Solving Recruiting Challenges…Without Recruiting​

By LT Sebastien Welch

The recruiting crisis plaguing America’s armed forces reached an apex this year as the services scrambled to make their FY22 recruitment goals. The numbers are becoming household in nature, approximately 24% of adults 17-24 are eligible for military service, and of that percentage a mere 9% would consider military service. This is a massive issue, one which will take a national strategy and commitment to solve. I want to take a step back from those daunting storm clouds threatening the all-volunteer force and, instead, offer a small policy prescription for a subset of the problem. 

First some background, I joined the Navy via Officer Candidate School (OCS); a program I had never heard of until I fortuitously met a fellow intern in the summer of 2013, the summer going into my senior year of college, who was seeking to apply. I grew up in a community where military service was rarely discussed and veterans were few and far between. It was a socio-economic neighborhood which prioritized becoming a lawyer, doctor, engineer, consultant, or financier – not joining a service.

The Commandant of the United States Marine Corps, General Berger, in his November Proceedings article raised a host of salient issues troubling recruitment and retention. I merely want to focus on one subset of what General Berger discusses; namely, that the military struggles to recruit talented young Americans “from a society increasingly distant from the military.” I was part of that society. My friends are part of that society. I am the unicorn amongst my high school, collegiate, and graduate school compatriots.

The Navy has JROTC and ROTC programs set up around the country. However, these institutions are largely self-selecting. The students who sign up for them are already aware the military is something they want to pursue; they do not inspire people to join. ROTC units are often isolated on their campuses, especially when it comes to instructor interaction with the rest of the campus. I had fraternity brothers in Army ROTC but I was not sure I wanted to make that commitment as an 18-19 year old. I thought I had a missed my opportunity to serve when I was a junior in college and didn’t even consider it until I learned about OCS.

Therein lies a path of opportunity, one which can address the increasing societal distance between civilians and the military – permanent, non-ROTC teaching positions at universities staffed by active duty members; a Resident Military Instructor. The military needs to get in front of students who have never fathomed of joining, to teach what the military is, and who can provide an example of what it means to serve. Research has shown that young adults who know someone who has served are more likely to join. Collegiate ROTC programs require students to come to us, whereas we should be going to the students.

The key of this initiative lies in organic exposure, not active recruitment. Students who are unfamiliar with the military need to see men and women in uniform teaching classes, walking the campus, engaging with students during office hours, and being bemused by sea stories. There needs to be a personal connection for when students are deciding what they want to do after graduation, where the idea of the military crosses their mind. Maybe the service is not for them, but it could be for their sibling or friend who is struggling to decide what to do. But college students are not going to spontaneously think of this; a role model, an individual who they see on a weekly basis and have discussions with will.

Where would the active-duty members come from? How would Resident Military Instructors be staffed? Lieutenants are trusted to teach ROTC programs. A different subset of lieutenants, who can simultaneously work on their Master’s degree, could fill this position as a shore duty tour. As could lieutenant-commanders, commanders, and captains who are in the twilight of their tours seeking an end of service assignment. A degree of flexibility will be needed to staff these positions, but it can fit within existing requirements. This differs dramatically from the existing Permanent Military Professor (PMP) program which supplies professors to existing naval institutions, thus working with an already committed audience and who go through the rigorous process of obtaining a PhD. 

Critically the curriculum and courses to be taught cannot be boring, dross, death by PowerPoint experiences. There will need to be an approved curriculum by the Naval Postgraduate School and Naval War College, but it will need to be malleable and allow individual instructors the flexibility and initiative to cater to their interests and their students.

Where would these individuals fit within an existing university structure? That would need to be negotiated with each university, but one option would be to embed them with a graduate program such as a School of Public Policy or International Affairs vice an Academic Department. As most instructors will not have a PhD, there is a limit to what can be taught and trying to integrate them into the realms of academia would not be feasible. However, a place within an existing graduate program, which focuses on professional and practical application of subjects, would be an appropriate place for someone to teach a course on military-civil relations for example. The graduate school would then offer a series of undergraduate courses to be taught by the Resident Military Instructor. 

The university receives the ability to have active-duty professionals contribute to their students’ education which can be used as a marketing tool. Likewise for the graduate program it would be a way to increase exposure on their campus, arrangements could be made to allow graduate students attend the classes as well if so desired. While the military gains the ability to have direct exposure to students who would normally never come knocking.

Lastly, and key to the Resident Military Instructor program being organic, is that the role of the instructor is not to recruit. The instructor is there to teach, impart knowledge, and serve as a liaison to a socio-economic class often devoid of military interaction. Can there be discussion on how to join or if students have questions? Absolutely. But the point of the instructor is not to identify and hound students they believe would best serve the Navy. The instructor is there to be an educator and physical reminder of service. If the instructor and their classes become associated as a pure recruitment ground, students will shy away from the courses offered, defeating the purpose of the initiative. 

This is a small portion of the larger recruitment and retention issues which bedevil our armed forces. This is not a panacea. However, it is something which is tangible, feasible, and addresses a new way to approach socio-economic groups who are largely isolated from the military recruitment pool.

LT Sebastien Welch, a native of Newport Beach, California, graduated with honors from the University of California, Berkeley in 2014 with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and History. He commissioned via Officer Candidate School in November 2015 as a Surface Warfare Officer – where he served aboard USS MUSTIN (DDG 89) and USS MAHAN (DDG 72). LT Welch graduated from Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) in 2022 via the Navy’s Fleet Scholar Education Program (FSEP) – earning a Master’s in Public Administration with a concentration in International Security Policy.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Department of the Navy or Department of Defense.

The views expressed in this piece are the sole opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Center for Maritime Strategy or other institutions listed.