[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
                         [H.A.S.C. No. 113-50] 

                        WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS

                               __________

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                                 OF THE

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                              HEARING HELD

                             JULY 24, 2013
                                     
             [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                               ----------
                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

82-465 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2013 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
  For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
   Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800; 
          DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC, 
                      Washington, DC 20402-0001


                   SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

                  JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina      SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada               ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia                MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts
CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York      CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire
KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota
                 John Chapla, Professional Staff Member
                 Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member
                           Colin Bosse, Clerk



                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                     CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
                                  2013

                                                                   Page

Hearing:

Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Women in Service Reviews...............     1

Appendix:

Wednesday, July 24, 2013.........................................    25
                              ----------                              

                        WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013
                        WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS
              STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking 
  Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel.....................     2
Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, 
  Subcommittee on Military Personnel.............................     1

                               WITNESSES

Beyler, Juliet, Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel 
  Management, U.S. Department of Defense.........................     3
Bromberg, LTG Howard B., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, U.S. 
  Army...........................................................     4
Grosso, Brig Gen Gina M., USAF, Director of Force Management 
  Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and 
  Services, U.S. Air Force.......................................     7
Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant, Manpower 
  and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps.........................     5
Sacolick, MG Bennet, USA, Director, Force Management and 
  Development, U.S. Special Operations Command...................     5
Sweredoski, RADM Barbara, USN, Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel 
  Plans and Policy, U.S. Navy....................................     7

                                APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

    Beyler, Juliet...............................................    31
    Bromberg, LTG Howard B.......................................    37
    Davis, Hon. Susan A..........................................    30
    Grosso, Brig Gen Gina M......................................    67
    Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr................................    45
    Sacolick, MG Bennet..........................................    51
    Sweredoski, RADM Barbara.....................................    56
    Wilson, Hon. Joe.............................................    29

Documents Submitted for the Record:

    Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military 
      Readiness..................................................    75
    Statement of Women In International Security, by Combat 
      Integration Initiative Project Directors Ellen Haring, Anne 
      Coughlin, and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat.....................    98

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

    Ms. Bordallo.................................................   107
    Mrs. Davis...................................................   107
    Ms. Shea-Porter..............................................   110
    Ms. Tsongas..................................................   107

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

    Dr. Fleming..................................................   116
    Ms. Tsongas..................................................   113
                        WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS

                              ----------                              

                  House of Representatives,
                       Committee on Armed Services,
                        Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
                          Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 24, 2013.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:11 p.m., in 
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
  SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mr. Wilson. The hearing will come to order. Everyone is 
welcomed to this Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on 
Women in Service Reviews.
    The subcommittee today will focus on the implementation 
plans that the military services and the United States Special 
Operations Command have developed to expand the assigned 
opportunities for women. Over the last decade, women have 
served exceptionally in many positions in combat. The decision 
by the Secretary of Defense in January to rescind the direct 
ground combat exclusion policy has established a new dynamic. 
All positions are open to women unless the military services 
are granted an exception to policy.
    In June the Secretary of Defense released those 
implementation plans, which envision full implementation of the 
new policy by January 2016. Between now and then the military 
services and the U.S. Special Operations Command will develop 
the substantive basis for implementation. As is clear from the 
plans, implementation of the new policy will be incremental, 
with previously closed units and occupational specialties being 
opened as gender-neutral performance standards are validated, 
other issues related to the inclusion are addressed, and 
congressional notifications are completed. Implementation of 
decisions about Army and Marine Corps direct ground combat 
units, infantry, armor, and artillery, as well as specialties 
controlled by the Special Operations Command, will take place 
later in the process. The Secretary of Defense has made clear 
that standards will not be lowered, that they will be applied 
on a gender-neutral basis. This is a key commitment to the 
success of inclusion efforts.
    Our witnesses today include Ms. Juliet Beyler, Director, 
Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, U.S. Department of 
Defense.
    We would like to welcome you to your first appearance 
before this subcommittee.
    Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy Chief of 
Staff G-1, U.S. Army. Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead 
Jr., Deputy Commander, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, U.S. 
Marine Corps; Major General Bennet Sacolick, the Director of 
Force Management and Development, U.S. Special Operations 
Command.
    And again your first appearance, you are welcome.
    Rear Admiral Barbara Sweredoski,and we want to thank you 
for your first appearance, Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel 
Plans and Policy, U.S. Navy. And finally Brigadier General Gina 
M. Grosso, Director of Force Management Policy, Deputy Chief of 
Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force.
    And indeed your first appearance. Thank you for being here.
    Mrs. Davis, did you have any opening remarks?
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the 
Appendix on page 29.]

    STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM 
 CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

    Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I also wanted to welcome all of our distinguished panelists 
and presenters today. Thank you very much for being here.
    We all are aware that in January, Secretary of Defense 
Panetta announced that the direct ground combat policy that 
prohibited women from serving in ground combat units was being 
rescinded, and as part of that announcement the Services were 
to provide the Secretary with plans on how they would proceed 
to implement women into ground combat units and positions. And 
those plans were to be provided by the Secretary by May 15th 
and focused on how the Services would open all positions to 
women by January 1, 2016.
    I am very pleased that the Secretary rescinded the policy 
to allow women to serve in all units and positions, including 
ground combat. Women have served with distinction, including 
under combat conditions in today's All-Volunteer Force, and the 
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that future 
conflicts put all those who serve on the battlefield under the 
same threat.
    Opening positions in units to women to ensure that the best 
qualified are chosen not based solely on gender but on 
capabilities and experience will help to ensure that our 
military remains the best in the world. Establishing criteria 
based on the functions and responsibilities of each position 
will help to ensure that the most qualified will serve.
    Women want to ensure that they have equal opportunities to 
serve and excel into higher leadership positions and not be 
held back because they are prohibited from serving in specific 
fields. They do not want the rules and requirements to be 
different because they are women. What they want, is a fair and 
open opportunity. The elimination of the ground combat policy 
is the first step towards that equality.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having an 
open and productive dialogue on the issues and challenges of 
the Services, especially Special Operations Command, may have 
in this effort. Thank you all very much for being here today.
    [The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the 
Appendix on page 30.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ranking Member Davis.
    I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Dr. John 
Fleming, Loretta Sanchez, and Duncan Hunter be allowed to ask 
questions during the hearing. Without objection, so ordered.
    Further, I ask unanimous consent that the following 
statements be entered into the record: the written statement of 
Women In International Security and the written statement of 
Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness. 
Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on pages 98 and 75, respectively.]
    Mr. Wilson. Ms. Beyler, we will begin with your testimony, 
followed by the witnesses as introduced. As a reminder to the 
witnesses, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We have 
your written statements, all of which will be included in the 
record. Then each subcommittee member and visiting member will 
have an opportunity for 5 minutes of questions, with time 
monitored by professional staffer John Chapla.
    We now begin with Ms. Beyler.

  STATEMENT OF JULIET BEYLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICER AND ENLISTED 
        PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

    Ms. Beyler. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 
Davis, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for 
the opportunity to testify before you today.
    As previously mentioned, last month we released each 
Service and SOCOM's [U.S. Special Operations Command] plans for 
how they will manage the integration of women into previously 
closed units and occupations. Our goal is to ensure the mission 
is met with fully qualified and capable people regardless of 
gender.
    To that end, on January 24 of this year, then-Secretary 
Panetta and Chairman Dempsey announced the rescission of the 
1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and 
directed development of plans describing how each Service and 
SOCOM intends to execute the guidance to, one, review and 
validate all occupational standards to ensure that they are 
occupationally and operationally relevant and applied gender-
neutrally by September of 2015; two, complete all studies by 
September of 2015; and, three, ensure full implementation by 
January 1, 2016. Each military Department Secretary, along with 
the SOCOM Commander, submitted their plans, which were then 
reviewed by both Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey.
    I will let my colleagues talk to the specifics of their 
plans, but here are a few things that they each have in common. 
Each plan manages positions in two general categories: 
currently open occupations, which were previously restricted 
based on the unit of assignment, so, for example, a supply 
sergeant in an infantry battalion; and, secondly, currently 
closed occupations such as infantry and tanks.
    Each Service and SOCOM is working with research agencies to 
review and validate their occupational standards. Each is 
conducting thorough doctrine, training, education, facilities, 
and policy analyses to ensure deliberate and responsible 
implementation, and each has identified decision points by 
which they will make final determinations to open occupations 
and positions, or request an exception to policy to keep the 
position or occupation closed. Exceptions must be personally 
approved by both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
    The Department is proceeding in a measured, deliberate, and 
responsible manner to implement changes that enable service 
members to serve in any capacity based on their ability and 
qualifications. Over time, these incremental changes will 
enhance the readiness and combat effectiveness of our forces. 
Standards will be uncompromising, established for the task of 
defending our Nation, and rooted in carefully analyzed 
requirements. Secretary Hagel is committed to this process and 
will work closely with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff to monitor and guide this effort.
    Implementation through 2016 will be an evolutionary 
process. We are committed to opening positions and occupations 
when and how it makes sense, while preserving unit readiness, 
cohesion, and the quality of the All-Volunteer Force. We 
recognize there will be challenges, but we will learn much from 
each step. By addressing issues head-on, capitalizing on 
lessons learned, and through open communication with Congress, 
we will institutionalize these important changes, integrating 
women into occupations and units in a climate where they can 
succeed and flourish.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you 
today, and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Beyler can be found in the 
Appendix on page 31.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Beyler.
    And we proceed to General Bromberg.

STATEMENT OF LTG HOWARD B. BROMBERG, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 
                         G-1, U.S. ARMY

    General Bromberg. Chairman Wilson, Representative Davis, 
and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the 
opportunity today to discuss Women in Service Review plan that 
is incorporated in the Army's ``Soldier of 2020'' Plan. The 
``Soldier 2020'' Plan implements and reflects upon the effort 
to have greater opportunities for women to ensure that we have 
the best soldiers for the future of our Army.
    Our goal is to integrate women leaders and soldiers into 
recently opened positions and units as expeditiously as 
possible. We will not sacrifice warfighting capability, the 
trust of Congress, or that of the American people as we seek to 
enhance force readiness and capability. We will select the best 
qualified soldiers regardless of gender for each job within the 
Army profession, ensuring our future force capability and 
readiness.
    We are currently validating occupational standards, both 
physical and mental, for all specialties, focusing first on 
those currently closed to female soldiers. As we continue this 
process, we may require adjustments to our recruiting efforts, 
assignment process, and other personnel policies. Further, we 
will continually assess trends and indicators as we assimilate 
female leaders and soldiers into the previously closed units.
    The process of evaluating a soldier's capabilities 
continues throughout his or her career. The Army assesses 
general recruits' physical capabilities very early in basic 
combat training. All Army courses that award occupational 
specialties have associated physical requirements. Initial 
military training physical requirements are based on the tasks 
new soldiers must be trained on in order to meet the minimum 
requirements to be awarded their specific occupation. These 
differ from the physical requirements associated with fully 
trained soldiers. Soldiers typically meet their full physical 
potential throughout subsequent individual and collective 
trainings when they are assigned in the operational force.
    The Army of the future will require more mental agility, 
teamwork, and resilience from all soldiers. The ``Soldiers 
2020'' Implementation Plan reflects our efforts to ensure we 
maintain the world's premier land power, ready and capable to 
defend this great Nation at home and abroad. I assure the 
members of this committee that your Army's senior leaders 
remain focused on creating a climate of trust and respect in 
which every person is able to thrive and achieve their full 
potential and enjoy viable career paths regardless of gender.
    Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I thank you 
again for your steadfast and generous support of the 
outstanding men and women of the United States Army and look 
forward to your questions. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of General Bromberg can be found in 
the Appendix on page 37.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General Bromberg.
    And we now proceed to General Milstead.

   STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, JR., USMC, DEPUTY 
  COMMANDANT, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

    General Milstead. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking 
Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it 
is my privilege to appear before you today.
    The commandant and all of our Marine Corps leadership are 
dedicated to taking care of all of our marines. Our deliberate 
approach to increasing career opportunities for our females is 
an example of this. You have been provided the Marine Corps' 
implementation plan and my written statement, both of which 
provide the details on our road ahead. I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Milstead can be found in 
the Appendix on page 45.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General Milstead.
    We now proceed to General Sacolick.

     STATEMENT OF MG BENNET SACOLICK, USA, DIRECTOR, FORCE 
  MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND

    General Sacolick. I would like to begin by stating SOCOM 
fully supports the decision to eliminate the Direct Combat 
Assignment Rule. Women have been attached to our combat units 
for several years as part of our cultural support teams, civil 
affairs, military information support teams, intelligence 
support, and a host of other occupational specialties, and they 
have performed magnificently.
    The question for SOCOM and the focus of our analysis is 
whether we can combine women into the special operation units 
whose occupation often requires deploying in small self-
contained teams for long periods of time in austere, 
geographically isolated locations. Many of these units deploy 
in close proximity to or behind enemy lines, and they live and 
work in very close quarters with each other. Can we achieve 
this level of integration while preserving our unit readiness, 
cohesion, and morale?
    We have tasked our subordinate component commands to review 
their organization, training, education, and leader development 
programs, inclusive of providing the recommendation on how to 
generate a sufficient number of qualified officers and senior 
NCOs [Non-Commissioned Officers] to facilitate and complement 
integration. These reviews will include an evaluation of all 
performance standards.
    I want to take a moment to talk about standards. We have 
always maintained that our SOF [Special Operations Forces] 
standards are occupationally specific, operationally relevant, 
and gender-neutral. They are just the standards. Our review 
will be a good opportunity to verify this assumption. We will 
look at every single task in each of our entry level 
qualification courses to ensure they are decisively tied to an 
operational requirement.
    We will also look at the social aspects of integration on 
the effective functioning of small teams. Our concern about 
integration generally centers upon the impact of unit cohesion. 
These concerns include both social cohesion, referring to the 
extent team members feel emotionally bonded with each other, 
and task cohesion, referring to the mutual commitment among the 
individual team members in achieving the group objective.
    We have also tasked RAND Corporation to provide a nonbiased 
third-party analysis of our qualification core standards, as 
well as assist us in designing a comprehensive survey for every 
single SOF operator in order to assist in first identifying and 
then eliminating barriers to integration.
    Our implementation plan has only a handful of significant 
milestones. Our assessment phase will be accomplished by July 
2014. We will then have an opportunity to analyze and develop a 
strategy, and by July 2015 Commander of SOCOM will provide his 
recommendation, in conjunction with the service chiefs, to the 
Secretary of Defense for a January 1, 2016, implementation.
    In conclusion, I just want to reiterate, we are absolutely 
not predisposed to any particular course of action. Our only 
concern is generating qualified SOF operators to support our 
country without regard to gender. Thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of General Sacolick can be found in 
the Appendix on page 51.]
    Mr. Wilson. And thank you, General Sacolick.
    We now proceed with Admiral Sweredoski.

  STATEMENT OF RADM BARBARA SWEREDOSKI, USN, RESERVE DEPUTY, 
         MILITARY PERSONNEL PLANS AND POLICY, U.S. NAVY

    Admiral Sweredoski. Thank you. Chairman Wilson, Ranking 
Member Davis, and distinguished members of the committee, thank 
you for holding this hearing and for affording me the 
opportunity to testify on Navy's Women in Service 
implementation plan.
    Navy's plan is a continuation of our efforts over the past 
19 years to steadily expand opportunities for women. Talented 
female officers, sailors, and civilians are a key component of 
our All-Volunteer total force. Our goal is to continue to 
ensure all men and women in the Department of the Navy have the 
opportunity to succeed and are set up for success with viable 
career paths while preserving our warfighting capability.
    Navy's implementation plan addresses all positions 
currently closed to the assignment of women. Navy expects to 
have no closed occupations, very limited number of closed 
positions, and equal professional opportunity for females in 
every officer designator and enlisted rating by 2016. Navy's 
implementation plan addresses assignment opportunities for 
women in the Coastal Riverine Force, submarines, and surface 
ships. Our plan also outlines a coordination with the Marine 
Corps for Navy personnel serving support of the ground combat 
element, and with U.S. Special Operations Command, to proceed 
in a deliberate, measured, responsible way to assign women to 
currently closed special operations positions as assessments 
are completed.
    Navy will open positions as expeditiously as possible while 
maintaining our high standards to preserve the quality of the 
force, as well as considering good order and judicious use of 
fiscal resources. Navy remains committed to working with 
Congress and thanks the members of the Personnel Subcommittee 
for your continuous and unwavering commitment to support our 
women and men. Thank you once again for holding this important 
meeting.
    [The prepared statement of Admiral Sweredoski can be found 
in the Appendix on page 56.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Admiral Sweredoski.
    We now proceed to General Grosso.

 STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN GINA M. GROSSO, USAF, DIRECTOR OF FORCE 
    MANAGEMENT POLICY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, 
             PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

    General Grosso. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, 
distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting 
me today to testify before you on behalf of the Secretary of 
the Air Force on this critical readiness issue.
    The Air Force is dedicated to continue the gender 
integration efforts initiated in 1993 when we lifted 
restrictions against women flying fighter aircraft and began 
assigning them to frontline combat aviation units. Today more 
than 99 percent of the nearly 500,000 Active Duty, Air National 
Guard, and Air Force Reserve positions are open to both men and 
women. In accordance with Office of the Secretary of Defense 
guidance, the Air Force is working to open the remaining 4,600 
positions across seven career fields that are affiliated with 
special operations and long-range reconnaissance ground combat 
units.
    To meet this objective, the Air Force has partnered with 
our Army and Special Operations Command counterparts to develop 
a comprehensive plan complete with detailed tasks and timelines 
which ensures we will complete the necessary steps to open all 
remaining positions by January 1, 2016. To support this 
timeline, the Air Force is accelerating current studies to 
validate physical tests and standards for each of the closed 
career fields. Additionally, the Air Force is addressing 
critical assignment restrictions in the areas of health and 
welfare, training, assignment classification, and career 
development. Although these tasks are significant, we do not 
anticipate any major obstacles to opening all closed positions 
by 2016.
    Ultimately the initiative to eliminate all remaining 
gender-based assignment restrictions will improve our readiness 
and the Air Force's ability to recruit and retain a qualified 
and diverse force. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of General Grosso can be found in 
the Appendix on page 67.]
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General Grosso.
    We will now proceed to each member of the subcommittee and 
other visiting Members of Congress who may attend. We will have 
a 5-minute rule maintained by Mr. John Chapla.
    And the first question, for both General Bromberg and 
General Milstead, and this would be that both of your Services 
appear to be developing gender-neutral performance standards to 
be tested in the accession phase. That is somewhere between the 
recruiting station and the last day of the military 
occupational producing school. There is a problem with testing 
in the accession phase, however, related to the low physical 
ability of people seeking to enter the Services.
    In deciding when in the accession phase to test and what 
standards to apply, how are you addressing the fundamental 
challenge? Testing early in the accession process would require 
the adoption of proxy tests and standards that are below those 
required for qualification for military occupational specialty, 
and testing late in the accession phase, say during the 
military occupational specialty qualification training, could 
incur the costs necessary to allow the service member the time 
to develop the capacity to accomplish the test without 
significantly increased attrition.
    General Bromberg or General Milstead?
    General Bromberg. Thank you for this question, sir.
    I think that is exactly the point we are at right now in 
developing these and examining these tests. We haven't decided 
yet where we are going to do the testing. And as we know, there 
is certain levels of performance upon acceptance in the 
military, there is a certain level of performance when you 
complete basic training, and then a certain level of 
performance as you go throughout your career.
    So the first thing we are doing, that is why we are 
validating our tasks today, to make sure we clearly understand 
the tasks that we want performed, and then going through a 
scientific process using the Army's Research and Environmental 
Command to really identify those tasks and how they are 
performed. And then from that we will develop a very simple 
battery of tests that they are not going to represent the exact 
task, but the type of skills and the physiological capabilities 
that an individual would need, and then from that we will 
discern where we want to apply those tests.
    So I think we have more to see, more to develop, but that 
is exactly why we want this very incremental and scientific 
approach to doing that, so we have to pick the right place to 
do it, at the right time. It is definitely gender-neutral, but 
it also related to the tasks that the individual has to do, not 
just as a soldier, but also for that specific military 
occupational specialty.
    General Milstead. I think it is important, first, to say 
that there is two separate pieces to this. There is that 
initial physical capability that you have to demonstrate to 
join the Army, the Marine Corps, the Services. I mean, you have 
to be physically, you know, have to meet physical standards. 
Okay, that aside, then we are talking about whether you have 
the physical capabilities to successfully complete that MOS 
[Military Occupational Specialty].
    In the Marine Corps we have 335 military occupational 
specialties, MOSs, and each one of these has anywhere from a 
minimum of one, mostly more performance-based tasks. Now, these 
performance-based tasks have been developed without any regard 
to gender, and within those performance-based tasks our 
Training Command has been able to identify somewhere close to 
250 physically demanding tasks. These are physically demanding 
things like, you know, lifting a tank round, lifting a tow bar, 
these sorts of things that require some physical fitness to 
them. These, again, have been developed without any regard to 
gender.
    So presently if you complete the MOS school and those 
physical tasks, then you get the MOS. What we want to do, as we 
begin this implementation plan, is to see if we can't come up 
with some predictive capability somewhere earlier in the 
process that we can test people that will give us a predictive 
analysis, a predictive capability of whether that person has 
demonstrated that they may or may not have the capability to go 
on down that route and successfully make that MOS instead of 
just waiting until they graduate. Granted, today some fall out 
along the way, but we want to make sure that that is the 
exception and not the norm.
    Mr. Wilson. I would like to thank both generals for your 
response. And having gone through such tests myself, I think 
you are both approaching this in a very positive manner.
    And I want to thank Ms. Beyler. You, in effect, referenced 
this, too. And I just appreciate the thoughtfulness of all of 
you as how this is being approached.
    I now proceed to Mrs. Davis.
    Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again to all of 
you for being here.
    I know that it is easy for us to understand some of the 
physical performance standards that we are talking about and 
the ability to maintain those consistently. I wonder if you 
could speak also, though, to mental performance standards and 
how you are going to be looking at those for specific 
positions. Do you see anything that is more specific to certain 
roles or in general, and how would we move forward with those 
standards? Perhaps how is that different from today as well, 
which it may not be.
    General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. That is a great question. I 
think we are all realizing that the mental agility required of 
today's tasks are much more than we realized in the past. And 
so within each military occupational specialty that is an area 
we are examining. It is a new area for us. We are certainly not 
as conversant as we should be at this point, but it is 
something we have to take on, not just in terms of your ability 
to perform that task in a complex and stressful environment, 
but are there indicators we can look from. The behavioral 
health area, as you know, is one of our most challenged areas 
wherever we go.
    So we are going to take that on in this, not just physical 
standards, but how can we get after that area. I think this 
will be an area that will come much later for us than the 
physical standards because we know much more about the physical 
standards, but clearly what we want to see is how can people 
develop further, whether it be resilience, whether it be the 
ability to handle stress in adverse environments and perform 
under those environments. So more to follow on that, ma'am.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 107.]
    Mrs. Davis. Thank you.
    Anybody else want to comment on that? Some thoughts or 
discussions that you have already had?
    General Milstead. Well, I would just offer that you have 
heard several of us use ``deliberate, measured, and 
responsible.'' That is the way to go with this: deliberately, 
in a measured manner, and do it responsibly.
    And the social and psychological factors need to be studied 
equally as important as the physical. And we are doing that in 
the Marine Corps. We have our exception to policy that we have 
had almost a year now where we have got 48 officers and staff 
noncommissioned officers down in 19 units. This month we are 
collecting the feedback from that, from both them and their 
commanders. We have got the Center for Naval Analyses is 
involved, and we have got a fleetwide survey.
    So we are all looking at those sorts of things, recognizing 
that there is the psychological piece is equally important to 
this as the physical.
    Mrs. Davis. And maybe in the next responses, would you like 
to discuss what are the cultural issues that you are talking 
about? I know it has been mentioned in several different ways.
    General Bromberg. I would just start by saying that, 
particularly for units where women have never served before, we 
have to look at the impacts on the small teams and the 
environments to make sure we understand the cultural aspects of 
that as we go forward. I think in units where women have served 
already before, we already have a data call, we already have 
some history, and we know from our previous experience what we 
have learned. But in those units as we expand, I think it is 
worth a look.
    We want to continually assess, as we are doing all the 
time, every evolution like today. As we open up more positions 
to brigade combat teams, we continue to assess and find out the 
reactions of the males in the unit, as well as the females in 
that unit. I think that is a huge piece, just to make sure 
everybody is set for success. That is the goal here, is to 
create the environment for success.
    Mrs. Davis. Would you all like to comment on that?
    General Sacolick. It kind of reminds me of the statement, 
the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, when you talk 
about real small teams that often deploy. And I don't even want 
to use the term decentralized environments, but entirely alone 
by themselves. In many respects they may be the only American 
forces in a particular country, and just the dynamics 
associated on that team. And I don't want to say I have seen 
average teams do extraordinary things, but we have taken 12 
basically normal individuals, and they perform magnificently 
together as a team. And so I don't want to do anything that 
affects that dynamic. That is why unit cohesion has been and 
continues to be so important. I don't know if that is going to 
be an issue at this point or not, but we are looking at it.
    Mrs. Davis. Any other comments? All right. Thank you.
    I think the other consideration that we have, and maybe we 
will get to that, is just some of the budgetary constraints 
that you have right now and how do you feel that those might 
impact us moving forward.
    Thank you all so much for being here.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Davis.
    We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada.
    Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you all for being here to discuss this topic. And I 
don't envy you. As you know, there is not universal acceptance 
of this concept, although probably more so now today than there 
was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. And no matter what decisions you 
come up with, you are still going to have a very dissatisfied 
segment of the population, so in that regard you could probably 
join Congress because you would be in the same boat as we are.
    You know, there will be claims that as you reevaluate some 
of the physical standards in an essence to make sure that they 
are crosswalked to specific tasks, that a standard that exists 
today may actually be lessened because of the scientific basis 
of reviewing it. And then you are going to have somebody turn 
around and say, you see, they lowered the standard because they 
are trying to let females into this MOS or into this AOC [Area 
Of Concentration]. How are you going to answer that?
    Ms. Beyler. Sir, thank you for the question.
    The Services will probably speak to that individually, but 
what I would say across the Department is exactly, we are not 
going to lower standards, but it is not a matter of lowering or 
raising the standard. That is why all of the Services and SOCOM 
have been tasked to validate the standard in light of 
everything we have learned since 2001 and all the changing 
technology. The key is to validate the standard to make sure 
that it is the right standard for the occupation. So, again, it 
is not a matter of raising or lowering standards, but it is a 
matter of validating to ensure that the standard is right and 
then applying that across the board neutrally.
    Dr. Heck. Well, I understand that that is the process you 
are going through, but invariably you may find a standard that 
through the validation process is going to be made lower, 
easier, less than what is currently in place, and you are going 
to have somebody turn around and try to change that scientific 
validation into an argument of, you are artificially lowering a 
standard. So how are you prepared? How are you going to address 
that criticism because it is going to come?
    General Bromberg. Sir, I think the simplest way for us to 
address that is by a factual basis of how we are doing our 
testing. If we can show that this is the standard, and I am 
absolutely confident we will be, as we go through the 
validation of the tasks. We have had standards in place in some 
military occupations for years that we haven't gone back and 
looked at. So it is not just about the male or female because 
we are going to eliminate males in some cases. And so some 
people will say, well, how did you do that? Well, as General 
Grosso said, it is a fact, a standard is a standard, a tank 
round, 55 rounds, if that is the type of round it is, it weighs 
that, you have to turn a certain way, and I think our factual 
basis supported by scientific evidence will clearly lay that 
out for us.
    And I think the advantage from the Army perspective, this 
is about where we want to be with the high-quality force. And I 
know it is going to come, and we are just going to have to lay 
the facts out, and facts are stubborn.
    Dr. Heck. And I am sure you have looked at the experience 
of the fire service where we experienced this same thing in a 
civilian occupation where when females were allowed to compete 
for frontline firefighters and they had to complete all the 
same physical standards, they rose to the task and they did it, 
and now we have females that are rising through the ranks in 
the fire service because they were able to meet the standards.
    And, General Sacolick, you know, I think of all the 
entities, I think SOCOM is going to come under the most 
scrutiny by the general public. And you referenced measuring 
the social effects of integration. How are you going to do 
that? How do you measure the social effects of integration?
    General Sacolick. First, let me just spend a moment to 
address your last question because the criticism of our current 
qualification courses is relentless, and it is ongoing. I mean, 
we constantly have got to make adjustments to our standards, of 
our Special Forces Qualification Course, BUD/S [Basic 
Underwater Demolition/SEAL School]. The conditions on today's 
battlefields routinely change, and we have constantly got to 
look at that.
    My previous job as the Commander of the Special Warfare 
Center, I ran the Special Forces Qualification Course, and I 
was looking at 80-percent attrition, and I had to analyze every 
single test to ensure that they made sense, to reduce male 
attrition. So the criticism is ongoing, the course is never as 
hard as somebody remembers it to be, and we deal with it often.
    Social implications, it is a tough one. I think the survey 
will be telling. Too often we hear those operators that speak 
the loudest that don't represent the majority of the silent 
professionals. So we are looking at it, and it is in the 
process of designing a very good, reliable, accurate survey 
that can truly get the opinion of those quiet professionals and 
how they feel about the integration of the female on their 
teams. I think that will be telling.
    Dr. Heck. Well, and I hope that all the Services are going 
to undertake that because obviously the physical standards are 
something that is going to be objectively able to be measured, 
whereas the social implications are something that are going to 
be very subjective and probably open to the greatest amount of 
scrutiny and criticism and probably receive the greatest amount 
of pushback.
    I appreciate what you are trying to do, I support where the 
Services are going, where DOD [Department of Defense] is trying 
to go on this, and I am sure Congress stands ready to assist 
you in any way possible.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Heck.
    We proceed with Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of 
Massachusetts.
    Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank all of you for being here today. I, 
like many, was so pleased when Secretary Panetta announced that 
DOD was mapping out how to integrate women into combat roles. 
This announcement really recognized our current reality that 
women are already serving in combat. I know on multiple trips 
to Afghanistan, as we have sought on our Mother's Day CODEL 
[Congressional Delegation] to meet with women, we have met many 
who have been serving in combat and certainly in harm's way, 
and we know that more than a hundred have died in Iraq and 
Afghanistan.
    I also think this announcement is helping us to build a 
stronger Armed Forces because we as a country cannot combat the 
threats of the future by excluding the potential talents and 
skills offered by half the U.S. population.
    So that is why I am so glad all of you are here today to 
talk about your plans. And while not my question, just a 
comment. As you look on the challenges of integration, of how 
to, especially in SOCOM, how to preserve the readiness and the 
sort of cohesiveness of the unit, that, yes, I think it is 
particularly important not just to look at women and the skill 
set that they bring into it, but to also look at sort of the 
optimal profile of the men so that you have success, you can go 
forward with great success.
    But my question is for all of you. I recently met a woman 
who was an Olympic athlete. She told me that while men and 
women can often meet the same athletic standards, they 
sometimes need a different way of training to meet those 
standards. So are the Services considering this factor when 
designing training for service members so that they can meet 
these gender-neutral goals?
    And this was reinforced to me by somebody I happened to 
meet who was part of the process of working on developing these 
standards, but her comment was that, yes, you want the 
standards to be gender-neutral, but you may need to train to 
these standards in different ways in order for women to have 
success. So I am wondering, and this is for all of you, if you 
all are looking at that as well.
    General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. 
We are looking at that, and we are not looking at it just for 
the integration of women, we are looking at it for the total 
soldier, because just as you have the 110-pound male who may 
lack some type of physiological capability or physical 
capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently.
    We are trying to expand our understanding of how we train. 
For example, if you need more upper body strength to climb 
through a window or more lower back strength based upon the 
military occupational specialty, do we change the way we train? 
And also for injury recovery, we know that you can recover 
faster by doing certain types of exercises than doing other 
types of exercises. We are going to wrap that all together, and 
I will be happy to provide you more information on that.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 107.]
    Ms. Tsongas. And I appreciate that. But I do think even in 
that context you may also need to look at, yes, how you get 
that man to that place, but how you get a woman to that place, 
and they may be slightly different.
    General Milstead.
    General Milstead. Well, I think an excellent example of 
what you are talking about is our gender-separated boot camp. 
We don't start teaching MOSs there. Our boot camp is about the 
transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a 
civilian to being a United States Marine.
    And we have it separated for that reason, because we feel 
that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs 
to be handled different, they need to be nurtured different, 
they need to be--they just need different steps as they go. 
They end up in the same place, they are United States Marines, 
and that is the point, then, when we begin their MOS training, 
and that is indeed gender-mixed.
    So, you know, like the Army, I will take that for the 
record and come back to you on the specifics, but we are doing 
that when it comes to our recruit training.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 107.]
    Ms. Tsongas. I would appreciate your followup on that.
    General Sacolick. Ma'am, I will offer, we are not doing 
that very well. I am a career special forces officer. I had six 
surgeries, and I am still broke. We need to do it better across 
the board. We are starting to invest serious time, effort, and 
money in our human performance program so we can train smarter. 
And we haven't, like I said, been very good at that, but we 
have recognized that, and we are looking at that very hard.
    We have some good empirical data, though, because we have 
female in our formations already, our civil affairs, our MISO 
[Military Information Support Operations], they trained in the 
same facilities as their special forces soldiers at Fort Bragg, 
and often together. So we do have some evidence that allows us 
to prepare those women, but we are not there yet, ma'am.
    Ms. Tsongas. Thank you.
    And I am running out of time, but I do think in the long 
run we want to maximize our success at this, and to put in 
place a training regimen that is ill suited to maximizing the 
success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to 
see. So thank you, and I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas.
    And we proceed now to Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of 
Indiana.
    Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The question I have, and I have thought about this since I 
saw this meeting coming up today, is have you analyzed that the 
potential risks of sexual assault are greater by placing women 
in roles where mostly men serve? We have been battling this, 
this whole Congress, and many of my colleagues have been 
battling this issue for years, and we have worked in a real 
bipartisan way to actually do something about it as much as we 
can in this Congress.
    But when you are talking, sir, about social integration, 
and Dr. Heck was asking about social integration, I am sitting 
here thinking the whole time, have you analyzed what is going 
to happen with these isolated, oftentimes--when you made the 
comment, sir, about, you know, sometimes they are the only 
Americans in the country, they are in covert missions, they are 
in special operations, close quarters, isolation. And we hear 
stories now about those things that we are trying to address. 
Where are you on preparing for that and what is in place?
    Ms. Beyler. Yes, ma'am. So Secretary Hagel has made it 
clear that there is no place in the Department for sexual 
assault, and we view this effort no different than any other. 
It requires leadership at all levels, bottom line, to ensure 
that sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned, or ignored in 
any way. And as mentioned previously, we think that expanding 
opportunities for women can only strengthen the All-Volunteer 
Force. As we go forward, the more we treat service men and 
women equally, the more likely they are to treat each other 
with respect. So again, this is no different than any other 
effort across the Department with regard to the issue of sexual 
assault.
    Mrs. Walorski. But I guess with all due respect, this issue 
of sexual assault has really exposed a broken system in the 
military. So my question is, I mean, have you researched it? Is 
there analysis of it? Is there a plan? Because what is 
happening now doesn't work. I mean, you know, the debate here 
is raging, and you are sitting here as the professionals about 
ready to embark on a whole new frontier here. And so my 
question is, I mean, is there research? Is there analysis? Is 
there a plan? Is there something more than the military is 
currently doing? Because it doesn't work.
    General Bromberg. Ma'am, as far as expanded roles of women 
in the Service, in the Army, that is part of our cultural 
examination that is ongoing as we speak. It is part of the 
continual assessment. The whole piece on the cultural side, not 
just for sexual assault, but inclusive of that, with a clear 
focus on sexual assault is being examined in detail. We are 
going to look at it not just in the broad context, we are going 
to zero in on it in each one of these career fields.
    Because some of these career fields, for example, 
engineers, women serve today in everything but one piece of 
engineer. So there are many women leaders and cadre throughout 
this organization. So if you open up that piece of the engineer 
force, we are going to examine the effect on that company and 
that squad, and we will make a very conscious decision as we 
move forward to see what we either have to do to change 
ourselves--and I commit to you that to change ourselves is one 
piece of it--but also then to how to also train and inform and 
enforce as we go forward. But that is part of our second piece 
as we are looking at the physical piece and the cultural piece.
    General Milstead. And we are working very hard to eradicate 
this from the Service. And we have to be careful that what we 
do with this implementation does not go counter to that, and 
that raises the issue on, as you open up these additional MOSs 
and they remain the bar, the standard remains what the standard 
is, and yet you get numbers of female marines that qualify, 
well, no, we don't plan on dropping a single marine in here or 
a single marine here.
    Our exception to policy program that we are doing right 
now, we have them in a minimum of two to three per unit. So we 
have got to, we are looking at that, and we are working at what 
is the right number, how can you ensure? You are going to have 
to have the leadership, you are going to have to already have 
officer and staff NCO female leadership in these units. So it 
is going to be a crawl-walk-run process, but we are looking at 
that to make sure that this effort doesn't go counter to the 
other effort that we are all working so hard on, on sexual.
    Mrs. Walorski. Right. And what is the ratio,it might be in 
your documents, I apologize for not finding it, but what is the 
ratio of men to women, say, in the Marines?
    General Milstead. In the Marine Corps, 7 percent of the 
Marine Corps are women. And I just leave you with that 7 
percent is just as important to the commandant as the other 93.
    Mrs. Walorski. Sure, I appreciate it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Walorski.
    And we now proceed to Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of 
Guam.
    Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    And I want to thank the witnesses today for your 
testimonies and your interest in women in the military.
    I know we have covered this earlier, but I would like to 
address Lieutenant General Bromberg about the physical 
assessment demands for women in the military. Are they all the 
same, General, in all the Services, the Army, Navy, Air Force, 
and Marines? Are they pretty much the requirements, physical 
requirements?
    General Bromberg. Ma'am, I think they are generally, for 
acceptance into the military they are generally about the same.
    Ms. Bordallo. Very good.
    General Bromberg. But when we get into the military 
occupational specialties, I think you will find variety, even 
with a specialty that appears the same because of how we all 
fight differently on the battlefield. Communication specialist 
requirements in an infantry unit would be different from an Air 
Force communications specialist.
    Ms. Bordallo. A followup question, General, then. What 
percentage of women are not really, you know, they are not able 
to stand up to the training requirements? Are there a lot of 
dropouts or?
    General Bromberg. Ma'am, I can't give you that right now. I 
will take that for the record. I know what our attrition is 
based upon----
    Ms. Bordallo. Right, yeah.
    General Bromberg [continuing]. Males versus females, but I 
don't have that with me right now. But I can get you that.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 107.]
    Ms. Bordallo. And that goes for the other, does anybody 
have any information on that? Do you have quite a few women 
that are not able to--well, and the men, too, but I mean we are 
here for the women right now.
    General Milstead. We can take that for the record and get 
you attrition figures on both male and female. I mean, it is a 
matter of record that the female attrition rate percentage in 
boot camp is higher.
    Ms. Bordallo. That is right.
    General Milstead. But we can get you those figures for the 
Marine Corps on throughout the process.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 108.]
    Ms. Bordallo. Very good. And I would also like it for the 
Marines, Army, Navy, and the Air Force. If I could have that. I 
realize that there are men also that drop out, but I do know 
the ratio is higher for women, and this is something maybe we 
should take a look at.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on pages 108-109.]
    Ms. Bordallo. My other question is to Major General 
Sacolick. Can you address any concerns you may have with the 
integration of women in small, isolated career fields that 
typically operate in remote locations? Do you feel there are 
any operational risks that may be introduced if women were 
allowed to serve in special op roles? And what are the second 
and third levels of concern that we may not have addressed 
previously that warrant additional attention?
    General Sacolick. Ma'am, I don't know if concern is a 
strong word. It is something I want to look at, and it goes to 
unit cohesion. My personal feeling is if we can do this and we 
can do it right and we can integrate women into those small 
units that are operating in those environments, it will provide 
just a new dynamic, powerful enhancement to our capabilities. 
And this is the assumption we are proceeding. I just want to 
look at everything so we do it right.
    So I don't know if it is a concern or not at this point. I 
stated before I am less concerned with the physicality of our 
MOSs and more concerned with the interaction at the team level. 
And we are just looking at it. So I don't know if it is a valid 
concern or not at this point, ma'am.
    Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo.
    We now proceed to Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of New 
Hampshire.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much.
    I am holding in my hand from the Office of the Chief of 
Staff Army, the general officer announcement for December 13, 
2012. I am not sure how to interpret it, but there are--well, 
let me just read it.
    ``Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has announced that 
the President has nominated the following Army competitive 
category colonels for promotion to the rank of brigadier 
general.'' There are 34 names on it, and none of them are 
women, and I am not really sure how to interpret that. Can you 
do that for me, please?
    General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. Clearly, I understand your 
concern, and I would like to follow up with a more detailed 
answer to you.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 110.]
    General Bromberg. And clearly that is not something that we 
are proud of in terms of the lack of women on that list, and it 
is something we will work for as we improve.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay.
    And would you like to comment also?
    Ms. Beyler. Again, ma'am, I don't have the details with 
regard to that specific case, but I can tell you that that is 
one of the reasons we view this effort that we are doing now, 
expanding opportunities for women, can only help to enhance 
leadership and maybe increase leadership at the highest levels 
of the Department.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. And I agree, but I do find it ironic that 
the rules and everything came out in January, and this is 
December 12th, and it seems like, you know, if somebody would 
have looked at this list and said maybe one. But I don't know. 
I mean, there may be perfectly good reasons, but I really would 
appreciate it if you would get back to me and let me know what 
that is. I just thought that was curious.
    General Bromberg. We will follow up in great detail on 
that.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it.
    And the other comment is that, you know that the women's 
uniforms have not really been wonderful for women, and as we 
ask them to do more and know that they want to do more, there 
is a thing about the uniforms. And I am hoping that they are 
going to be addressing that, that problem that you have. So 
would either or anybody like to comment on that as well?
    Ms. Beyler. I guess what I would say is that each of the 
Services and SOCOM, as we mentioned, are doing thorough--we 
call it the DOTMLPF [Doctrine, Organization, Training, 
Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities] 
analysis doctrine, everything through training and facilities 
and logistics as well. And so I would imagine that--I will let 
the Services if they want to speak more specifically to it--but 
again the idea is to do a full-blown analysis and to consider 
everything that may impact this effort.
    General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am, we are continually looking at 
that, and I think the most recent example is we modified the 
body armor for females. That was just recently rolled out, and 
there is several other examples. And, again, we will follow up 
with that. But we have also made changes to the combat uniform 
as well. Continual process will go on with that.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, thank you.
    And I do have one last question. On that review board for 
the promotions, does that have to be unanimous? How does that 
work? Do you know?
    General Bromberg. Ma'am, that is a centralized selection 
board, and it would probably be best if we came and gave you 
full detail about how we do selection board. Voting members, 
blind votes, complete file review. I am sure all the Services 
have a similar process. But it is a very orderly, approved 
process that we go through. Total records are reviewed of those 
officers that are eligible, votes are made. And there are also 
sometimes some requirements for maybe a specific career field, 
such as maybe by law there is a requirement to have an 
acquisition officer or a lawyer or something of that nature. 
Those boards are very tight. And we are happy to come lay that 
out for you in great detail.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. But does it have to be unanimous?
    General Bromberg. It goes by a point system, and then there 
is only so many that can be promoted. So you have to look at 
the board as a--it is not necessarily a unanimous vote, 
everbody has a blind vote, and when you total the score up, you 
have an order of merit list 1 through N, and then if you only 
can pick 10, it is the top 10 people on the list.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. So for the record, the number of 
women on that board, two. There were quite a few people on the 
board who voted, and there were only two of them were women. So 
I just wanted to also point that out. And I appreciate your 
getting back to me.
    General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am, we will get back in great 
detail.
    [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix 
on page 110.]
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Shea-Porter.
    We now conclude with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of 
California.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 
allowing me to sit in on this. Obviously this is an issue that 
I have been working for a long, long time, sitting here for 17 
years on this committee. So I am excited that the Chiefs of 
Staff and that our former Secretary deemed that this was a good 
thing for the military and that we should move forward. And 
obviously I am one of those Members that wants to see it move 
forward.
    And one of the reasons I think it is important that our 
women be allowed to be in combat if they can perform in combat 
is that if they are not doing the number one job of the 
military, which is combat, then they are probably not going to 
be wearing stars on their shoulders. And I think looking at the 
new set of Army generals reflects that combat is an important 
issue when people are looking--combat performance is an 
important issue when people are looking at moving up in these 
organizations, in all of these Services.
    And I do believe that one of the things that Ms. Shea-
Porter said that, you know, the fact that there were only two 
women on the panel makes a big difference. The more women we 
would have on there, the more likely we are--I know when I have 
seen, and I have looked at studies that, you know, people tend 
to hire in their own image. And if there is not enough women, 
well then we are probably not going to have enough women up in 
the flag officers level. So real excited to get this done.
    Here is my question. I am trying to get my ideas around how 
you populate leadership. I understand that most of you have 
come to the conclusion that you don't need whatever critical 
mass is, but that you need a certain amount of women in the 
fight together and not isolated, let's say.
    So if women have traditionally not had that combat role and 
they are more senior--and I understand that you are trying to 
populate senior with younger to sort of move a group through--
what is the process that you will use? What are the metrics? 
How will you choose the women who are already in the military 
who will be those senior role models, mentors to the people, to 
the women also being selected to come in to be the initial 
wave, if you will, of women in combat roles? How will you all 
do that?
    General Bromberg. Ma'am I think the first step is that 
there is many levels here. First of all, in many of the combat 
units there is positions that are already open to women today 
as we removed the collocation rule from last year. So there 
will be a cadre that are being assigned today in these first 
brigade combat teams, maybe it is a signal officer, an 
intelligence officer or signal NCO. So we will start moving 
those individuals in today to start that process, and then we 
will later on bring in the privates, as we have mentioned 
earlier.
    Then I think for the combat MOSs, as we make the decision 
to go forward, as we do with all MOSs, you have to look at what 
point within a career that somebody can transfer in. So maybe 
there is a first lieutenant who is a logistics officer that 
wants to be an armor officer, an artillery officer. Then we 
will open that up at the right time in their career, send them 
to training, and then send them to the unit. The advantage they 
will have is they will have experience as an officer earlier 
already, and then we will give them the training, the technical 
training they need to go with that skill set that is in place 
now. The same for noncommissioned officers.
    The tipping point is, for males or females, there is a 
certain point where you really aren't successful no matter who 
you are if you transfer in too late, because you miss 
developmental opportunities that are essential to you being 
successful later on.
    So those are the two methods that we will use as we go 
forward.
    Ms. Sanchez. And so do you think that that will be a 
problem, because there is something to be said about practice 
makes perfect and, you know, having had those maneuvers, and 
all of a sudden you are coming in 3 years behind your peer 
group. Do you see some problems with that? How early on will 
you populate into the leadership to try to move that?
    And if it is fairly early, how long before we see those 
types of leaders mature through the pipeline? I mean, how long 
is this going to take, I guess? I mean, you know, I am 
interested in that, too, because yesterday's too long, you 
know, it is not fast enough for me.
    General Milstead. Well, since you are looking at me----
    Ms. Sanchez. I am looking at y'all. I mean, I know you are 
thinking about these things.
    General Milstead. We are. We are thinking about this. As 
General Bromberg said, you know, the easiest way to get at this 
initially is, you know, we have those closed MOSs. For 
instance, let's just use tanks. You know, we don't have women 
tankers right now. But in a tank battalion, we can take women 
that are in an open MOS, logistics, administration, those sorts 
of things, intelligence, and move them into the tanks. And that 
is where we have some of ours now in our exception to policy. 
Build up a cadre that are there. And then if we determine that 
tanks is indeed a unit we want to open to women, then when we 
start sending those young women in there, we have got some 
leadership in there.
    Now, this is not going to be overnight. This is going to 
take some time. And you are right, this has to be done smart. 
And I am not articulate enough to tell you how right now, but 
you hit on something. If you come into something 3 years behind 
your peers, your name is never going to end up on that list. 
You are behind the power curve.
    And so how do we do that? In this whole endeavor, we want 
to set up our women for success, not for failure. And that is 
the tough piece, and that is the piece we are working very hard 
on.
    Ms. Sanchez. Great. Anybody else want to say anything to 
that?
    Okay. If you will indulge me just 1 second, because this is 
a very important question I think you are all going to get, is 
if we open up combat to women, these MOSs, and women can 
succeed in them, will all women--if we decide we want that 
particular woman to go over there into that MOS combat thing, 
is she going to have to do it or is this going to be by choice, 
or over time how do you see that playing itself out?
    And thank you for indulging me on this, because I think it 
is a very--everybody's asking me this question. Who can answer 
that? What do you think?
    General Milstead. Well, for us, I will just use our 
exception to policy. Those 48 women officers and staff, 
noncommissioned officers that we have in those 19 units now, 
that was done through normal assignment process. That was 
involuntary. That is why they call them orders: You go there. 
And that is the way it is going to have to be. It is going to 
have to be the same, because it is not voluntary for the males, 
so it needs to be the same for all. And that is the way you 
will do it. That is the way you will have a level playing field 
and everybody will feel like they are being treated equally.
    General Bromberg. So two answers, ma'am. You volunteer to 
come into the military to begin with, that is the voluntary 
step, and then you select your MOS based upon your 
qualifications and what is available for that particular year, 
and you go in there. Once you are in that MOS, you are going to 
be assigned wherever the Army needs you regardless of gender. 
That is how we do it today and that is how we will continue to 
do it.
    As far as reclassification, we have plenty of people to 
reclassify. I think there will be plenty of people. If they are 
interested in that MOS, they will be able to volunteer and 
reclassify in there. And I think we will continue that process.
    Ms. Sanchez. And I guess the corollary to that is, if I am 
a woman coming into the military new as a private or what have 
you and I am choosing my MOS and I definitely know I don't want 
to be in a combat unit, can I choose an MOS and know that for--
pretty much that for the rest of my career if I decide to spend 
it in there, I am going to be a supply officer versus infantry, 
frontline-type of a person?
    General Bromberg. Once you enter the military and you are 
in that specialty, that is normally the specialty you stay 
with. And we have been blessed for years with our volunteer 
force, so we haven't had to make those harsh decisions. But we 
have had, as you have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do 
remission people, and we will continue to remission people as 
the case is needed. But we generally don't change those MOSs 
unless we really force people into a varied situation we 
haven't had to face in the last several years.
    But those, once you are in, as General Milstead said, you 
are in, you have that MOS, you can be ordered into something 
else or some other position if you need to. I don't see that 
happening in the near term, though. I think we will be fine 
with that.
    Ms. Sanchez. Right.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. And we have a 
concluding question with Mrs. Davis of California.
    Mrs. Davis. Just quickly, and you don't necessarily have to 
answer to this. But how early, I guess, in an individual's 
education do we want to think about how to inspire and how to 
help people to think about the options that they might have in 
the future? And I am referring to JROTC [Junior Reserve 
Officers' Training Corps], partnering with sports and 
athletics, and how women particularly begin to think about what 
kinds of activities they could be involved in.
    We often say with women in politics, but even in other 
fields, you can't be what you can't see. And I think that there 
is an element of this. And a lot of young men, of course, learn 
through JRTC what their options might be. And I don't know 
whether we know anything more today about how we provide that 
pipeline from JRTC for women going into the Service as in other 
specialties.
    And, of course, going back and looking at, just as you 
said, women who are already part of a support team that have 
moved into more than support today in Afghanistan and Iraq, you 
know, is there anything that we know about what helped them to 
get to where they are and anything that we should learn from 
that.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Davis.
    And Ms. Shea-Porter had a concluding question.
    Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you.
    I just want to urge all of you to make sure that when you 
move these women into these combat roles, that we don't make 
the mistake of isolating them. We have seen women that are just 
alone. And, you know, I have talked about the band of brothers, 
and there is no such thing as a band of sister. We should be 
thinking the same way to help provide them the supports.
    And I also would like to thank all of you for working so 
hard on this. I do appreciate it. And I yield back.
    Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Shea-Porter.
    As we conclude, I want to thank each of you for your 
service and your obvious dedication. I particularly am 
grateful. I represent Fort Jackson with the new recruits, I 
have represented Parris Island. I have seen the young people, 
the opportunities where they come in, I have gone to the 
graduations. It is just heartwarming to see opportunity 
provided, people transformed. It is awesome to see young people 
speaking with their family members, saying, it is me, it really 
is me.''
    So thank you for what you do. And I just look at military 
service, as a veteran, as the proud dad of four people serving 
in the military today, it is a great opportunity. Thank you.
    And at this time, we shall be adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
      
=======================================================================

                            A P P E N D I X

                             July 24, 2013

=======================================================================

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             July 24, 2013

=======================================================================
      
                      Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson

           Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel

                               Hearing on

                        Women in Service Reviews

                             July 24, 2013

    Over the last decade women have served exceptionally in 
many positions in combat. The decision by the Secretary of 
Defense in January to rescind the direct ground combat 
exclusion policy has established a new dynamic--all positions 
are open to women, unless the military services are granted an 
exception to policy. In June, the Secretary of Defense released 
those implementation plans, which envision full implementation 
of the new policy by January 2016. Between now and then, the 
military services and U.S. Special Operations Command will 
develop the substantive basis for implementation. As is clear 
from the plans, implementation of the new policy will be 
incremental, with previously closed units and occupational 
specialties being opened as gender-neutral performance 
standards are validated, other issues related to the 
integration are addressed, and congressional notifications are 
completed. Implementation of decisions about Army and Marine 
Corps direct ground combat units (infantry, armor, artillery), 
as well as specialties controlled by the Special Operations 
Command, will take place later in the process. The Secretary of 
Defense has made clear that standards will not be lowered, and 
that they will be applied on a gender-neutral basis. That's a 
key commitment to the success of inclusion efforts.

                    Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis

        Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel

                               Hearing on

                        Women in Service Reviews

                             July 24, 2013

    Mr. Chairman, I would also like to welcome our witnesses. 
Thank you all for being here with us.
    In January, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta announced 
that the direct ground combat policy that prohibited women from 
serving in ground combat units was being rescinded. As part of 
that announcement, the Services were to provide the Secretary 
with plans on how they would proceed to implement women into 
ground combat units and positions. The plans were to be 
provided to the Secretary by May 15th, and focused on how the 
Services would open all positions to women by January 1, 2016.
    I am very pleased that the Secretary rescinded the policy 
to allow women to serve in all units and positions, including 
ground combat. Women have served with distinction, including 
under combat conditions, in today's All-Volunteer Force, and 
the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that future 
conflicts put all those who serve on the battlefield under the 
same threat. Opening positions and units to women to ensure 
that the best qualified are chosen, not based solely on gender, 
but on capabilities and experience will help to ensure that our 
military remains the best in the world.
    Establishing criteria based on the functions and 
responsibilities of each position will help to ensure that the 
most qualified will serve. Women want to ensure that they have 
equal opportunities to serve and excel into higher leadership 
positions and not be held back because they are prohibited from 
serving in specific fields. They do not want the rules and 
requirements to be different because they are women. What they 
want is a fair and open opportunity. The elimination of the 
ground combat policy is the first step toward that equality.
    I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having an 
open and productive dialogue on the issues and challenges that 
the Services, especially Special Operations Command, may have 
in this effort. Thank you again for being here today.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================

                   DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

                             July 24, 2013

=======================================================================

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
      
=======================================================================

              WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

                              THE HEARING

                             July 24, 2013

=======================================================================
      
              RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS

    General Bromberg. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is 
currently developing and validating gender-neutral physical standards 
for the currently closed occupations. The Armed Service Vocational 
Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is used by all services for cognitive 
evaluation. The ASVAB is a multiple-aptitude battery that measures 
developed abilities and helps predict future academic and occupational 
success in the military. [See page 10.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS
    General Bromberg. U.S. Army Training Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 
trains Soldiers to meet the occupational requirements of their unique 
specialty. This will not change. Different Soldiers may use different 
techniques to accomplish tasks, however, many tasks are very 
prescriptive in the manner they are performed due to the equipment 
used. For example, vehicle mechanics must often perform maintenance 
tasks in a specific sequence. TRADOC has conducted gender integrated 
training successfully for many years and has no plans to return to 
gender segregated training. Training the males and females differently 
(separately), contradicts the intent of integrating the Army and can be 
perceived as training to different standards or inequitable treatment 
of Soldiers. [See page 14.]

    General Milstead. Our entry level training ensures Marines are 
screened and provided with the requisite training and skills to 
successfully meet the needs of the total force and the rigors of 
combat. The Marine Corps does this by first transforming civilians into 
``Basically Trained Marines'' at Recruit Training; second by training 
all Marines in the basic combat skills necessary to perform the duties 
of a provisional rifleman at Marine Combat Training (MCT); and third by 
providing them the basic knowledge and skills at the MOS Schools 
required to perform the duties of their assigned Military Occupational 
Specialty (MOS).
    Male and female recruits train separately in Recruit Training in 
order to foster the transformation from civilian to Marine. This 
approach allows young female recruits the environment needed to focus 
and build self-confidence without distractions, embrace service core 
values, refine skills, and adjust to military life. It also provides a 
setting with confidentiality to address prior service sexual assault or 
harassment incidents and most importantly provides young female 
recruits a structured environment with strong female role models (drill 
instructors) to emulate. We feel this approach is necessary and 
beneficial to both female and male recruits and sets the foundation 
necessary for both male and female recruits to succeed as Marines 
during the rest of their entry level training and time in the Corps.
    After completing Recruit Training, female and male Marines assigned 
to an open MOS attend Marine Combat Training (MCT) at the School of 
Infantry (SOI)-East at Camp Lejeune, NC. Marines train side-by-side at 
MCT and learn the basic combat skills necessary to perform the duties 
of a Provisional Rifleman. Once they graduate from MCT, Marines train 
together at open MOS schools. As we open closed MOS schools to female 
Marines, male and female Marines will train together. As female Marines 
are integrated into the student population in previously closed MOS 
Schools, we will use their pre- and post-graduation performance data 
with our System Approach to Training (SAT) process to continually 
evaluate and improve their curriculums. This is the same process we 
follow for male Marines who attend these MOS schools. Following this 
process, the Marine Corps is confident we will continue to improve the 
quality of our formal Programs of Instruction, continue to advance 
mastery for both men and women and continue to meet the MOS/billet 
training requirements of the total force. [See page 14.]
                                 ______
                                 
            RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
    General Bromberg. During the period of 1 August 2012 to 31 July 
2013, the overall active duty discharge rate from Basic Combat Training 
was 7.9%; for females it was 14.5% and for males it was 6.2%. During 
the year prior, 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012, the overall active duty 
discharge rate from Basic Combat Training was 7.1%; for females it was 
12.7% and for males it was 5.6%. [See page 17.]

    General Milstead. Entry level training attrition rates, by gender, 
for FY08 thru FY11 are annotated on the below table. It should be noted 
that after entry level training, the attrition rates for male and 
female Marines who do not complete their initial contract are similar 
with the female attrition rate at 5.2% and the male attrition rate at 
5.1%. [See page 17.]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Attrition Rates             % of Attrition due to medical/
                                         ------------------------------------            psychological
          Entry Level Training                                               -----------------------------------
                                                Male             Female             Male             Female
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recruit Training                          9.0%              15.7%             43.0%             50.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marine Combat Training                    1.5%              1.7%              24.0%             49.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Officer Candidate School                  19.6%             42.0%             27.0%             40.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Basic School                          5.6%              11.0%             4.0%              14.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    General Sacolick. USSOCOM is still in the assessment phase of its 
Women in Service implementation effort, and therefore is still trying 
to ascertain what concerns are warranted regarding the integration of 
women into Special Operations Forces (SOF). Certain factors from a 
social cohesion and task cohesion stand point will be studied over the 
coming months to identify potential obstacles. For social cohesion, we 
will be looking at the human interactions that occur when people are 
placed in remote locations, in close proximity to one another, and 
forced to rely extensively, perhaps exclusively, on the other members 
of a small team in order to succeed in their tasks, and perhaps for 
their safety and well-being. We already know from our experience with 
our current force that these factors lead to the team members 
developing close bonds. Task cohesion factors of concern are: different 
reactions to stress, performance expectations, and the ability to 
engage in teamwork. These factors are going to be studied to gain a 
better understanding of the magnitude, nature, and scope of the 
potential concerns of SOF personnel. This will help us anticipate 
challenges that may arise and allow for a seamless transition. [See 
page 17.]

    General Sweredoski. Attrition rates at Navy Recruit Training 
Command:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Males                 Females                 Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 10                               8.0%                   13.0%                  9.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 11                               8.3%                   14.6%                  9.7%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 12                               9.6%                   14.4%                  10.5%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 13 (YTD)                         8.0%                   11.3%                  8.8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note: Fiscal Year 13 Year to Date (YTD) attrition is from October 
1, 2012 through July 31, 2013. [See page 17.]

    General Grosso. The following tables reflect Air Force attrition 
rates.

    ACRONYMS

    AD: Active Duty
    BMT: Basic Military Training
    BOT: Basic Officer Training
    COT: Commissioned Officer Training
    IST: Initial Skills Training
    OTS: Officer Training School
    ROTC: Reserve Officers' Training Corps

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          AD Enlisted BMT                  Gender             Entered           Eliminees         % Attrition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12                                 Female              5,339              407                7.62%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Male                23,475             1,229              5.24%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Total               28,814             1,636              5.68%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          AD Enlisted IST                  Gender             Entered           Eliminees         % Attrition
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12                                 Female              4,921              305                6.20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Male                23,301             1,414              6.07%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Total               28,222             1,719              6.09%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Active Duty (AD)       Officers
                                               Gender            Entered          Eliminees        % Attrition
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AY12 AF Academy                           Female            980               49                5.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Male              3,561             237               6.66%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total             4,541             286               6.30%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12 ROTC                                 Female            471               48                10.20%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Male              1,576             233               14.80%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total             2,047             281               13.72%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12 OTS/BOT                              Female            69                2                 2.90%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Male              495               44                8.89%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total             564               46                8.16%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12 COT                                  Female            570               1                 0.18%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Male              666               4                 0.60%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total             1,236             5                 0.00%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total AD Officers                         Female            2,090             100               4.78%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Male              6,298             518               8.22%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Total             8,388             618               7.37%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               AD Officer IST           (not rated)
                                                                          Gender                Entered              Eliminees           % Attrition
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY12                                                               Female                445                   12                    2.70%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Male                  1,381                 44                    3.19%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total                 1,826                 56                    3.07%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AD Rated Officer IST                                               Female                180                   8                     4.40%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AY12                                                               Male                  2,868                 94                    3.30%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total                 3,048                 102                   3.35%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total AD Officers IST                                              Female                625                   20                    3.20%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AY12/FY12                                                          Male                  4,249                 138                   3.25%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Total                 4,874                 158                   3.24%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    [See page 17.]
                                 ______
                                 
          RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER
    General Bromberg. The Fiscal Year 2012 Brigadier General, Army 
Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board was conducted in 
compliance with law and regulation. In accordance with Title 10, United 
States Code, section 617, the board carefully considered the record of 
each officer whose name was furnished to the board. The board found 
that, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the board, the 
officers recommended for promotion by the board were best qualified for 
promotion to meet the needs of the Department of the Army. The board 
membership, approved by the Secretary of the Army, complied with Title 
10, United States Code, Section 612 and consisted of 19 general 
officers. The officers who were selected by the Fiscal Year 2012 
Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board 
were the best qualified for promotion and it is an anomaly that, of the 
best qualified officers, none in this case happened to be female. The 
Department of the Army has reviewed the results of every Brigadier 
General, Army Competitive Category board for which we have record and, 
with the exception of the Fiscal Year 2012 board, find no previous 
board where no female was selected. In fact from 1989 until 2011, 
females have been selected at a higher rate (2.24) than males (2.16). 
[See page 18.]
    General Bromberg. The goal of a Brigadier General, Army Competitive 
Category Promotion Selection Board is to recommend the ``best 
qualified'' colonels for promotion to brigadier general who will make 
the greatest contribution to the Army and Department of Defense, 
regardless of ethnicity and gender. Board members are directed by the 
Secretary of the Army to consider all eligible colonels in the 
considered population.
    In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 616(b), 
the Secretary of the Army establishes the maximum number of officers 
that the selection board may recommend for promotion from the officers 
being considered. Pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, section 
622, this number is determined based on the number of positions needed 
to accomplish mission objectives, the estimated number of officers 
needed to fill vacancies in such positions, and the number of officers 
authorized by the Secretary of the Army to serve on active duty in that 
grade. Once the board has convened, the board members are briefed on 
the board process and the details contained in the Secretary of the 
Army's Memorandum of Instruction (i.e., number to be selected, specific 
requirements by skill set and other direction for the conduct of the 
board).
    The board process for a Brigadier General Promotion Selection Board 
is as follows: Each board member considers every eligible colonel in 
the considered population and votes to determine if the officer's 
performance record and qualifications merit further consideration. 
Based on this vote, an order of merit list is established. After the 
order of merit list is established, the board votes to determine the 
number of officers who will be further considered. The board then 
further considers those officers. During this phase of the board, board 
members may discuss their own personal knowledge and evaluation of the 
professional qualifications of eligible officers. Board members may not 
discuss or disclose the opinion of any person not a member of the board 
concerning an officer being considered unless that opinion is contained 
in material provided to the board. After discussion of the officers 
under consideration, the board members conduct a blind vote of each 
officer under consideration by designating a score for each officer. 
Each officer's collective score is tallied and that total score is used 
to establish an order of merit list. Using the order of merit list, the 
``best qualified'' officers are determined based on selection 
requirements established by the Secretary of the Army. [See page 19.]
?

      
=======================================================================


              QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

                             July 24, 2013

=======================================================================

      
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS

    Ms. Tsongas. Currently, women are being allowed to serve in 
previously closed units in open specialties in some units. This 
practice is being inconsistently applied across the Services. For 
example, women in the Army are being assigned down to the battalion 
level in open specialties but not to the company level in combat arms 
units. In the USMC, women are still prohibited from being assigned to 
the battalion level in most combat arms units. Will OSD establish a 
policy on women serving in previously closed combat units in currently 
open MOSs? Can women who serve in an open MOS be assigned to combat 
units at all levels, and if not, why not, and when will that change?
    Ms. Beyler. The Services and USSOCOM are required to open positions 
and units in a manner consistent with the Joint Chiefs' Guiding 
Principles. They are further required to meet interim milestones and 
goals. Due to differing force structures and operational requirements, 
the Services and USSOCOM have been given authority to implement 
rescission of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule 
as they determine necessary, consistent with the direction set out in 
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum of January 9, 
2013. Integration of women into newly opened positions and units will 
occur as expeditiously as possible, considering good order and 
judicious use of fiscal resources, but must be completed no later than 
January 1, 2016. Any recommendation to keep an occupational specialty 
or unit closed to women must be personally approved by the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then the Secretary of Defense. This 
approval may not be delegated. Exceptions must be narrowly tailored, 
and based on a rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the 
knowledge, skills, and abilities for the position.
    Ms. Tsongas. Will OSD require each Service to brief OSD and 
Congress on how it is developing its gender-neutral occupational 
standards? Who is leading this effort within each branch, and what 
methods are they using to develop these standards? Will OSD also ask 
them to provide a briefing on their use of social science or 
``cultural'' studies in the development of gender-neutral occupational 
standards?
    Ms. Beyler. Yes, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for 
Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 
the Service Chiefs are monitoring the progress the Services and USSOCOM 
are making toward integration of women into previously closed 
occupations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Services, and 
USSOCOM will provide periodic updates to Congress.
    Each Service and USSOCOM are working with various scientific and 
research agencies (U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental 
Medicine, Center for Naval Analyses, Air Education and Training 
Command, and RAND) to review and validate occupational standards to 
ensure they are current and operationally valid and are applied on a 
gender-neutral basis. Each Service and USSOCOM are conducting thorough 
doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, 
personnel, facilities, and policy analysis to ensure deliberate and 
responsible implementation. This analysis also addresses the social 
science or cultural impacts as needed. However, at this time it is too 
early to draw any conclusions.
    Ms. Tsongas. Will the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) 
require the service branches to recognize and build upon the combat 
experience that current servicewomen gained in Afghanistan and Iraq? 
Will servicewomen who were attached to or otherwise served alongside 
combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq be eligible for leadership 
positions requiring combat specialties? Will the service branches 
develop a plan to enable such women to cross-train and compete for 
leadership positions in combat units? Could OSD build upon the already-
existing ``cadre'' of women with OIF/OEF combat experience by 
encouraging women who were attached to combat units, served in FET/CST/
Lioness and so on to branch transfer or cross-train for newly opening 
leadership positions within previously closed units and even new MOSs? 
Could OSD ask the service branches to do a review and training to 
ensure that promotion boards, briefers, and those in charge of 
assembling the ``cadre'' are trained to recognize the often-hidden 
combat service of women who deployed with FET, attached to combat 
units, and so on? Could OSD send a memo to outline the criteria for 
assembling this cadre?
    Ms. Beyler. The Department believes the Services should explore all 
means to build upon the combat experience women have gained in 
Afghanistan and Iraq.
    The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs guiding principle in regard to 
``cadres'' seeks to provide mid-to-senior grade female leadership for 
women assigned to previously closed positions. Achieving sufficient 
numbers may require an adjustment to recruiting efforts, assignment 
processes, and personnel policies. Assimilation of women into 
heretofore ``closed units'' will be informed by continual in-stride 
assessments and incremental opening efforts. Each Service will develop 
criteria for sufficient cadres for each unique occupational skill as 
positions are opened. Additionally, as effective gender integration 
strategies are identified, through formal analysis the Department will 
ensure the data, lessons learned and best practices are shared across 
the Services. While assignment strategies are evolving, sufficient 
cadres may include senior female personnel that are co-located, but not 
necessarily in the same occupational skill.
    Leadership can be developed in a number of ways. One strategy is to 
place mid-to-senior level female leadership in the same organization, 
or co-located with junior service members assigned to previously closed 
positions. The Services will leverage a number of strategies, based in 
research, analysis and lessons learned, to set service members up for 
success in newly opened positions. A lack of MOS-qualified female 
mentors is not a reason to keep a position closed. No specified number 
of women required for assignment exists. In some cases, one qualified 
female may be sufficient. To entertain a pre-conceived ``critical 
mass'' suggests there is a quota, which would be a disservice to women 
entering these occupations. Since each Service is unique in 
organizational structure and mission, we believe the Services are in 
the best position to determine how to build a sufficient cadre to 
assimilate women into previously closed positions and occupations.
    Regarding promotion boards, the Secretaries of the Military 
Departments convene and provide guidance to officer promotion selection 
boards. Each of the Secretaries gives guidance to these boards to 
recommend the best qualified officers for promotion regardless of their 
gender. This guidance also includes wording on the importance of 
combat, combat related, combat support activities, and nation-building 
experience in our future leaders.
    Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no 
``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the 
point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all 
other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in 
those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient?
    Ms. Beyler. Cadre is one of the five Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
of Staff Guiding Principles and but one of many other considerations 
the Services will factor in as they implement the rescission of the 
Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule. The National 
Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 1994, Section 543, 
specifically provides that the Department may not use a gender quota, 
goal or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law, with regard 
to qualifications of members of the Armed Forces, and for continuance 
of members in open occupational career fields.
    Cadre requirements will vary depending on the needs of the 
Services, the units, and the occupations. We do not envision that cadre 
alone will bar a woman from serving in a specific position.

    Ms. Tsongas. Will the Army expand on its rationale for not opening 
Ranger School in the early phase of its plan? It is well recognized 
that Ranger School is a prestigious leadership training course now 
available only to men in a range of occupational specialties.
    General Bromberg. While the Army has many courses and programs 
designed to provide leader development and training, the primary 
purpose of the Ranger Course is to provide Ranger Qualified Soldiers to 
meet Army Ranger authorization requirements. The training is voluntary 
and completion of the course is not required for service in any of the 
Army's basic Career Management Fields (CMF). Approximately eighty 
percent of the requirements for Ranger Qualified Soldiers are in the 
Infantry or Special Forces Career Management Fields; occupations 
currently closed to females. Therefore, the Army plans to open the 
Ranger Course with the opening the Infantry Career Management Field or 
as expeditiously as possible afterwards in coordination with USSOCOM. 
We will proceed in this deliberate manner to ensure we can capture 
lessons learned from the opening of the basic career management fields. 
This deliberate and informed approach is essential to ensure we 
comprehend the impacts on small unit missions normally associated with 
infantry/ranger squads and platoons, both the physical and cultural 
aspects of integration of it as we go
forward.
    Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no 
``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the 
point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all 
other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in 
those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient?
    General Bromberg. The lack of Military Occupational Specialty 
qualified female mentors is not a criterion to keep a position closed 
and women will not be barred from serving in those positions on the 
grounds that the cadre is insufficient.
    Sufficient cadre can be developed in a number of ways. One strategy 
is to place mid-to-senior level female leadership in the same 
organization, or co-located with junior service members assigned to 
previously closed positions. Assimilation of women into heretofore 
``closed units'' and ``elite positions'' is evolving. The Army will 
leverage a number of strategies, based on research, analysis and 
lessons learned, to set service members up for success in newly opened 
positions.

    Ms. Tsongas. Based on its plan, does the possibility exist that the 
Marine Corps will close previously open units and MOSs?
    General Milstead. All units and MOSs that were open under the 1994 
Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule will remain open to 
women.
    Ms. Tsongas. The Marine Corps plan indicates that observation of 
the performance of a handful of women volunteers, less than 10, in the 
Infantry Officer Course (IOC) is being factored into the decision on 
whether to open previously closed MOSs. What is the purpose of allowing 
entry-level women to volunteer for the IOC course? What research 
organization is conducting this study and what is their research 
methodology? Have the physical tests in the IOC been validated as part 
of an occupational standards review for infantry officers? And, if so, 
can you describe the validation process including how the IOC tasks 
test the validated infantry officer occupational standards?
    General Milstead. To achieve a statistically significant sample 
based on the current female officer population, the Marine Corps 
requires 92 female officer volunteers for IOC. Their documented 
performance at IOC will provide data to leadership to make an informed 
recommendation on the Infantry Officer MOS (0302). Marine Corps' 
Training and Education Command is conducting this research under the 
Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). Women are not selected to 
attend IOC but must volunteer, per HRPP policy guidelines. Female 
lieutenants from each Basic Officer Course (BOC) are presented with two 
separate Informed Consent briefs and opportunities to volunteer; one at 
the beginning of their BOC and a second brief, prior to BOC graduation, 
to `reconfirm' their voluntary status.
    The occupational standards for the Infantry Officer MOS have been 
reviewed and validated. The validated Program of Instruction (POI) for 
IOC trains to, and tests for, the Infantry Officer occupational 
standards.
    All Programs of Instruction and Training and Readiness Manuals 
routinely undergo an established cyclical review to validate and update 
MOS performance standards. The IOC Program of Instruction (POI) was 
reviewed and signed in June 2012 by Training and Education Command 
(TECOM) as part of an established cyclical review (every three years) 
that all POIs and Training and Readiness (T&R) Manuals undergo.
    Ms. Tsongas. The Marine Corps has military occupations that are 
similar to other branches, particularly the Army. In fact the 
occupations are so similar that Marines attend MOS schools that are run 
by the other branches, for example Marines attend the armor school at 
Fort Knox, Kentucky, or the Artillery school at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, or 
the combat diver course at the Navy Diver and Salvage Training Center 
in Panama City, Florida.
    However, the Marine integration plan for these similar occupational 
specialties is strikingly dissimilar to the other Services. For 
example, the Marine plan specifically states (on page 4) that the 
Marines will not open maintainer MOSs until the operator MOSs become 
open, and cites as an example that the 2417 MOS (Light Armored Vehicle 
Repair/Technician) will only open if the 0313 MOS (Light Armored 
Vehicle Crewman) is opened. This is in direct contrast to the Army. The 
Army has already graduated 5 women from their Bradley Fighting Vehicle 
course as Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Maintainers (19M) even though 
the job of a Bradley crew member (19D) remains closed.
    What rationale would allow the Marine Corps to keep women out of 
jobs that are the same or virtually the same as jobs the other Services 
have opened or will open? And how would the Marines maintain the 
interoperability with the other Services that is so critical to the 
accomplishment of their mission?
    General Milstead. In the Marine Corps, the Light Armored Vehicle 
(LAV) maintainers physically deploy with the vehicles and are in the 
fight with the rest of the vehicle crew. In a crisis response mission, 
the maintainers are forward and engaged in the initial fight along with 
the combat vehicle they support. Our other combat vehicle maintainers 
(AAV, Tanks) similarly deploy. Our plan is to consider both the 
operators and maintainers for each combat vehicle at the same time, 
when determining if the occupation should open for females. 
Interoperability with the other Services will not be impacted by the 
gender of the operator or maintainer.
    Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no 
``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the 
point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all 
other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in 
those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient?
    General Milstead. Every unit within the USMC, to include those 
previously closed, currently has open MOS positions in which both male 
and female Marines could potentially serve. Female Marines filling 
these open MOS billets would comprise the requisite ``cadre'' both at 
the schoolhouses and the units to which female Marines qualified in an 
MOS that has previously been closed would be assigned. It will take 
generational growth to generate female Marine leadership in previously 
closed MOS positions.

    Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no 
``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the 
point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all 
other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in 
those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient?
    General Sacolick. USSOCOM will closely examine the Secretary of 
Defense requirement to have cadre at the point of introduction. We are 
studying several courses of action that meet the intent of Secretary of 
Defense while providing professional development opportunities for both 
the women entering previously closed positions and occupations and 
those who will serve as cadre. USSOCOM's expectation is lack of 
sufficient cadre will not be sufficient basis for an exception to 
policy.

    Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no 
``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the 
point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all 
other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in 
those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient?
    General Sweredoski. Navy execution plans will ensure women who 
satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions will not be barred 
from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is 
insufficient.
    The Navy will assign female officers and enlisted personnel already 
qualified within their specialty to newly opened platforms and units 
before lower ranking enlisted women are integrated. Navy's integration 
policy ensures an experienced or warfare qualified female officer shall 
be on board prior to integration of junior officer or enlisted women, 
and a minimum of one female Chief Petty Officer shall be on board prior 
to junior enlisted women. The experienced or warfare qualified female 
officer and female Chief Petty Officer shall be voluntarily assigned 
through routine assignment policy.

    Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no 
``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the 
point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all 
other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in 
those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient?
    General Grosso. The Air Force through its normal assignment process 
will ensure there is female leadership presence (enlisted and officer) 
in support cadre, training pipelines and operational units. While 
assignment strategies are evolving, sufficient cadre may include senior 
female personnel that are co-located, but not necessarily in the same 
occupational skill (i.e. First Sergeant, Medical Technician, etc.).
    If there are women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite 
positions, they will not be barred from serving in those positions. A 
lack of qualified female mentors is not criterion to keep a position 
closed.
                                 ______
                                 
                   QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING
    Dr. Fleming. With the DOD essentially eliminating the definition of 
combat on which the Court relied in making its decision--a lawsuit has 
already been filed in the lower courts--I want to know what timeline 
the DOD sees on this as it moves forward in implementation.
    Ms. Beyler. [The information was not available at the time of 
printing.]
    Dr. Fleming. A) Is it the official policy of the Pentagon and the 
Administration that women should be included in the selective service, 
i.e. subject to the draft, to serve in combat arms? If so, how will 
that impact readiness? B) Can you explain how the Department is going 
to review this as it considers the applicability of the 1981 Supreme 
Court decision? Are there a certain number of positions that need to be 
opened or is it more the type of positions to be opened that would make 
women similarly situated and therefore potentially required to register 
under the Selective Service Act, and therefore, to be drafted?
    Ms. Beyler. The Department believes there would be merit in an 
assessment of the Military Selective Service Act, to include a thorough 
review of the statutes and polices surrounding the current registration 
process and the registration of women. The Department believes such a 
review involves a much broader National discussion and should not be 
solely conducted by DOD. The Department stands ready to assist in any 
such review.
    Dr. Fleming. In February 2012, the DOD released a report to 
Congress on the Women in Services Review. I understand a lot of work 
was done at the service level on this report and would like to review 
the specific data collected by the Services in completing the review, 
such as the experience gained by the Marine Corps from assigning women 
to certain positions. In fact, there was language passed this year in 
the House NDAA that would require the DOD to present these findings. 
Does the Department have plans to provide Congress with the data 
collected at the service level? Will you provide the Committee with 
that data?
    Ms. Beyler. The Department conducted an internal administrative 
review to identify the laws, policies and regulations that restrict the 
service of female members of the Armed Forces. In addition to the 
administrative review to identify restrictive laws, policy and 
regulations, the Department consulted with the RAND Corporation, which 
conducted research to assess the equitable opportunity for women to 
compete and excel in the Armed Forces. Although the reports weren't 
publically available at the time of the Department's delivery of the 
2012 Report to Congress, RAND subsequently released its report 
entitled, ``The Extent of Restrictions on the Service of Active 
Component Military Women'' and ``A New Look at Gender and Minority 
Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military,'' which are 
now both publically available.

                                  
