotion tempo and enlisted retention

[R-4135-FMP]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Cooke, T., Marcus, A., & Quester, A. (1992). Personnel tempo of operations and Navy enlisted retention. 

Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Deak, M. A., Helba, C., Rockwell, D., Helmick, J., Hoover, E. C., & Randolph, J. S. (2001). Tabulations 

of responses from the 2000 Military Exit Survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Defense Department Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. (n.d.). About DACOWITS. 

Retrieved January 17, 2011, from http://www.dtic.mil/dacowits/tableabout_subpage.html 

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. (2010). Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey 

(DEOCS). Patrick Air Force Base, FL: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.

Defense Manpower Data Center. (2009). November 2008 Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty 

Members: Administration, datasets, and codebook [Report No. 2008-033]. Arlington, VA: Defense 

Manpower Data Center.

Defense Manpower Data Center West. (2000–2008). Personnel Tempo (PERSTEMPO) Database. 

Monterey, CA: Defense Manpower Data Center West.

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, Pub. L. 96-513, 94 Stat. 2835, December 12, 1980, 

codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (2009).

Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Pub. L. 110-417, 122 Stat. 

4355, October 14, 2008, codified at 10 U.S. Code § 533 (2008).

Fletcher, J., McMahon, J., & Quester, A. (1994). Women in the Navy: The past, the present, and the future. 

Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Guthrie, T. J. (1992). Career intentions and behavior of Army officers: A model testing approach [Technical 

Report 946]. Alexandria, VA: United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social 

Sciences.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

58

Hattiangadi, A., Lee, G., & Quester, A. (2004). Recruiting Hispanics: The Marine Corps Experience final 

report. Alexandria, VA: CNA. 

Hogan, P., Espinosa, J., Mackin, P., & Greenston, P. (2005). A model of reenlistment behavior: Estimates of 

the effects of Army’s selective reenlistment bonus on retention by occupation. Arlington, VA: United States 

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

Hosek, J., & Martorell, F. (2009). How have deployments during the War on Terrorism affected reenlistment? 

[MG-873-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Hosek, S., Tiemeyer, P., Kilburn, R., Strong, D. A., Ducksworth, S., & Ray, R. (2001). Minority and 

gender differences in officer career progression [MR-1184-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Janega, J. B., & Olmsted, M. G. (2003). U.S. Navy sailor retention: A proposed model of continuation 

behavior. In Report from the 45th Annual Conference of the International Military Testing Association (pp. 

150–155). Pensacola, FL: International Military Testing Association. 

Jans, N. A., & Frazer-Jans, J. (2006). Retention strategies for General Service officers. Canberra, ACT: 

Directorate of Strategic Personnel Planning and Research.

Jaros, S. (1997). An assessment of Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of organizational 

commitment and turnover intentions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 319–337.

Kraus, A., Wenger, J., Houck, L., & Gregory, D. (2004). College recruits in the enlisted Navy: Navy 

outcomes and civilian opportunities. Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Marsh, R. M. (1989). Predicting retention in the U.S. Navy: Officers and enlisted. Journal of Political and 

Military Sociology, 17, 1–26.

Martin, T. J. (1995) Who stays, who leaves? An analysis of first-term Army attrition [RGSD-114]. Santa 

Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (n.d.) Military Leadership Diversity Commission homepage. 

Retrieved January 16, 2011, from http://mldc.whs.mil/

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2009). How we define race and ethnicity categories for MLDC 

research. [Issue Paper #1]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Key considerations in interpreting promotion and 

retention rates. [Issue Paper #17]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Officer retention rates across the Services by gender and 

race/ethnicity [Issue Paper #24]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Review of literature on enlisted retention [Issue Paper

#27]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Reenlistment rates across the Services by gender and 

race/ethnicity [Issue Paper #31]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Racial/ethnic and gender differences in attitudinal 

measures of retention among active-duty enlisted servicemembers [Issue Paper #40]. Arlington, VA: Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Racial/ethnic and gender differences in attitudinal 

measures of retention among active-duty officers [Issue Paper #41]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #3: Retention

59

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010, January 11). January meeting notice. Retrieved January 

17, 2011, from http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/january-meeting

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000, Pub. L. 106-65, 113 Stat. 792, October 5, 

1999, codified at U.S. Code § 5952 (1999).

Quester, A., & Adedeji, A. (1991). Reenlisting in the Marine Corps: The impact of bonuses, grade, and 

dependency status. Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Quester, A., Hattiangadi, A., & Shuford, R. (2006). Marine Corps retention in the post-9/11 era: The effects 

of deployment tempo on Marines with and without dependents. Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Retirement for Years of Service: Regular Colonels and Navy Captains, 10 U.S.C. 634 (1998).

Schmitz, E. J., Moskowitz, M. J., Gregory, D., & Reese, D. L. (2008). Recruiting budgets, recruit quality, 

and enlisted performance. Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Tsui, F., Hogan, P., Chandler, J., Espinosa, J., Mackin, P., & Greenston, P. (2006). Army SRB Program: 

Estimates of effects on retention (revised) and length of reenlistment. Arlington, VA: United States Army 

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

U.S. Coast Guard. (1993, November 15). Enlisted high year tenure (HYT) [COMDTINST 1040.10].

U.S. Department of the Army. (2010, April 27). Army command policy [Army Regulation 600-20]. 

Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2007, July 25). Navy equal opportunity policy [OPNAV Instruction 

5354.1F]. Washington, DC: Department of the Navy.

U.S. Department of the Navy. (2008, February 19). Naval military personnel manual, article 1610-120. 

Washington, DC: Department of the Navy.

U.S. Marine Corps. (2004, June 23). Enlisted retention and career development manual [Marine Corps 

Order P1040.31J].

Warner, J. T. (2006). Thinking about military retirement [CNA Research Memorandum D001358]. 

Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Wenger, J. W., & Hodari, A. K. (2004). Predictors of attrition: Attitudes, behaviors, and educational 

characteristics. Alexandria, VA: CNA.