The Pentagon Inspector General found the Army and Navy counted AFQT scores earned after 'Future Soldier' and 'Future Sailor' preparatory courses instead of applicants' original test results, allowing both services to exceed the federal 4% cap on Category IV recruits without notifying the Defense Secretary. The Department of Defense disputes the finding, arguing end‑of‑course scores better reflect recruit potential. The report spotlights legal, operational and readiness concerns as services try to expand enlistment during a prolonged recruiting shortage.
Inspector General: Army and Navy Counted Post‑Prep AFQT Scores, Masking Low Academic Qualifications
Recruits prepare to graduate from Army boot camp on Fort Jackson, South Carolina, on Feb. 9th 2020.Robin Hicks/US Army
A Pentagon Inspector General report concludes that the U.S. Army and Navy undercounted low‑scoring recruits by recording Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) results achieved after short preparatory programs rather than using applicants' original test scores. The yearlong review focused on the services' recently created 'Future Soldier' and 'Future Sailor' preparatory courses — pre‑boot camp programs intended to raise recruits' academic skills and fitness before they ship to basic training.
Key Findings
The Inspector General found that both services reported AFQT scores earned at the end of the preparatory courses instead of the scores applicants held when they first applied. By using post‑course scores, the Army and Navy reported lower shares of Category IV recruits and, according to the report, thereby exceeded the federal 4% cap on Category IV enlistees without notifying the Secretary of Defense as required by law. The Secretary can approve a raised cap but must also notify Congress.
Category IV applicants score between the 10th and 30th percentiles on the AFQT. The report cites research that Category IV recruits "tend to exhibit below average trainability and on‑the‑job performance," and says the cap helps preserve access to recruits who can fill technically demanding roles such as cyber operations, intelligence, special operations, and many logistics and administrative positions.
How Big Was The Gap?
According to the report, had the Navy used applicants' original test scores, more than 11% of its 2025 enlistments would have been classified as Category IV, compared with just over 7% when counting scores earned after the preparatory course. The Army also exceeded 10% Category IV under the Inspector General's preferred counting method, though the report did not specify the exact Army percentage.
Department Of Defense Response
“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, in a memo to the Inspector General. He argued that end‑of‑course AFQT scores better reflect a recruit's capability and enable access to a broader range of occupations.
The Pentagon disputed the Inspector General's conclusion, maintaining that the AFQT score achieved at the conclusion of the preparatory course is the appropriate metric because the programs are specifically designed to correct deficiencies before recruits enter service.
Context And Implications
The findings arrive as both services begin to recover from a multiyear recruiting shortfall that left them thousands of recruits short. Officials and experts say nearly three‑quarters of American youth fail to meet either the military's fitness or academic standards, prompting more experimental approaches such as preparatory courses to expand the pool of eligible candidates rapidly.
Beyond the immediate compliance question — whether original or post‑prep AFQT scores should count for statutory caps — the report highlights a broader tension between meeting recruiting goals during a sustained shortfall and maintaining established enlistment standards for technically demanding military occupations.
