Military Personnel: DOD Should Develop a Plan to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Its Career Intermission Pilot Program
Published: 2015-10-27T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress authorized CIPP in 2009 to provide greater flexibility in career paths for servicemembers and to enhance retention. CIPP allows servicemembers to take sabbaticals of up to 3 years in exchange for 2 months of obligated service for each month of sabbatical taken. The Navy is the only service to have participants who have completed sabbaticals.
Senate Report 113-211 included a provision for GAO to examine CIPP, and particularly the Navy's experience with it. This report (1) evaluates the extent to which participation in CIPP has reached authorized participation limits and DOD has developed a plan for evaluating whether the program is an effective means to retain servicemembers; and (2) describes the Navy's reported experience with CIPP as a tool for aiding retention by providing career flexibility.
GAO reviewed CIPP legislation and implementation guidance, interviewed DOD and service officials responsible for CIPP, and compared the information obtained against key features of pilot evaluation plans such as clear, measurable objectives and standards for determining pilot-program performance. GAO also reviewed Navy efforts to implement CIPP and, using a GAO-developed questionnaire, collected information from Navy CIPP participants who had completed their sabbaticals.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Participation in the Department of Defense's (DOD) Career Intermission Pilot Program (CIPP)—a pilot program expiring in 2019 that allows servicemembers to take up to a 3-year break in service in exchange for a period of obligated service when they return—has remained below statutorily authorized limits, and officials have identified factors that could be affecting CIPP participation, but DOD has not developed a plan for evaluating whether CIPP is an effective means to retain servicemembers. DOD-wide participation in CIPP has been at less than half the authorized limit of 160 participants—up to 40 participants for each of the four services—per calendar year (see figure below). Service officials stated that factors affecting participation include statutory requirements, such as eligibility criteria, and military culture, among others. CIPP-authorizing legislation and DOD guidance require the services to report on the effectiveness of the pilot, including effect on retention and program costs; however, neither DOD nor the services have developed a plan for evaluating the pilot program. GAO has reported that a pilot program should have a well-developed and documented evaluation plan, including key features such as well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and standards for determining pilot-program performance. Moreover DOD has proposed expansion of the pilot, and officials stated that CIPP should be made available permanently. However, the basis for these proposals is unclear, and without a well-developed plan for evaluating the pilot, there will be limited assurance that the evaluations conducted will provide the information needed to make decisions about the future of CIPP.
Total Number of Participants Approved to Participate by All Military Services for Calendar Years 2009 through July 2015
According to Navy officials, CIPP has provided an option for the Navy to respond to the personal needs of servicemembers, and they believe it has helped to retain servicemembers who otherwise might have left the military. CIPP participants also provided GAO with examples of how the program allowed them to address work-life balance challenges, such as managing deployment schedules and caring for family, that could not be achieved using other options.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD develop and implement a plan to evaluate whether CIPP is enhancing retention. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense has cited challenges for the Department of  Defense (DOD) in attracting and retaining servicemembers with skills that  are in high demand in corporate America, and stated that DOD needs to  provide more flexible career paths to retain the best troops. The Career  Intermission Pilot Program (CIPP) was authorized by Congress in 2009,  with the intent of enhancing retention and providing greater flexibility in  the career path of servicemembers. CIPP allows interested  servicemembers to take a sabbatical of up to 3 years in order to meet  personal or professional needs, such as pursuing higher education or  caring for ailing parents or young children, and then return to active duty  with no adverse career effect. CIPP was initially authorized to accept  participants beginning January 1, 2009, with no servicemembers to be  released from active duty under the program after December 31, 2012.  After subsequent extensions the program is currently authorized until  December 31, 2019. The Navy in 2009 became the first service to  implement CIPP, followed by the Marine Corps in 2013, and the Air Force  and the Army in 2014.
Senate Report No. 113-211 included a provision for GAO to examine  CIPP and the military services’ participation in the program and, in  particular, to examine the Navy’s experience with the program. This  report (1) evaluates the extent to which participation in CIPP has reached  authorized participation limits and DOD has developed a plan for  evaluating whether the program is an effective means to retain  servicemembers, and (2) describes the Navy’s reported experience with  CIPP as a tool for aiding retention by providing career flexibility.
To identify the extent to which CIPP has met authorized participation  limits and DOD has developed a plan for evaluating whether the program  is an effective means to retain servicemembers, we reviewed CIPP  implementation and reporting requirements, including the requirement to  evaluate the effectiveness of the program, established in the NDAA for  fiscal years 2009, 2012, 2013, and 2015. Also, we reviewed Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R))  guidance provided to the services, as well as service-specific CIPP  implementation guidance. In addition, we interviewed OUSD(P&R)  officials and CIPP program managers for each of the four services— including the Navy’s Military Personnel Plans and Policies office; the Air  Force’s Military Force Management Policy office; the Army’s Military  Personnel Management Directorate within the Deputy Chief of Staff Army  G1 office, and Human Resources Command; and the Marine Corps’  Manpower & Reserve Affairs office. We compared the documentation and  information obtained against key features of program evaluation plans  developed by GAO and private professional auditing and evaluation  organizations. The key features in the public and private standards  include establishing well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and  standards for determining pilot-program performance. To identify what  factors, if any, have affected CIPP participation, we reviewed statutory  and service-specific guidance to identify eligibility criteria for participating  in CIPP, and we discussed with CIPP officials the extent to which these  criteria and other factors affect participation. In addition, we collected and  reviewed CIPP applicant data by gender, servicemember rank, and  reason for and length of requested sabbatical, as well as data indicating  the reasons why applicants were disapproved for the program. We  interviewed service officials responsible for maintaining CIPP participation  data to determine the data collection and internal control processes used  to ensure data accuracy. Based on these conversations and our review of  available documentation, we determined that these data were sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this review.
To review the Navy’s reported experience with CIPP as a tool for aiding  retention of servicemembers by providing career flexibility, we reviewed  the Navy’s efforts to implement the program from 2009 to the present. We  reviewed Navy policy and procedures for implementing CIPP as well as  reports provided to Congress on the implementation and participation of  Navy personnel in the program, along with preliminary data on the  program’s effect on retention. In addition, we interviewed Navy  headquarters officials and officials responsible for implementing CIPP in  four of the Navy’s servicemember communities—Surface Warfare Officer,  Aviation Officer, Submarine Officer, and Enlisted personnel. To  understand the extent to which CIPP has provided flexibility in the  personal and professional needs of servicemembers, we collected non- generalizable data through an email questionnaire sent to 33 Navy CIPP  participants who had completed sabbaticals as of June 2015. We  received responses from 17 participants.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2015 to October 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The NDAA for fiscal year 2009 initially authorized CIPP as a pilot program  through December 31, 2012, establishing basic eligibility criteria for  participants, providing guidelines for implementing the program, and  establishing congressional reporting requirements. Specifically:
For each calendar year from 2009 through 2012, up to 20 officers and  20 enlisted servicemembers per military service are authorized to  leave active duty for a period not to exceed 3 years. For each month  of sabbatical taken, servicemembers must complete two months of  obligated service upon their return to active duty.
Servicemembers who have completed their initial active duty service  agreement and are not currently receiving a critical skills retention  bonus are eligible to participate.
During their sabbatical, all servicemembers are required to serve in  the Individual Ready Reserve and are required to undergo such  inactive duty training as shall be required by the Secretary involved in  order to ensure that the servicemember retains sufficient proficiency  in the military skills, professional qualifications and physical readiness.
During sabbaticals, servicemembers receive two-thirtieths of their  salary (i.e. 2-days pay per month) and maintain full health benefits for  themselves and their dependents. In addition, DOD provides  participants and their dependents with a paid relocation within the  United States. For example, if servicemembers are taking a sabbatical  to attend school, DOD will pay for them to move to the location of their  educational program. At the end of the servicemember’s sabbatical,  DOD will pay the costs to relocate the servicemember to his or her  next assignment.
The NDAA for fiscal year 2015 kept these NDAA fiscal year 2009  guidelines and extended the program, allowing for servicemembers to  start sabbaticals through December 31, 2019, returning to active duty no  later than December 31, 2022. Appendix I shows when each military  service implemented CIPP and the number of participants approved by  each service as of July 2015.The fiscal year 2015 NDAA also extended  the date for DOD to provide a final report to Congress—from March 1,  2016, to March 1, 2023, and it added additional reporting elements. DOD  is now required to report the following:
A description of the number of applicants for the pilot program and the  criteria used to select individuals for participation in the pilot program.
An evaluation of whether the authorities of the pilot programs provided  an effective means to enhance the retention of members of the armed  forces possessing critical skills, talents, and leadership abilities.
An evaluation of whether the career progression in the armed forces  of individuals who participate in the pilot program has been or will be  adversely affected; and the usefulness of the pilot program in  responding to the personal and professional needs of individual  members of the armed forces.
A description of reasons why servicemembers choose to participate in  the pilot.
A description of the servicemembers, if any, who did not return to  active duty at the conclusion of their sabbatical, and a statement of  the reasons why these servicemembers did not return.
A statement about whether servicemembers were required to perform  training as part of their participation in the pilot program, and if so, a  description of the servicemembers who were required to perform  training, the reasons they were required to perform training, and how  often they were required to perform training.
A description of the costs to each military department of each pilot  program.
Recommendations for legislative or administrative action as the  Secretary concerned considers appropriate for the modification or  continuation of the pilot programs.
section_title: CIPP Participation Has Been Lower Than Authorized Limits and the Military Services Have Identified Factors That Could Affect Participation, but DOD Has Not Established a Plan for Evaluating the Effect of CIPP on Retention
paragraphs: Participation in CIPP has remained below statutorily authorized limits, and  officials have identified factors that could be affecting CIPP participation,  but DOD has not established a plan for evaluating whether CIPP is an  effective means to retain servicemembers. The rate of DOD-wide  participation in CIPP has been at less than half the authorized limit of 160  participants per calendar year, and officials from each of the services  stated that factors including statutory requirements, service-specific  limitations, military culture, and personal financial constraints could be  affecting participation. Additionally, although DOD officials stated that  they would like to make CIPP a permanent program, and the services are  required to provide a final report to Congress on its effectiveness, costs,  and retention not later than March 1, 2023, DOD has not established a  plan for evaluating the effect of the pilot program on retention of  servicemembers.
subsections: section_title: CIPP Participation Has Remained Below Authorized Limits
paragraphs: Since Congress authorized CIPP in fiscal year 2009, participation has  remained below authorized limits. As shown in figure 1, DOD is  authorized to enroll up to 160 servicemembers per year in the program  (up to 40 participants for each of the four services); but DOD-wide, the  highest number of participants approved for CIPP was 76, in calendar  year 2014.
From 2009 through 2012, only Navy personnel were participating in CIPP,  but in 2013, the Marine Corps approved its first applicant, and in 2014,  personnel from all four services were participating in the pilot. Some of  the services have had participation levels closer to the authorized limits.  For example, in 2014, of the 76 participants approved, 30 were Navy and  35 were Air Force. However, the Army and Marine Corps were below  authorized limits, with 9 servicemembers approved from the Army and 2  from the Marine Corps.
section_title: Service Officials Have Identified Factors That May Affect Participation
paragraphs: Service officials identified four factors that may affect participation in  CIPP—statutory requirements, service-specific limitations, military culture,  and financial constraints.
Statutory Requirements—According to the CIPP authorizing statute,  servicemembers are not eligible to participate in the program during  the period of their initial active duty service agreement or if they are  currently receiving a critical skills retention bonus. These eligibility  criteria reduce the population eligible to apply for CIPP. For example,  according to Navy officials, as of July 2015, almost 134,000 Navy  servicemembers were ineligible to participate in CIPP because they  were in their initial active duty service agreement period. According to  a DOD budget analysis document, the initial service agreement for a  Navy sailor typically occurs from 18 to 33 years of age, when  professional goals compete most strongly with personal goals such as  family planning. For example, one participant who responded to our  questionnaire stated that she used CIPP after completing her initial  service obligation to start her family. However, she would have  preferred to take a sabbatical during her initial service obligation  period when she was younger.
According to a DOD budget analysis document, for the Navy,  retention at a servicemember’s first career reenlistment point is the  most difficult to achieve. However, if servicemembers elected to  participate in CIPP during their first service obligation period, they in  effect would be electing retention during this critical timeframe.  According to Navy officials, if these servicemembers were able to  participate in CIPP, the CIPP-obligated service requirement would  extend each servicemember’s existing period of obligated service,  which could enhance retention.
Another statutory requirement caps the annual number of participants  at 40 (20 officers and 20 enlisted) servicemembers per service. An  Army official and some Navy officials were of the opinion that the  limitations on the number of participants may reduce participation,  stating that servicemembers may be hesitant to apply since so few  people were selected annually. Proposed language in the fiscal year  2016 NDAA, if enacted, would repeal the prohibition on participation in  CIPP by servicemembers who are in their initial obligated service  period or who are receiving a critical military skills retention bonus,  and it would eliminate program participation caps.
Service-specific limitations—Each military service has established  selection processes and eligibility requirements that supplement the  statutory requirements established by the NDAA for fiscal year 2009.  For example, the Air Force rates applicants in various categories— such as job performance, leadership, experience, job responsibility,  and education. As a result, according to Air Force officials, the most  competitive applicants were prioritized for participation in CIPP, and  less competitive applicants were disapproved for participation in the  program. Further, service-specific guidance includes limitations on  participation by servicemembers in certain career fields, such as Army  medical personnel and some officers in the Navy Chaplain Corps and  Judge Advocate General’s (JAG) Corps, as well as certain enlisted  nuclear personnel. According to Navy and Air Force officials,  additional career fields that require sustained proficiency (such as  operating weapons systems or piloting aircraft), while not restricted  from participation in CIPP, may have restrictions on breaks in service.  For example, Navy officials stated that officers in the submarine  community must receive a waiver to go longer than 3 years without a  sea tour, and if officers exceed 5 years without a sea tour they can no  longer work in the submarine community—this could occur if an officer  took a 3-year sabbatical followed by a 3-year shore tour. According to  Navy officials, if individuals in these communities participate in CIPP,  measures are taken to ensure that they do not exceed timeframes  that would result in the loss of their ability to serve in their community.  Additionally, Navy and Air Force officials stated that pilots who do not  have a minimum number of flight hours within a certain time period  are no longer certified to operate their aircraft, and are required to  complete additional training to be recertified. A Navy official stated  that pilots are not disqualified from their position; however, additional  training further extends the officer’s time out of operational service,  which may affect the officer’s promotion potential.
Military culture—Officials from each service also stated that  participation may be influenced by military culture, and that  servicemembers have the perception that a break in service may have  a negative effect on upward advancement. Specifically, officials from  all the services stated that servicemembers may not trust assurances  as to how a break in service would be viewed by promotion boards.  For example, one participant was concerned that “a break in service  would be viewed as taking an off-ramp, an easy path, taking   out of the fast lane,” but upon returning from sabbatical has been  reassured by knowledge of other participants who have returned from  their sabbaticals and received promotions. Another participant  reported being “told explicitly by my chain of command [before  entering the program] that my career would suffer”; and another  reported that upon returning from sabbatical the servicemember  would “meet people, sadly even some senior leaders, who are not  familiar with the program and assume I have decided to prioritize  family over career or assume I do not want to  competitive for  advancement.” CIPP authorizing language includes provisions  designed to mitigate any potential negative effect of a sabbatical on  career advancement, but according to Army and Navy officials, until  more CIPP participants return from sabbaticals and demonstrate  career advancement, servicemembers may be hesitant to participate.
Financial constraints—The salary that servicemembers receive  during the sabbatical period is equivalent to approximately 2 days of  pay per month. Additionally, according to DOD policy, service  members may not receive special or incentive pay or bonus payments  while on sabbatical. Officials from the Army and the Navy stated that  participation in CIPP likely will remain limited because  servicemembers need financial resources to support themselves and  their families during the sabbatical. One of the CIPP participants who  responded to our questionnaire emphasized the need to have another  source of income while participating. Another participant reported the  opinion that CIPP “gives a  options that are not  available in any other program. However, the deal is not that great for  the member—mainly because of the monetary hit. Since a member is  coming back, I think it is possible to allow a person to receive some  pay while participating in CIPP.”
section_title: DOD Has Not Established a Plan for Evaluating Whether CIPP Is an Effective Means to Retain Servicemembers
paragraphs: In February 2009, OUSD(P&R) issued a directive-type memorandum that  authorized—but did not require—the Secretary of each military  department to implement CIPP. According to the memorandum, if the  services did implement CIPP, they were required to develop a method to  evaluate the program. Specifically, the memorandum stated that the  services should “have the appropriate oversight, analytical rigor, and  proper evaluation methodologies” to evaluate the pilot. In September  2015, OUSD(P&R) reissued the memorandum and, among other things,  included a requirement for each service to report to OUSD(P&R) annually  on the status and effectiveness of the program. This report is to include  information on the demographics of CIPP applicants, criteria used for  selecting applicants, an assessment of the effectiveness of the program,  and recommendations for legislative or administrative actions for the  modification or continuation of the CIPP. However, neither DOD nor the  services have developed a plan for evaluating the extent to which the pilot  program is an effective means to retain servicemembers. The updated  memorandum also clarifies DOD’s policy on servicemember benefits  while on sabbatical and includes a requirement for each service to report  to OUSD(P&R) on June 1st of each year on the program’s progression.
More specifically, based on the revised guidance, beginning June 1,  2016, the services will be required to provide OUSD(P&R) an evaluation  of whether:  the authorities for CIPP provide an effective means to enhance the  retention of participant servicemembers possessing critical skills,  talents, and leadership;  the career progression of participant servicemembers has been or will  be adversely affected; and
CIPP is useful in responding to the personal and professional needs  of individual servicemembers.
These reporting elements are also required in the services’ final report to  Congress, due March 2023. Interim reports on the implementation and  current status of the pilot programs are due in 2017and 2019. DOD has  proposed expansion of the pilot, and the proposed fiscal year 2016 NDAA  includes language that will remove the pilot’s participation cap and some  restrictions on participation. Additionally, DOD officials stated that CIPP  should be made available permanently; however, without an evaluation of  the program, the basis for DOD’s proposed changes to the program is  unclear.
We have identified key features that should be included in pilot program  evaluation plans, and along with private professional auditing and  evaluation organizations, we have found that a well-developed and  documented evaluation plan can help ensure that agency evaluations  generate performance information needed to make effective program and  policy decisions. Well-developed evaluation plans include key features  such as: well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives;  criteria or standards for determining pilot-program performance; clearly articulated methodology, including sound sampling methods,  determination of appropriate sample size for the evaluation design,  and a strategy for comparing the pilot results with other efforts; a clear plan that details the type and source of data necessary to  evaluate the pilot, methods for data collection, and the timing and  frequency of data collection; and a detailed data-analysis plan to track the program’s performance and  evaluate the final results of the project.
Although the services are required to evaluate the effectiveness of CIPP,  currently they do not have any plans for evaluating the program. Without  a plan for evaluating the pilot that includes these key features, there will  be limited assurance that the evaluations conducted will provide the  information needed to make decisions about the future of CIPP.
Moreover, the establishment of a plan including key features such as  well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and standards for  determining pilot-program performance may aid in addressing some of  the challenges posed by the pilot’s timeline. Prior to the establishment of  the June 2016 OUSD(P&R) reporting requirement, officials from all four  services raised concerns about their ability to evaluate the effectiveness  of the program so soon after implementation. Specifically, Marine Corps  and Army officials stated that it is too early to determine the program’s  effect on retention, and that it can take several years after a participant  starts a sabbatical to determine whether the program contributed to  retention. Marine Corps officials stated that if a participant took the  maximum 3-year sabbatical followed by a 6-year obligated service period,  it could take up to 9 years to determine whether the individual would  decide to stay in the armed services beyond his or her period of obligated  service. As of July 2015, of the 133 program participants, 5 have  completed the obligated service period. Putting plans in place for how the  pilot will be evaluated can guide the services on the data they need to  collect as the pilot progresses, and can better position them to assess the  pilot’s performance.
section_title: Navy Officials Stated That CIPP Has Provided an Option to Respond to Personal Needs of Servicemembers
paragraphs: According to Navy officials, CIPP has provided an option for the Navy to  respond to the personal needs of servicemembers, and they believe the  program has helped to retain servicemembers who otherwise might have  left the military. Additionally, a DOD budget analysis document states that  the Navy will retain a servicemember for a longer time period by using a  combination of monetary and non-monetary incentives than would have  been possible using only a single incentive. According to this document,  in the Navy’s experience, financial incentives alone have not been  adequate to retain certain categories of servicemembers, such as  nuclear-trained surface warfare officers and senior nuclear-trained  enlisted sailors serving on submarines and aircraft carriers. Navy CIPP  participants have come from a range of career fields, including aviators,  engineers, medical personnel, nuclear-trained surface warfare officers,  and others.
Navy officials stated that they are not using CIPP to address any specific  critical skills, but that a servicemember’s occupation is given  consideration during the CIPP approval process. According to the Navy’s  2011 interim report to Congress, CIPP applicants need certain  qualifications, including a record of demonstrating strong and sustained  performance in challenging positions, leadership, professional skills,  resourcefulness, ability or potential to contribute to and succeed in the  Navy, and exemplary personal behavior and integrity. For example,  according to a Navy CIPP document, a Petty Officer Second Class was  identified by the JAG Corps as a servicemember who displayed the  aptitude, work ethic, and talent needed to serve as an attorney. This  individual was encouraged to take a sabbatical to complete her degree,  earn a Juris Doctorate, and apply for a commission in the JAG Corps  upon return from the sabbatical. After a 36-month sabbatical this  servicemember earned a commission in the JAG Corps and became an  attorney in the Navy.
In addition, officials stated that a career sabbatical may help to address  the work-life balance that cannot be achieved through other human- capital programs. For example, one participant who responded to our  questionnaire reported: “ believe  provides a suitable option for  work/life balance that helps offset goals/issues that cannot be addressed  while on active duty and gives sailors an option besides getting out  entirely.” In particular, officials stated that they are concerned that the  Navy’s recurring sea-tour requirement may result in the loss of  servicemembers with short-term personal needs or skill sets that are in  demand in the private sector. For example, another respondent reported:  “ is a great option for sailors who need to take a break from the  arduous duty and demands of the Navy. Additionally, it can give sailors  who are thinking about leaving the Navy the experience of what it is like  to be in the civilian sector.”
The Navy collects information from participants, both when they start their  sabbatical and when they return, about the extent to which CIPP was a  factor in the participants’ choice to stay in the Navy; whether participants  intend to make the Navy their career; whether participants would  recommend CIPP to other servicemembers’ and whether CIPP has  negatively affected their career. Also, a Navy CIPP document provided  examples of participants who fared well with their career milestones  following their return to active duty. For example, according to CIPP  program managers, one officer was selected for promotion following  sabbatical, and two other officers were selected for administrative  screening boards upon their return. Our questionnaire asked CIPP  participants if since returning to active duty, they have been told or  otherwise experienced something specific that indicated CIPP  participation might affect their career advancement. The responses were  mixed. We received examples expressing the view that use of a  sabbatical for educational purposes was positive because the education  received while on sabbatical was beneficial for career advancement.  Conversely, there were negative examples reporting that Navy chain of  command views the break in service as a “lack of commitment,” or  “leaving community while others continued to work.”
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Congress authorized CIPP as a pilot program to help the services offer  greater flexibility in career paths for servicemembers with the hope of  increasing the retention of personnel with critical skills. All of the military  services have implemented CIPP, and DOD officials have stated that the  program should become permanent. Beginning in June 2016, the  services will be required to evaluate and report annually on the  effectiveness of the pilot. However, they do not have a plan to guide  these evaluation efforts and help determine the extent to which the pilot  program is an effective means to retain servicemembers. Without a plan  that includes key features for evaluating CIPP’s value as a retention tool,  DOD will be unlikely to determine the extent to which CIPP is achieving  its intended purpose and thereby inform decision makers as to whether it  should become a permanent program.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To assist DOD in determining whether CIPP is meeting its intended  purpose of enhancing retention and providing greater flexibility in the  career path of servicemembers, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, in collaboration with the service secretaries, develop and  implement a plan to evaluate the pilot that includes key features such as  well-defined, clear, and measurable objectives and standards for  determining pilot-program performance.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In  written comments, which are reprinted in their entirety in Appendix II,  DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD noted that they  recognize the importance of developing well-defined measures to  evaluate the effectiveness and utility of CIPP. DOD also provided  technical comments, which we have incorporated in the report where  appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  and the Secretaries of the military departments. The report also is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Status of the Career Intermission Pilot Program (CIPP) Implementation
paragraphs: The Navy implemented CIPP in 2009, followed by the Marine Corps in  2013, and the Air Force and Army in 2014; as of July 2015, the services  had approved 161 servicemembers to participate in CIPP. The Navy has  approved the highest number of participants, and as of July 2015, 37  participants have completed sabbaticals and returned to active duty.  Table 1 shows the number and demographics of CIPP participants for  each military service.
Navy—From 2009 to July 2015, 130 Navy servicemembers applied to  participate in CIPP and 111 were approved, 11 were disapproved, 6  withdrew their applications before a final decision had been made,  and 2 applications are pending. Of the 111 approved, 18 declined the  offer. As of July 2015, 37 had completed sabbaticals. Of these 37,  one separated before completing obligated service and 5 have  completed their CIPP-related obligated service. Of these 5, one has  since left active duty for the Navy Reserves, and one has since  separated from the Navy. Participants used the program for several  purposes, including pursuing higher education, supporting family (care  for ailing parents or caring for young children), and staggering career  timelines for dual-military spouses.
Air Force—In 2014, 46 Air Force servicemembers applied to  participate in CIPP and 35 applicants were approved (1 was removed  from the program for quality reasons arising after selection to the  program). Of the remaining 34 selected, 4 declined the offer, and 30  accepted. As of July 2015, 23 participants had begun a sabbatical.  The Air Force disapproved 11 applicants because they did not meet  basic eligibility requirements or, according to Air Force officials, did  not have competitive performance ratings. Participants plan to use  their sabbaticals to, among other things, pursue education, care for a  family member or start a family, and realign assignment timing or date  of rank with an active-duty spouse to facilitate joint spouse  assignment.
Army—In 2014, 10 Army servicemembers applied to participate in  CIPP and 1 was determined to be ineligible due to remaining service  obligation and 9 were approved. Of the 9 selected, 3 declined the  offer in favor of other personnel actions, and 6 accepted. The 6  participants were expected to begin sabbaticals in summer 2015.  Participants plan to use their sabbaticals to pursue higher education,  address family and medical issues, travel, and align assignment cycle  with an active-duty spouse.
Marine Corps—In 2013, 3 Marines applied and were approved, but  one subsequently withdrew the application. In 2014, 2 applied and  were approved, but one withdrew. In 2015, 2 applied, 1 was accepted,  and 1 was determined to be ineligible. As of July 2015, 3 of the 4 total  participants were on sabbatical. Applicants requested the sabbaticals  to move with a spouse and attend graduate school, to focus on family  and children, or to attend seminary.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kimberly Seay (Assistant  Director), Vijay Barnabas, Tim Carr, Amie Lesser, Felicia Lopez, Richard  Powelson, Tida Reveley, and Michael Silver made major contributions to  this report.