DoD IG: Army, Navy Miscounted Recruits With Low Academic Scores

The Army and Navy exceeded the legal level of recruits with the lowest acceptable Armed Forces Qualification Test scores, according to a report from the Pentagon’s Inspector General released this week.
The services, which are in the midst of reversing years of stagnant new enlistments, each created preparatory courses that would allow potential recruits with low AFQT scores to spend weeks studying under military teachers, in order to raise their scores and then move to boot camp.

While both the Army and Navy have seen success with the preparatory programs, helping the services to meet recruiting goals, following the Pentagon’s guidance on how to count these recruits may have violated federal law, the new report alleges.

Under U.S. law, a service can only have 4 percent of its recruits that score in the lowest percentiles on the AFQT, unless it gets the permission of the secretary of defense, which would bring additional Congressional oversight. As of March 31, 2025, the Navy exceeded that percentage, without permission of the secretary of defense, with 11.3 percent of recruits falling into what the military calls category IV scores, according to the Dec. 11 OIG report.

However, in Fiscal Year 2025, the Navy reported having 7.2 percent because the service deducted the number of recruits who improved their academic scores above the limits for category IV from the service’s percentage. Not counting the improved scores for the federally mandated total was in line with a policy memorandums from the assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs.

At the center of the report is the question of when to count recruit scores toward the category IV limit.

William Fitzhugh, who is performing the duties of the assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, argued that the scores of recruits in the preparatory courses should be counted after they retake the AFQT, which often happens toward the end of the course.

“Improving a recruit’s academic skills is a primary reason for creating the [Future Sailor Preparatory Course],” reads a memorandum from Fitzhugh to the OIG. “Improved academic skills, and the resulting AFQT scores, enable such recruits to pursue a broader range of occupations, which benefits them and the Military Services.”

Bryan Clark, the assistant inspector general who wrote the report, argued that the scores should be counted from the first test an applicant takes because hose who go to the preparatory courses have already signed enlistment contracts, making them part of the Navy.

The Army also exceeded the 4 percent limit without getting permission from the secretary of defense. Both services told the IG’s office that this was because they were waiting for recruits to graduate from the preparatory courses before calculating the number of category IV recruits.

If the category IV recruits exceed 10 percent, the service must establish a statutorily mandated future preparatory course, which would require the branch’s secretary to submit reports to the House and Senate armed services committees.

While the Navy established a future sailor preparatory course, modeled after the one created by the Army, to bring in potential recruits that did not meet academic or fitness standards, it was not a statutorily mandated one, according to the IG report. A statutorily mandated preparatory course would have more congressional oversight.

The OIG concluded the report by saying the Department of Defense must use the AFQT from original enlistment when calculating the number of category IV recruits and gave the assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs 30 days to detail the new guidance for the Army and Navy on how to calculate recruits in category IV.

The success of the programs was not questioned during the OIG report, although it followed up with an evaluation of the program on Dec. 17.

The Dec. 17 report, also written by Clark, found the Navy’s academic and fitness preparatory courses were successful but missed standard policies to ensure its long term success.

The Navy was able to make those adjustments, which were approved by the OIG.