Should we do away with enlistment bonuses, allowing high-quality, effective service members to be entitled bonuses to continue serving?

I don't think so. It's all based on supply and demand. We have problems attracting new troops, so enlistment bonuses draw them onto the team. We don't have as many problems keeping troops on the team, so we don't have as many re-enlistment/retention bonuses. We do in select fields where we have needs, but not everywhere. Enlistment and retention bonuses are tools to shape the force, not to reward the force. That's what promotions, longevity increases, awards, etc., are designed to accomplish. Different HR tools for different purposes.

Bonuses are put in place to better attract high quality initial enlistments, which is a challenge. Recruiting -barely- makes mission, -barely- brings in (Active) or simply does not bring in (Reserve) enough new enlistments. So, we need to throw more money at it.


This is not a problem for Retention. We hit retention marks consistently, to the point where the Army was kicking people out against their wishes not too long ago. Why give people money we don't need to, when they'll stay in anyway?

High quality initial enlistees tend to re-enlist and stay in longer, well shown over the years.

Any bonus is a business decision. Do you pay say 5% of what it costs to train up a new body to keep an existing one for a few more years? Makes sense if the asset is worthwhile. It's wasted when that asset should be canned. I remember the Seabees once had a subspecialty in water well drilling. The Navy paid extra to keep the few in, and they knew it. Some essentially became RADs (Retired on Active Duty). In that case, a bad business decision. Other bonuses reflect the competition from the commercial sector. Seabees who are qualified high voltage electricians can make much more on the outside vs. inside, bonuses included. Those that stay aren't doing it solely for the money.