Key Facts
- ✓ The Army and Navy exceeded the 4% federal cap on Category IV recruits by using post-preparatory course test scores.
- ✓ Category IV applicants score between the 10th and 30th percentiles on the Armed Forces Qualification Test.
- ✓ For the Navy, original scores would classify over 11% of 2025 enlistments as Category IV, compared to 7% post-course.
- ✓ The Army surpassed 10% Category IV recruits using the disputed method.
- ✓ Nearly three-quarters of American youth do not meet military fitness or academic requirements.
Quick Summary
A Pentagon Inspector General report details how the US Army and Navy misrepresented academic qualifications of recruits through their handling of preparatory courses.
These programs, known as Future Soldier and Future Sailor, allow applicants with low scores to improve before boot camp, but the services counted post-course scores to stay under federal limits.
The findings highlight ongoing recruiting struggles, with the Pentagon contesting the report's methodology.
Background on the Inspector General Report
The Defense Department Inspector General conducted a yearlong review of the Army's Future Soldier and Navy's Future Sailor preparatory courses.
Released earlier this month, the report examines these 'pre-boot camps' created in recent years to bolster enlistments during a national crisis.
The programs target applicants with low Armed Forces Qualification Test scores or fitness deficiencies, providing weeks or months of preparation.
Origins of the Programs
Both services introduced these courses to address shortfalls, as thousands of recruits were missed in recent years.
Nearly three-quarters of American youth do not qualify due to fitness or academic issues, and interest in military careers has declined.
- Low entrance exam scores
- Fitness shortfalls
- Overall eligibility barriers
"Improving a recruit's academic skills is a primary reason for creating the [Future Soldier and Future Sailor Preparatory Courses]. Improved academic skills, and the resulting AFQT scores, enable such recruits to pursue a broader range of occupations, which benefits them and the Military Services."
— William Fitzhugh, acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs
How the Misrepresentation Occurred
The Army and Navy miscalculated low-scoring recruits by using test scores earned after preparatory courses, not before.
This method allowed exceeding the 4% federal cap on Category IV applicants without notifying the Secretary of Defense.
Category IV recruits score between the 10th and 30th percentiles on the exam, covering reading comprehension, math, and mechanics.
Consequences of the Calculation
Such recruits tend to exhibit below average trainability and on-the-job performance, per the report.
The cap ensures sufficient high-scorers for demanding roles.
- Cyber operations
- Intelligence
- Special operations
- Logistics and administrative jobs
The Secretary can raise limits but must inform Congress.
Impact on Enlistment Numbers
Using original scores, the Navy would classify more than 11% of its 2025 enlistments as Category IV, versus just over 7% post-course.
The Army also exceeded 10% Category IV recruits, though exact figures were not specified.
These exceedances occurred without required notifications, stretching federal rules.
Broader Recruiting Context
The services face a yearslong crisis, emerging with innovative efforts critical.
A prior report noted concerns over less restrictive testing in the Army's course, including struggles with English as a second language for some participants.
The Pentagon disputed those earlier findings as well.
Pentagon's Response and Implications
The Pentagon disputes the report, asserting post-preparatory scores should count as they reflect genuine improvements.
Improving a recruit's academic skills is a primary reason for creating the Future Soldier and Future Sailor Preparatory Courses, wrote William Fitzhugh, acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs.
Improved AFQT scores enable recruits to pursue broader occupations, benefiting individuals and services.
Future Considerations
As recruiting challenges persist, the controversy underscores tensions between innovation and standards.
The report's revelations may prompt reviews of how preparatory programs align with federal caps.
Ensuring quality enlistees remains vital for military readiness amid evolving threats.
"tend to exhibit below average trainability and on-the-job performance"
— The Inspector General report