Physically Demanding Jobs: Services Have Little Data on Ability of
Personnel to Perform (Letter Report, 07/09/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-169).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the use and
development of gender-neutral occupational performance standards in the
military services, focusing on how the services implement and evaluate
standards.
GAO found that: (1) each service takes a different approach to screening
members' physical fitness; (2) the Air Force is the only service that
requires new recruits to take a strength aptitude test; (3) the Air
Force uses the results to qualify individuals for their military
occupations; (4) the services believe that their approaches to assigning
members to physically demanding tasks are appropriate, because they
receive few complaints from members about such tasks; (5) the services
have few data to assess a members' capability to perform tasks; (6) the
Army has systematically collected physical performance data since 1989;
(7) the data show that at least 84 percent of the Army members had no
problems in completing their tasks; (8) a 1994-1995 survey determined
that 51 to 79 percent of members have no problem in completing
physically demanding tasks; and (9) the validity of the Air Force's
strength aptitude test is questionable because of concerns about the
administration, accuracy, and relevance of the tests' physical
requirements.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-96-169
TITLE: Physically Demanding Jobs: Services Have Little Data on
Ability of Personnel to Perform
DATE: 07/09/96
SUBJECT: Military training
Military personnel
Women
Medical examinations
Standards evaluation
Testing
Military forces
Personnel classification
IDENTIFIER: Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Committee
on National Security, House of Representatives
July 1996
PHYSICALLY DEMANDING JOBS -
SERVICES HAVE LITTLE DATA ON
ABILITY OF PERSONNEL TO PERFORM
GAO/NSIAD-96-169
Physically Demanding Jobs
(703116)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
ARI - Army Research Institute
ASVAB - Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
DOD - Department of Defense
TRADOC - Training and Doctrine Command
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-272083
July 9, 1996
The Honorable Robert K. Dornan
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel
Committee on National Security
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As you requested, we reviewed the use and development of
gender-neutral occupational performance standards in the military.
Specifically, we (1) determined the military services' approaches to
implementing gender-neutral performance standards and screening
servicemembers to ensure that they can meet the physical demands of
their occupations, (2) determined how the military services
identified the extent to which servicemembers had problems in
accomplishing the physical demands of their jobs, and (3) evaluated
the Air Force's implementation of its strength aptitude testing
program.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Each of the services has taken a different approach to screening
servicemembers for physically demanding occupations. The Air Force
is the only service that requires all new recruits to take a strength
aptitude test--which consists of lifting weights on a single weight
machine--and uses the results to qualify individuals for their
military occupations. Until 1990, the Army required recruits to take
a virtually identical strength test but used the results only to
counsel recruits about the physical requirements of their desired
military occupations. The Navy and the Marine Corps have not adopted
occupational strength testing as a means of screening new recruits
for physically demanding occupations.
In an April 1995 report to Congress,\1
the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps reported that they had
experienced good results with their approaches to matching
servicemembers to physically demanding occupations or had encountered
few problems; the Army was silent about its results. According to
Department of Defense (DOD) and Army officials, the services based
their conclusions on the absence of complaints from servicemembers
that they were having problems completing physically demanding tasks.
However, the services have little data on which to base their
conclusions. We found that only the Army had systematically
collected physical performance data since 1989 in 21 occupations and
concluded that 59 to 84 percent of servicemembers in 7 selected
surveyed occupations had no problems completing physically demanding
tasks. A 1994-95 data collection for 10 of 267 occupations
(including 6 of the same occupations reported in the 1989 data
collection) found 51 to 79 percent of servicemembers had no problems
completing physically demanding tasks.
The Air Force strength aptitude test, or an earlier version of it,
has been in use since 1976. However, questions about the current
test's effectiveness in predicting capability to do physically
demanding tasks, problems in the administration of the test to new
recruits, and delays in updating occupational requirements raise
concerns about whether the test is used correctly, or is even useful.
--------------------
\1 Gender Neutral Standards, Report to the House Committee on
National Security, Senate Committee on Armed Services, and House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), April 1995.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
In fiscal year 1980, of the more than 2 million servicemembers on
active duty, over 170,000 (8.4 percent) were women. Congressional
action and DOD policymaking lifted the prohibition on women serving
in positions in combat aviation, aboard combatant vessels,\2 and in
ground units (brigade level and above) and DOD's new definition of
combat jobs\3 opened over 259,000 additional military positions to
women servicemembers since April 1993. By December 1995, the number
of women serving on active duty had risen to over 191,000 (about 12.8
percent of the approximately 1.5 million servicemembers). At the
time of our report, DOD had opened over 80 percent of all positions
to all servicemembers, ranging from a low of 62 percent of positions
open to women in the Marine Corps to a high of over 99 percent of
positions open to women in the Air Force.
Section 543 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization
Act required the services to adopt gender-neutral occupational
performance standards and defined those as being work standards that
are common, relevant, and not based on gender. The act also required
the services to adopt physical performance standards for any
occupation in which DOD determined that strength, endurance, or
stamina was essential to the performance of duties. The DOD General
Counsel later determined that the services were not required to have
physical standards for any occupation but that if such standards did
exist they would have to be applied on a gender-neutral basis for any
occupation open to both men and women.
The services use a variety of pre-enlistment, job classification, and
retention screening devices to select qualified candidates for
military service. For example, pre-enlistment screens include
requirements that recruits score at or above a specified minimum on a
cognitive test and be within a certain height or weight range. Other
standards may be occupation-specific, such as requiring recruits
entering electronics occupations to demonstrate aptitude in the field
of electronics.
--------------------
\2 The Fiscal Year 1992 and 1993 National Defense Authorization Act
repealed 10 U.S.C. section 8549, lifting the prohibition on women
serving aboard combat aircraft, and the Fiscal Year 1994 National
Defense Authorization Act repealed 10 U.S.C section 6015, lifting the
prohibition on women serving aboard combat ships.
\3 Based on a policy memorandum from the Secretary of Defense
(January 13, 1994), DOD excludes female servicemembers from units
below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct
combat on the ground. DOD defined ground combat as "engaging an
enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while
being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct
physical contact with the hostile force's personnel."
MILITARY SERVICES DIFFER IN HOW
THEY CLASSIFY RECRUITS FOR
PHYSICALLY DEMANDING JOBS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
DOD has left it to the services to determine how to classify
servicemembers into physically demanding occupations. The Air Force
is the only service that requires recruits to take a strength
aptitude test. Each Air Force enlisted occupation is categorized
into one of eight strength categories, and recruits' test scores are
used to screen them for their military occupations. The other
services permit virtually any recruit to fill nearly all physically
demanding occupations provided they meet cognitive, height/weight,
and other standards unrelated to strength capacity and restrict women
only from occupations closed by combat exclusion policies.
In 1976, we recommended that DOD develop standards for measuring
recruits' ability to meet strength, stamina, and operational
requirements because we found that some servicemembers were unable to
do physically demanding tasks.\4 In response, the Army categorized
each enlisted occupational specialty into one of five categories
based on physical demand. It required new recruits to take a
strength test using the "incremental lifting machine," a
weight-lifting machine developed and used by the Air Force. The Army
concluded that although the test helped to better match recruits'
physical capabilities to requirements of physically demanding
occupations, it also prevented more women than men from serving in
certain occupations. Consequently, test results were used only to
counsel applicants about job assignments. The Army discontinued the
test in 1990.
In the 1970s, the Air Force adopted an earlier version of the test
and by 1987 categorized each of its enlisted occupations into one of
eight physical demand categories. The Air Force currently requires
all recruits to take the strength aptitude test at a military
entrance processing station. The test requires recruits to lift
weights on the incremental lifting machine starting at 40 pounds; the
weight is then increased in 10-pound increments until the recruit (1)
cannot complete a lift, (2) asks to stop, or (3) lifts 110 pounds
(the maximum for any occupation in the Air Force). An Air Force
counselor uses the results to match recruits to occupations based on
the eight physical demand categories and screens out applicants who
the test results indicate would have difficulty performing physically
demanding jobs.
The Navy considered using a strength test to screen applicants for
entry into physically demanding military occupations and concluded
that more women than men would have been excluded from such jobs.
The Navy concluded, however, that women were already meeting the
physical demands of their occupations and, for that reason, did not
implement its test or categorize its occupations by physical demand.
Similarly, the Marine Corps has not adopted an occupationally based
strength test or categorized its occupations by physical demand.
--------------------
\4 Job Opportunities for Women in the Military: Progress and
Problems (GAO/FPCD-76-26, May 11, 1976).
THE SERVICES HAVE LITTLE DATA
TO ASSESS CAPABILITY TO PERFORM
PHYSICALLY DEMANDING TASKS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Except for the Army, the services have not collected data on
servicemembers' ability to do physically demanding jobs and have
little basis on which to conclude that servicemembers are not having
problems. We are concerned that some servicemembers may have
difficulty doing some physically demanding tasks based on the results
of a limited survey conducted by the Army Research Institute (ARI)
and anecdotal information we obtained in interviews with
servicemembers. However, given limitations on the ARI survey and our
interviews, we were not able to assess the significance of the
problem.
In 1989, 1994, and 1995, ARI surveyed servicemembers\5 in selected
Army occupations. In 1989, ARI surveyed 21 combat and noncombat
occupations and found that 59 to 84 percent of male and female
servicemembers in
7 selected noncombat occupations reported no difficulty in lifting
objects. In the 1994-95 follow-on survey of 10 of 267 occupations,
ARI found that
51 to 79 percent of servicemembers reported no difficulty in lifting
objects in some of the same occupations as those looked at in the
1989 survey. Because the surveys did not address the significance of
the problem and rely on self-reported data, the results must be used
with caution. On the other hand, the results also suggest that the
Army may have servicemembers who have had difficulty doing physical
tasks.
The other services have not done any systematic assessment of the
capability of their personnel to perform the physically demanding
aspects of their jobs. According to DOD and Army officials, the
services rely upon the absence of complaints filtering up from
operational units as an indicator that widespread performance
problems do not exist. Supervisory personnel we spoke with, however,
indicated that they would work around\6 individual performance
capability problems or redistribute tasks and that it was unlikely
such information would be channeled to higher levels unless
widespread problems were encountered.
Our discussions with about 100 Army personnel in 5 occupational
specialties (2 of which were used in ARI's survey) anecdotally
supported ARI's finding that some soldiers were having difficulty
completing some physically demanding tasks. In addition, in
discussions with over
300 military personnel in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine
Corps, some individuals stated that at one time or another, they had
difficulty with some aspect of their job. Given the limited number
of personnel we interviewed and the limited number of military
specialties we reviewed, we were unable to determine whether such
problems were widespread.
All four services told us that they have the capability and
infrastructure already in place to collect data on physical demands
of occupations at little or no additional cost. Each of the services
has ongoing processes through which they can identify occupational
tasks in each specialty in order to revise training curriculums and
which they use for other reasons. However, the services do not
collect data on the physical demands of jobs with these processes.
Surveys, identification of physically demanding tasks, or other data
collection efforts, could be used as a first step in identifying
occupations in which servicemembers have difficulty and can identify
occupations that are candidates for reengineering to reduce the
physical demands placed on servicemembers. For example, the Army
Research Laboratory has a pilot reengineering project underway that
attempts to identify opportunities to reengineer selected occupations
to reduce the physical demands and enhance job sustainment, safety,
and personnel utilization. In addition, the Air Force has a number
of reengineering studies underway.
Systematic data collection on physically demanding tasks could be
used to develop occupation-specific physical strength training. For
example, the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has
commissioned the Army's Research Institute of Environmental Medicine
to develop a database of physically demanding tasks in Army
occupations. TRADOC is considering using the database to establish
specific physical strength training to help servicemembers meet the
physical demands of their jobs.
According to DOD, current training consists of classroom training
that tends to be less physically oriented than on-the-job training.
Once in their duty assignments, servicemembers continue their
on-the-job training. According to DOD, training standards are based
on tasks, duties, and knowledge required to perform in an occupation
and men and women are held to the same standards.
--------------------
\5 ARI briefing, Physical Performance Research Update, October 1995.
\6 According to servicemembers we spoke with, one or more other
servicemembers would work together to complete a task that was too
demanding for one person to do. Servicemembers we spoke with
considered this approach realistic as long as sufficient numbers of
personnel were available to lend assistance.
THE AIR FORCE STRENGTH APTITUDE
TEST PROGRAM MAY NOT BE VALID
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
The Air Force is the only service that uses strength aptitude testing
as a prerequisite for entry into specific military occupations. Air
Force recruits take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
(ASVAB) and must pass a physical given at a military entrance
processing station. If they pass the physical, recruits then take
the strength aptitude test, and their scores are recorded in their
medical records. Finally, recruits meet with an Air Force counselor
who matches them to a military occupation based on the ASVAB and
strength aptitude test scores, their interests, and the needs of the
Air Force. However, Army, Navy, and independent research raises
questions about the predictive validity of the test currently used by
the Air Force, and we found several problems with implementation of
the Air Force testing program.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS THE
VALIDITY OF TEST RESULTS
OBTAINED WITH THE
INCREMENTAL LIFTING MACHINE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Since 1982, at least nine studies have been published or presented
that raise questions about the validity of the incremental lifting
machine test as a predictor of performance in military occupations,
particularly if the test is relied upon as the sole measure of
predicted performance.
-- A 1982 study sponsored by the Air Force reported that the
incremental lifting machine was the best single predictor of
task performance. The result was based upon transformation of
the combined male and female scores that minimized the
differences in those scores but resulted in giving the
appearance of improving the predictive power of the incremental
lifting machine beyond the experimental results.\7
-- A 1984 study done for the Army\8 found that the incremental
lifting machine was a good predictor of a set of Army simulated
occupational tasks, accounting for 67 percent of the explanation
of scores on the tasks. However, the study misstated the
relationship because it combined significantly different male
and female lifting scores to determine the predictive power of
the incremental lifting machine scores. When we examined the
reported scores by gender, the correlation of the incremental
lifting machine with each simulated task was considerably lower
for male and female scores than reported for the aggregated
score.
-- A 1985 Navy study\9 stated that combining male and female
incremental lifting machine scores would involve making an
assumption that male and female scores are evenly distributed
throughout the entire group, a tenuous assumption according to
the text. By using separate male and female scores, the study
compared 7 strength test measures, including
3 different incremental lifting machine lifts, with 19 shipboard
tasks and concluded that "some of the best correlates of
shipboard performance are the armpull, ergometer, and body
weight," which are 3 nonincremental lifting machine measures.
-- A 1985 study conducted by the Army's Research Institute of
Environmental Medicine found that women tended to be shorter
than men and thus were required to spend relatively more time
lifting with their upper body than males and consequently scored
lower in tests using the incremental lifting machine (given that
women tend to have less upper body strength than men, according
to this and other research). On the other hand, the study found
that an alternate strength test that focused more on the use of
the lower body produced female scores that were closer to those
of males in the study population.\10
-- An ARI study in 1993\11 concluded that variables such as job
performance and the Army's physical readiness test were not
strongly related to scores on the incremental lifting machine.
According to the study, the Army should not place great
confidence in the use of a single lifting test as a selection
measure of physical fitness and should consider a more
comprehensive approach to physical screening.
-- A Canadian research team produced four sequential studies since
1990\12
and concluded that gender differences in incremental lifting machine
scores and box-lifting tasks were heightened by an incremental
lifting machine test protocol prohibiting subjects from moving their
feet or shifting their weight to achieve a more comfortable lifting
posture. When subjects were allowed to lift in their most
comfortable method, they could lift heavier boxes. For female
subjects, the incremental lifting machine score became less related
to their box-lifting scores as the constraints were relaxed.
--------------------
\7 Ayoub et al., Establishing Physical Criteria for Assigning
Personnel to U.S. Air Force Jobs, 1982.
\8 Myers et al., Validation of the Military Entrance Physical
Strength Capacity Test, January 1984.
\9 Robertson et al., Documentation of Muscularly Demanding Job Tasks
and Validation of an Occupational Strength Test Battery, November
1985.
\10 Teves et al., Performance on Selected Candidate Screening Test
Procedures Before and After Army Basic and Advanced Individual
Training, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine,
June 1985.
\11 Elizabeth J. Brady and Michael G. Rumsey, Physical Performance
in Army Enlisted MOS Revisited, Presentation to the Military Testing
Association, November 1993.
\12 J. Stevenson et al., "The Effect of Lifting Protocol on
Comparisons with Isoinertial Lifting Performance," Ergonomics, 1990;
J. Stevenson et al., "Dynamic Analysis of Isoinertial Lifting
Technique," Ergonomics, 1990; J. Stevenson et al., "Development of
Factor-Score-Based Models to Explain and Predict Maximal Box-Lifting
Performance," Ergonomics, 1995; and J. Stevenson et al., "Gender
Differences in Performance of a Selection Test Using the Incremental
Lifting Machine," Applied Ergonomics, 1996.
RECRUITS ARE NOT TESTED TO
THEIR FULL POTENTIAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
Many recruits that took the strength aptitude test at a military
entrance processing station scored lower during their initial tests
than they did when retested during basic military training. For
example, our analysis of data provided by the Air Force showed that
between December 1995 and February 1996, 244 females were retested
during the second week of basic military training and lifted an
average of nearly 18 pounds more than they did initially; the 211
males' average increase was nearly 15 pounds. Of the 455 recruits
who retested, 3 lifted 10 percent more, and all but 10 lifted from
about 11 percent to 120-percent more or an average of 23.3 percent
more (10 lifted less). A study conducted by the Air Force concluded
that servicemembers who engaged in physical training programs of
about
9 weeks increased arm strength by just 6 percent.\13 According to Air
Force officials, nearly all of another approximately 3,900 recruits
retested at basic military training between April 1994 and November
1995 also scored higher, although individual scores were not readily
available.
According to the researcher who oversees the strength aptitude
program, some increases in test scores are attributable to increased
motivation on the part of the recruit at basic training or by
permitting recruits to adopt a lifting technique not in accordance
with the test protocol. However, the researcher concluded that
neither increased motivation nor a change in the test protocol can
explain the magnitude of the increase we found.
Because nearly all of those who retook the strength aptitude test
scored higher, we question the validity of the scores of recruits who
were not given an opportunity to retake the test. With the exception
of those who initially lifted 110 pounds (the maximum weight
requirement for any Air Force occupation), the Air Force cannot
ensure that everyone else has also been tested to their full
potential.
--------------------
\13 McDaniel et al., Weight Lift Capabilities of Air Force Basic
Trainees, May 1983.
PHYSICAL STRENGTH STANDARDS
FOR MOST AIR FORCE
SPECIALTIES HAVE NOT BEEN
UPDATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
According to the researcher who oversees the strength aptitude
program, occupational specialty strength standards must be kept
current to maintain the program's validity. However, since 1986, the
Air Force has updated the strength standards for only 12 specialties.
In addition, 16 more were being resurveyed at the time of our report.
For the remaining Air Force specialties, strength standards are based
on data gathered between 1978 and 1982. According to the researcher,
unless something in the job changes, the strength standard is still
current. We were unable to evaluate whether changes may have been
made in any of the remaining 227 Air Force specialties because the
original data is stored on computer tape in a format not readable by
computers now in use in the Air Force. We were told that a
contractor might be able to convert the data to readable form, but
the task could be costly and potentially time-consuming.
According to a 1995 Air Force Aerospace Armstrong Medical Laboratory
memorandum, the strength requirement should be resurveyed whenever
two or more occupations with different strength standards are merged.
However, since October 1993, the Air Force has merged or split
11 occupations within differing strength categories. In addition,
the researcher who oversees the strength aptitude program has
identified another 11 specialties that also need to be resurveyed.
As a result, the Air Force has not determined the current strength
requirement for 22 merged, split, or changed occupations. The Air
Force will run the risk of denying servicemembers' entry into
occupations based on invalid or outdated strength requirements in
those merged occupations that have not been resurveyed.
RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Because the services have little systemically collected data on the
ability of servicemembers to meet the physical demands of
occupational tasks, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense
require the services to assess whether a significant problem exists
in physically demanding occupations and identify solutions, if
needed. Such solutions could include redesigning job tasks to reduce
the physical demands, providing additional training, or establishing
valid performance standards to enhance job sustainment, safety, and
personnel utilization.
Given the questions concerning the validity of the strength aptitude
test and the implementation problems we found, we recommend that the
Secretary of the Air Force reassess the use of the strength aptitude
test as a means of predicting future performance in physically
demanding occupations.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with
our findings and recommendations. In response to our first
recommendation, DOD stated that it will direct the services to (1)
collect data systematically on job performance difficulties and (2)
focus on physically demanding occupations with a history of
strength-related injuries and occupations recently opened to women.
We are concerned, however, that such a narrow focus will not identify
all occupations where problems exist. First, because supervisory
personnel told us they may assign persons having difficulty to
lighter tasks, occupations where servicemembers are having difficulty
may not necessarily lead to a higher incidence of strength-related
injuries. Working around a problem may prevent injuries, thus
limiting the usefulness of medical data for DOD's purpose. Second,
if DOD focuses only on occupations recently opened to women, it may
overlook strength-related performance problems in occupations open
only to men. DOD needs to review all physically demanding
occupations and use appropriate data in its study.
In its response to our second recommendation, DOD stated that it will
(1) make every effort to comply with generally accepted professional
standards for test development and implementation and (2) direct the
Air Force to continue its "periodic validation efforts." However,
while the Air Force may have attempted to validate the strength
aptitude test periodically, our review did not disclose any study
that demonstrated that the incremental lifting machine test had
predictive validity.
DOD's comments are reprinted in appendix I. DOD also provided
several technical corrections that we have incorporated into the text
of our report as appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
We reviewed DOD's 1995 report to Congress on gender-neutral
performance standards; service orders, regulations, and manuals; and
research studies undertaken within the services and by independent
researchers. We interviewed officials and obtained documents from
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Accessions Policy) and met
with officials from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the
Services in Washington, D.C.
To complete our work with the Army, we interviewed officials and
obtained documents from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Office of the Deputy Chief of
Staff for Personnel, Personnel Command, Training and Doctrine
Command, Combined Arms Support Command, Army Transportation Center,
Army Research Institute, Army Research Laboratory, and Army Research
Institute of Environmental Medicine.
To complete our review of the Navy, we met with officials from the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve
Affairs); Bureau of Naval Personnel, including the Special Assistant
for Women's Policy; the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet; the Naval
Manpower Analysis Center; and the Center for Naval Education and
Training.
To complete our Air Force work, we met with officials of the
Headquarters of the Air Force (Directorate of Military Personnel
Policy), the Air Force Personnel Center, the Air Force Recruiting
Service, the Air Force Education and Training Command, the Armstrong
Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, the Occupational Measurements
Squadron, and the Military Entrance Processing Command, which
administers the strength aptitude test for the Air Force. We also
interviewed officials and observed Air Force recruits taking the
strength aptitude test at the Military Entrance Processing Stations
in Baltimore, Maryland, and Richmond, Virginia.
To complete our Marine Corps work, we met with officials of the
Office of Accessions Policy and Combat Development Command.
To assess whether the services have a system for identifying
demanding tasks that exceed servicemembers' physical capabilities to
perform them and identify difficult tasks, we observed activities and
met over 400 service personnel employed as instructors, students,
operational unit commanders, and enlisted personnel at Forts Eustis
and Lee in Virginia; Fort Bragg, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry
Point, Camp Lejeune, and Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North
Carolina; Lackland Air Force Base in Texas; Fort Leonard Wood in
Missouri; Naval Air Station Memphis in Tennessee; and aboard the
aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis. As agreed with your office,
we concentrated on the occupational areas of bridge engineer, food
service specialist, aviation ordnance, and motor transport.
We conducted our work from November 1995 to June 1996 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the
Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine
Corps; the Executive Director, Defense Advisory Committee on Women in
the Services; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If
you have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)
512-5140.
Sincerely yours,
Mark E. Gebicke
Director, Military Operations and
Capabilities Issues
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================== Letter
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Sharon A. Cekala
William E. Beusse
Brian J. Lepore
Martin E. Scire
Arthur L. James, Jr.
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ernie E. Jackson
NORFOLK FIELD OFFICE
Lawrence E. Dixon
Janine M. Cantin
Sharon L. Reid
Paul A. Gvoth, Jr.
*** End of document. ***