Gender Issues: Information to Assess Servicemembers' Perceptions of
Gender Inequities Is Incomplete (Chapter Report, 11/18/98,
GAO/NSIAD-99-27).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO conducted a study on
inequalities or perceptions of inequalities in the treatment of men and
women in the armed forces, focusing on: (1) perceptions of gender
inequities found in various surveys and studies of male and female
servicemembers; and (2) what available data and studies reveal about
those perceptions.

GAO noted that: (1) some perceptions of inequality in the area of career
opportunities involve various local assignment policies and practices
established by unit commanders; (2) some women have raised concerns
about being assigned to clerical and administrative positions instead of
positions requiring the technical skills in which they were trained; (3)
some women believe that they are being denied opportunities to serve in
positions that are legally open to them because of perceived unjustified
prerequisite requirements for a certain kind of experience that is
closed to women; (4) however, no existing studies show the extent to
which such practices take place or are inequitable; (5) researchers have
found perceptions among some men and women that the Department of
Defense's (DOD) policy restricting women from occupations and units
involved in direct ground combat affects their opportunities for
promotions and career advancement; (6) no study was found that
specifically addressed whether the ground combat exclusion policy has an
inequitable impact on the career opportunities of men and women; (7)
consequently, GAO examined the data submitted by the services as part of
their annual equal opportunity assessments and its analysis showed that
the military selected men and women for promotion at basically similar
rates over 80 percent of the time and selected men and women for key
assignments and professional military education at similar rates
approximately half of the time; (8) in those cases where the selection
rates differed, no clear pattern of a systematic advantage to either
gender emerged; (9) a RAND study stated that many servicemembers believe
that fitness standards are a measure of one's ability to perform in a
combat environment and that lower fitness standards for women amounts to
a double standard; (10) however, the physical fitness program is
intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military
members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the capability to
perform specific missions or military jobs; (11) DOD officials and
experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for
physiological differences among servicemembers by age and gender; and
(12) many military women have also expressed concerns about the fairness
of the service's body fat standards.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-27
     TITLE:  Gender Issues: Information to Assess Servicemembers' 
             Perceptions of Gender Inequities Is Incomplete
      DATE:  11/18/98
   SUBJECT:  Women
             Military personnel
             Sex discrimination
             Military promotions
             Hiring policies
             Surveys
             Ground warfare
             Military training
             Employment discrimination
             Standards evaluation
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 Congressional Committees

November 1998

GENDER ISSUES - INFORMATION TO
ASSESS SERVICEMEMBERS' PERCEPTIONS
OF GENDER INEQUITIES IS INCOMPLETE

GAO/NSIAD-99-27

Gender Issues

(703221)


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

  DOD - Department of Defense
  DACOWITS - Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services

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


B-279460

November 18, 1998

Congressional Committees

In recognition of the integral part women play in the all-volunteer
force, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998
directed us to conduct a study on any inequalities or perceptions of
inequalities in the treatment of men and women in the armed forces
that are tied to statutes and regulations governing the armed forces. 
The purpose of this report is to (1) identify perceptions of gender
inequities found in various surveys and studies of male and female
servicemembers and (2) examine what available data and studies reveal
about those perceptions. 

This report includes recommendations which, if implemented, should
help the Department of Defense assess the validity of the perceptions
that military men and women have about inequities in the areas of
career opportunities and fitness standards.  We are sending copies of
this report to interested congressional committees and Members of
Congress; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Air Force, and
the Navy; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.  We will make
copies available to other interested parties upon request. 

Please contact me at ( 202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report.  The major contributors to this
report are listed in appendix II. 

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Strom Thurmond
Chairman
The Honorable Carl Levin
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens
Chairman
The Honorable Daniel Inouye
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence
Chairman
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on National Security
House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W.  Bill Young
Chairman
The Honorable John Murtha
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
============================================================ Chapter 0


   PURPOSE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

In recognition of the integral part women play in the all-volunteer
force, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998\1
directed GAO to conduct a study on any inequalities or perceptions of
inequalities in the treatment of men and women in the armed forces
that are tied to statutes and regulations governing the armed forces. 
The purpose of this report is to (1) identify perceptions of gender
inequities found in various surveys and studies of male and female
servicemembers and (2) examine what available data and studies reveal
about those perceptions. 


--------------------
\1 Section 592, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998 (P.L.  105-85, Nov.  18, 1997). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

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 services' authorized strength or be permanently
promoted beyond the rank of lieutenant colonel until 1967.  In 1969,
the Air Force opened its Reserve Officers' Training Corps program to
women and the other services opened their programs in 1972.  In 1976,
women enrolled in the service academies for the first time and in
1978, women were permitted to serve permanently on ships not expected
to be used in combat.  In 1991 and 1993, significant changes occurred
in legislation with the lifting of the bans on women flying Navy and
Air Force combat aircraft and serving on combat ships.  In 1994, the
assignment policy for women was liberalized across the Department of
Defense (DOD) to expand opportunities.  With certain exceptions,
under the current policy, women can be assigned to almost all
positions, except those involving direct ground combat.  Women now
comprise about 14 percent of the armed forces, up from less than 2
percent in 1973. 

As the number of women in the military increases and the role of
women in the military changes, researchers, both in and out of the
military, have been studying servicemembers' attitudes about the
military and their views regarding how the military treats men and
women.  Researchers have explored the perceptions of men and women
with regard to gender equity in a variety of areas, including ground
combat, career development, and physical fitness.  Information on the
perceptions of male and female servicemembers came from a variety of
surveys and studies conducted across DOD.  Most of these research
efforts collected perceptions largely through the use of focus groups
or other qualitative data gathering methods that provide insights
into attitudes, perceptions, and opinions.  The perceptions cited are
not necessarily representative of the entire military population and
statistical estimates of how many people hold such views cannot be
projected from the results. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Based on the various surveys and studies of perceptions of military
personnel, articles in service-oriented publications, and discussions
with experts in the military personnel area, GAO identified two major
areas where studies indicate that servicemen and servicewomen
perceive inequities: 

  -- career opportunities (including assignment policies and other
     factors that may have an impact on career advancement) and

  -- physical fitness and body fat standards. 

These areas of perceived inequities in the treatment of men and women
are related to various DOD and service policies and programs, rather
than specific statutes.  The last statutory restriction on the
assignment of women in the military was eliminated in 1993 when
Congress repealed the restriction on the use of women on naval combat
ships. 

Some perceptions of inequality in the area of career opportunities
involve various local assignment policies and practices established
by unit commanders.  Some women have raised concerns about being
assigned to clerical and administrative positions instead of
positions requiring the technical skills in which they were trained. 
Some women also believe that they are being denied opportunities to
serve in positions that are legally open to them because of perceived
unjustified prerequisite requirements for a certain kind of
experience, such as being in the infantry, that is closed to women. 
GAO found that local commanders do have considerable latitude in how
they assign their personnel and that some positions do carry
prerequisite requirements for a skill or specialty that is closed to
women.  However, GAO found no existing studies that show the extent
to which such practices take place or whether such policies and
practices are inequitable. 

Researchers have also found perceptions among some men and women that
DOD's policy restricting women from occupations and units involved in
direct ground combat affects their opportunities for promotions and
career advancement.  GAO found no studies that specifically addressed
whether the ground combat exclusion policy has an inequitable impact
on the career opportunities of men and women.  Consequently, GAO
examined the data submitted by the services as part of their annual
equal opportunity assessments to determine whether men and women were
selected at similar rates for promotion, key assignments, and
professional military education.\2

GAO's analysis of this data showed that the military selected men and
women for promotion at basically similar rates over 80 percent of the
time and selected men and women for key assignments and professional
military education at similar rates approximately half of the time. 
In those cases where the selection rates differed, no clear pattern
of a systematic advantage to either gender emerged--sometimes men had
higher selection rates and sometimes women did.  While this data
provides some insights into the relative career success of servicemen
and servicewomen, it does not address the specific perceptions of
inequitable career opportunities raised by military personnel. 

The services' physical fitness programs are another area where there
are perceptions of inequality in the treatment of men and women.  A
1997 RAND\3 study stated that many servicemembers, men and women
alike, believe that fitness standards are a measure of one's ability
to perform in a combat environment.  There is also a widespread
perception that the existence of lower physical fitness standards for
women amounts to a "double standard." However, the physical fitness
program is actually intended only to maintain the general fitness and
health of military members and fitness testing is not aimed at
assessing the capability to perform specific missions or military
jobs.  Consequently, DOD officials and experts agree that it is
appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences
among servicemembers by age and gender.  Thus, the mere existence of
different fitness standards for each gender, that do not require
women to run as fast as men or to perform as many push-ups, does not
constitute a "double standard." General physical fitness standards
can be different for men and women without necessarily being
inequitable. 

Many military women have also expressed concerns about the fairness
of the service's body fat standards, which they perceive as
unrealistic, biased, and selectively enforced to the detriment of
women.  In a recent study, GAO found that (1) service body fat
standards were not always based on scientific data, (2) differences
in each service's equations for estimating body fat can result in
widely varying estimates of the percent of body fat for the same
woman, and (3) changes in the mix of ethnicity and other population
characteristics of the current military call into question the
representativeness of the populations used to develop the
equations.\4 Consequently, it is not possible to assess whether the
services' body fat standards are fair to both men and women. 


--------------------
\2 Gender Issues:  Analysis of Promotion and Career Opportunities
Data (GAO/NSIAD-98-157, May 26, 1998). 

\3 Margaret C.  Harrell and Laura L.  Miller, New Opportunities for
Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale
(Washington, D.C.:  Rand, 1997) p.  47. 

\4 For a more detailed analysis of service physical fitness programs,
see Gender Issues:  Improved Guidance and Oversight Are Needed to
Ensure Validity and Equity of Fitness Standards (GAO/NSIAD-99-9, Nov. 
17, 1998). 


   PRINCIPAL FINDINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4


   DATA TO ASSESS PERCEIVED
   INEQUITIES IN CAREER
   OPPORTUNITIES IS INCOMPLETE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

The concerns of servicemen and servicewomen regarding the equity of
career opportunities were generally not centered around the selection
process itself.  Rather, the concerns were focused on factors seen as
either enhancing or inhibiting career opportunities, such as their
ability to compete for key positions, the extent to which they have
the opportunity to use the skills in which they were trained and gain
the necessary experience for advancement, and the impact of the
ground combat exclusion policy. 

Service-specific policies, as well as official and unofficial local
assignment policies and practices established by unit commanders,
generate some perceptions of inequality.  For example, many enlisted
women in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force told researchers that
women were sometimes assigned to clerical and administrative
positions instead of positions requiring the technical skills in
which they were trained.  These women believed that this made them
less competitive for career advancement because they did not get the
technical experience necessary to advance in their careers.  Some
female officers report that they are being denied opportunities to
serve in positions that are legally open to them and are being
assigned to less prestigious positions or to jobs traditionally held
by women to the detriment of their careers.  Some women believed that
unjustified requirements for a certain kind of experience that was
closed to women, such as being in the infantry, were unfairly added
as a prerequisite for otherwise gender-neutral positions, effectively
foreclosing these opportunities. 

GAO found that some positions do carry prerequisite requirements for
a skill or specialty that is closed to women.  For example, the drill
sergeant position in the Army is listed as being open to women, yet
some are coded as requiring infantry skills.  In addition, local
commanders can assign their personnel as they see fit.  For example,
a commander may assign a given subordinate, male or female, to
function primarily administrative in nature.  However, neither DOD
nor the services have conducted studies specifically addressing
whether women are negatively affected by such policies and practices
more often than men. 

A key factor cited by both men and women is DOD's direct ground
combat exclusion policy.  According to a recent GAO study of this
policy, over 190,000 positions are closed to women because they
involve direct ground combat or operate alongside ground combat
units.\5 The perceptions of the impact of this policy on career
opportunities varies between men and women and officers and enlisted
personnel in the studies GAO reviewed.  One study reported that at
least half the female enlisted personnel, non-commissioned officers,
and officers surveyed believed that the combat exclusion policy hurt
their career security and promotion opportunity because it prevented
them from serving in the kinds of "ticket punching" assignments
associated with advancement to higher ranks.\6 Another study of the
attitudes of Army men and women revealed that some men believe the
combat exclusion policy is advantageous to women because it gives
them more time for career-enhancing education and training and
earlier opportunities for higher-echelon assignments.\7

Again, neither DOD nor the services has conducted a specific
assessment of the effects of the ground combat exclusion policy on
the career opportunities of men and women.  However, data was
available on selection rates for promotion to top non-commissioned
officer and non-flag officer grades, most key assignments to
positions such as command or executive officer positions, and the
primary intermediate and senior level professional military
education.  Although this data has some limitations with regard to
addressing perceptions about career opportunities, it can provide
some insights regarding relative career success of men and women in
the military.  Meaningful analyses of promotions of women to flag
officer ranks were not possible because many of the women who entered
the regular officer corps after the Reserve Officers' Training Corps
and the service academies were opened to women are not yet at the
normal phase point to be competitive for flag officer positions. 

The information on the selection rates for promotions, key
assignments, and professional military education was taken from a GAO
report issued in May 1998.  To determine whether the rates differed
significantly for men and women, GAO used the four-fifths test, which
is a rule-of-thumb adopted by the federal agencies responsible for
equal employment opportunity enforcement.  According to this test, a
selection rate for a subgroup that is less than four-fifths (or 80
percent) of the rate of the group with the highest selection rate is
considered a significantly different rate. 

For promotion selections, GAO analyzed the decisions made by 58
officer promotion boards and 60 enlisted boards or examinations from
fiscal
years 1993 through 1997.  GAO found that, 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 81 percent of
the promotion boards or examinations reviewed.  Of the remaining
instances, 15 percent were in favor of women, and 3 percent were in
favor of men.  In several cases, the small number of women eligible
for consideration compared to men resulted in a situation where the
selection of one servicemember more or less would have changed the
characterization of the selection rate from similar to different, or
vice versa. 

For key assignment selections, the military as a whole selected men
and women at similar rates in about 53 percent of the selection
processes GAO reviewed.  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.  Across the four
services, the military selected men and women for professional
military education 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.  In some of
the services, the data for officers included only those who were
nominated for key assignments and professional military education. 
Consequently, the data would not identify any disparities in the
rates at which eligible male and female officers were nominated. 


--------------------
\5 Gender Issues:  Information on DOD's Assignment Policy and Direct
Ground Combat Definition (GAO/NSIAD-99-7, Oct.  19, 1998). 

\6 Laura Miller, "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, p.  12. 

\7 Laura Miller "Not Just Weapons of the Weak:  Gender Harassment as
a Form of Protest for Army Men," Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 
60, No.  1, (1997) pp.45-46. 


      DIFFERENT FITNESS STANDARDS
      FOR MEN AND WOMEN DO NOT
      NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE A
      DOUBLE-STANDARD
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

DOD requires each service to establish a physical fitness and body
fat program.  DOD guidance sets out annual fitness testing
requirements for all servicemembers.  Annual testing is conducted in
three areas:  cardiovascular endurance (measured by activities such
as running a certain distance within a specified period of time),
muscular strength and endurance (measured by activities such as
push-ups and sit-ups), and maintenance of body fat within a certain
percentage range. 

A 1997 RAND\8 study found that many servicemembers believe that the
services' general physical fitness standards are related to one's
ability to perform in a combat environment or are related to a
specific job or occupation.  Many see the existence of different
physical fitness standards for men and women as a "double standard"
and evidence that women will perform less well in a combat
environment.  Some men question whether women are capable of
performing physically-demanding jobs.  Some of these views may be the
result of confusion regarding the two kinds of physical requirements
that a servicemember may have to meet:  general physical fitness
standards and job-specific physical performance standards. 

Each service tests its personnel against general physical fitness
standards that apply to all members regardless of occupation. 
According to DOD, these standards are intended only to set a minimum
level of general fitness and health for military personnel and are
not directly related to job performance.  These general fitness
standards are not intended to specifically enhance the performance of
a particular service mission or job, and research\9 has identified
little correlation between performance on fitness tests and specific
military task performance. 

The purpose of job-specific physical performance standards, on the
other hand, is to ensure that those personnel assigned to
physically-demanding jobs are capable of performing the requirements
of those jobs.  The Secretary of Defense is required by law to
prescribe physical performance standards for any occupation for which
the Secretary determines strength, endurance, or stamina are
essential to performance.\10

For any occupation for which both men and women are eligible to
serve, the law specifically prohibits adjusting performance standards
for gender. 

The 1992 President's Commission on the Assignment of Women in the
Armed Forces looked closely at the issue of physical strength and
endurance requirements.  The Commission concluded that since general
physical fitness standards are established to promote the highest
level of general wellness in the armed forces and are not aimed at
assessing capability to perform specific jobs or missions, it is
appropriate to adjust the standards for physiological differences
among servicemembers.  As allowed by DOD guidance, each of the
services has established fitness standards keyed to the age and
gender of the servicemember.  Different fitness standards for men and
women are intended to compensate for the physiological differences
between them.  Different fitness standards for men and women do not
constitute a "double standard" as long as meeting the male and female
standards requires the same relative degree of health and
conditioning. 


--------------------
\8 Margaret C.  Harrell and Laura L.  Miller, New Opportunities for
Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale
(Washington, D.C.:  Rand, 1997) p.  47. 

\9 Assessing Readiness in Military Women:  The Relationship of Body
Composition, Nutrition, and Health (Washington, D.C.:  National
Academy Press, 1998). 

\10 Section 543, Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization Act
(P.L.  103-160, Nov.  30, 1993)


      LACK OF SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR
      FITNESS AND BODY FAT
      STANDARDS MAKES ASSESSMENT
      OF GENDER EQUITY PROBLEMATIC
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.2

Researchers have found that many men and women believe that the
women's standards are much easier for women to meet than the men's
standards are for the men to meet.  However, it is not possible to
assess the accuracy of this perception at this time because the
services have generally not used a scientific basis to set the
fitness standards for women.  The fitness standards for men have
usually been based on actual test performance data, whereas the
female standards were often estimated, inferred from male data, or
based on command judgment.  For example, in September 1998, the Navy
lowered by as much as 1 minute 15 seconds, the maximum time allowed
for women under 30 years old to complete the 1-1/2 mile run.  The
reduction in the time allowed for these women to complete the run was
not based on actual performance times.  This change was made because
officials believed that the previous 4-minute difference between the
men's and women's standards in certain categories was not appropriate
and that female standards needed to be more stringent. 

Women from all services have also expressed concerns about the
fairness of the services' body fat standards.  Some women perceive
these standards to be unrealistic, biased, and unfairly enforced. 
GAO found that women's body fat standards were not based on
scientific data.  Instead, these standards were inferred from male
standards or based on command judgment regarding appearance.  Also,
researchers found that the equations used by each service to
determine body fat do not yield consistent results for women because
the equations do not adequately adjust for the greater variety of
female body types.  In a GAO test case, the Army's equation estimated
one woman's body fat at 42 percent, whereas the estimated percentage
of body fat for the same woman was 29 percent using the Navy and the
Air Force equations and 27 percent using the Marine Corps equation. 
In addition, the equations currently in use do not account for racial
differences in bone density, raising the potential for overstating
the percentage of body fat of minority servicemembers.  Moreover,
researchers also report that the population of active-duty women used
to develop the equations have, with time, become less representative
of the ethnic and age diversity of the current military population. 

The services do not maintain the necessary statistics to determine if
it is easier for men or women to meet the fitness standards or if
women fail the body fat test at a higher rate than men.  Basic
information about the program is either unavailable or highly
decentralized and not easily accessed.  For example, the Navy does
not separate its program statistics by gender, so gender comparisons
are not available.  The Army maintains fitness performance
information at the unit level and does not maintain a servicewide
database.  Other problems include unavailable data, unreliable data
due to unit under reporting, and data not separated to identify
characteristics such as rank. 

In its November 1998\11 report on the services' physical fitness
programs, GAO made recommendations to improve the services' physical
fitness programs.  These included establishing (1) a clear DOD-wide
policy for age-based and gender-based adjustments to general fitness
and body fat standards, requiring all services to derive them
scientifically and (2) a DOD-wide approach to scientifically
estimating body fat percentages.  GAO also recommended that the
Secretary of Defense define the statistical information needed to
monitor fitness trends and ensure program effectiveness, and require
that this information be maintained by all services and provided in
the currently required annual reports.  DOD concurred with GAO's
recommendations.  Implementing a more scientific approach to
establishing standards and collecting program evaluation data could
be useful in assessing whether the physical fitness program is
equitable to both men and women.  It could also help to dispel the
misconceptions that fitness standards measure a servicemember's
ability to perform in the military and that different standards for
men and women constitutes a "double standard."


--------------------
\11 Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-99-9, Nov.  17, 1998). 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

To provide DOD and service officials with information to address
perceptions of gender inequities in position prerequisites and skill
utilization, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the
services to assess whether

  -- requirements for skills or specialties that are presently closed
     to women or have only recently been opened to women are being
     used inappropriately as prerequisites for positions that are
     otherwise open to women and

  -- men or women are receiving an equal opportunity to work within
     the area of their military specialties. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:7

DOD generally agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations and said
that the Department would work with the services on methodologies to
assess the issues discussed in the recommendations within the next
18 months.  Additionally, DOD acknowledged that servicemembers may
have various perceptions, but stressed that the perceptions may not
be supported by facts.  GAO agrees that various perceptions may be
inaccurate, which reinforces the need to assess whether perceptions
are supported by the facts.  Regarding GAO's findings on DOD's
physical fitness and body fat standards, DOD noted that since 1996,
the services have made progress in adjusting standards based on more
objective data and have worked cooperatively to resolve research
issues.  Furthermore, DOD said that developing standards for general
fitness and health is a complex matter, where academic and research
experts often differ on conclusions and research.  DOD's comments are
reprinted in their entirety in appendix I and are also summarized
throughout the report where appropriate.  DOD also provided technical
comments concerning factual information in this report, and GAO has
modified the report where appropriate. 


INTRODUCTION
============================================================ Chapter 1

The number of women in the military has grown significantly in recent
decades.  Women now make up about 14 percent of the active duty
force, up from less than 2 percent in the early 1970s.  Their role
has also evolved from the traditional concentrations in medical and
administrative occupations to almost all military occupations,
including air, sea, and combat support positions.  The growing role
of women has resulted in debate within and outside the Department of
Defense (DOD) over fundamental and sometimes contentious issues
regarding the treatment of men and women in the military. 

In recognition of the integral part women play in the all-volunteer
force, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998\1
directed us to conduct a study on any inequalities or perceptions of
inequalities in the treatment of men and women in the armed forces
that are tied to statutes and regulations governing the armed forces. 
The purpose of this report is to (1) identify perceptions of gender
inequities found in various surveys and studies of male and female
servicemembers and (2) examine what available data and studies reveal
about those perceptions. 

Various surveys and studies indicate there are two major areas where
servicemen and servicewomen perceive inequities:  career
opportunities (including assignment policies and other factors that
may have an impact on career advancement) and physical fitness and
body fat standards.  These areas of perceived inequities in the
treatment of men and women are related to various DOD and service
policies and programs, rather than specific statutes.  The last
statutory restriction on the assignment of women in the military was
eliminated in 1993 when Congress repealed the restriction on the use
of women on naval combat ships. 

Uniformed members of the armed forces are not covered by the same
equal employment opportunity laws as the general public.  However,
the Secretary of Defense has established a separate equal opportunity
program with similar requirements for these personnel.  In 1969 and
1994, DOD issued a Human Goals Charter, stating 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.  To
carry out this mandate, a 1995 directive and related instruction
outlines DOD's equal opportunity program, assigning responsibility
for ensuring compliance with the broad objectives set out in the
charter, and establishing departmentwide standards for discrimination
complaint processing and resolution\2


--------------------
\1 Section 592, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1998 (P.L.  105-85, Nov.  18, 1997). 

\2 DOD Directive 1350.2, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program,
dated August 18, 1995, and DOD Instruction 1350.3, Affirmative Action
Planning and Assessment Process, dated February 29, 1988. 


   WOMEN'S ROLE IN THE MILITARY
   HAS GROWN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:1

The role of women in the military has changed dramatically over the
years.  At the time of World War II, the only women in the armed
services were nurses.  Increasing manpower requirements caused the
services to begin enlisting women and, in 1942, the Army established
the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (which later became known as the
Women's Army Corps).  Shortly after, the Navy established the WAVES
and Marine Corps began accepting women. 

The Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 made the inclusion
of women in the military permanent, but limited their numbers, ranks,
and roles.  The act established the Women's Army Corps as a part of
the regular Army and permitted the enlistment and appointment of
women to the regular Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps.  In addition,
the act limited the number of women in the services to 2 percent of
the services' authorized strength and prohibited the promotion of
women above the rank of lieutenant colonel or commander. 
Furthermore, the act barred women from serving on Navy ships, except
hospital and transport ships, and from serving on Navy and Air Force
aircraft while such aircraft were engaged in combat missions.  There
was no legal prohibition of women serving in direct ground combat
roles.  However, as a matter of policy, the Army did not assign women
to such roles.  Because the Marine Corps is a naval oriented air and
ground combat force, the exclusion of women from Navy ships
essentially barred them from combat positions in the Marine Corps as
well. 

The late 1960s and 1970s was a time of great change for the women in
the military.  In 1967, Congress removed the 2-percent ceiling on
regular line officers and enlisted strength and eliminated the
promotion restrictions.  The Air Force opened its Reserve Officers'
Training Corps program in 1969 and, by 1972, the other services had
opened their programs.  In 1976, women enrolled in the service
academies for the first time.  In 1978, the Women's Armed Services
Integration Act of 1948 was amended to permit women to serve on ships
that were not expected to be assigned combat missions and to serve up
to 6 months on other Navy ships.  Finally, in 1978, Congress
abolished the Women's Army Corps and women were integrated into the
regular Army.  In 1988, DOD adopted the "risk rule" as a
departmentwide policy for women.  The risk rule excluded women from
non-combat units or missions if the risks of exposure to direct
combat, hostile fire, or capture were equal to or greater than the
risk in the combat units they support.  The rule was devised to
standardize the criteria for determining which positions and units
would be closed to women in the services.  Each service interpreted
the risk rule according to its mission requirements in evaluating
whether a non-combat position should be open or closed to women. 

The Gulf War saw the largest deployment of women in U.S.  military
history.  Approximately 41,000 women were deployed, or 7 percent, of
the total forces.  In part, because of women's performance in the
war, the last remaining legislative restrictions regarding the
assignment of women were lifted.  In 1991, Congress repealed the
restriction on women flying combat aircraft in the Air Force and the
Navy; however, DOD did not implement that change until April 1993. 
In November 1993, Congress lifted the ban on the assignment of women
to combat ships. 

Women now comprise about 14 percent of the armed forces.  The
percentages vary among the services from about 5 percent in the
Marine Corps, 13 percent in the Navy, 15 percent in the Army, and 17
percent in the Air Force.  Table 1.1 shows the number and percentage
of men and women in the services as of September 30, 1997. 



                               Table 1.1
                
                Composition of the Military Services by
                                 Gender

                                            Women            Men
                                        --------------  --------------
                                 Total
                              personne          Percen          Percen
Service                              l  Number       t  Number       t
----------------------------  --------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Air Force                      373,357  65,176    17.5  308,18    82.5
                                                             1
Army                           487,812  72,238    14.8  415,57    85.2
                                                             4
Navy                           390,477  49,110    12.6  341,36    87.4
                                                             7
Marine Corps                   173,976   9,286     5.3  164,69    94.7
                                                             0
======================================================================
Total DOD                     1,425,62  195,81    13.7  1,229,    86.3
                                     2       0             812
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Military Service Fiscal Year 1997 Military Equal Opportunity
Assessment Reports. 


   CURRENT DOD AND SERVICE
   ASSIGNMENT POLICIES AND
   PRACTICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

When Congress acted in 1993 to lift the ban on the assignment of
women to combat ships, it eliminated the final statutory barrier to
women in combat.  In January 1994, the former Secretary of Defense
announced a new assignment policy to go into effect October 1, 1994,
to replace the risk rule.  That new policy, which is still in effect,
states that "servicemembers are eligible to be assigned to all
positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be
excluded from assignments to units below the brigade level whose
primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground." The
impact of DOD's ground combat exclusion policy is greatest in the
Army and the Marine Corps and has very little impact in the Air Force
and the Navy.\3

In addition to establishing the direct ground combat exclusion in
1994, the Secretary of Defense also permitted the services to close
positions to women if (1) the units and positions are required to
physically collocate and remain with direct ground combat units; (2)
the service secretary attests that the cost of providing the
appropriate living arrangements is prohibitive; (3) the units are
engaged in special operations forces' missions, including those
involving long-range reconnaissance; or (4) job-related physical
requirements would exclude the vast majority of women.  As of October
1998, a total of 119,353 positions were closed to women for these
reasons. 

Although women are no longer prohibited by law from serving on combat
ships, a portion of the Navy's combat fleet is still closed to women. 
Women cannot serve on submarines, mine hunter, mine countermeasure,
or coastal patrol ships.  These ships are closed to women because of
the cost of providing appropriate living arrangements.  Many of the
Navy's remaining combat ships are open or will be opened to women as
the necessary modifications to provide appropriate living spaces are
made.  The Navy currently has a combat fleet of 298 ships.  As of
June 30, 1998, women were serving on about one-third of the combat
fleet--68 combatant ships have female enlisted personnel and officers
and 29 ships have female officers.  This represents about 66 percent
of the combat ships that are eventually to be opened to women. 
Generally, women constitute about 10 percent of the shipboard
personnel.  Women and men can only be assigned to a ship if a
gender-appropriate living space is available.  The availability of
bunks, the Navy's sea-shore rotation requirements, and the number of
women in occupations needed aboard ships all impact the number of
enlisted women that can be assigned to Navy ships. 

The local policies and practices of military commanders can also
affect assignments.  Military commanders have considerable discretion
to assign personnel under their command. 


--------------------
\3 For more information on the numbers and types of positions closed
to women and the associated justifications for closure see Gender
Issues (GAO/NSIAD-99-7, Oct.  19, 1998). 


   PROCESSES USED FOR PROMOTIONS
   AND SELECTIONS FOR KEY
   ASSIGNMENTS AND PROFESSIONAL
   MILITARY EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

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.  A system similar to that used for officer promotions is
used for enlisted promotions in the Marine Corps. 

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. 

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
conducted a board process for nominated colonels only.  Since 1996,
the Air Force has conducted boards for all colonels. 

Each service selects members for professional military education
opportunities by conducting centralized boards.  All of the services
provide professional military education opportunities to both
officers and enlisted servicemembers; however, not all of these
opportunities were included in the data we reviewed. 


   DOD'S PHYSICAL FITNESS AND BODY
   FAT PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:4

DOD's guidance, established in June 1981 and updated in 1995,
requires that the services establish physical fitness and body fat
programs that include fitness requirements for all servicemembers. 
This guidance requires annual testing of cardiovascular endurance
(measured by activities such as running a certain distance within a
specified period of time), muscular strength and endurance (measured
by activities such as push-ups and sit-ups), and maintenance of body
fat within a certain percentage range.  The Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Force Management Policy is responsible for oversight of
the program and coordinating with the Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Health Affairs, who is responsible for establishing a health
promotion program to be implemented in conjunction with the fitness
program. 

Program guidance states that individual servicemembers need to
possess cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength and endurance,
and whole body flexibility.  However, the guidance does not identify
requirements for specific activities or levels of difficulty.  DOD
guidance states that each service should develop its own program
according to its particular needs, placing primary emphasis on
maintaining general health and physical fitness.  The guidance
requires fitness testing standards to be adjusted for physiological
differences between men and women.  The services may also adjust the
fitness standards for age. 

DOD's guidance also sets out body fat control policies and
procedures.  The guidance requires the services to use a two-tier
screening process.  If a servicemember exceeds the weight parameters
for his or her height in a screening table or the member's immediate
commander determines that his or her appearance suggests an excess of
body fat, then the servicemember's percent of body fat is to be
estimated.  DOD requires the services to use similar validated
circumferential equations for the prediction of body composition. 
The men's equation involves measurements of the neck and waist or
abdomen.  The women's equation requires measurement of the hips,
waist, and neck, but allows for optional measurements of the abdomen
and wrist, and/or forearm. 

For both the fitness and body fat components of the program,
servicemembers who fail to perform successfully against the
established standards are to be given at least 3 months to improve. 
Servicemembers who have not progressed during that time are to be
referred to medical authorities for further evaluation.  If
servicemembers continue to fail over time they are to be considered
for administrative separation under service regulations. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:5

To identify the perceptions of servicemembers, we reviewed studies,
surveys, and articles, and spoke with military and civilian experts
on gender issues.  As agreed with congressional staff, we did not
survey military personnel ourselves since considerable information on
perceptions was already available.  Recent studies have noted that
servicemembers believe they have been over-surveyed on gender issues. 
Researchers have explored the perceptions of men and women with
regard to gender equity in a variety of areas, including the use of
women in ground combat, career development opportunities, and
physical fitness standards. 

Information on the perceptions of male and female servicemembers came
from a variety of surveys and studies conducted across DOD.\4 Most of
these research efforts collected perceptions largely through the use
of focus groups or other qualitative data gathering methods that
provide insights into attitudes, perceptions, and opinions.  The
perceptions cited are not necessarily representative of the entire
military population, and statistical estimates of how many people
hold such views cannot be projected from the results. 

We obtained the services' Military Equal Opportunity Assessments for
Fiscal Years 1993 to 1997 and used those submissions in our May 1998
report\5 to determine whether the military was selecting men and
women at similar rates for (1) promotion to top non-commissioned
officer and non-flag officer grades, (2) key assignments (such as
command or executive officer positions), and (3) the primary
professional military education opportunities (such as the
intermediate service schools and war colleges).  This data provides a
partial indication of career opportunities by showing the rate of
promotion to higher ranks.  Also, placement in key assignments and
attendance at professional military education are considered to be
important steps on the path to career success.  This data, however,
has some limitations with regard to addressing perceptions about
career opportunities.  For example, while the data address most of
the services' promotions, it does not address promotions to flag
officer ranks (Generals and Admirals).  In addition, in some of the
services, the data for officers only included those who were
nominated for key assignments and professional military education. 
As a result, the data would not pick up any disparities in the rates
at which eligible male and female officers were nominated. 
Meaningful analysis of promotions of women to flag officer ranks was
not possible.  As noted earlier, the Reserve Officers' Training Corps
was opened to women by 1972 and the first service academy class to
include women graduated in 1980.  Consequently, many of the women in
the regular officer corps entered in the 1980s and are not yet at the
normal phase point to be competitive for flag officer positions. 

To determine whether selection rates were similar, we used the
"four-fifths" test.  This test is a rule-of-thumb adopted by the four
federal agencies responsible for equal employment opportunity
enforcement (the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel
Management).\6 Under the four-fifths test, a selection rate for a
subgroup (in this report men and women) that is less than four-fifths
(or 80 percent) of the group with the highest selection rate is
considered a significantly different rate.  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 disparities 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 disparities.  Further analyses would be required
to determine the cause(s) of significant disparities.  In several
cases, the selection of one servicemember more or less would have
changed the characterization of the selection rate from similar to
different, or vice versa. 

To assess DOD and military service rationales for adjustments to the
fitness standards for gender-based physiological differences, we
reviewed DOD and service regulations, handbooks, and supporting
documents; analyzed pertinent research and policy reports undertaken
by DOD and a variety of independent civilian agencies; and discussed
the results with officials and researchers from DOD, the military
services, and the civilian agencies. 

To develop comprehensive information on physical fitness policies and
programs and to gain insight into service implementation of the
programs, we interviewed officials at both the DOD and service
levels.  At the DOD level, we interviewed officials from the Office
of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management
Policy, and the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. 
In the Army, we interviewed officials and researchers from the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the
Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel; the U.S.  Army
Physical Fitness School at Fort Benning, Georgia; and the U.S.  Army
Medical Research and Development Command at Fort Detrick, Maryland. 
In the Navy, we interviewed officials from the Bureau of Naval
Personnel and the Naval Health Research Center in San Diego,
California.  In the Marine Corps, we interviewed officials from the
Combat Development Command in Quantico, Virginia.  In the Air Force,
we interviewed officials from the Office of the Surgeon General. 

To gain additional perspective on DOD and military service fitness
policies, we reviewed reports and interviewed officials from a
variety of independent civilian agencies, including the National
Academy of Sciences; the National Institutes of Health; the Centers
for Disease Control; the President's Council on Physical Fitness and
Sports; the American Heart Association; and the Cooper Institute of
Aerobics in Dallas, Texas. 

We conducted our review between June and November 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\4 Many of the perceptions in this report are those expressed by men
and women in focus groups held by the Defense Advisory Committee on
Women in the Services (DACOWITS) during their visits to military
installations in 1996 and 1997 and included in their installation
reports.  DACOWITS meets with men and women at installations to
gather their perceptions about life in the military.  To honor the
pledge of confidentiality given by DACOWITS to its participants, the
names of the installations have not been included in this report. 

\5 Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-98-157, May 26, 1998). 

\6 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 military personnel.  See Randall v. 
U.S., 95 F.3d 339. 


COMPLETE DATA NOT AVAILABLE TO
ASSESS WHETHER MEN AND WOMEN ARE
TREATED EQUITABLY IN CAREER
OPPORTUNITIES
============================================================ Chapter 2

Perceptions of equity in the area of career opportunities vary by
gender.  Although some servicemembers expressed doubts about the
processes used to make promotion or assignment decisions, most of the
concerns raised were focused on factors that affected competitiveness
for career advancement.  However, no study has addressed the specific
issues.  Data does exist, however, on the rates at which the services
selected men and women for most promotions, key assignments, and
professional military education, as reported in our May 1998 report. 


   MEN AND WOMEN HAVE DIFFERENT
   PERCEPTIONS ABOUT WORK AND
   ASSIGNMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

Servicemen and servicewomen have complained to researchers about a
variety of perceived inequities in the assignment process.  Research
suggests that assignment of some tasks can be based on stereotypes,
paternalism, or fear.\1 Whatever the reason, the issue of assignments
and who does what work appears to be the cause of considerable
tension between men and women in the military.  Additionally,
research suggests that some of the services' assignment practices are
the cause of much of the gender harassment and gender discrimination
that takes place in the services. 

Some servicewomen believe that women have to work harder than men to
prove their abilities and that men often do not believe that women
are qualified for the jobs they are assigned.  As one Air Force woman
stated, "If you are a man, you come to the job and are expected to
know everything--until you prove otherwise.  If you are a woman
you're expected to know nothing until you prove otherwise."\2 Other
women report that they are under closer scrutiny than their male
peers and that a failure of one woman is used to criticize the
ability of women in general.\3

Many women report that they are not allowed to work at the jobs for
which they were trained.  They comment that they are routinely
assigned clerical or administrative duties instead of being given the
opportunity to work in the full range of their occupations.  One
junior enlisted woman in the Navy told researchers that she had been
allowed to work in her occupation for only about 4 months in 4 years
of active duty.  A female airman told researchers "I'm a senior
airman, I hate being treated like a secretary.  I trained for my job
and I want to do it." Some Army women said that they believe that
they were losing mission readiness in their occupations because they
get assigned to clerical positions.  These women believe that this
practice does not permit them to develop all of the experience and
skills necessary to advance in their careers.  Some female officers
believe that they were being (1) kept from field positions and placed
in less prestigious positions such as in training, (2) directed into
positions with limited opportunities and low probabilities for
advancement, or (3) placed in positions that were still perceived as
"girls' jobs".  \4

Some men, particularly enlisted men, have told researchers that they
believe less is expected of women than men when it comes to job
performance.  Men fear that women will claim sexual harassment if
they are pushed too hard.\5 Some men question women's abilities or
commitment to perform their jobs effectively.\6 They tell researchers
that they believe that women do not want to do their jobs and that
women try to avoid work and will use their femininity to avoid the
tough dirty jobs.  Some men believe that women deliberately get
pregnant to avoid sea duty or deployments, and some complain that
women are not required to do the heaviest or dirtiest part of any job
and that they can get away without reprimand because of their sex. 
One enlisted man told a researcher, "Today all you hear in the Army
is that we are equal, but men do all the hard and heavy work whether
it's combat or not."\7

There is a perception among some women that some jobs, which should
be open, are effectively closed to them because these assignments
require a skill or an experience as a prerequisite, which is not, or
was not, available to them.  For example, some Navy women noted that
some shore based positions at the Navy's submarine bases, for
example, the executive officer's position, are closed to women
because the positions are coded as needing to be filled by a person
from the submarine community, a community that is not open to women. 
Similarly, some Army women noted that at one gender-integrated
command, all first sergeants must have experience in the combat arms. 
Some Army women also believe that some positions, such as operations
officers at the brigade level or above, which are officially open to
women, are, in reality, closed because the combat exclusion policy
does not permit them to serve in lower echelon assignments where the
prerequisite experience for these positions is gained.  Similarly,
the Air Force has non-flying positions on its headquarters staff, as
well as some of its lower level commands, that require a fighter or
bomber weapon systems qualification; these skills were closed to
women until 1993. 

Some Navy women also believe that it is difficult for women to get
assigned to ships due to a lack of billets on gender-integrated
ships.  These women believe that this can negatively impact their
careers.  Researchers were told that women cannot progress in the
Navy without the proper boxes being checked on their evaluation and
that unless a woman has had command "afloat" she cannot advance. 
Some women also said that men who go to sea will always have a better
chance for promotions than women who do not and, according to these
women, few women get assignments on ships.  Some Marine Corps women
also believed that there are not enough ships open to women.  Because
of the lack of integrated ships, some women in integrated Marine
Corps units are not able to deploy with their units.  This can cause
resentment among male troops. 

A key factor cited by both men and women is the DOD policy excluding
women from assignments involving direct ground combat.  Our recent
report on this policy found that over 190,000 positions across the
four services are closed to women because they involve direct ground
combat or collocate with units involved in direct ground combat.\8
Although the ground combat exclusion policy bars women from direct
ground combat and would, therefore, seem inherently inequitable to
men because it exposes them to hazardous duty, a 1997 RAND study\9
found that Army and Marine Corps men strongly support the ground
combat exclusion policy.  Navy officers and enlisted men were less
supportive of this policy.  While over 75 percent of Army and Marine
Corps male officers and 57 percent of enlisted men were satisfied
with the combat exclusion policy only 48 percent of the male Navy
officers were satisfied with the policy.  When the same question was
asked of servicewomen, less than 22 percent of those who were
surveyed agreed that women should continue to be excluded from direct
ground combat.  Branch of service was not a factor in the women's
response. 

The perception of the effect of the ground combat exclusion policy
varies greatly between men and women and between officers and
enlisted personnel.  For example, some Army men believe that the
ground combat exclusion policy is an advantage to women.  According
to one study,\10 some Army men believe that because women cannot be
assigned to combat units, they have more opportunities to take
advantage of training opportunities that make them more competitive
for career advancement and promotions.  This same study also reported
that some Army men believed that the combat exclusion rule results in
women getting better job assignments than their male counterparts,
which again leads to faster promotions.  One officer in the study
said that male officers in his combat support branch typically start
at the battalion level and move up to command a platoon in a company
at the division level while women, because of the ground combat
exclusion rule that prevents them from being collocated with ground
combat units, often start at the division level without having to
work their way up from the battalion level. 

In contrast to the perceptions cited by the men, one study reported
that 50 percent of the Army women surveyed believed that the combat
exclusion policy hurt promotion opportunities for enlisted women.\11
In addition, 61 percent of the female Army officers surveyed believed
that this policy had hurt promotion opportunities for female Army
officers by keeping them from getting their "ticket punched" in areas
that are seen as important avenues to advancement.  Some women also
believed that the policy kept them from gaining field experience at
lower levels that is important to future advancement, making them
less competitive for responsible and prestigious positions. 

A few men and women have expressed concerns about the equity of the
promotions process.  For example, men expressed the feeling that
women are promoted over more qualified men because of affirmative
action or favoritism.  Some men expressed the opinion that there was
a double standard in favor of women when it came to the promotion
process.  Women on the other hand, believe that men are being
preferentially promoted over women.  Still other women believe that,
to successfully compete with men, women must meet a higher standard
then their male peers.\12


--------------------
\1 Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.  60, p.47. 

\2 DACOWITS. 

\3 Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.  60, p.  37. 

\4 DACOWITS. 

\5 Margaret C.  Harrell and Laura L.  Miller, New Opportunities for
Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale
(Washington, D.C.:  Rand, 1997) pp.  73-74 . 

\6 Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.  60, p.  37. 

\7 Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.  60, p.  46. 

\8 Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-99-7, Oct.  19, 1998). 

\9 Margaret C.  Harrell and Laura L.  Miller, New Opportunities for
Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale
(Washington, D.C.:  Rand, 1997) pp.  90-91. 

\10 Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.  60, p.  45. 

\11 Laura Miller, "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, p.  12. 

\12 DACOWITS. 


   NO STUDIES HAVE BEEN DONE
   SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING
   PERCEPTIONS OF INEQUITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

Some DOD-wide assignment policies prevent women from holding
particular assignments.  For example, the Army, Air Force and Marine
Corps have closed some positions to women because they would be
required to serve in a combat unit or collocate with a combat unit. 
For example, enlisted women below the rank of staff sergeant are
barred from 25 percent of the Marine Corps' administrative billets
because these billets are in combat units. 

Some positions that are listed as being open to women actually
require, as a prerequisite, a skill or occupation that is closed to
women.  For example, although the Army lists the drill sergeant
position as a gender-neutral position, some are closed to women
because they are coded as requiring infantry skills.  In addition,
the Air Force has a number of non-flying positions that are coded as
requiring combat aircraft experience, an experience that was
unavailable to women until 1993.  Similarly, the Navy has shore-based
assignments that are coded as requiring warfare specialties that were
either closed to women until 1994 or remain closed to women.  Such
assignments would include the executive officer's position at Navy
submarine bases. 

In addition, there are an unknown number of positions in each service
that are effectively closed to women because of the informal and
unofficial discretionary assignment decisions of military commanders. 
Because such decisions are not formally sanctioned by the services,
they are not tracked by the services.  Such policies can affect the
assignment of both women and men in the military.  One often cited
example is a male commander who refuses to select a woman for a
driver or aide because of the fear of rumors or sexual harassment
charges.  Another example is a commander or supervisor who assigns or
reassigns women to administrative rather than technical duties that
may not fully utilize the skills they were trained in.  On paper, the
positions may appear to be filled by women, but women may not
actually work in the unit or perform their specific occupational
duties.  According to a 1997 report by the RAND Corporation, reasons
for this may include supervisors who (1) believe they have enough
women in the unit, (2) exclude women because of their personal
interpretation of the collocation policy, or (3) allow women in the
unit but assign them all of the unit's administrative duties.\13

We found no studies that directly addressed whether service
assignment policies and practices or the ground combat exclusion
policy have an inequitable impact on career opportunities of men and
women.  Consequently, we examined the data submitted by the services
as part of their annual equal opportunity assessments to determine
whether men and women were selected at similar rates for promotion,
key assignments, and professional military education.\14 While this
data provides some insight into the relative career success of
servicemen and servicewomen, it does not address the specific
perceptions of inequitable career opportunities raised by military
personnel. 


--------------------
\13 Margaret C.  Harrell and Laura L.  Miller, New Opportunities for
Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale
(Washington, D.C.:  Rand, 1997) p.  31. 

\14 For more details about the services' selection rates for
promotions, key assignments and professional military education refer
to Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-98-157, May 26, 1998). 


      MEN AND WOMEN GENERALLY
      PROMOTED AT SIMILAR RATES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.1

In an earlier report, we examined the promotion data provided by the
services as part of their Military Equal Opportunity Assessments.\15
This data includes most of the services' promotions to the top
enlisted ranks and the top non-flag officer ranks.  As shown in table
2.1, in 47 of 58 officer promotion boards (81 percent) and 49 of the
60 enlisted promotion boards or examinations (about 82 percent), the
military across DOD selected men and women at similar rates.  For
those selections in which significant differences occurred, the
majority in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps were in favor of
women, in 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 (83 percent) 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. 



                                    Table 2.1
                     
                     Comparison of Promotion Board Selections
                       by Gender, Fiscal Years 1993 through
                                       1997

                      Number   Percent
                     showing   showing
          Number of     no        no      Number    Percent     Number   Percent
          compariso  differen  differen  in favor  in favor   in favor  in favor
Service          ns     ce        ce     of women  of women     of men    of men
--------  ---------  --------  --------  --------  ---------  --------  --------
All
 promoti
 ons
Air              29     23       79.3       6        20.7            0         0
 Force
Army             30     25       83.3       2         6.7            3      10.0
Marine           29     22       75.9       6        20.7            1       3.4
 Corps
Navy             30     26       86.7       4        13.3            0         0
================================================================================
Total           118     96       81.4       18       15.3            4       3.4
Officer
 promoti
 ons
Air              14     10       71.4       4        28.6            0         0
 Force
Army             15     13       86.7       0          0             2      13.3
Marine           14     9        64.3       4        28.6            1       7.1
 Corps
Navy             15     15      100.0       0          0             0         0
================================================================================
Total            58     47       81.0       8        13.8            3       5.2
Enlisted
 promoti
 ons
Air              15     13       86.7       2        13.3            0         0
 Force
Army             15     12       80.0       2        13.3            1       6.7
Marine           15     13       86.7       2        13.3            0         0
 Corps
Navy             15     11       73.3       4        26.7            0         0
================================================================================
Total            60     49       81.7       10       16.7            1       1.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of DOD data. 

We reviewed six types\16 of promotion boards in each of the four
services for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and found only one type
of board selected the same gender at significantly higher rates in at
least 3 of the 5 years we reviewed.  The Air Force promoted women to
colonel at significantly higher rates than men in fiscal years 1993,
1994, 1996, and 1997.\17

During these 4 years, the Air Force promoted 41 percent of the men it
considered and between 52 and 61 percent of the women it considered. 
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, by law, 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 promotions for men in the zone. 

It is important to remember that the number of men considered for
promotion and actually promoted far exceeds the number of women
considered and promoted in any of the categories we looked at.  For
example, in 1997, the Air Force considered 2,640 men for promotion to
major and selected 2,131.  It also considered 222 women and selected
192 for promotion to major.  Finally, it is also important to note
that in some cases whether a promotion board was categorized as
similar or significantly different was dependent on the selection or
non-selection of only one additional servicemember.  For example, we
found that the Army promoted men to the rank of colonel at
significantly higher rates in fiscal years 1993 and 1996.  However,
we also found that if the Army had promoted just one more woman in
each of those 2 years, there would have been no significant
difference in those 2 years.  When we reviewed promotion data for all
of the services, we found that in 8 of the 22 promotion boards or
examinations that were categorized as having significantly different
selection rates, the selection rate would have been considered
similar if only one additional servicemember had been selected or not
selected. 


--------------------
\15 Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-98-157, May 26, 1998). 

\16 We reviewed officer promotions to major, lieutenant colonel, and
colonel for the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps and Navy promotions
to lieutenant commander, commander, and captain.  For the enlisted
force, we reviewed promotions to master sergeant, senior master
sergeant, and chief master sergeant for the Air Force; sergeant first
class, master sergeant, and sergeant major for the Army; chief petty
officer, senior chief petty officer, and master chief petty officer
in the Navy; and gunnery sergeant, first sergeant/master sergeant,
and sergeant major/master gunnery sergeant for the Marine Corps. 

\17 In 1995, the Air Force did not hold boards for promotions to the
rank of colonel. 


      SELECTION RATES OF MEN AND
      WOMEN FOR PROFESSIONAL
      MILITARY EDUCATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.2

As noted earlier, some men believe that the ground combat exclusion
policy provides women with more time for career-enhancing training. 
We reviewed available data on selections for professional military
education reported by the services in their annual Military Equal
Opportunity Assessments.  Professional military education is intended
to provide professional knowledge required for all officers,
non-commissioned officers, and some enlisted personnel.  Subjects
covered include leadership, command, operations, communications
skills, and management.  Professional military education is different
from functional, or branch education and is considered a prerequisite
for career advancement.  Generally, the services include selections
for schools that are made by centralized boards.  However, the Army
and the Air Force do not report enlisted professional military
education opportunities while the Marine Corps and the Navy do. 
Also, the selection data for officers for some of the services
includes only those officers nominated to attend the various schools. 
Consequently, the data would not identify any disparities in the
rates at which eligible male and female officers were nominated. 

Looking across all services, selection rates for men and women
considered for professional military education opportunities were
basically similar in about 46 percent of the board or decentralized
selections.  For the remaining 54 percent, selections slightly
favored women, 29 to 25 percent.  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.  Table 2.2 shows the number of professional military
education boards included in our review.  The table also shows, by
service, the number of boards that had no significant differences and
the number that had significant differences in favor of men and
women. 



                                    Table 2.2
                     
                       Comparison of Professional Military
                      Education Board Selections by Gender,
                          Fiscal Years 1993 through 1997

                       Number    Percent
                      showing    showing
         Number of         no         no    Number   Percent    Number   Percent
         compariso  differenc  differenc  in favor  in favor  in favor  in favor
Service         ns          e          e  of women  of women    of men    of men
-------  ---------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Air             10          7       70.0         2      20.0         1      10.0
 Force
Army            10          5       50.0         1      10.0         4      40.0
Marine          20          7       35.0        11      55.0         2      10.0
 Corps
Navy            15          6       40.0         2      13.3         7      46.7
================================================================================
Total           55         25       45.5        16      29.1        14      25.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of DOD data. 

We reviewed 11 types of professional military education boards across
the four services (Senior Enlisted Schools and Career, Intermediate,
and Senior Level schools for officers) and found that 4 boards
selected the same gender at significantly higher rates in at least 3
of the 5 years we reviewed.  The Army selected men for the Army War
College at a significantly higher rate in fiscal years 1994, 1995,
and 1997, and the Navy selected men for its Senior Enlisted Academy
at a significantly higher rate in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. 
The Marine Corps selected women at a significantly higher rate for
its career levels schools during fiscal years 1993 through 1996 and
for its intermediate level schools in fiscal year 1993, 1996, and
1997.  In the cases of the Army War College and the Navy's Senior
Enlisted Academy, the overall selection rates are low (less than 10
percent of all officers for the War College and less than 1 percent
of all non-commissioned officers for the Senior Enlisted Academy). 
Consequently, the percentages used for calculating the four-fifths
test are low, and it is more likely that small percentage differences
would appear significant. 

In some of the cases whether a professional military education board
selection rate was categorized as similar or different was dependent
on the selection or non-selection of one additional servicemember. 
During our review, we found that the Navy selected men for
post-graduate education at significantly higher rates in fiscal years
1996 and 1997.  A further analysis of the data revealed, however,
that if the Navy had selected one more woman in fiscal year 1996,
there would have been no significant difference in that year.  When
we reviewed the professional military education data for all of the
services, we found that in 8 of the 30 instances that were
categorized as having significantly different selection rates, the
selection rates for men and women would have been considered similar
if one additional servicemember had been selected or not selected. 

While men and women were selected for professional military education
opportunities at similar rates in 25 of the 55 boards, because of the
small number of women in the military, considerably more men were
selected to receive professional military education opportunities
than women.  For example, in the 5 years we reviewed, the Air Force
selected 1,101 men to attend the Air War College out of 2,438 men it
considered.  During the same 5 years, it selected 139 women to attend
the same school out of the approximately 300 women it considered. 
Similarly, the Army and the Marine Corps considered and selected over
20 times as many men as it did women to attend senior level schools. 


      SELECTION RATES FOR MEN AND
      WOMEN FOR KEY ASSIGNMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2.3

We reviewed the data for certain key assignments that the services
provide when they file their yearly equal opportunity assessments. 
Typically, the data reported reflects assignments to command position
or executive officer positions, although the services decide which
key assignments data to report.\18 Also, the centralized boards in
the Navy and the Marine Corps considered only those officers who had
been nominated for key positions.  Similarly, the Air Force conducted
boards for nominated officers only in its selection of officers for
commanding officer positions at the colonel level up until 1996, when
it began conducting boards including all colonels.  Analysis of 60
key assignment selection boards showed that, of those being
considered, the military as a whole selected men and women for key
assignments at similar rates in 32 of the selection boards in fiscal
years 1993 to 1997 (see table 2.3).  When significant differences
occurred, they were in favor of men in about two-thirds of the cases. 
For the 28 key assignment selections 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. 



                                    Table 2.3
                     
                     Comparison of Key Assignment Selections
                       by Gender, Fiscal Years 1993 through
                                       1997

                       Number    Percent
                      showing    showing
         Number of         no         no    Number   Percent    Number   Percent
         compariso  differenc  differenc  in favor  in favor  in favor  in favor
Service         ns          e          e  of women  of women    of men    of men
-------  ---------  ---------  ---------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Air             20         13       65.0         1       5.0         6      30.0
 Force
Army            15          6       40.0         5      33.3         4      26.7
Marine           5          5      100.0         0         0         0         0
 Corps
Navy            20          8       40.0         3      15.0         9      45.0
================================================================================
Total           60         32       53.3         9      15.0        19      31.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of DOD data. 

We reviewed the selections made for 12 types of key assignments
across DOD for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and found that in four
cases, the same gender was selected at significantly higher rates in
at least 3 of the 5 years we reviewed.  These included the selections
for Army command sergeant major, Army colonel commands, and Navy
commands at the commander and captain level.  The Army selected men
for command sergeant major at significantly higher rates in fiscal
years 1993, 1996, and 1997 and selected women for colonel commands at
a significantly higher rate in fiscal years 1994 through 1996.  In
both of these cases, the selection of one servicemember more or less
would have resulted in similar selection rates.  For example, if the
Army had selected one less woman for a colonel level command in
fiscal years 1995 and 1996, there would have been no significant
differences in either of those years.  Similarly, if the Army had
selected one less man for command sergeant major in 1997, there would
have been no significant difference that year.  On the other hand, if
the Army had selected one more woman in 1993, the difference in
selection rates would not have been significant. 

The Navy selected men at significantly higher rates for executive or
commanding officer at the commander level in fiscal years 1994, 1995,
and 1997 and for commanding officer at the captain level in fiscal
years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997.  Although the Navy did not know the
specific reasons why men where selected at higher rates, officials
suggested some factors that could have impacted the selection rate. 
One factor, according to Navy officials, was that women were legally
prohibited from serving on combat ships until 1993 and their lack of
afloat experience limited their competitiveness when compared to men. 
Even though the exclusion has been lifted, officials said senior
women's lack of sea experience will continue to make them less
competitive than senior men.  In addition, according to the Navy,
most sea and operational commands require a warfare specialty.  Since
many senior women officers did not have the opportunity to acquire a
warfare specialty, their command opportunities are limited to certain
shore commands. 


--------------------
\18 The Air Force reports data on selections as senior enlisted
advisor and command assignments for majors, lieutenant colonels, and
colonels.  The Army reports on assignments to command sergeant major
positions and assignments to commands at the lieutenant colonel and
colonel level.  The Navy provides data for the command master chief
position and command or executive officer positions at the lieutenant
commander, commander, and captain levels.  The Marine Corps provides
no data on enlisted key assignments and does not provide data on
officer key assignments by rank. 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

Research studies have indicated that men and women have widely
varying perceptions about equity in the area of career opportunities. 
In particular, women tend to see assignment policies and practices as
operating to their detriment, while men perceived them as working to
the benefit of women.  In the absence of data or studies related
directly to the issues raised by the servicemen and servicewomen, we
analyzed available data reported by the services in their annual
Military Equal Opportunity Assessment reports.  This data included
aggregate selection rates for promotions to most senior enlisted and
non-flag officer ranks, certain key assignments, and certain
professional military education.  Overall, this data did not show
systemic gender disparities in favor of men or women.  However,
additional data would be needed to directly address many of the most
frequently cited perceptions of inequities.  DOD and service
officials were unaware of any studies of assignment practices at the
unit level that could restrict women from performing the full range
of duties in their occupation or whether prerequisites are unfairly
attached to positions that would otherwise be open to women. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

To provide DOD and service officials with information to address
perceptions of gender inequities in position prerequisites and skill
utilization, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the
services to assess whether

  -- requirements for skills or specialties that are presently closed
     to women or have only recently been opened to women are being
     inappropriately used as prerequisites for positions that are
     otherwise open to women and

  -- men or women are receiving an equal opportunity to work within
     the area of their military specialties. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:5

In comments to a draft of our report, DOD generally concurred with
both our findings and recommendations and said that DOD would be
working with the services to develop methodologies to assess both
matters within the next 18 months.  While DOD did not question the
perceptions cited in our report, they believe that it is important to
note that there is not always data to support them.  We agree that
various perceptions may be inaccurate, which reinforces the need to
assess whether the perceptions are supported by the facts. 


THE EQUITY OF PHYSICAL FITNESS
STANDARDS CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT
THIS TIME
============================================================ Chapter 3

Physical fitness is a fundamentally important part of military life
for both men and women.\1 Each year, thousands of servicemembers are
denied promotions, schooling, or other benefits for failing to meet
fitness standards.  The growing role of women in many military
occupations has been accompanied by debate over whether the fitness
standards are fair and appropriate to both men and women in today's
military. 


--------------------
\1 For a more detailed review of the service physical fitness
programs, see Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-99-9, Nov.  17, 1998). 


   DIFFERENT FITNESS STANDARDS FOR
   MEN AND WOMEN DO NOT
   NECESSARILY CONSTITUTE A DOUBLE
   STANDARD
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

Many servicemembers believe that the services' physical fitness
standards are measures of one's ability to perform in a combat
environment\2 or are related to a specific job or occupation.  Some
see the existence of different physical fitness standards for men and
women as a "double standard".  Different fitness standards are seen
as evidence that women will perform less well in a combat environment
and as proof that women cannot make it in the military.  Some men
question whether women can compete for physically-demanding jobs when
their fitness standards are so much lower than the men's standards. 
As one man commented to researchers; "It does not seem fair that a
44-year old man is held to a higher standard than a 19-year old
woman."\3 Men often comment that they believe that if women want to
be treated equally, they should be held to the same physical
standards as men.  Some women agree that both men and women should
meet a single physical fitness standard.  According to one study,\4
the few women who support the idea of a single physical fitness
standard do so because they are tired of hearing men complain about
the inequity of the two standards.  Other women believe that separate
standards discredit women and perpetuate the idea of women as "second
class citizens." Many of these perceptions, however, may be the
result of confusion regarding the two kinds of physical requirements
that a servicemember may have to meet:  job-specific physical
performance standards and general physical fitness standards. 

The purpose of job-specific physical performance standards is to
ensure that those personnel assigned to physically-demanding jobs are
capable of performing those jobs.  Section 543 of the Fiscal Year
1994 National Defense Authorization Act requires the Secretary of
Defense to prescribe specific physical requirements for
servicemembers in any occupation in which the Secretary has
determined that strength, endurance, and cardiovascular capacity are
essential to the performance of duties.  The act requires that in any
military occupation that is open to both men and women, the Secretary
shall ensure that qualification for and continuance in that
occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common,
relevant performance standards, without differential standards or
evaluation on the basis of gender.  In other words, job-specific
physical performance standards would identify the minimum level of
physical capability needed for successful performance and anyone in
that occupation, regardless of gender or age, would be required to
meet the same standard.  However, only the Air Force currently uses
physical performance standards.\5 DOD believes that there is no need
to develop such standards because there is no evidence that
servicemembers are unable to do their jobs due to a lack of physical
strength. 

The purpose of general fitness standards, on the other hand, is to
maintain the overall health and conditioning of personnel.  Each of
the services tests its personnel against these standards regardless
of occupation.  As such, these standards are not intended to
specifically enhance the performance of a particular mission or job. 
Consequently, performance on an annual service fitness test is not a
measure of capability to perform in a military combat environment. 

Aside from not being intended to measure ability to perform military
jobs, research has identified little correlation between performance
on fitness test activities such as timed runs, push-ups, and sit-ups,
and specific military task performance.  According to a 1998 National
Academy of Sciences report,\6 the majority of the military's
physically-demanding occupations involve occasional to frequent
lifting and load carrying.  However, the report found little
association between performance on push-up, sit-up, and unloaded
distance running tests, and lifting and load carrying ability. 
Researchers concluded that this was so because tasks such as unloaded
distance running were rarely a part of a soldier's military duties,
and the body type required to excel at lifting, for example, was
different than that required for distance running.  Leaner
individuals are favored in unloaded distance running, while larger
people do better at lifting. 

The 1992 President's Commission on the Assignment of Women in the
Armed Forces looked closely at the issue of physical strength and
endurance requirements.  The Commission concluded that since physical
fitness standards are established to promote the highest level of
general wellness in the armed forces and are not aimed at assessing
capability to perform specific jobs or missions, it is appropriate to
adjust the standards for physiological differences among
servicemembers.\7 The purpose of physical fitness standards, as being
intended only to set a minimum level of general fitness and health,
was reiterated in a 1995 DOD report to the Congress on gender-neutral
training standards\8 and recently confirmed by the Office of the
Secretary of Defense official responsible for overseeing the fitness
program. 

Because it is appropriate to adjust general fitness standards for
physiological differences among servicemembers, such as those
associated with gender or age, the mere existence of different
fitness standards for men and women does not constitute a "double
standard." General fitness standards can be different for men and
women without being inequitable.  Reports by the National Academy of
Sciences and others indicate that, in addition to being generally
smaller, female soldiers have only 50 to 70 percent of a male's
strength, with the greatest disparity in the area of upper body
strength.  Women have smaller lung capacities and hearts than men. 
Women also carry about 10 percentage points more body fat than men. 
As a result of these and other differences, women exerting the same
effort as men in running, push-ups, and other cardiovascular and
muscular endurance tests are generally at a disadvantage.  Therefore,
a single fitness standard applicable to both men and women would be
unfair to women because meeting that standard would require a much
higher level of effort from a woman than it would from a man. 


--------------------
\2 Margaret C.  Harrell and Laura L.  Miller, New Opportunities for
Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale
(Washington, D.C.:  Rand 1997) p.  47. 

\3 DACOWITS. 

\4 The Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel Report on Sexual
Harassment, July 1997 p.  63. 

\5 Physically-Demanding Jobs:  Services Have Little Data on Ability
of Personnel to Perform (GAO/NSIAD-96-169, July 9, 1996). 

\6 Assessing Readiness in Military Women:  The Relationship of Body
Composition, Nutrition, and Health (Washington, D.C.:  National
Academy Press, 1998). 

\7 Report to the President, Presidential Commission on the Assignment
of Women in the Armed Forces, 1992, p.  5. 

\8 Gender Neutral Standards, report to the House Committee on
National Security, Senate Committee on Armed Services, House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), April 1995. 


   FITNESS STANDARDS FOR WOMEN ARE
   NOT SCIENTIFICALLY-BASED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

To be equitable, male and female fitness standards should require
both men and women to exert the same amount of effort to receive the
same scores on fitness tests.  Many men and women believe that the
women's standards are easier for women to meet than the men's
standards are for men to meet.\9

It is not possible at this time to determine whether male and female
standards require the same expenditure of effort because the services
did not develop the women's standards scientifically.  Male fitness
standards were usually based on actual data on the performance of men
in the run, push-ups, or other such tests.  However, female standards
were often estimated, inferred from male data, or based on command
judgment rather than actual performance in fitness tests. 

A 1995 study by the Army\10 concluded that its current physical
fitness program contained gender disparities, with some women's
standards being less demanding than they should be, and not based on
scientific research.  For example, according to the report, research
indicates that women's world record times for events similar to the
2-mile run are 8 to 12 percent slower than men's, but Army standards
allow women to run 19 percent slower than men and still get the same
score.  Similarly, research found that women performed sit-ups at 95
to 110 percent of the male rate, but Army standards required women to
perform at only 93 percent of the men's standards.  Officials at the
Army Physical Fitness School could not fully document the rationale
behind the standards.  They believed that the minimum requirements
were based on actual data collected in the early 1980s, but the
incremental steps up to the maximum scores were based on simple
numerical progressions, not actual performance data. 

Beginning in October 1998, the Army was scheduled to implement new
fitness standards based on a more scientifically-based approach, with
a gender-neutral, "equal points for equal effort" policy.  The Army
delayed the implementation of these standards until January 1999 to
allow for additional review and feedback from commanders, and to
complete and distribute new fitness scorecard forms.  The new
standards generally toughen the requirements for both sexes and
require women to perform the same number of sit-ups as men.  Women's
push-up standards would be increased from 44 to about 50 percent of
the male standard and female run times set about 14 to 16 percent
slower than male times.  According to the Army study, these changes
are consistent with a narrowing physical performance gap between the
genders in recent years. 

Navy standards for the 1-1/2 mile run/walk, push-ups, and sit-up
exercises for men and women 30-years old and above are based on the
distribution of actual scores for thousands of Navy men and women
identified in Navy research reports.  However, 1-1/2 mile run
standards for women under 30-years old were set by adding time to the
men's standards and not by using women's actual run times.  Effective
September 1998, the maximum time allowed for women under 30 to
complete the 1-1/2 mile run was lowered by as much as 1 minute 15
seconds.  The new female standards were derived by multiplying the
men's standards by a factor to reflect a mean 18-percent difference
between male and female aerobic capabilities, as calculated by Navy
researchers, rather than using actual performance data.  According to
Navy documents and discussions with officials, this change was made
because officials believed that the existing 4-minute difference
between male and female standards was not appropriate and that female
standards needed to be more stringent.  According to Navy officials,
this change is temporary pending completion of an ongoing study of
fitness scores throughout the Navy.  The standards for males and for
females ages 30 and older were not changed. 

Marine Corps officials believed that their male standards dated back
to studies conducted in 1967 showing actual male times for the 3-mile
run.  In January 1997, the Marine Corps raised the female run
distance from 1-1/2 to 3 miles to match the male requirement. 
According to Marine Corps officials, studies conducted in 1993 and
1996 revealed an approximate 3-minute difference, on average, between
the male and female run times.  The resultant female standards were
then established by adding the 3-minute average difference to the
existing male standards.  Marine Corps officials stated that,
although the data needed to provide actual performance times was
developed to ensure a solid basis for the new female standards, the
process described above was used. 

Air Force officials could provide no studies or other records to
document the rationale for their cardiovascular endurance standards. 
However, according to Air Force officials, an oral history of the
standards was developed through discussions with officers previously
responsible for the program.  According to the oral history, the
cardiovascular standard was based on performance statistics from a
population of Air Force men and women in the early 1990s. 


--------------------
\9 Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol.  60, p.  44. 

\10 Army Physical Fitness Test Update Survey, 1995. 


   CONCERNS EXIST REGARDING THE
   EQUITY OF BODY FAT STANDARDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

While men have generally made few comments about the weight and body
fat standards, many women in all services have indicated that the
weight standards and the body fat standards are unfair, unrealistic,
and inequitable.  For example, some women believe that the body fat
measurement process favors men because of the body parts that are
measured.  Some minority women believe that the body fat measurement
process may be racially biased.  Additionally, some women believe
that the standards are selectively enforced against women more than
men and that women are disproportionately discharged for not meeting
the body fat standards.  Finally, women and men both believe that
enlisted servicemembers are held to a higher standard than
officers.\11

Our review of the body fat standards found that the female body fat
standards were not scientifically determined, may not account for
gender and racial differences in body type, and were developed on a
population that does not reflect the ethnic make-up of today's
military.  Additionally, we found that neither DOD nor the services
maintain adequate statistics on their fitness programs to assess
whether the body fat program is equitable to both men and women. 


--------------------
\11 DACOWITS. 


      BODY FAT STANDARDS ARE NOT
      BASED ON SCIENTIFIC
      RATIONALES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.1

DOD's original body fat standards were established in 1981 based on
the recommendations of the study panel chartered to report on
physical fitness in the military.  According to the National Academy
of Sciences' 1998 report,\12 the 1981 study panel recommended that
both the male and female body fat standards be based on scientific
texts indicating that the average body fat of physically fit young
men was 20 percent and about 30 percent for fit young women,
including a 5-percent margin for statistical error.  DOD's guidance
incorporated the 20-percent goal for men, but lowered the female goal
to 26 percent.  According to the National Academy of Sciences'
report, DOD decreased the female goal "in the belief that it was
desirable to recruit women whose body fat was closer to that of the
average man, as such women, possessing a higher than average
proportion of fat free mass, might also be more similar to men in
strength and endurance."

The original standards were in effect until 1995, when they were
changed to the current levels of 18 to 26 percent for men and 26 to
36 percent for women.  DOD had no documentation of the rationale for
the change.  However, service officials told us that the change was
based simply on the desire to cover the full range of standards in
effect in the services at the time.  No scientific research was
conducted. 

Until September 1998, Navy regulations also based the male and female
body fat standards on different rationales.  The male standard is
based on the 1985 National Institutes of Health definition of
obesity.  Navy scientists converted the 1983 Metropolitan Life
weight-for-height values into mean body fat percentages of about 22
percent for men and 33 percent for women, and recommended their
adoption as the maximum Navy body fat standards.  The recommendation
for men was adopted without change.  However, according to
discussions with Navy officials, command concerns about appearance
resulted in a lowering of the female standard to 30 percent.  The
Navy revised its regulations in September 1998 to raise the female
standard back to the 33-percent level originally recommended. 

Marine Corps officials could not document a clear, scientific basis
for either its male or female standards.  However, based on our
discussions with Marine Corps officials and review of regulations,
the Marine Corps' body fat standards appear to be based on command
judgments regarding fitness and appearance, rather than health-based
actuarial studies or other scientific bases.  For example, Marine
Corps regulations\13

state that the Marine Corps, more than any other service, relies on
the maximum fitness of its personnel.  As a result, according to the
regulation, the maximum allowable percentage of body fat for male
Marines was set at 18 percent.  This equates to just below the
midpoint of the interval between the 10-percent body fat level said
by the regulation to be exhibited by marathon runners and the
30-percent level said by the regulation to represent gross obesity. 
Similarly, the regulation sets the female standard at 26 percent, or
about 80 percent up the interval between the 11-percent body fat
level said to be exhibited by average gymnasts and the 30-percent
level said by the Marine Corps regulation to represent gross obesity
in women. 

The current Army body fat standards of 20 to 26 percent for men and
30 to 36 percent for women, according to research cited in the 1998
National Academy of Sciences report and our discussions with Army
officials, are based on different rationales.  The 20-percent male
minimum is based on Army data on young male soldiers dating back to
the 1980s.  The 26-percent male maximum was determined by increasing
the 20-percent minimum figure by roughly 2 percentage points for
every 10 years of age to accommodate increases in body fat associated
with aging.  Prior to 1991, the female standards were 28 to 34
percent.  Army officials told us that this percentage range was based
simply on adding 8 percentage points to the male minimum for each age
category.  The female standard, however, came to be viewed as
unfairly restrictive compared to the men's standard.  For example, an
Army study found that the standard provided women with only a 1 to 3
percentage point margin over the mean body fat for young female
recruits, while the men's standard provided a 4 to 6 percentage point
margin over the mean for young male recruits.  In 1991, the women's
body fat standard was increased by 2 percentage points for each age
grouping, raising it to the current level of 30 to 36 percent. 

For Air Force personnel, the current maximum body fat standards are
20 to 24 percent for men and 28 to 32 percent for women.  Air Force
officials, however, could not determine the basis for their body fat
standards for either men or women. 


--------------------
\12 Assessing Readiness in Military Women:  The Relationship of Body
Composition, Nutrition, and Health (Washington, D.C.:  National
Academy Press, 1998)

\13 Marine Corps Order 6100.10B, March 26, 1993. 


      PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING
      BODY FAT MAY NOT ACCURATELY
      MEASURE GENDER AND RACIAL
      DIFFERENCES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3.2

The basic approach used by each service to determine the percentage
of body fat has been to first, develop a set of measures of the
circumference of various body sites, such as the waist and neck for
men, and the neck, waist, and hips for women.  Next, these measures
are fed into gender-specific equations developed by each service to
estimate the percentage of body fat.  These equations were developed
through analysis of population samples for relationships between
measures of various body sites and the percentage of body fat, as
validated against underwater weighing techniques. 

Researchers found, however, that while this measurement approach
yields consistent results for men, it does not achieve consistent
results for women.  According to service researchers, men have
basically one body type, while women have a variety of body types. 
The female body fat equations do not adjust well for the variety of
female body types, and thus do not consistently provide accurate
estimates of the percentage of body fat.  For example, we found that
the different body fat equations used by the services can result in
widely varying estimates of body fat for the same woman.  A test we
conducted found that the estimates for percentage of body fat for the
same woman was 42 percent using the Army equation, 29 percent using
the Navy and the Air Force equations, and 27 percent using the Marine
Corps equation.  The use of different equations producing such wide
variation in estimates can result not only in inequities, but also in
outcomes that are inconsistent with the intended objective.  For
example, while the Marine Corps set its body fat standards at the
most stringent level of any service, the equation it uses actually
resulted in the lowest estimate of body fat of all the services. 

Researchers also report that the populations of active-duty soldiers
used to validate the equations have, with time, become less
representative of the ethnic and age diversity of the current
military population.  The Army's female body fat equation, for
example, was validated largely on a Caucasian population because of
problems in underwater weighing of African American and Hispanic
subjects, many of whom withdrew from the testing because they could
not swim.  According to the National Academy of Sciences' 1998
report, because the percentage of minority female soldiers is
increasing and the average age of female soldiers is also increasing,
the subject population used to develop and validate the equations is
becoming increasingly less representative. 

The National Academy of Sciences' 1998 report also concluded that the
service equations are outdated because they fail to adjust for
heavier bone densities in minorities.  In the past, all services
compared the results of their body fat equations with underwater
weighing methods as a reference to check for accuracy and
standardization.  These techniques were based on so-called
two-compartment models, which partition body weight into two basic
components:  fat and fat free mass (defined as the difference between
body weight and fat mass).  However, two-compartment models do not
account for racial differences in bone density, thus potentially
overstating the weight of minorities.  In contrast, newer
four-compartment models measure bone mass, total body water, body
weight, and body volume, in part based on underwater weighing
techniques.  The National Academy of Sciences' report concluded that
the four-compartment models which have been developed over the past
decade are superior to the two-compartment models.  The Marine Corps
began basing its equations on the newer four-compartment models in
October 1997.  Navy researchers are currently developing equations
based on four-compartment models for the remaining services. 


   DATA TO ASSESS THE GENDER
   IMPACT OF FITNESS AND BODY FAT
   STANDARDS NOT AVAILABLE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

Information such as the proportion of men and women unable to meet
the various fitness standards, initial body fat screening, and body
fat measurement could provide some insights into whether the
standards have been set at equitable levels.  Similarly, information
on the proportion of men and women discharged for failure to meet
fitness or body fat standards could provide insight into whether the
standards are being selectively enforced by gender.  However, these
kinds of information are not being collected uniformly across the
services because of inadequate DOD oversight. 

DOD has not defined the basic information it needs to monitor the
services' fitness programs.  While DOD and the services maintain a
variety of statistics describing various aspects of physical fitness
programs, it is difficult to use them to make meaningful conclusions
about the services fitness programs because of differences in
comprehensiveness, the way in which data is aggregated, or other
problems.  For example, according to officials, the Army does not
maintain a servicewide data base on physical fitness test results. 
Such information is decentralized to the unit level.  Further, Navy
officials told us that they do not separate their data by gender, so
comparisons of male and female performance against the standards are
not available.  Other problems included unreliable information due to
unit underreporting, results not separated to identify other key
characteristics such as rank, or data on recent years not being
available due to system changes.  As a result of these problems, we
were unable to determine and compare fitness and body fat failure
rates over time, separation rates due to repeated failures of the
fitness standards, and other such key information. 

The service data that is available indicates that women consistently
fail the fitness standards at higher rates than men.  For example,
data indicates that Army women failed the cardiovascular and muscular
endurance standards at a 13-percent rate in 1995, while men failed at
an 11-percent rate.  Air Force data indicates that in 1997, women in
that service failed in 9 percent of the cases, while men failed in 4
percent of the cases.  Based on 1997 data, Marine Corps women failed
at a rate of 1.1 percent, while male Marines failed at a rate of 0.8
percent.  Available data on the results of the body fat test was
consistent with this trend.  For example, Army data for 1997 showed
that female Army personnel failed in 6 percent of the cases, while
Army men failed in about 5 percent of the cases.  As of March 1998,
about 4 percent of Air Force women were in weight management programs
compared to 2 percent of men. 


   RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS TO
   IMPROVE THE DOD FITNESS PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

In our recent report on DOD's fitness program, we made
recommendations to improve the equity of the services' physical
fitness programs.\14 We recommended that the Secretary of Defense
establish (1) a clear DOD-wide policy for age- and gender-based
adjustments to general fitness and body fat standards, requiring all
services to derive them scientifically and (2) a DOD-wide approach to
scientifically estimating body fat percentages.  We also recommended
that the Secretary of Defense define the statistical information
needed to monitor fitness trends and ensure program effectiveness,
and require that this information be maintained by all services and
provided in the currently required annual reports.  DOD concurred
with these recommendations and indicated it was taking action to
implement them. 


--------------------
\14 Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-99-9, Nov.  17, 1998). 


   CONCLUSIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

Some of the key perceptions about the services' fitness programs are
related to a fairly widespread lack of understanding about the real
purpose of the fitness standards.  However, it is not possible to
definitively assess the accuracy of most of the perceptions of
servicemembers about the fairness and equity of the service physical
fitness programs because the services generally did not use a
scientific approach in setting the standards or adjusting them for
gender differences and the services do not maintain sufficient
statistics to judge the effectiveness and fairness of their programs. 
We believe that implementation of the recommendations in our recently
issued report will help dispel the misconceptions that fitness
standards measure a servicemember's ability to perform in the
military and that having different standards for men and women
constitutes a "double standard."


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:7

In comments to a draft of our report, DOD generally concurred with
both our findings and conclusions.  While DOD officials did not
dispute the perceptions included in our report, they believe that it
is important to note that perceptions are not always supported by
facts.  We agree that perceptions may not be accurate, which
reinforces the need to assess whether perceptions are supported by
the facts.  DOD also noted that since 1996, the services have made
progress in adjusting standards based on more objective data and have
worked cooperatively to resolve research issues.  Furthermore, DOD
said that developing standards for general fitness and health is a
complex matter, where academic and research experts often differ on
conclusions and research. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================ Chapter 3



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

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

Carol Schuster
William Beusse
Carole Coffey
Colin Chambers

ATLANTA FIELD OFFICE

John Nelson

LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE

Cheryl Gordon


*** End of document. ***