Analysis of Second-Term Reenlistment Behavior

by John R. Hiller

Download

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 3.7 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Purchase

Purchase Print Copy

 FormatList Price Price
Add to Cart Paperback70 pages $25.00 $20.00 20% Web Discount

Examines the reenlistment intentions of enlisted personnel in their second term of military service. Data were taken from the 1979 Department of Defense [Survey of Personnel Entering Military Service]. About 2,500 enlistees (from all services) met the working definition of having less than one year remaining in their second term, having served six to ten years, and having achieved a pay grade of E3 through E7. A statistical analysis (logistic regression model) was tailored to each service; it related the survey respondent's reenlistment intentions to four types of factors: compensation, promotion, location, and job satisfaction. Compensation and promotion emerged as the key factors, the others assuming varying degrees of importance in different services. As a reenlistment incentive, however, guaranteed location of choice emerged as potentially important, along with bonuses, shorter reenlistment periods, and increased probability of promotion.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation Report series. The report was a product of the RAND Corporation from 1948 to 1993 that represented the principal publication documenting and transmitting RAND's major research findings and final research.

Permission is given to duplicate this electronic document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Copies may not be duplicated for commercial purposes. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit the RAND Permissions page.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.