Early Service Leavers (ESL): What do we know and what more do we need to understand?

In recent years, emerging evidence has highlighted that those who leave the Armed Forces prior to completing the minimum term of their contract (i.e., under four years) – known as Early Service Leavers (ESLs) – may be vulnerable to a range of post-Service challenges [1, 2, 3]. As the Armed Forces Covenant highlights the need to care for all those who have served in the Armed Forces for even ‘just a day’, it is important to examine this group further to understand their needs [4]. This news feature draws together existing evidence about ESLs, the kinds of issues that they encounter, what support is available to them, and identifies gaps in current research that could be addressed to better understand this potentially at-risk group.

Defining ESL

The Ministry of Defence’s (MoD) Tri-service resettlement manual defines an ESL as: [5] 

“Service leaver having completed less than 4 years’ Service who are discharged voluntarily or compulsorily from the trained or untrained strength.”

Put simply, those individuals who depart the Armed Forces within four years of having joined and have either completed (trained) or not completed (untrained) basic training are considered to be ESLs. The definition of ESLs adopted by the MoD distinguishes between individuals that fall into ‘Normal’ (including ‘Compulsory’ and ‘Redundancy’) or ‘Medical’ leaver categories*, with those exiting via these routes being afforded differing resettlement packages to meet their respective needs and reflect their differing lengths of Service [5, 6]. 

The definition of ESL has varied with time. Before 2020, for example, ESLs were also recognised to include those discharged for compulsory reasons who had served more than four years. This policy has since been amended to allow those who were compulsory discharged after four years of Service to retain access to the resettlement entitlements based on their specific length of Service [7].

This article will use the current MoD definition outlined above.

Who are ESLs?

While many research studies have touched on ESLs peripherally, there has only been isolated research focused specifically on understanding this cohort to date and publicly available data about the socio-demographic and Service characteristics of ESLs remains limited. This creates some difficulty in forming an overall picture of the demographic composition of this group. However, from the research that does exist, some shared characteristics among ESL with respect to age, sex, rank, Service branch, and pre-Service experiences can be identified.

In recent research focused on understanding risk factors for post-Service homelessness, interviewed service providers reported that the majority of ESLs are male, aged under 24, and frequently leave Service during phase 1 (recruit training) [3]. That said, research conducted in 2012 comparing non-ESLs and ESLs found that the latter were more likely to be female, with this finding being attributed to higher levels of pregnancy-related departures and past data suggesting males are more likely to remain in the Armed Forces for longer [8]. Of note, the latter research was conducted pre 2020 before the ESL definition was updated.

With respect to rank, data indicates that ESLs tend to leave at a lower rank than standard Service Leavers (SLs). This may in large be because ESLs are not in the Armed Forces for very long [1] and  therefore have limited opportunities for promotion. There is also minimal data on ESLs who join the Armed Forces through Officer training routes and so it is hard to describe them as a sub-cohort; statistics published by the MoD in March 2024 showed that untrained Officers made up 8.7% of outflow that month, as opposed to 20% at other untrained ranks [9]. This followed a similar pattern in the other survey periods of 2023 and 2024 [9]. While representing a rough estimate that only accounts for untrained leavers and not other types of ESLs, these statistics suggest that Officers may leave as ESLs at lower rates than other ranks – a finding that may warrant further investigation.

Available evidence indicates that the Army is the most represented Service among ESLs [3, 10]. The Army has the largest intake of the three branches [9] and has been suggested to recruit from more socially deprived areas where the recruited youths may be more likely to encounter adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) [11]. This is consistent with research conducted by Buckman et al. (2012) which found that compared to non-ESL, there was a trend for ESLs to report higher levels of childhood adversity [8].

Circumstances of leaving early

As noted in the previous section, ESLs can leave voluntarily or be discharged as trained (having completed basic training) or untrained (having not) personnel.

Looking first at what can lead to the involuntary discharge of ‘untrained’ personnel, this can be triggered by very minor infractions or slight declines in performance depending on Service branch, such as using a mobile phone at an inappropriate time or failing physical tests (e.g., swimming) during basic or specialised training [3]. For those who leave at ‘trained strength’, by contrast, this is in many cases caused by more serious disciplinary discharges, including failing drug tests and alcohol use [3].

Conversely, voluntary departure of ESLs is generally attributed to underlying pre-enlistment issues. As previously discussed, research suggests that a significant number of ESLs come from challenging pre-Service backgrounds, which include socio-economic difficulties and lower levels of educational attainment, specifically in literacy and numerical skills [12, 13]. Additionally, new recruits can often be as young as 16 or 17 years on joining [3]. While many of these individuals have joined in the hope of creating positive futures for themselves, it has been suggested that the Services are recruiting personnel who may not be able to cope with the physical and/or mental demands of Service [3] and whose past experiences may lead to confronting mental health problems, or other rooted disparities [13]. While some observers have argued that the Services may consequently be setting up certain individuals to fail, [3] it should be noted others from the same backgrounds go on to flourish in their military careers. This is, however, an unsubstantiated point that requires robust and thorough research to understand the differences between those who join and thrive and those who join but exit early.  

While there are many reasons for leaving – both personal and otherwise – one structural- and branch-based variable may be the low threshold for failure and dismissal in the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, and Army. In all these institutions, instances of rules-based transgressions, injury, or inability to pass fitness tests during training can often lead to immediate dismissal. This differs from the Royal Air Force (RAF), which prioritises retainment, supporting recovery despite initial failure, and has different physical fitness requirements [3]. 

Issues facing ESL post-exit

Research indicates that many ESLs face significant challenges after discharge that are tied to their pre-enlistment experiences and often further exacerbated because their experience in Service is, by definition, too short to fully address those issues [14]. These encompass issues relating to unemployment, substance misuse, mental health difficulties, and homelessness. 

Due to many ESLs having low education attainment, members of this group often encounter difficulties in securing employment due to their lack of competitive skills. Specifically, because many of those leaving early are young (i.e., below the age of 24) and have only attained a low rank, they do not have sufficient time to secure qualifications during their Service and find themselves competing against a workforce with more extensive educational backgrounds. An added difficulty is the lack of time available to ESLs for planning their departure and finding work right after their Service [12]; some research has indicated that ESLs are at risk of offending if they do not secure professional activities (e.g., employment, training) within six months post-discharge [15].

When observing tendencies towards addiction among Service leavers, a review of cohorts from 1991 and 2001 revealed a general high rate of substance abuse amongst ESLs – an outcome that, in turn, was reported to affect their socio-economic pathways and lead to long-term physical and mental health problems [11]. Conversely, the previously mentioned Buckman et al 2012 study which compared non-ESLs with ESLs found no significant differences in alcohol misuse [8]. Though of note, both studies were conducted prior to the currently used definition of ESL.

It has been indicated that ESLs are more likely to self-report symptoms of common mental health disorders, probable post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), fatigue, and multiple physical symptoms, compared to non-ESL [8]. Greater risk of decreased mental wellbeing has also been identified in a study of ex-Service personnel (SLs and ESLs) in Scotland; investigating risk factors for non-fatal self-harm, the study found that ESLs – especially those who had not completed training – were at increased risk of having engaged in non-fatal self-harm compared to other Veterans with longer Service length [16].

Many studies on ESLs note how short discharge timeframes lead to higher chances of negative outcomes. This is, in part, because premature departure from the Armed Forces both curtails the time available to adapt to Service life and forces individuals to re-adapt to civilian society at a disadvantage [17, 18]. Another key risk induced by a lack of available planning time is homelessness. While returning to parental homes, staying with friends, or using Veteran charities can help mitigate homelessness, the transition from military to civilian life still poses significant housing risks for ESLs due to the frequently rapid leaving timelines they face [3]. The quality of transition services is also often inconsistent, with regular short notice discharges and inadequate referral into support services that leaves many without the necessary support [3].

Thus, current evidence indicates ESLs are a vulnerable group of individuals who often have backgrounds of adversity and face significant challenges during and after their Service (which are often compounded by pre-existing socio-economic and educational disadvantages). The transition to civilian life presents numerous hurdles, including employment, housing, health, and adjustment to civilian society, necessitating comprehensive support mechanisms to aid in their reintegration and capitalise on their potential to contribute positively to civilian life [12].

Policy and support

Prior to 2015 and the advent of the Future Horizon Program (FHP), ESLs were historically ineligible for the Career Transition Partnership (CTP) transition support [19]. During this period, they were only given a rapid two-week discharge pathway that featured a one-on-one interview with a Unit Interview Officer, a briefing, and a booklet of the information shared in the briefing. This was conducted by Armed Forces personnel and was noted to use difficult language and have low engagement from ESLs [12, 19].

With the implementation of FHP, ESLs can now access CTP. This pathway focuses on identifying suitable civilian employment, advising on benefits and housing, and directing individuals to further services and educational activities. Launched as a pilot in 2012, FHP saw 63.4% of its participants in employment or training after six months, with over 90% recommending it to others. Due to these successes, the MoD preferred FHP over other programmes, rolling it out across all Services [15].

Now all ESLs receive the same resettlement package, including a unit-level briefing and information on Veterans UK, Veterans Welfare Service, and Defence Transition Services (DTS). Members of this group are likewise registered with one of the three CTP FHP regional hubs. Those with short-term discharges and additional identified risk factors may receive expedited resettlement activities or delayed discharge [3].

Evaluation of FHP was carried out in two locations: the South of England and Catterick Garrison in Yorkshire. Overall, the evaluation of the programme carried out at Catterick found positive results, recommending its rollout across the three Service branches. However, it also recommended that the MoD should consider on-going analysis of data held by the programme, that the differences in untrained and trained ESLs should be further explored, and that the use of wider technologies and methods should be examined for communicating with ESLs [12]. Since then, while FHP has been received positively as well as generally assessed to improve ESL outcomes [20], only the Catterick evaluation results have been published, making it hard to gauge relative success [12]. In light of this difficulty and the fact that the initial testing involved mostly Army (infantry) ESLs, further investigation may be warranted to ensure that the programme suits all ESLs and to explore potential improvements or service-specific tailoring.

Other challenges to FHP have been reported, including low engagement with FHP/CTP among ESLs dismissed for drug-related issues [20] and inconsistencies in FHP and DTS referrals. As a result of emerging evidence for the inconsistency in referral and use of FHP by ESLs, it has been suggested that FHP registration be mandatory [3].

Thus, while improvements in policy and support for ESLs have been seen with some good effect, there is still room for potential additional improvement that may be guided by more thorough evaluation of the available services as well as a better understanding of ESLs and their post-Service support needs.

Where can we go from here? Recommending future research

While the outlined research illuminates some key insights about ESLs, we still understand relatively little about their experiences. Much of the existing research is over 10 years old, tends to consider ESLs as one homogenous group, and was conducted with small participant samples, making it less useful for understanding current experiences. While recent studies have been able to shed light on the experiences of contemporary ESLs [3, 20], their focus has tended to be on specific transition outcomes (e.g., homelessness) and/or the role of early departure as a risk factor (rather than understanding the needs and experiences of ESLs specifically). To better understand the current issues facing ESLs, more detailed and focused studies that recognise and treat ESLs as a heterogeneous group are needed.

For example, it is likely that length of Service impacts the post-Service experiences of ESLs; Godier et al. (2018) found in responses from service providers that there is a distinction between the support needs of the different types of ESLs, such as the differing requirements of those leaving at trained versus untrained strength [1]. Future research is therefore needed to understand the experiences of ESLs at a more granular level, including differences between those who leave trained or untrained and voluntarily or involuntarily. Research should further distinguish across Service branches and rank, as well as pay closer attention to often underexamined ESL groups, such as British born minority ethnicity groups, non-UK personnel, females, and LGBTQ+ personnel, who have been suggested to encounter unique post-Service difficulties [21, 22].

Research is also needed to better understand the antecedents to personnel becoming an ESL and the associations between pre-Service experiences and post-Service challenges. One of the key factors attributed to why ESLs face post-Service issues are high levels of reported ACEs [8, 10]. However, it is also true that ACEs are relatively common across the whole of the Armed Forces and that the majority of individuals go on to have ‘successful’ military careers [23]. More detailed examination is therefore needed to better understand the high prevalence of ACEs among ESLs and the extent to which these factors relate to differing transition outcomes. For example, a study with ex-Servicewomen found that being an ESLs was more significantly associated with reporting childhood maltreatment as opposed to household challenges [24]. This difference in type of adversity may point to reasons for differences in outcomes and needs.

While for over the last decade policy and support for ESLs has evolved, there is more work to be done to better comprehend and support members of this group. Focused research that aims to address some of the gaps highlighted in this article will generate a deeper understanding and aid the development of evidence informed policy and support to facilitate successful transition for this specific group of ex-Service personnel.

* As defined in JSP 534: ‘Normal’ (including Compulsory or Redundancy) discharged Service Leavers (SL) ‘are those discharged from the trained strength either on completion of their engagement, having submitted their notice to leave, having been given notice of discharge under redundancy or compulsory’ [5]. While ‘Medical’ SL are, ‘all SL regardless of length of Service who are being discharged for medical reasons.’ [5] 

References

[1]Godier, L. R., Caddick, N., Kiernan, M. D., & Fossey, M. (2017). Transition Support for Vulnerable Service Leavers in the U.K.: Providing Care for Early Service Leavers. Military Behavioral Health, 6(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/21635781.2017.1325804

[2] NAO (National Audit Office). (2007). Ministry of Defence: Leaving the Services. NAO, Report by the Comptroller and Auditor General. https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/0607618es.pdf

[3] O’Malley, L., Quilgars, D. J., & Bretherton, J. (2024). A Roadmap to End Veteran Homelessness. School for Business and Society, University of York. https://s31949.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/20240116-NHVR-report.pdf

[4] Ministry of Defence (MoD). (n.d.). The Armed Forces Covenant. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/ uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/49469/the_armed_forces_covenant.pdf

[5] Ministry of Defence (MoD). (2023). The Tri-Service Resettlement and Employment Support Manual JSP 534. Joint Service Publication (JSP). https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tri-service-resettlement-manual-jsp-534

[6] Army Secretariat. (2018). Freedom of information Request. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c138ba8ed915d0bbf782c80/11848.pdf

[7] Royal Air Force (RAF). (2021). Compulsory Discharge and access to full Resettlement Entitlements. https://www.raf.mod.uk/community-support/raf-serving-families-news/compulsory-discharge-and-access-to-full-resettlement-entitlements/

[8] Buckman, J. E. J., Forbes, H. J., Clayton, T., Jones, M., Jones, N., Greenberg, N., Sundin, J., Hull, L., Wessely, S., & Fear, N. T. (2012). Early Service leavers: a study of the factors associated with premature separation from the UK Armed Forces and the mental health of those that leave early. The European Journal of Public Health, 23(3), 410–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cks042

[9] Ministry of Defence (MoD). (2024). Quarterly service personnel statistics 1 April 2024. GOV.UK. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/quarterly-service-personnel-statistics-2024

[10] The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology. (2016). Psychological Health of Military Personnel. POSTnote, 518, 1–4. https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/POST-PN-0518/POST-PN-0518.pdf

[11] King’s Centre for Military Health Research. (2010). King’s Centre for Military Health Research: a Fifteen Year Report (1–54). King’s College, University of London.

[12] Fossey, M. (2013). Transition Support for British Army Early Service Leavers An evaluation of the Future Horizons Programme Infantry Training Centre, Catterick. https://www.ctp.org.uk/assets/x/53213

[13] Mans, M., Wessely, S., Clokey, J., Martin, D., Philpott, T., Pierre, R., & Johnson, P. (2014). Doing our duty? Improving transitions for military leavers (1–116). Centre of Social Justice. https://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Military.pdf

[14] Arkenford. (2017). 2013 Transition Mapping Study Evaluation Report (1–33).  https://s31949.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2013-transition-mapping-study-evaluation-report.pdf

[15] Ashcroft, L. (2014). The Veterans’ Transition Review (1–189). https://www.veteranstransition.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/vtrreport.pdf

[16] Bergman, B. P., Mackay, D. F., Smith, D. J., & Pell, J. P. (2018). Non-fatal self-harm in Scottish military veterans: a retrospective cohort study of 57,000 veterans and 173,000 matched non-veterans. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 54(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-018-1588-9

[17] Cox, K., Grand-Clement, S., Galai, K., Flint, R., & Hall, A. (2018, June 27). Understanding resilience as it affects the transition from the UK Armed Forces to civilian life. www.rand.org. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2436.html

[18] Bergman, B. P., Mackay, D. F., Smith, D. J., & Pell, J. P. (2016). Long-Term Mental Health Outcomes of Military Service. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 77(06), 793–798. https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.15m09837

[19] Forces in Mind Trust (FiMT). (2013). The Transition Mapping Study: Understanding the transition process for Service personnel returning to civilian life (1–87). https://www.fim-trust.org/wp-content/uploads/transition-mapping-study.pdf

[20] Bradley, S., Khan, L., Fossey, M., Fox, A., Caddick, N., & Godier-McBard, L. (2021). “Fall Out”: Substance misuse and service leavers: a qualitative investigation into the impact of a Compulsory Drug Test (CDT) discharge (2–83). https://s31949.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/20210322-Galahad-Fall-Out-Full-Report-FINAL.pdf

[21] Paige, C., Dodds, C., & Jones, C. (2021). Mental health and well-being of LGBT+ Veterans dismissed from the British Armed Forces before January 2000. Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 7(1), e20210032. https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh-2021-0032

[22] Slapakova, L., Bryan, E., Eken, M., & Dewaele, L. (2024, May 16). Understanding the lived experience of military-to-civilian transition and post-Service life among non-UK veterans. www.rand.org. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2163-1.html

[23] Ross, J., Armour, C., & Murphy, D. (2020). Childhood adversities in UK treatment-seeking military veterans. BMJ Military Health, jramc-2019-001297. https://doi.org/10.1136/jramc-2019-001297

[24] Williamson, C., Baumann, J., & Murphy, D. (2022). Adverse childhood experiences, military adversities, and adult health outcomes among female Veterans in the UK. Journal of Military, Veteran and Family Health, 8(2), 62–71. https://doi.org/10.3138/jmvfh-2022-0070