That the Coast Guard has had a workforce shortage is well known. Steps have been taken to improve recruitment and retention, but I have not yet heard how successful the efforts have been.
In 2023 the Army, Navy, and Air Force also had workforce shortages. Their shortages were proportionately smaller, but the problems were similar, lower propensity to serve, fewer qualified young people and a recently implemented health records system, except that unlike the Coast Guard everyone knows the Army, Navy, and Air Force exist and are employment options.
Navy Times reports the Army, Air Force, and Marines are on track to meet or exceed their recruiting goals, the Navy expects to fall short, but is doing much better than in 2023 despite an increase of 5,000 in their recruitment goal.
“We are seeing significant increases year over year as you saw,” Allchin said. “Right now, we’re projecting a miss of around 4,200 for our active enlisted mission of about 40,600.”
MHS Genesis, the military’s new electronic health record has apparently complicated recruitment.
“Before the health system rollout, Goodyear said, getting 100 new Marine Corps contracts took 154 applicants; now it takes 181 applicants.
“The number of medical waivers being submitted for applicants has more than doubled, creating processing delays.
“The average time in military entry processing for recruits has increased from 10 days to 35 days…With an average of 120 days in the delayed entry program compared with 162 days before MHS Genesis, the boot camp dropout rate has increased, he said, from 11% to 12%.
“…in the Air Force…service officials estimate between 3,000 would-be recruits and 4,000 would-be recruits in 2023 simply walked away from service amid long medical processing wait times.
…“Often, extended delays require these individuals to pursue a different career path based on the financial realities of life.”
Chuck Hill's CG Blog 
The USCG should take advantage of the Temporary reserve law from the World War 2 era that’s still on the books and place the USCG Auxiliary in Temporary reserve status while the USCG fills those Active Duty Slots. Title 14 USC SUBTITLE III: COAST GUARD RESERVE AND AUXILIARY allows the Commandant of the USCG to place Auxiliarist in Temporary reserve status. On top of that Title 14 section 3706 allows that and here’s the text of the law
§3706. Temporary members of the Reserve; eligibility and compensation
A citizen of the United States, its territories, or possessions who is a member of the Auxiliary, an officer or member of the crew of a motorboat or yacht placed at the disposal of the Coast Guard, or an individual (including a Government employee without pay other than the compensation of that individual’s civilian position) who by reason of special training and experience is considered by the Commandant to be qualified for duty, may be enrolled by the Commandant as a temporary member of the Reserve, for duty under conditions the Commandant may prescribe, including part-time and intermittent active duty with or without pay, without regard to age. The Commandant is authorized to define the powers and duties of temporary members of the Reserve, and to confer upon them, appropriate to their qualifications and experience, the same grades and ratings as provided for members of the Reserve. When performing active duty with pay as authorized by this section, temporary members of the Reserve are entitled to receive the pay and allowances of their rank, grade, or rating.
This means the USCG Commandant can pull the trigger on the World War 2 era law and activate the US Coast Guard Auxiliary into Temporary reserve status. Here’s two examples, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_HCn3hMrAo
Here’s an example of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary during WW2 era. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYcQkghVmM0
It is my understanding that the services (Coast Guard included) no longer offer Retirement Pensions. How much would this improve recruiting if it was reintroduced?
Bob Bonville
USCG 1960-64 RM2
The Blended Retirement System DOES offer a pension, but it provides 40% at 20 years of service, vice 50%. It also provides 2% for every year thereafter, vice 2.5%.
Many seem to think there is a lack of pension in the new system – hard to pinpoint why that is. Bad messaging from the Services or just a failure of folks to fully research? Hard to know…