Gender Issues: Analysis of Promotion and Career Opportunities Data
(Letter Report, 05/26/98, GAO/NSIAD-98-157).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed whether the military
was selecting women and men at similar rates for: (1) promotion; (2)
professional military education; and (3) key assignments.

GAO noted that: (1) its analysis of the combined promotion, professional
military education, and key assignment data for the services between
fiscal years 1993 and 1997 showed that the military selected men and
women at similar rates; (2) however, when the data for promotions,
professional military education, and key assignments are viewed on a
service-by-service basis, the results, in some cases, vary significantly
from the aggregate data; (3) the military as a whole selected men and
women for promotion to the top three non-flag officer and enlisted
grades at similar rates in about 82 percent of the promotion boards or
examinations reviewed; (4) for the remaining instances, 15 percent were
in favor of women, and 3 percent were in favor of men; (5) only the Army
had more significant differences in favor of men; (6) when the data for
the four services were combined, the military selected men and women for
professional military education opportunities at basically similar rates
in about 46 percent of the board or decentralized selections; (7) the
remaining 54 percent of the selections slightly favored women, 29 to 25
percent; (8) however, when the data were analyzed service by service,
the Army and Navy had more significant differences in favor of men,
while the Marine Corps and the Air Force had higher numbers of
significant differences in favor of women; (9) for key assignment
selections, the military as a whole selected men and women at similar
rates in about 53 percent of the board or decentralized selections; (10)
for the remaining selections where there were significant differences in
selection rates, 32 percent were in favor of men, and 15 percent were in
favor of women; (11) the Air Force and the Navy had higher instances of
significant differences in favor of men, while the Army had slightly
more significant differences in favor of women; (12) the Marine Corps
had no instances of significant differences for key assignment
opportunities; (13) the existence of significant differences does not
necessarily mean they are the result of discrimination; and (14) many
factors can contribute to significant differences and further analysis
would be required to determine the cause of the significant differences.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-98-157
     TITLE:  Gender Issues: Analysis of Promotion and Career 
             Opportunities Data
      DATE:  05/26/98
   SUBJECT:  Sex discrimination
             Women
             Military promotions
             Hiring policies
             Fair employment programs
             Military officers
             Enlisted personnel
             Military training
IDENTIFIER:  DOD Equal Opportunity Program
             
******************************************************************
** 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 Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S.  Senate

May 1998

GENDER ISSUES - ANALYSIS OF
PROMOTION AND CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
DATA

GAO/NSIAD-98-157

Gender Issues

(703241)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BOOST - Broadened Opportunities for Officer Selection and Training
  DOD - Department of Defense
  MEOA - Military Equal Opportunity Assessments
  PME - professional military education

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279797

May 26, 1998

The Honorable Charles S.  Robb
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Readiness
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

Dear Senator Robb: 

In 1993 and 1994, changes in policy and legislation\1 opened more
than 250,000 positions in the armed services to women.  Currently, 90
percent of the services' career fields and 80 percent of the
services' approximately 1,425,000 positions are open to women. 
Recent studies have highlighted differing perceptions of the
treatment of men and women who serve in the military.  For example,
an Army report on sexual harassment\2 stated that about half of the
Army women surveyed thought that men have an advantage over women
when it comes to having a successful military career while only about
20 percent of the men agreed with this statement.  Another study\3
reported 50 percent of the Army women surveyed believed that the
Department of Defense (DOD) policy limiting women's participation in
combat had hurt promotion opportunities for enlisted women.  In that
same survey, 61 percent of female Army officers and 49 percent of
female noncommissioned officers believed that this policy had hurt
promotion opportunities for women officers in the Army. 

Because of the variety of perceptions regarding men and women in the
military, you asked us to determine whether the military was
selecting women and men at similar rates for (1) promotion, (2)
professional military education (PME), and (3) key assignments.\4

To determine if selection rates for promotions, PME, and key
assignments were similar, we used service-provided data for the
active-duty force for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and applied a
rule of thumb test developed by the federal agencies responsible for
equal employment opportunity enforcement.  Under this test, a
selection rate for a subgroup that is less than four-fifths (or 80
percent) of the rate for the group with the highest selection rate is
considered a significantly different rate.  For this report, the two
subgroups being compared are men and women. 


--------------------
\1 The fiscal year 1992-93 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 
102-190 (Dec.  5, 1991), lifted the ban on the assignment of women to
combat aircraft.  The fiscal year 1994 National Defense Authorization
Act, P.L.  103-160 (Nov.  30, 1993), lifted the ban on the assignment
of women to combat ships. 

\2 U.S.  Army, Senior Review Panel Report on Sexual Harassment,
Volume II, page A-31, July 1997. 

\3 Miller, Laura, "Feminism and the Exclusion of Army Women from
Combat," Working Paper No.  2, Project on U.S.  Post-Cold War
Civil-Military Relations:  John M.  Olin Institute for Strategic
Studies, Harvard University, 1995, page 12. 

\4 The services define key assignments to include command
opportunities as well as opportunities to serve as executive officers
or senior enlisted advisors. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Our analysis of the promotion, professional military education, and
key assignment data for the services between fiscal year 1993 and
1997 showed that the military selected men and women for promotion at
similar rates over 80 percent of the time and selected men and women
for professional military education and key assignments at similar
rates approximately half of the time.  However, when the data for
promotions, professional military education, and key assignments are
viewed on a service-by-service basis, the results, in some cases,
vary significantly from the aggregate data.  Appendix I provides more
data on the services' aggregate data. 

The military as a whole selected men and women for promotion to the
top three non-flag officer and enlisted grades at similar rates in
about 82 percent of the promotion boards or examinations reviewed. 
For the remaining instances, 15 percent were in favor of women, and 3
percent were in favor of men.  Only the Army had more significant
differences in favor of men.  Of 30 Army promotion selections, 5 had
significant differences, and 3 of these were in favor of men. 
Appendix II provides details on promotions by rank, gender, and
service. 

When the data for the four services were combined, the military
selected men and women for professional military education
opportunities at basically similar rates in about 46 percent of the
board or decentralized selections.  The remaining 54 percent of the
selections slightly favored women, 29 to 25 percent.  However, when
the data was analyzed service by service, the Army and the Navy had
more significant differences in favor of men, while the Marine Corps
and the Air Force had higher numbers of significant differences in
favor of women.  (See app.  III for additional information on the
selection of men and women for professional military education
opportunities.)

For key assignment selections, the military as a whole selected men
and women at similar rates in about 53 percent of the board or
decentralized selections.  For the remaining selections where there
were significant differences in selection rates, 32 percent were in
favor of men, and 15 percent were in favor of women.  The Air Force
and the Navy had higher instances of significant differences in favor
of men, while the Army had slightly more significant differences in
favor of women.  The Marine Corps had no instances of significant
differences for key assignment opportunities.  Appendix IV provides
more details on the selection rates for key assignments. 

The existence of significant differences does not necessarily mean
they are the result of discrimination.  Many factors can contribute
to significant differences and further analyses would be required to
determine the causes of the significant differences. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The role of women in the military has changed dramatically over the
years.  For example, women were not allowed to constitute more than 2
percent of the total enlisted force or be promoted beyond the rank of
lieutenant colonel until 1967.  In 1993 and 1994, significant changes
in legislation and policy occurred that allowed women to fly combat
aircraft, serve on combat ships, and liberalized the assignment
policy for women.  Under the current policy, women can be assigned to
all positions for which they are qualified, except for those
positions below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage
in direct combat on the ground.  This direct ground combat exclusion
policy impacts job opportunities in the Army and the Marine Corps
more so than in the Air Force and the Navy. 

Women now comprise about 14 percent of the armed forces.  The
percentages vary among the services from about 5 percent for the
Marine Corps, 13 percent for the Navy, 15 percent for the Army, and
17 percent for the Air Force.  Table 1 shows the number of men and
women in the services at the end of fiscal year 1997. 



                                Table 1
                
                Number of Women and Men in the Military
                Services at the End of Fiscal Year 1997

                                  Total number
                                            of
                                  servicemembe   Number of   Number of
Service                                     rs       women         men
--------------------------------  ------------  ----------  ----------
Air Force                              373,357      65,176     308,181
Army                                   487,812      72,238     415,574
Marine Corps                           173,976       9,286     164,690
Navy                                   390,477      49,110     341,367
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Service Fiscal Year 1997 Military Equal Opportunity
Assessment Reports. 

Uniformed members of the armed forces are not covered by the same
equal employment opportunity laws as the general public.\5 However,
in 1969 and in 1994, DOD issued a Human Goals Charter that became the
basis for its equal opportunity program.  The charter states that DOD
is to strive to provide everyone in the military the opportunity to
rise to as high a level of responsibility as possible based only on
individual talent and diligence.  The charter also states that DOD
should strive to ensure that equal opportunity programs are an
integral part of readiness and to make the military a model of equal
opportunity for all, regardless of race, color, sex, religion, or
national origin. 

Our November 1995 report entitled, Military Equal Opportunity: 
Certain Trends in Racial and Gender Data May Warrant Further Analysis
(GAO/NSIAD-96-17, Nov.  17, 1995), examined military equal
opportunity reports for fiscal years 1989 through 1993.  We found
that women were being promoted at slightly higher rates than men in
all of the services but were receiving fewer key assignment
opportunities in the Air Force and the Navy.  We did not analyze data
for professional military education in that review. 


--------------------
\5 See Randall vs.  U.S., 95 F.3d 339 (4th Cir.  1996) (holding that
title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to uniformed
members of the armed forces). 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

We provided a draft of this report to the Office of the Secretary of
Defense, the Army, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. 
All the services orally concurred with our report.  Additionally, the
Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps provided technical
corrections, which we incorportated as appropriate. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

A 1995 DOD directive and related instruction require that the
services prepare annual Military Equal Opportunity Assessments (MEOA)
to help ensure equal opportunity in the services.\6 In preparing
their MEOAs, the services collect, assess, and report gender and
racial data in 10 categories.  Among the categories the services
collect data for are promotions, key assignments, and PME
opportunities.  The services do not report all of the promotions in
the MEOAs.  They report those promotions that are obtained in what
the services considered the normal length of time.  The promotion
data included in the MEOA reports constitute the majority of all
promotions.  In addition, the services do not always report the same
officer promotion data in their MEOA reports.  For example, the Army
and the Air Force do not include promotions of doctors, nurses,
medical corp personnel, lawyers, and chaplains in their MEOA reports. 
The Navy and the Marine Corp do. 

To determine whether the military was promoting, selecting
professional military education, and selecting key assignments for
women and men at similar rates, we obtained and analyzed MEOAs from
fiscal years 1993 to 1997.  We then discussed the MEOA data on
promotions, PME, and key assignments with officials from the Office
of Secretary of Defense, Office of Military Equal Opportunity; the
Air Force Directorate of Civilian Personnel, Policy, Personnel and
Plans, Human Resource Development Division; the Army Human Resources
Directorate; the Marine Corps, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff
for Personnel; and the Bureau of Naval Personnel, Equal Opportunity
Division. 

We discussed the policies and procedures used to ensure the
reliability of MEOA data with the Air Force Personnel Center,
Randolph Air Force Base, Texas; the Army Directorate Military
Personnel Management; Headquarters Marine Corps, Deputy Chief of
Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; and the Bureau of Naval
Personnel.  Although we did not verify the MEOA data, we found that
the procedures used to collect and record the data were sufficient to
ensure reliable data. 

To determine whether possible gender significant differences existed
for promotions, professional military education, and key assignments,
we compared the percentage of women considered and selected to the
percentage of men considered and selected.  We then applied the
"four-fifths" test.  This test is a rule of thumb established by the
four federal agencies responsible for equal employment opportunity
enforcement (the Departments of Justice and Labor, the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel
Management).\7 Under this test, a selection rate for a subgroup that
is less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of the rate for the group
with the highest selection rate is considered a significantly
different rate (for this report, the two subgroups being compared are
men and women).  One limitation with this test is that, when sample
sizes are small, this test may flag a small difference as being
significant.  Likewise, for a large sample size, the four-fifths test
may provide too much latitude before a difference would be seen as
significant.  For example, if 100 percent of one group received
promotions and 80 percent of the other group received promotions,
this would not be a significant difference under the four-fifths test
even though there is a difference of 20 percentage points between the
two groups.  However, if 4 percent of one group received promotions
compared to 3 percent of the other group, the four-fifths test would
classify this difference as significant even though there is only 1
percentage point difference between the two groups. 

The existence of significant differences using the four-fifths test
does not necessarily mean they are the result of unwarranted or
prohibited discrimination.  Many job-related or societal factors can
contribute to gender significant differences.  Further analyses would
be required to determine the cause(s) of these significant
differences. 

We conducted our review between October 1997 and May 1998 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\6 DOD Directive 1350.2, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program,
dated August 1995, and DOD Instruction 1350.3, Affirmative Action
Planning and Assessment Process, dated February 29, 1988. 

\7 See Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. 
part 1607 (1997).  We recognize that title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, which protects individuals against employment
discrimination, does not apply to the uniformed members of the armed
forces.  See footnote 5, infra. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

We are sending copies of this report to other interested
congressional committees; Members of Congress; the Secretaries of
Defense, the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy; and the Commandant of
the Marine Corps.  We will also make copies available to any other
interested parties. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please contact me on (202) 512-5140.  Major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours,

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues


SELECTION RATES FOR PROMOTIONS,
PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION,
AND KEY ASSIGNMENTS REVIEWED
=========================================================== Appendix I

Tables I.1 through I.3 detail the number of promotion, professional
military education (PME), and key assignment selection boards or
examinations we included in our review.  The tables also show the
number of boards that have no significant differences and the number
that had significant differences in favor of men or women. 



                                              Table I.1
                               
                                 Promotion Boards With No Significant
                               Differences and Boards with Significant
                                        Differences by Gender

                                         Number    Percent
                   Period               showing    showing                         Number    Percent
                        s  Number of         no         no    Number   Percent         in         in
                   covere  compariso  differenc  differenc  in favor  in favor   favor of   favor of
Service                 d         ns          e          e  of women  of women        men        men
-----------------  ------  ---------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------  ---------  ---------
All promotions
 Air Force      1993-         29         23       79.3         6      20.7          0          0
                       97
Army                1993-         30         25       83.3         2       6.7          3       10.0
                       97
Marine Corps        1993-         29         22       75.9         6      20.7          1        3.4
                       97
Navy                1993-         30         26       86.7         4      13.3          0          0
                       97
====================================================================================================
Total                            118         96    81.4\a<     r> 18      15.3          4        3.4
Officer
 promotions
Air Force           1993-         14         10       71.4         4      28.6          0          0
                       97
Army                1993-         15         13       86.7         0         0          2       13.3
                       97
Marine Corps        1993-         14          9       64.3         4      28.6          1        7.1
                       97
Navy                1993-         15         15      100.0         0         0          0          0
                       97
====================================================================================================
Total                             58         47       81.0         8      13.8          3        5.2
Enlisted
 promotions
Air Force           1993-         15         13       86.7         2      13.3          0          0
                       97
Army                1993-         15         12       80.0         2      13.3          1        6.7
                       97
Marine Corps        1993-         15         13       86.7         2      13.3          0          0
                       97
Navy                1993-         15         11       73.3         4      26.7          0          0
                       97
====================================================================================================
Total                             60         49       81.7        10      16.7          1        1.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not match text material due to rounding. 



                                    Table I.2
                     
                          PME Boards With No Significant
                     Differences and Boards With Significant
                              Differences by Gender

                          Number    Percent  Number  Percen
Se  Period               showing    showing      in    t in
rv       s  Number of         no         no   favor   favor     Number    Percent
ic  covere  compariso  differenc  differenc      of      of   in favor   in favor
e        d         ns          e          e   women   women     of men     of men
--  ------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ------  ------  ---------  ---------
Ai   1993-         10          7       70.0       2    20.0          1       10.0
 r      97
 F
 o
 r
 c
 e
Ar   1993-         10          5       50.0       1    10.0          4       40.0
 my     97
Ma   1993-         20          7       35.0      11    55.0          2       10.0
 r      97
 i
 n
 e
 C
 o
 r
 p
 s
Na   1993-         15          6       40.0       2    13.3          7       46.7
 vy     97
=================================================================================
To                 55         25       45.5    16\a    29.1         14       25.5
 t
 a
 l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percentages may not match text material due to rounding. 



                                    Table I.3
                     
                          Key Assignment Boards With No
                     Significant Differences and Boards with
                        Significant Differences by Gender

                          Number    Percent  Number  Percen
Se  Period               showing    showing      in    t in
rv       s  Number of         no         no   favor   favor     Number    Percent
ic  covere  compariso  differenc  differenc      of      of   in favor   in favor
e        d         ns          e          e   women   women     of men     of men
--  ------  ---------  ---------  ---------  ------  ------  ---------  ---------
Ai   1993-         20         13       65.0       1     5.0          6       30.0
 r      97
 F
 o
 r
 c
 e
Ar   1993-         15          6       40.0       5    33.3          4       26.7
 my     97
Ma   1993-          5          5      100.0       0       0          0          0
 r      97
 i
 n
 e
 C
 o
 r
 p
 s
Na   1993-         20          8       40.0       3    15.0          9       45.0
 vy     97
=================================================================================
To                 60         32       53.3       9    15.0         19       31.7
 t
 a
 l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The selection processes for promotions, PME, and key assignments and
the data that is required for the MEOA report are discussed in the
following sections. 


   PROMOTIONS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

The services are required to report officer promotions in the MEOA at
the major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel levels for the Air Force,
the Army, and the Marine Corps and the lieutenant commander,
commander, and captain levels for the Navy.  For the enlisted force,
the services are required to report the master sergeant, senior
master sergeant, and chief master sergeant levels for the Air Force;
sergeant first class, master sergeant, and sergeant major levels for
the Army; chief petty officer, senior chief petty officer, and master
chief petty officer levels for the Navy; and gunnery sergeant, first
sergeant/master sergeant, and sergeant major/master gunnery sergeant
levels for the Marine Corps.  Some of the services reported other
levels of promotion.  However, to be consistent among the services,
we only analyzed the levels stated above. 

The services do not report all of the promotions in MEOAs.  They only
report the "in the zone" promotions.  Officer promotion selection
boards consider three cohort groups known as "below the zone," "in
the zone," and "above the zone." Most promotions are in the zone,
which is considered the normal length of service for promotion for
that cohort group.  However, a relatively small number of officers
who have demonstrated outstanding leadership potential are promoted
ahead of their cohort group, or below the zone.  Similarly, a small
number of officers are promoted after their cohort group, or above
the zone.  A similar system is used for enlisted promotions in the
Marine Corps.  Those below the zone and above the zone selections are
not included in MEOAs.  In addition, the services do not always
report the same officer promotion data in their MEOA reports.  For
example, the Army and the Air Force do not include promotions of
doctors, nurses, medical corp personnel, lawyers, and chaplains in
their MEOA reports.  The Navy and the Marine Corps do. 

The services conduct centralized promotion boards for officer
promotions.  Each promotion board reviews all qualified candidates
being considered for promotion to a given rank.  For enlisted
promotions, the services generally conduct examinations or boards for
promotions. 


   PME
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2

The Army, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy select
service members for PME opportunities by conducting centralized
boards.  All of the services provide PME opportunities to both
officers and enlisted servicemembers. 

The services report PME opportunities differently.  For example, the
Army and the Air Force do not report enlisted PME opportunities while
the Marine Corps and the Navy do.  Also, opportunities to attend the
various service and DOD schools vary among the services.  The Air
Force provides the majority of its officers with PME opportunities. 
For example, Air Force majors, selected as candidates on their
promotion board, have a 3-year window to attend an intermediate
service school and have a 70-percent chance of attending. 
Non-candidates may also be nominated and selected to attend, however,
at a significantly smaller percentage.  Air Force lieutenant colonels
are eligible to attend the senior service school the year following
selection to lieutenant colonel and remain eligible up to 23 years of
total active federal commissioned service.  The Navy on the other
hand, is more selective in regards to PME.  According to a Navy
official, only the "best of the best" attend the different schools. 


   KEY ASSIGNMENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:3

The services decide which key assignments they will include in the
MEOA report.  For example, the Navy and the Marine Corps provide data
on selection rates for executive officer positions, while the Army
and the Air Force do not. 

Key assignment selection procedures differ among the services.  The
Marine Corps and the Navy conduct a centralized board process to rank
nominated candidates while the selection process is generally
decentralized in both the Army and the Air Force.  The Army conducts
a centralized board process for selection to command sergeant major,
lieutenant colonel command assignments, and colonel command
assignments.  The Air Force changed its procedures for colonel-level
key assignments in fiscal year 1996.  In earlier years, the Air Force
would conduct a board process for nominated colonels only.  Starting
in 1996, the Air Force conducted boards for all colonels. 


COMPARISON OF PROMOTIONS BY RANK,
GENDER, AND SERVICE
========================================================== Appendix II

Figure II.1 summarizes the percentage of promotion boards or
examinations the services conducted that were categorized as having
similar selecton rates and the percentage that did not meet the
four-fifths rule and were categorized as having significantly
different rates. 
Figures II.2 through II.25 show, by rank, the percentage of men and
women promoted in fiscal year 1993 through 1997.  The graphs display
the percent selected and the tables display the actual numbers of men
and women considered and selected.  Caution should be used when just
comparing the percentages because the number of women eligible for
promotions is sometimes small. 

Our analysis of 58 officer promotion boards\1 and 60 enlisted boards
or examinations from fiscal years 1993 through 1997 showed that the
military as a whole selected men and women for promotion at similar
rates in the vast majority of board or examination selections.  In 47
of the 58 officer boards and 49 of the 60 enlisted boards or
examinations, the military made selections at similar rates.  For
those selections in which significant differences occurred, the
majority were in favor of women for both the enlisted force and
officers.  Only the Army had more significant differences that were
in favor of men.  Of the Army's 30 promotion boards or examinations,
25 resulted in men and women being selected at similar rates.  For
the remaining five, one was in favor of enlisted men, two were in
favor of male officers, and two were in favor of enlisted women. 

   Figure II.1:  Percent of
   Promotion Boards Whose Results
   Showed Similar Selection Rates
   or Differences in Favor of
   Women or Men

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure II.2:  Air Force
   Promotions to Master Sergeant
   (E-7) for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As shown in figure II.2, the Air Force promoted men and women to
master sergeant (E-7) at roughly the same rate from fiscal years 1993
through 1997. 

   Figure II.3:  Air Force
   Promotions to Senior Master
   Sergeant (E-8) for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Air Force also promoted men and women to senior master sergeant
(E-8) at roughly the same rate from fiscal years 1993 through 1997
(see
fig.  II.3). 

   Figure II.4:  Air Force
   Promotions to Chief Master
   Sergeant (E-9) for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Air Force promoted women to the chief master sergeant (E-9) at
significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 (see
fig.  II.4).  In addition, if the Air Force had promoted just one
additional woman during fiscal years 1995 and 1997, then the
differences would have been significant for those years as well. 

   Figure II.5:  Air Force
   Promotions to Major (O-4) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As shown in figure II.5, during fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the
Air Force promoted men and women to major (O-4) at similar rates. 

   Figure II.6:  Air Force
   Promotions to Lieutenant
   Colonel (O-5) for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Air Force promoted men and women to the rank of lieutenant
colonel (O-5) at roughly the same rate from fiscal years 1993 through
1997 (see
fig.  II.6). 

   Figure II.7:  Air Force
   Promotions to Colonel (O-6) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.7, from fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the Air
Force promoted women to colonel (O-6) at significantly higher rates,
excluding 1995 when no boards were held.  However, the number of
women eligible for and obtaining the promotions was relatively small. 
For example, in fiscal year 1993, 25 women were eligible for
promotion to this rank and 13 were promoted.  In that same fiscal
year, 445 men were promoted from the 1,077 eligible men.  If the Air
Force promoted one fewer woman in fiscal year 1993, then there would
have been no significant differences in the promotion rates between
men and women that year. 

According to an Air Force official, the reason the Air Force promoted
41 percent of the men each year is because promotional opportunities
to colonel are limited to 50 percent of the eligible lieutenant
colonels.  The 50 percent includes the above and below zone
promotions, which make up about 8 percent of the promotions.  The
number of women being promoted at this level is small--less than 1
percent, leaving 41 percent of the men in the zone obtaining
promotions. 

   Figure II.8:  Army Promotions
   to Sergeant First Class (E-7)
   for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Army promoted men and women to sergeant first class (E-7) at
about the same rate for all fiscal years except fiscal year 1994,
when the Army promoted women at a significantly higher rate (see fig. 
II.8). 

   Figure II.9:  Army Promotions
   to Master Sergeant (E-8) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Army promoted men and women to master sergeant (E-8) at roughly
the same rate for all fiscal years except fiscal year 1993 when the
Army promoted men at a significantly higher rate (see fig.  II.9). 

   Figure II.10:  Army Promotions
   to Sergeant Major (E-9) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.10, the Army promoted men and women to sergeant
major (E-9) at roughly the same rate for all fiscal years except
fiscal
year 1993 when the Army promoted women at a significantly higher
rate. 

   Figure II.11:  Army Promotions
   to Major (O-4) for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Men and women were promoted to the rank of major (O-4) by the Army at
similar rates in the fiscal years reviewed (see fig.  II.11). 

   Figure II.12:  Army Promotions
   to Lieutenant Colonel (O-5) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As shown in figure II.12, the Army promoted men and women to
lieutenant colonel (O-5) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years
1993 through 1997. 

   Figure II.13:  Army Promotions
   to Colonel (O-6) for Fiscal
   Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.13, the Army promoted men and women to colonel
(O-6) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1997,
but at significantly higher rates for men during fiscal years 1993
and 1996.  However, the number of women eligible for promotion was
relatively small.  For example, only 17 women were eligible for
promotion to that rank in fiscal year 1996, and 5 were promoted. 
During the same year, the Army promoted 279 of the 672 eligible men. 
If the Army had promoted just one additional woman during fiscal
years 1993 and 1996, then there would have been no significant
differences in the promotion rates. 

   Figure II.14:  Navy Promotions
   to Chief Petty Officer (E-7)
   for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Navy promoted men and women to chief petty officer (E-7) at
roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1995-97 but at significantly
higher rates for women during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 (see fig. 
II.14). 

   Figure II.15:  Navy Promotions
   to Senior Chief Petty Officer
   (E-8) for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Navy promoted men and women to senior chief petty officer (E-8)
at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see fig. 
II.15). 

   Figure II.16:  Navy Promotions
   to Master Chief Petty Officer
   (E-9) for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.16, the Navy promoted men and women to master
chief petty officer (E-9) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years
1994-96, but at significantly higher rates for women during fiscal
years 1993 and 1997.  While the percentages of women promoted were
higher then the percentages of men promoted, the number of women
promoted was relatively small.  In fiscal year 1997, for example, 197
women were eligible for promotion to that rank and 28 were promoted,
while 1,388 men were considered and 97 were promoted.  In fiscal year
1993, the Navy considered 5,013 men and 201 women and promoted 195
and 19, respectively. 

   Figure II.17:  Navy Promotions
   to Lieutenant Commander (O-4)
   for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Navy promoted men and women to lieutenant commander (O-4) at
approximately the same rate for the years reviewed (see fig.  II.17). 

   Figure II.18:  Navy Promotions
   to Commander (O-5) for Fiscal
   Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Navy promoted men and women to commander (O-5) at similar rates
during fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see fig.  II.18). 

   Figure II.19:  Navy Promotions
   to Captain (O-6) for Fiscal
   Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Navy promoted men and women to captain (O-6) at roughly the same
rate for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see fig.  II.19). 

   Figure II.20:  Marine Corps
   Promotions to Gunnery Sergeant
   (E-7) for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As shown in figure II.20, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to
gunnery sergeant (E-7) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993
through 1997.  The promotion rates were higher than the other
services for this level (E-7) because the pool of eligible candidates
in the Marine Corps was much smaller than in the other services.  As
a result, the Marine Corps selected a higher percentage of eligible
candidates. 

   Figure II.21:  Marine Corps
   Promotions to First
   Sergeant/Master Sergeant (E-8)
   for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Marine Corps promoted men and women to first sergeant/master
sergeant (E-8) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993 and
1995-97, but at significantly higher rates for women in fiscal year
1994 (see
fig.  II.21). 

   Figure II.22:  Marine Corps
   Promotions to Sergeant
   Major/Master Gunnery Sergeant
   (E-9) for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.22, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to
sergeant major/master gunnery sergeant (E-9) at roughly the same rate
for fiscal years 1994-97, but at significantly higher rates for women
in fiscal year 1993.  However, the number of women eligible for
promotion at this level was small.  For example, in fiscal year 1993,
only seven women were eligible for promotion and five promoted.  In
contrast, 221 men were promoted out of 394 men considered.  If the
Marine Corps had promoted one fewer woman in fiscal year 1993, then
there would have been no significant differences in the promotion
rates.  If one fewer woman had been promoted in fiscal years 1994 and
1995, then there would be significantly higher rates for men.  On the
other hand, if the Marine Corps had promoted just one additional
woman in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, then there would have
been significantly higher promotion rates for women. 

   Figure II.23:  Marine Corps
   Promotions to Major (O-4) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.23, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to
major (O-4) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994-97, but at
a significantly higher rate for women in fiscal year 1993.  However,
the number of women eligible for promotion to this level was
relatively small.  For example, in fiscal year 1993, only 14 women
were eligible for promotion and 12 received promotions.  If the
Marine Corps had promoted just one fewer woman during fiscal year
1993, then there would have been no significant difference for that
year. 

   Figure II.24:  Marine Corps
   Promotions to Lieutenant
   Colonel (O-5) for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.24, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to
lieutenant colonel (O-5) at significantly higher rates for women
during fiscal years 1993 and 1997 and at a higher rate for men in
fiscal year 1995, but at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994
and 1996.  The number of women eligible for promotion to lieutenant
colonel was relatively small in the years we reviewed.  For example,
in fiscal year 1994, six women were eligible for promotion, of which
three received promotions.  If the Marine Corps had promoted one
fewer woman during fiscal years 1993 and 1997, then there would have
been no significant difference.  In addition, if the Marine Corps had
promoted one fewer woman in fiscal year 1994, then there would have
been a significant difference in favor of men that year. 

   Figure II.25:  Marine Corps
   Promotions to Colonel (O-6) for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure II.25, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to
colonel (O-6) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993, 1994,
and 1997, but women were promoted at a significantly higher rate in
fiscal year 1996.  However, the number of women eligible for
promotion to this level was small.  For example, in fiscal year 1996,
only three women were eligible for promotion and two were promoted. 
Furthermore, if the Marine Corps had promoted one more woman in
fiscal years 1993 and 1994, then there would have been significant
differences in favor of women.  On the other hand, if the Marine
Corps had promoted one fewer woman each year (excluding fiscal year
1995 when no women were eligible), then there would have been
significant differences each year in favor of men. 


--------------------
\1 In 1995, the Air Force did not hold promotion boards for promotion
to the rank of colonel.  Also in 1995, there were no women eligible
for promotion to colonel in the Marine Corps. 


COMPARISON OF PME BY RANK, GENDER,
AND SERVICE
========================================================= Appendix III

Figure III.1 summarizes the percentage of PME boards the services
conducted that were categorized as having similar selecton rates and
the percentage that did not meet the four-fifths rule and were
categorized as having significantly different rates.  Figures III.2
through III.12 show by rank, the percentage of men and women selected
for PME in fiscal
years 1993 through 1997.  The graphs display the percentage of men
and women selected, the tables display the actual number of women and
men considered and selected.  Caution should be used when comparing
the percentages because the number of women eligible for PME
selection is sometimes small. 

PME is the only area we reviewed that had more significant
differences than nonsignificant differences in the rate selection. 
Our analysis showed that selection rates for 25 of the 55 boards held
from fiscal years 1993 through 1997 were similar.  When significant
differences occurred, in the aggregate, they were slightly in favor
of women.  However, the Army and the Navy had more instances of
significant differences in favor of men. 

   Figure III.1:  PME Boards Whose
   Results Showed Similar
   Selection Rates or Differences
   in Favor of Women or Men

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.2:  Air Force PME
   for Intermediate Service
   Schools for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.2, the Air Force selected men and women for
intermediate service schools such as the Air Command and Staff
College at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993, 1995, and
1996; women were selected at a significantly higher rate during
fiscal years 1994 and 1997.  However, if the Air Force had selected
just one fewer woman in fiscal
year 1997, then there would have been no significant difference for
that year. 

   Figure III.3:  Air Force PME
   for Senior Service Schools for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Air Force selected men and women for the Air War College or its
equivalent at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-95 and
1997, but at a significantly higher rate for men in fiscal year 1996
(see fig.  III.3).  However, if the Air Force had selected just one
additional woman, then there would have been no significant
difference for fiscal year 1996. 

   Figure III.4:  Army PME for
   Command and General Staff
   College for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.4, the Army selected men and women for the
Command and General Staff College at roughly the same rate for fiscal
years 1993-95 and 1997, but at a significantly higher rate for women
in fiscal year 1996.  Generally, promotable captains and majors
attend this school. 

   Figure III.5:  Army PME for
   Army War College for Fiscal
   Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Army selected men and women for the Army War College at a
significantly higher rate for men during fiscal years 1993-95 and
1997, but at roughly the same rate for fiscal year 1996 (see fig. 
III.5).  However, since the selection rates are low, the percentages
used for calculating the four-fifths test are small and consequently
more likely that differences will appear significant.  Lieutenant
colonels and colonels attend this school. 

   Figure III.6:  Navy PME for
   Senior Enlisted Academy for
   Fiscal Years 1994-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.6, the Navy selected men at a significantly
higher rate for the Senior Enlisted Academy for fiscal years 1995-97
and men and women at roughly the same rate in fiscal year 1994. 
However, the selection percentages are so small during fiscal years
1994-97, that they trigger the four-fifths test of a significant
difference easily.  The Navy selected women at a significantly higher
rate in fiscal year 1993.  Data for that fiscal year, however, were
not included in this figure because the number of enlisted personnel
eligible to attend the Senior Enlisted Academy was so much smaller in
fiscal year 1993 than the other years (about 2,200 in fiscal
year 1993 vs.  about 40,000 during fiscal years 1994-97).  The
difference in the eligible population made a meaningful year-by-year
comparison impossible.  The Navy did not provide an explanation for
the difference in the eligible population. 

   Figure III.7:  Navy PME for
   Postgraduate Education for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.7, the Navy selected men and women for
postgraduate education at schools such as the Naval Postgraduate
School at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-95, but
selected men at a significantly higher rate for fiscal years 1996-97. 
However, if the Navy had selected one additional woman in fiscal year
1996, then there would have been no significant difference for that
year. 

   Figure III.8:  Navy PME for
   Navy War College for Fiscal
   Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Navy selected men at significantly higher rates for the Navy War
College in fiscal years 1994 and 1996 and selected women at a
significantly higher rate in 1997.  In fiscal years 1993 and 1995,
men and women were selected at roughly the same rate (see fig. 
III.8). 

   Figure III.9:  Marine Corps PME
   for BOOST for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.9, the Marine Corps selected women at a
significantly higher rate for the enlisted Broadened Opportunities
for Officer Selection and Training (BOOST) program in fiscal years
1995 and 1997 and selected men at a significantly higher rate for
fiscal year 1993.  The Marine Corps selected men and women at roughly
the same rate during fiscal years 1994 and 1996.  However, the number
of women eligible for this program was small and can affect whether
the difference is or is not significant.  For example, in fiscal year
1995, six women were eligible for the BOOST program and five were
selected.  If the Marine Corps had selected one additional woman in
fiscal year 1993, then there would have been no significant
difference in favor of men that year.  In addition, if the Marine
Corps had selected one fewer woman, then there would have been
significant differences in favor of men in fiscal years 1994 and 1996
and no significant difference in favor of women in fiscal year 1995. 

   Figure III.10:  Marine Corps
   PME for Career Level Schools
   for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Marine Corps selected women at a significantly higher rate for
Career Level Schools during fiscal years 1993 through 1996 (see fig. 
III.10).  In fiscal year 1997, the Marine Corps selected men and
women at roughly the same rate.  However, the number of women
eligible to attend these schools is relatively small. 

   Figure III.11:  Marine Corps
   PME for Intermediate Level
   School for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.11, the Marine Corps selected women at a
significantly higher rate for intermediate level schools, such as the
Command and Staff College, during fiscal years 1993, 1996, and 1997
and at roughly the same rate for men and women during fiscal years
1994 and 1995.  However, the number of women eligible to attend these
schools was relatively small.  For example, in fiscal year 1997, 24
women were eligible to attend and 8 were selected.  If the Marine
Corps selected one fewer woman in fiscal year 1993, then there would
have been no significant difference for that year. 

   Figure III.12:  Marine Corps
   PME for Top Level Schools for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure III.12, the Marine Corps selected women at a
significantly higher rate for schools like the Marine Corps War
College or other service war colleges during fiscal years 1994 and
1996 and at a significantly higher rate for men in fiscal year 1997. 
During fiscal
years 1993 and 1995, men and women were selected at roughly the same
rate.  However, the number of women eligible for this level of school
was relatively small, which can radically change the selection rate. 
For example, in fiscal year 1994, six women were eligible of which
five were selected.  If the Marine Corps selected one additional
woman during fiscal years 1993 and 1997, then there would have been a
significant difference in favor of women in fiscal year 1993 and no
significant difference in fiscal year 1997.  If the Marine Corps had
selected one fewer woman, then there would have been significant
differences in favor of men in fiscal years 1993 and 1995 and no
significant difference in fiscal year 1996. 


COMPARISON OF KEY ASSIGNMENTS BY
RANK, GENDER, AND SERVICE
========================================================== Appendix IV

Figure IV.1 summarizes the percentage of key assignment selections
processes the services conducted that were categorized as having
similar selecton rates and the percentage that did not meet the
four-fifths rule and were categorized as having significantly
different rates.  Figures IV.2 through IV.13 show by rank, the
percentage of men and women selected for key assignments in fiscal
years 1993 through 1997.  The graphs display the percentage of men
and women selected, the tables display the actual number of women and
men considered and selected.  Caution should be used when comparing
the percentages because the number of women eligible for key
assignments selection is sometimes small. 

Our analysis of 60 key assignment selection boards showed that the
military as a whole selected men and women for key assignments at
similar rates in the majority of board selections from fiscal years
1993 to 1997.  In 32 of the 60 selection boards, the military made
selections at similar rates.  However, when significant differences
occurred, we found that they were in favor of men in most cases.  For
the 28 key assignment selection boards where significant differences
occurred, 19 were in favor of men.  The Air Force and the Navy had
more instances of significant differences in favor of men, the Army
had slightly more significant differences in favor of women, and the
Marine Corps had no significant differences. 

   Figure IV.1:  Key Assignment
   Selections Whose Results Showed
   Similar Selection Rates or
   Differences in Favor of Women
   or Men

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure IV.2:  Air Force Key
   Assignment for Senior Enlisted
   Advisor for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure IV.2, the Air Force selected men for senior
enlisted advisor positions at significantly higher rates during
fiscal years 1996 and 1997 and selected women at a significantly
higher rate for fiscal year 1995.  Men and women were selected at
roughly the same rate during fiscal
years 1993 and 1994.  However, the selection rates are small, which
makes them sensitive to the four-fifths test.  For example, if the
Air Force selected one fewer woman in fiscal year 1993, then there
would have been significant differences in favor of men that year. 

   Figure IV.3:  Air Force Key
   Assignment for Commanding
   Officer at the O-4 Level for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Air Force selected men and women for commanding officer at the
major level at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-97 (see
fig.  IV.3). 

   Figure IV.4:  Air Force Key
   Assignment for Commanding
   Officer at the O-5 Level for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Air Force selected men and women for commanding officer at the
lieutenant colonel level at roughly the same rate for fiscal years
1995-97 and at a significantly higher rate for men in fiscal years
1993 and 1994 (see fig.  IV.4). 

   Figure IV.5:  Air Force Key
   Assignments for Commanding
   Officer at the O-6 Level for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Air Force selected men and women for commanding officer at the
colonel level at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1995-97 and
at a significantly higher rate for men in fiscal years 1993 and 1994
(see
fig.  IV.5). 

   Figure IV.6:  Army Key
   Assignment for Command Sergeant
   Major for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure IV.6, the Army selected men for command sergeant
major at significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1993, 1996,
and 1997 and selected women at a significantly higher rate in fiscal
year 1995.  In fiscal year 1994, the Army selected men and women at
roughly the same rate.  However, most of the selection rates were
low, which makes them sensitive to the four-fifths test.  For
example, if the Army selected one fewer man in fiscal year 1997, then
there would have been no significant difference that year.  If the
Army had selected one additional woman, then there would have been no
significant difference in fiscal year 1993 and a significant
difference in favor of women in fiscal year 1994.  If the Army had
selected one fewer woman in fiscal year 1995, then there would have
been no significant difference. 

   Figure IV.7:  Army Key
   Assignment for Lieutenant
   Colonel Command for Fiscal
   Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Army selected men and women for lieutenant colonel command at
roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994-97.  In fiscal year 1993,
the Army selected women at a significantly higher rate.  During that
year, the Army selected 27 out of 139 women for key assignments (see
fig.  IV.7). 

   Figure IV.8:  Army Key
   Assignment for Colonel Command
   for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure IV.8, the Army selected women for colonel command
at a significantly higher rate in fiscal years 1994-96 and selected
men at a significantly higher rate in fiscal year 1993.  In fiscal
year 1997, the Army selected men and women at roughly the same rate. 
However, if the Army had selected one additional woman, then there
would have been no significant difference in fiscal year 1993 and a
significant difference in favor of women in fiscal year 1997.  On the
other hand, if the Army had selected one fewer woman, then there
would have been no significant differences in fiscal years 1995 and
1996. 

   Figure IV.9:  Navy Key
   Assignment for Command Master
   Chief for Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Navy selected men and women for command master chief positions at
roughly the same rate during fiscal years 1993-95 but selected men at
significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 (see
fig.  IV.9).  The addition or subtraction of one man or woman can
make a difference to the significance test.  For example, if the Navy
had selected one fewer man or one more woman in fiscal year 1996,
there would have been no significant difference.  If the Navy had
selected one additional woman in fiscal year 1997, there would have
been no significant difference.  Finally, while there was no
significant difference in fiscal year 1994, if the Navy had selected
one fewer woman that year, there would have been a significant
difference in favor of men. 

   Figure IV.10:  Navy Key
   Assignment for
   Executive/Command Officer at
   the O-4 Level for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure IV.10, the Navy selected men and women for
executive/command officer positions at the lieutenant commander level
at roughly the same rate in fiscal years 1995 through 1997, but women
were selected at significantly higher rates in fiscal years 1993 and
1994.  However, the selection rates were small in fiscal year 1993,
which makes them sensitive to the four-fifths test.  For example, if
the Navy selected one fewer woman that year, then there would have
been no significant difference. 

   Figure IV.11:  Navy Key
   Assignment for
   Executive/Command Officer at
   the O-5 Level for Fiscal Years
   1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

As shown in figure IV.11, the Navy selected men for executive/command
officer positions at the commander level at a significantly higher
rate in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1997 and selected women at a
significantly higher rate in fiscal year 1996.  During fiscal year
1993, the Navy selected men and women at roughly the same rate. 
According to a Navy official, women are beginning to move through the
command pipeline.  For example, women will assume command of combat
ships for the first time in 1998. 

   Figure IV.12:  Navy Key
   Assignment for Commanding
   Officer at the O-6 Level for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a Difference is significant using the four-fifths test. 

The Navy selected men for executive/command officer positions at the
captain level at a significantly higher rate than women in fiscal
years 1993 through 1995 and 1997.  In fiscal year 1996, the Navy
selected men and women at roughly the same rate.  However, the number
of women considered and selected is relatively small when compared to
men.  For example, in fiscal year 1993, the Navy selected 6 out of
164 women while the Navy selected 314 out of 3,705 men (see fig. 
IV.12). 

   Figure IV.13:  Marine Corps Key
   Assignment for
   Command/Executive Officers for
   Fiscal Years 1993-97

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

The Marine Corps selected men and women for command/executive officer
positions at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-97 (see
fig.  IV.13). 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Carol R.  Schuster
William E.  Beusse
Cheryl L.  Gordon
Carole F.  Coffey
Roderick Moore
James Geibel
Julio Luna

*** End of document. ***