Students in the academic track of the Army’s Future Soldier Preparatory Course work on math skills during a class at Fort Moore, now Fort Benning, Ga., in 2024. The Army and Navy accepted more low-scoring recruits than the law allows, according to a Defense Department Inspector General report. (Stephanie Snyder/U.S. Army)
This story has been updated.
Both the Army and Navy incorrectly classified recruits who received low marks on military entry exams, a move that gave both services more underachieving enlistees than Congress allows, a watchdog agency said in a new report.
To get around a legal cap, the Navy used off-the-books academic and physical fitness development programs to help underperforming sailors improve their Armed Forces Qualification Test scores, the Defense Department inspector general said in a report released Thursday.
The qualification test score is primarily used to determine enlistment eligibility and is derived from four subtests of the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a standardized test that helps predict military success by measuring aptitude in assorted subjects.
According to federal law, the number of applicants whose Armed Forces Qualification Test scores fell between the 10th and 30th percentiles can’t surpass 4% of the total enlistees in a given fiscal year. Such scores are designated as Category IV enlistments.
The Army also exceeded the 4% threshold, though the report did not contain further details.
“By incorrectly calculating the number of Category IV enlistments, the Army and the Navy circumvented the requirement to obtain Secretary of Defense approval to exceed the statutory limit of Category IV enlistments,” the IG wrote on its website.
The law also requires that a service whose Category IV enlistments exceed 10% of its active-duty accessions to establish a preparatory course, the report said.
Sgt. 1st Class Johnathon Huitt briefs Future Soldier Preparatory Course trainees at Fort Jackson, S.C. in 2024. The Army and Navy circumvented the law by accepting too many recruits with low test scores, the Defense Department Inspector General said in a new report. (Raquel Birk/U.S. Army)
The Pentagon disagreed with the inspector general’s interpretation of the law regarding the timing of tests taken at “original enlistment” and filed a rebuttal.
The IG responded by saying the scores must be obtained during the application process because of minimum wait times between test attempts.
Service members enrolled in the preparatory courses have already signed enlistment contracts, the report said.
The review looked at the Army’s Future Soldier Preparatory Course and Navy’s Future Sailor Preparatory Course. It took place between April 2024 and August 2025.
Statutorily mandated courses require congressional oversight and have stringent reporting requirements, the report said.
The Navy launched two congressionally unregulated courses, a Fitness Skills Development program in 2023 and and Academic Skills Development program a year later to “address recruiting challenges and increase the number of potential applicants for naval service,” the IG said.
The service then failed to report the original underperforming scores, according to the report. In fiscal 2025, the service had 11.3% Category IV enlistments, or 2,763 of 24,388, as of March 31, when counting the precourse qualification test scores.
Permission to go beyond the limits can be granted by the secretary of defense, who must inform the congressional armed services committees within 30 days.
The Pentagon pushed back against the findings, saying the law does not prohibit the improved scores from being used, William Fitzhugh, acting assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs, wrote in an undated rebuttal.
The Army and the Navy had been instructed to use the updated scores in memorandums in May 2024 and February 2025, the report said.
The IG recommended that the Defense Department issue clarifying guidance directing the services to use the updated scores only if the development programs have proper oversight and meet legal requirements.
They inspector general gave Fitzhugh 30 days to comment on the actions he plans to take toward meeting the recommendations.
