Does the United States Military need to start offering our long-term members retention bonuses?

SSG Philip Cotton — Wed, 01 Jan 2014 23:51:28 -0500

Since I do a lot of admin work, not by choice I might add, I get to process a lot of reenlistment packets. It seems that anyone over 13 years are not offered any type of bonus to stay in, but a SPC with 4 years is offered some type of bonus to reenlist. It seems that many of our Service Members who have been in longer that have a vast knowledge of the Military and their respective fields are just given a pat on the back and a Charlie Mike. Does this seem right to you? Shouldn't the Military want to keep our more seasoned Service Members to in order to train our newer ones?

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Jan 2 at 2014 12:42 AM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:42:00 -0500

The Army does have the CSRB (Critical Skills Retention Bonus) Program. This is a retention tool used to retain senior NCOs is shortage and critical MOSs. I had a few friends who took advantage of this back in 2008/2009. The CSRB was open to 35Ms at that time and they collected a very nice retention bonus.

Response by MSG Phil Herndon made Jan 2 at 2014 12:45 AM

MSG Phil Herndon — Thu, 02 Jan 2014 00:45:52 -0500

Other than the CSRB, there are career reenlistment windows with bonuses paid out to 16 years. Then the CSRB messages kick in

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 3 at 2014 6:32 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:32:12 -0500

In my point of view I can say that I went INDEF without a bonus. I don't do this for the money, I do it because I enjoy the experiences and especially the job.

From career management POV, if the MOS has a balanced grade structure, there is no reason to offer bells and whistles to maintain the force. When strengths begin to fall into low 90's/80's.. That's when bonuses are needed in order to achieve and maintainn a more reasonable grade structure (pyramid).

Response by SFC Stephen P. made Jan 4 at 2014 12:01 PM

SFC Stephen P. — Sat, 04 Jan 2014 12:01:20 -0500

My reenlistment missions are divided into first term and careerist.

I have never had a problem exceeding my careerist mission.

Bonuses are incentives. They are designed to entice you to do something you wouldn't otherwise do. After the first 10 years, incentives are not as needed to meet strength requirements.

So the answer is: They offer incentives if and when they are needed in order to assess and retain. If you are not offered an incentive, they have already determined the enticement is not needed.

Does this seem right to me? Yes. If I can meet strength requirements without spending millions of dollars, why would I spend the millions?

Should the military want to retain experienced members? Yes; and they do. A certain rate of turnover is expected and necessary. As a rule of thumb (not actually applicable to real missions) we expect ~65% of first term and ~85% of careerists to stay on.

Response by SFC D Brown made Aug 30 at 2014 7:41 PM

SFC D Brown — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 19:41:31 -0400

To little to late, they should have always tried to keep qualified people in all the services, I did 23 years and left before I gave them 30 years of my life and I am glad I did they don’t care about you after 15 years. and they really don’t care after you have given them 30. The big green machine will chew you up and spit you out after you can no longer server them.

Response by LTC Stephen B. made Sep 26 at 2016 11:23 AM

LTC Stephen B. — Mon, 26 Sep 2016 11:23:17 -0400

The military, according to the personnelists, statisticians and actuaries, ARE keeping "enough" seasoned Service Members. The military needs a certain amount of attrition to enable promotion through the ranks (hence the up or out policy for Officers). The retention bonus is one lever used to balance attrition/retention to keep needed critical skills without clogging the entire system.

"Enough" is certainly a subjective term, and factors that go into the formula include military pay budgets, force structure, grade plates, etc. The 'bonus' is not money for doing a good job the previous year (as in a civilian job) but, like all military bonuses, it is an incentive provided to influence the decision process for each individual - to get someone to do something they might not otherwise do - re-enlist, take a difficult and/or dangerous MOS, etc.

In a sense, it is a market driven incentive: if the supply of individuals wanting to stay is higher than needed, there is no need for a bonus. If retention is too low - overall or in a specific MOS - then an incentive may be used. With regard to the 'over 13' crowd: historically, those that make it past 12 years of service will tend to stick it out for the 20 year retirement, so the 'cliff-vesting' retirement becomes your general "retention incentive" rather than a separate bonus, and the bonus program becomes much more targeted based on skill/MOS, which allows for larger bonus payments for specific individuals given the fixed budget we work with.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Dec 4 at 2019 7:30 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 04 Dec 2019 19:30:50 -0500

In my opinion. Generosity goes out the window when the army thinks it has the tentacles wrapped around you.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Dec 5 at 2019 11:05 AM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 05 Dec 2019 11:05:52 -0500

No, as a lower enlisted soldier, it is in your best interest to see those people leave, to give you and others a chance to move up.

Response by SGM Omer Dalton made May 7 at 2020 7:48 PM

SGM Omer Dalton — Thu, 07 May 2020 19:48:29 -0400

Bonuses is a marketing strategy to retain skill shortages. After the money is spent, then what? After that it is up to the person to make career decisions not based on money incentives alone. There may come time when the Army out grows you or you out grow it. That is the time to make career change choices. I made that choice after 22 years. At that time a bonus would not have caused me to stay longer. If the nation was at war at that time I retired and I felt I could make a small difference, I would have continued service.