Gender Issues: Improved Guidance and Oversight Are Needed To Ensure
Validity and Equity of Fitness Standards (Chapter Report, 11/17/98,
GAO/NSIAD-99-9).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the military services'
physical fitness and body fat standards to determine if: (1) differences
exist among the military services in physical fitness standards and
tests and the basis for any difference; (2) the services have a sound
basis for adjusting the standards for gender and age; and (3) the
Department of Defense (DOD) exercises adequate oversight of the fitness
program.

GAO noted that: (1) significant differences exist in the tests and
standards that the military services use to measure physical fitness;
(2) these differences reflect varying levels of difficulty in required
performance in all testing areas--cardiovascular endurance, muscular
strength and endurance, and percentage of allowable body fat--and
occurred for different reasons; (3) specifically, services did not
always adhere to DOD guidance for fitness testing or, in some cases,
interpreted the guidance differently; (4) service officials stated that
confusion over the program's objectives, stemming from conflicting
statements in DOD's guidance, contributed to differences among the
services; (5) adjustments to account for physiological differences by
age and gender are, according to experts, appropriate for general
fitness and health standards, and DOD guidance requires that
gender-based adjustments be made; (6) although each of the services
adjusts for gender, the degree of adjustment varies considerably; (7)
inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary approaches to adjusting the
standards have contributed to questions concerning the fairness of the
standards applied to military men and women; (8) body fat standards are
also questionable due to: (a) differences in each service's equations
for estimating body fat, resulting in estimates ranging between 27 and
42 percent for the same woman; (b) outdated measurement approaches that
did not account for racial differences in bone density; and (c) changes
in ethnicity and other population characteristics of the current
military that question whether the populations used to develop the
equations represent the populations in today's military; (9) despite a
clear requirement for all services to test all personnel regardless of
age, the Navy and, until recently the Marine Corps, have exempted older
personnel from fitness testing for years because of concerns about being
able to retain senior leaders; (10) DOD's guidance and oversight of the
service physical fitness programs are not adequate; (11) multiple
program objectives and lack of DOD monitoring of service compliance with
key policies, have persisted since at least the early 1980s without
resolution; (12) DOD has not enforced annual reporting requirements or
identified a common set of statistics to use in monitoring the services'
fitness programs; (13) the statistics currently maintained by the
services lack standardization; and (14) the limited data available raise
questions about program effectiveness because failure rates appear to be
markedly different among the services and women appear to fail at
significantly higher rates than men.

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

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-9
     TITLE:  Gender Issues: Improved Guidance and Oversight Are Needed 
             To Ensure Validity and Equity of Fitness Standards
      DATE:  11/17/98
   SUBJECT:  Military training
             Women
             Military personnel
             Medical examinations
             Performance measures
             Standards evaluation
             Standards and standardization
             Military policies

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S.  Senate

November 1998

GENDER ISSUES - IMPROVED GUIDANCE
AND OVERSIGHT ARE NEEDED TO ENSURE
VALIDITY AND EQUITY OF FITNESS
STANDARDS

GAO/NSIAD-99-9

Gender Issues

(703256)


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

  DOD - Department of Defense
  GAO - General Accounting Office

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


B-281068

November 17, 1998

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

Dear Senator Robb: 

At your request, we have reviewed the services' physical fitness and
body fat standards to determine if (1) differences exist among the
military services in physical fitness standards and tests and the
basis for any difference, (2) the services have a sound basis for
adjusting the standards for gender and age, and (3) the Department of
Defense (DOD) exercises adequate oversight of the fitness program. 
We found that there are significant differences between the standards
and tests the services use to measure physical fitness, that
adjustments made to these standards for age and gender were not
always based in science, and that DOD oversight of the services'
programs has not always been adequate.  This report includes
recommendations which, if implemented, should result in more
scientifically based fitness standards and improve DOD's oversight. 

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; the Commandant of the Marine
Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.  We will
also 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. 

Sincerely yours,

Mark E.  Gebicke
Director, Military Operations
 and Capabilities Issues


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


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

Physical fitness is a fundamentally important part of military life
for both men and women in the Department of Defense (DOD).  Each
year, thousands of servicemembers are denied promotions, schooling,
or other benefits for failing to meet fitness standards.  Despite
remedial programs, many of these personnel are eventually forced to
leave the military for continued failure to meet the standards.  The
growing role of women in the armed forces--some in physically
demanding positions--has been accompanied by debate over fundamental
and sometimes contentious issues, including whether the fitness
standards are fair and appropriate to both sexes in today's military. 

The Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate
Committee on Armed Services, requested that GAO review a series of
issues regarding the treatment of men and women in the military. 
This report discusses issues related to the physical fitness program. 
Specifically, GAO determined whether (1) differences exist among the
military services in physical fitness standards and testing and the
basis for any differences, (2) the services have a sound basis for
adjusting the standards for gender and age, and (3) DOD exercises
adequate oversight of the fitness program. 


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

DOD's guidance requires that the services establish a physical
fitness and body fat program that includes fitness requirements for
all servicemembers.  This guidance requires annual testing,
regardless of age, of cardiovascular endurance (measured by
activities such as running a certain distance within a specified time
limit), muscular strength and endurance (measured by activities such
as sit-ups and push-ups), and maintenance of body fat within a
certain percentage range.  The guidance does not specify particular
testing activities or minimum required levels of difficulty.  Each
military service is required to design its own fitness program and
provide DOD with annual reports that assess the program.  The Office
of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy
within the Office of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for
monitoring the program.  In response to rising problems with the
existing policy, the Assistant Secretary established a joint service
working group in September 1996 to study these problems, and the
National Academy of Sciences was also requested to help analyze the
complex research available on fitness and body fat issues.  The
Academy's report was issued in March 1998. 

Two kinds of physical performance requirements are placed on members
of the military:  job-specific physical performance standards
applicable to particular occupations and general physical fitness
standards that are applicable to all members regardless of their
occupation.  The purpose of job-specific physical performance
standards is to ensure that personnel assigned to physically
demanding jobs are capable of performing those jobs.  On the other
hand, the primary purpose of general fitness standards is to maintain
the overall health and conditioning of personnel.  These standards
are not intended to specifically enhance the performance of a
particular service mission or job.  This report focuses on general
physical fitness standards. 


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

Significant differences exist in the tests and standards that the
military services use to measure physical fitness.  These differences
reflect varying levels of difficulty in required performance in all
testing areas--cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and
endurance, and percentage of allowable body fat--and occurred for
different reasons.  Specifically, services did not always adhere to
DOD guidance for fitness testing or, in some cases, interpreted the
guidance differently.  Service officials stated that confusion over
the program's objectives, stemming from conflicting statements in
DOD's guidance, contributed to differences among the services. 

Adjustments to account for physiological differences by age and
gender are, according to experts, appropriate for general fitness and
health standards, and DOD guidance requires that gender-based
adjustments be made.  Although each of the services adjusts for
gender, the degree of adjustment varies considerably.  Inconsistent
and sometimes arbitrary approaches to adjusting the standards have
contributed to questions concerning the fairness of the standards
applied to military men and women.  For example, male standards were
usually based on statistics recording men's actual performance on
fitness tests.  However, female standards were often estimated,
inferred from male data, or based on command judgment rather than
data on actual performance.  Body fat standards are also questionable
due to (1) differences in each service's equations for estimating
body fat, resulting in estimates ranging between 27 and 42 percent
for the same woman; (2) outdated measurement approaches that did not
account for racial differences in bone density; and (3) changes in
ethnicity and other population characteristics of the current
military that question whether the populations used to develop the
equations represent the populations in today's military.  Moreover,
despite a clear requirement for all services to test all personnel
regardless of age, the Navy and, until recently the Marine Corps,
have exempted older personnel from fitness testing for years because
of concerns about being able to retain senior leaders. 

DOD's guidance and oversight of the service physical fitness programs
are not adequate.  In particular, multiple program objectives and
lack of DOD monitoring of service compliance with key policies, have
persisted since at least the early 1980s without resolution.  Also,
DOD has not enforced annual reporting requirements or identified a
common set of statistics to use in monitoring the services' fitness
programs.  The statistics currently maintained by the services lack
standardization:  some do not include servicewide information, and
others do not contain information on key characteristics, such as
failure or separation rates by gender or rank.  The limited data
available raise questions about program effectiveness because failure
rates appear to be markedly different among the services and women
appear to fail at significantly higher rates than men. 


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


      LACK OF ADHERENCE TO DOD
      POLICY AND CONFUSION OVER
      MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES
      CONTRIBUTE TO DIFFERENCES IN
      SERVICE REQUIREMENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

Physical fitness testing differs markedly by service.  For example,
although DOD guidance requires testing of muscular strength and
endurance, the Air Force does not require any such tests.  In
contrast, the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps require their personnel to
perform push-ups, pull-ups, and sit-ups to be promoted and remain in
the military. 

The level of difficulty of fitness standards varies widely among the
services.  For example, to measure the cardiovascular endurance of
45-year-old men and women, the Navy requires a 1-1/2 mile run within
about 17 and 18 minutes, respectively; the Army, a 2-mile run within
about 19 and 24 minutes;\1 and the Marine Corps, a 3-mile run within
30 minutes for men and 33 minutes for women.  The Air Force measures
cardiovascular endurance by having its personnel use a stationary
bicycle, and requires 45-year old men and women to complete a
simulated distance of about 1-1/2 miles in about 17 and 19 minutes,
respectively. 

The services also vary significantly regarding the weight-to-height
standards used to screen personnel to determine whether more specific
measurement of body composition is required.  In addition, the
services' maximum allowable percentages of body fat range from 18 to
26 percent for men and 26 to 36 percent for women. 

Service officials attribute some differences in the difficulty of the
standards to confusion regarding the primary objective of the
physical fitness program.  DOD guidance states that the services
should place primary emphasis on fitness programs that develop
general health and physical fitness, and officials in each of the
services cited this emphasis as a main objective.  However, DOD
guidance also states that the services should establish fitness
requirements in accordance with their particular mission, incorporate
job-specific standards into the programs, and implement body fat
programs that enhance military appearance.  Service officials
indicated that the inclusion of the additional objectives created
confusion regarding the main purpose of the program.  Specifically,
they said that the emphasis given to these other objectives varied
and that the difficulty of the overall standards was raised or
lowered in accordance with that emphasis. 

Despite the apparent confusion resulting from the language of the
guidance, this distinction between general fitness standards and
job-specific physical performance standards is set forth in a 1995
DOD report to the Congress on gender-neutral standards.  Also,
according to the Office of the Secretary of Defense official
responsible for overseeing the fitness program, physical fitness
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. 


--------------------
\1 New Army fitness standards were expected to be implemented on
October 1, 1998.  However, according to Army Physical Fitness School
officials, implementation has been delayed until early January 1999
to allow for additional review and feedback from commanders, and to
complete and distribute new fitness scorecard forms.  The Army
standards referred to in this report are the new pending standards. 


      INCONSISTENT AND SOMETIMES
      ARBITRARY STANDARDS CREATE
      POTENTIAL GENDER AND AGE
      INEQUITIES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

All services adhered to the DOD policy requiring adjustments to
fitness standards to take into account strength and other
physiological differences between the sexes.  The extent to which the
standards were adjusted for gender, however, varied greatly by
service.  For example, the standard for the cardiovascular endurance
test varied, allowing women from 9 percent more time in the Air Force
to 27 percent more time in the Army.  For sit-ups, the Army and the
Marine Corps required both men and women to do the same number in the
same time, but the Navy allowed women to do about 17 percent fewer
sit-ups.  For push-ups, the Army's standard for women was 60 percent
lower than its men's standard, and the Navy's standard for women was
75 percent lower than its men's standard. 

In most services, the rationale used to adjust the standards was
poorly documented.  Also, the services' bases for adjusting the
standards for women were often different than those used for men. 
Male standards were usually 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 reduced by as much as 1 minute and 15 seconds the time
allowed for women under 30 years old to complete the 1-1/2 mile run. 
However, the time allowed for these women to complete the run was not
based on actual performance times, as were the men's and women 30 or
over.  Instead, the 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.  This change was made because of command beliefs that
the existing 4-minute difference between the standards in certain
categories was not appropriate, and female standards needed to be
more stringent.  The standards for men and for women 30 and older
were not changed. 

Additional questions about body fat standards result from differences
in each service's equations for estimating body fat; outdated
measurement approaches that did not account for racial differences in
bone density; and changes in ethnicity and other demographic
characteristics, making the population used to develop the equations
less representative of the current military.  Researchers found that
the equations used by each service to determine body fat yield
consistent results for men but not for women because the equations do
not adequately adjust for the greater variety of female body types. 
For example, 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, because the percentage of minorities is increasing in
the female service population and the average age of women in the
service is increasing, the populations of active-duty soldiers used
to develop the equations have, over time, become less representative
of the ethnic and age diversity of the current military population. 

Personnel of different ages were also treated differently, depending
upon the service.  Members of the Army and the Air Force are tested
for fitness throughout their careers, regardless of age, in
accordance with DOD policy.  However, for years the Navy and the
Marine Corps have not tested older personnel--currently those 50 and
older in the Navy and as recently as June 1998, those 46 and older in
the Marine Corps--due to concerns about retaining senior leaders.  In
July 1998, the Marine Corps changed its policy to require Marines of
all ages to be tested. 


      DOD OVERSIGHT OF THE
      PHYSICAL FITNESS PROGRAM IS
      INADEQUATE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

Problems, such as multiple program objectives and failure to
consistently enforce key policies, have existed in DOD's fitness
program for many years due to inadequate oversight.  For example, the
references to objectives such as job-specific requirements and
mission that are included in the most recent fitness directive also
appeared in DOD's 1981 Physical Fitness and Weight Control directive. 
Similarly, the Navy and the Marine Corps have apparently not complied
with DOD's guidance requiring testing of all personnel regardless of
age since the requirement was established in 1981.  Further, despite
requirements for all services to evaluate muscular strength, the Air
Force stopped testing for muscular strength and endurance in the
early 1980s.  Finally, at the time of our fieldwork, DOD had not
enforced the annual report requirement that had been in place since
1995. 

DOD officials said that action to correct some of the fitness program
problems has begun.  For example, initial agreement has been reached
to continue to study implementing one body fat equation for men and
one for women across all services.  Additional recommendations made
in a 1998 report by the National Academy of Science are still being
reviewed, but drafting of policy revisions is planned for the fall of
1998.  DOD officials noted that, following discussions with GAO, the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Force Management Policy
informed the services that they would now be required to provide the
annual reports.  By September 1998 all services had provided the
initial reports.  DOD officials also acknowledged that enforcement of
the annual reporting requirement could have provided a useful
monitoring mechanism. 

While enforcing the annual reporting requirement will provide some
information for oversight, neither DOD nor the services have a basis
to evaluate the overall fitness of military personnel or the
effectiveness of the service fitness programs because DOD has not
identified a common set of statistics needed to monitor fitness.  As
a result, the services could not provide basic information essential
to understanding fitness in the military, including much of the
statistical information the Assistant Secretary requested in the
annual reports. 

Although available data limited comparisons across the services,
comparisons made by GAO raised questions about the effectiveness of
the fitness programs in two areas.  First, failure rates in
cardiovascular and muscular endurance tests appear to vary
significantly among the services.  For example, a 1995 Army study
stated that the overall failure rate for that service was 12.5
percent.  In comparison, the failure rates for the Air Force and the
Marine Corps in 1997 totaled 4.6 and 1 percent, respectively. 
Second, the available data indicated that women consistently failed
the fitness tests at a slightly higher rate than men.  In 1995, 13
percent of Army women did not meet the cardiovascular and muscular
endurance standards, whereas 11 percent of Army men failed the
standards.  Likewise, Air Force data showed that about 9 percent of
its women did not meet the standards in 1997 compared with 4 percent
of its men. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD's physical
fitness regulations to

  -- clearly state that the objective of the military physical
     fitness program is to enhance general fitness and health and
     make clear that the program is not intended to address the
     capability to perform specific jobs or missions;

  -- establish clear DOD-wide policy for age- and gender-based
     adjustments to fitness and body fat standards, requiring all
     services to derive them scientifically, clearly document the
     basis used, and submit exceptions for approval;

  -- establish a DOD-wide approach, based on current scientific
     research, to estimating body fat percentages;

  -- establish a mechanism for providing policy and research
     coordination of the military services' physical fitness and body
     fat programs; and

  -- 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. 

GAO also recommends that the Secretary of Defense take steps to
ensure that the services implement the existing requirements that

  -- personnel be tested in all three areas cited in the
     regulation--cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and
     endurance, and body composition and

  -- all servicemembers, regardless of age, be tested for fitness. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND GAO'S
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

DOD agreed with GAO's findings and recommendations and said that it
had already begun actions to implement them.  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.  Specifically, DOD said that it is revising its fitness
program regulations to focus the purpose of the program on general
fitness and health, and to create common DOD-wide standards for
fitness and body fat evaluation and measurement.  A number of the
issues GAO raised remain under study, but DOD said it expected to
publish revisions to the policies by the end of 1999.  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 the 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 active duty forces,
up from about 2 percent in the early 1970s.  Their role has also
evolved from the traditional concentration in medical and
administrative occupations; women are now eligible to serve in over
80 percent of all military jobs, including many air, sea, and other
combat-related positions.  The growing role of women has also
resulted in debate within and outside of the Department of Defense
(DOD) over fundamental and sometimes contentious issues, including
whether physical fitness standards are fair and appropriate to both
men and women.  The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the
Services reported that men and women at military installations across
the country are confused about the need for differing standards among
the services, particularly those regulating body fat, and lack
confidence in the fairness of the standards.  In addition, the Rand
Corporation recently reported that some military men believe that
fitness standards have been adjusted to the point of being too easy
for women\1

Physical fitness is a fundamentally important part of military life
for all military personnel.  DOD guidance requires that
servicemembers pass physical fitness tests at least annually
regardless of age and gender.  Personnel who fail to meet fitness
standards can be denied promotions, schooling, and other activities
and may be forced to leave the military.  In recent years, the
downsizing of active duty forces and the increased rate of
deployments and redeployments for peace operations and other
activities have increased the physical demands on soldiers. 


--------------------
\1 New Opportunities for Military Women:  Effects Upon Readiness,
Cohesion, and Morale, Rand Corporation, October 1997. 


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

DOD's guidance, issued in 1981 and updated in 1995, requires that the
services establish physical fitness and body fat programs, which
include fitness requirements for all servicemembers.  The program
guidance states that individual servicemembers need to possess the
cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and
whole body flexibility to successfully perform in accordance with a
service-specific mission and military specialty.  However, the
guidance does not identify requirements for specific activities or
levels of difficulty.  In addition, the guidance states that
maintaining desirable body composition is an integral part of
physical fitness, general health, and military appearance.  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 and body fat program. 

DOD guidance states that each service must develop its own program
according to its particular needs, placing primary emphasis on
maintaining general health and physical fitness.  Evaluation of
individual fitness is an integral component of the program.  DOD
Instruction 1308.3 sets out a number of key requirements for this
evaluation, including the following: 

  -- The services must use physical fitness tests of cardiovascular
     endurance, such as running a certain distance within a specified
     time limit, and muscular strength and endurance, such as sit-ups
     and push-ups. 

  -- All servicemembers are to be tested regardless of age. 

  -- Testing standards may be adjusted for age and must be adjusted
     for physiological differences between men and women. 

  -- All servicemembers are to be formally tested for the record at
     least annually. 

  -- Efficiency or fitness reports must include comments if the
     servicemember fails to meet physical fitness standards. 

DOD's instruction also sets out body fat control policies and
procedures.  The instruction 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.  To standardize as much as possible, 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. 


   THE ROLE OF DOD PHYSICAL
   FITNESS STANDARDS IS TO
   MAINTAIN GENERAL FITNESS AND
   HEALTH
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2

Two kinds of physical performance requirements are placed on members
of the military:  job-specific physical performance standards that
are applicable to particular occupations and general physical fitness
standards that are applicable to all members regardless of their
occupation.  The purpose of job-specific physical performance
standards is to ensure that those personnel assigned to physically
demanding jobs are capable of performing the requirements of those
jobs.  On the other hand, the primary purpose of general fitness
standards is to maintain the overall health and conditioning of
personnel.  As such, these standards are not intended to specifically
enhance the performance of a particular service mission or job. 


      JOB-SPECIFIC PHYSICAL
      PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.1

Section 543 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization
Act required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe physical
performance standards for any occupation in which the Secretary
determined that strength, endurance, and cardiovascular capacity was
essential to the performance of duties.  The act required that any
such standards developed were to pertain to job activities that were
commonly performed in that occupation, relevant to successful
performance, and not based on gender.  In other words, job-specific
physical performance standards would identify the absolute minimum
level needed for successful performance in those occupations.  Anyone
in that occupation, regardless of gender, would be required to meet
the same standard. 

In 1996, we reported on the development and use of gender-neutral
occupationally specific performance standards in the military.\2
Neither the Navy nor the Marine Corps had adopted occupational
strength standards.  Although the Army categorized each enlisted
occupational specialty into one of five categories based on physical
demand, it discontinued testing recruits' physical capabilities to
perform such activities in 1990 and had previously used the results
of that testing only for counseling recruits about serving in certain
occupations.  The Air Force had categorized each of its enlisted
occupations into one of eight physical demand categories.  It used a
strength aptitude test administered to recruits to screen out those
who would be likely to have difficulty performing physically
demanding jobs, but it did not incorporate the strength test into the
required annual fitness evaluation for personnel in those jobs. 


--------------------
\2 Physically Demanding Jobs:  Services Have Little Data on Ability
of Personnel to Perform (GAO/NSIAD-96-169, July 9, 1996). 


      PHYSICAL FITNESS
      REQUIREMENTS LINKED TO
      HEALTH BUT NOT TO THE
      ABILITY TO PERFORM MILITARY
      TASKS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:2.2

The DOD physical fitness program involves more than just periodic
testing against standards.  Passing an annual fitness test is not
synonymous with maintaining a high level of health and physical
fitness.  The research literature provides a large body of
information linking physical activity to health and a variety of
recommendations for the amount and intensity of exercise needed to
achieve fitness.  For example, organizations such as the American
College of Sports Medicine and the Department of Health and Human
Services recommend 20 to 60 minutes of cardiovascular exercises most
days of the week at a moderate level of intensity--for example over
50 percent of the maximum heart rate--as well as resistance exercises
to condition the major muscle groups for strength and endurance. 
Some groups also recommend exercises to maintain flexibility. 
Although these recommendations were directed at the general U.S. 
population, a 1998 National Academy of Sciences report recommended
that DOD personnel follow a similar regimen.\3 DOD guidance
recommends that servicemembers engage in regular physical fitness
training of about 1-1/2 hours, three times a week.  Duty time can be
authorized for such training. 

Research literature also supports linking body fat percentages,
cardiovascular endurance, and muscular endurance to the overall
health objective.  For example, the 1998 report by the National
Academy of Sciences indicates that increases in the percentage of
body fat are associated with health problems and a decrease in some
aspects of fitness.  Individuals with excess accumulation of
abdominal fat appear to be at increased risk for a number of
diseases. 

Research has identified little correlation between performance on
timed runs, push-ups, sit-ups, and other fitness tests and specific
military task performance.  According to the 1998 National Academy of
Sciences report, 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 tasks, such as
unloaded distance running, were rarely a part of a soldier's military
duties and that the larger body type required to excel at lifting,
for example, was different from the leaner body type required to
excel at distance running. 

The relationship between the percentage of body fat and task
performance is more complex.  Some research has found that the higher
the percentage of body fat the lower the performance in running
tests.  However, research also shows that women recruits who failed
body fat standards were stronger than their counterparts who passed. 
This situation presents a dilemma for the military:  setting a high
body fat limit favors selection of women who are strong but may lack
optimum endurance, and vice versa.  The Academy's report pointed out
that, to some degree, current body fat standards may discriminate
against women who would be the most capable of performing jobs
requiring strength, which might be the most critical for survival in
a combat situation. 

In addition, the 1998 report by the National Academy of Sciences, as
well as an earlier report in 1992,\4 concluded that the "appearance"
objective does not seem to be linked to performance, fitness,
nutrition, or health.  Research\5 conducted in 1990 explored this
relationship by having a panel of military officers and enlisted
personnel rate the military appearance of 1,075 male and 251 female
Army personnel in uniform, and then comparing these judgments to
measures of the percent of body fat for each participant.  The
results were only a "modest" correlation (0.53 for males, and 0.46
for females), and the report concluded that factors other than body
composition, notably subjective judgment, influence appearance
ratings.  The National Academy of Sciences reports recommended that
the military should develop objective criteria with which to judge
appearance if it deems such a standard necessary. 


--------------------
\3 Assessing Readiness in Military Women:  The Relationship of Body
Composition, Nutrition, and Health, National Academy Press, 1998. 

\4 Body Composition and Physical Performance:  Applications for the
Military Services, National Academy Press, 1992. 

\5 Relationships Between Body Fat and Appearance Ratings of U.S. 
Soldiers.  Naval Health Research Center, Report No.  90-01, 1990. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 1:3

The Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate
Committee on Armed Services, requested that we review a series of
issues regarding the treatment of men and women in the military. 
This report discusses (1) the rationale for differences in difficulty
among the military services physical fitness standards, (2) how the
services adjust the standards for gender and age, and (3) DOD's
oversight of the fitness program. 

To assess the differences in the difficulty of fitness standards,
adjustments to the standards for differences based on gender and age,
and DOD oversight, we reviewed DOD directives and instructions,
service regulations, manuals, 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.  We did not visit individual units to test the
implementation of the guidance.  To address the issues of DOD
policies, service differences, and level of oversight, 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 Army Physical Fitness School at Fort
Benning, Georgia; and the Army Medical Research and Development
Command at Fort Detrick, Maryland.  We interviewed Navy personnel
from the Bureau of Naval Personnel and the Naval Health Research
Center in San Diego, California.  We met with Marine Corps personnel
from the Combat Development Command in Quantico, Virginia.  To
complete our work in the Air Force, we interviewed officials from the
Office of the Surgeon General. 

To gain additional perspectives on physical fitness programs, we
reviewed various research and evaluation reports and interviewed
officials from a variety of government and civilian organizations. 
These organizations included the National Academy of Sciences; the
National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports;
the American Heart Association; and the Cooper Institute for Aerobics
Research in Dallas, Texas. 

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


LACK OF ADHERENCE TO DOD POLICY
AND CONFUSION OVER MULTIPLE
OBJECTIVES CONTRIBUTE TO
DIFFERENCES IN SERVICE
REQUIREMENTS
============================================================ Chapter 2

Physical fitness programs enacted by the services are a mixture of
different requirements, lacking a clear rationale for marked
differences in difficulty.  In some cases, differences were due
simply to failures to follow stated DOD policy, while in others,
differences were due largely to confusion over program objectives. 


   FITNESS STANDARDS DIFFER BY
   SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1

The services differ significantly in the types of physical fitness
tests they use and the minimum levels of performance required on
those tests.  These differences occur in all three testing
areas--cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and
body composition.  However, all services adjust program standards for
physiological differences between the sexes in all three testing
areas, and for age in the case of cardiovascular and muscular
strength and endurance standards.  To simplify comparisons of the
cardiovascular and muscular strength and endurance standards in the
tables which follow, we used a baseline age of 45 for both men and
women. 


      CARDIOVASCULAR ENDURANCE
      TESTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.1

As shown in table 2.1, fitness standards for cardiovascular endurance
differ significantly by service in the type of test used and the
minimum level of performance required.  Standards for running
activities varied in both the distance of the test run and the
required maximum time for the run.  For a 45-year-old servicemember,
the Navy requires its men and women to run 1-1/2 miles within about
17 and 18 minutes, respectively; the Army requires a 2-mile run
within about 19 and 24 minutes; and the Marine Corps requires a
3-mile run within 30 minutes for men and 33 minutes for women.  The
Air Force tests its personnel for cardiovascular endurance by
measuring the body's oxygen consumption while riding a stationary
bicycle.\1



                               Table 2.1
                
                  Service Standards for Cardiovascular
                  Endurance for 45-Year-Old Personnel

                                               Maximum time allowed
                                               (in minutes:seconds)
                                            --------------------------
                              Distance (in
Exercise                            miles)           Men         Women
----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Run/walk
Army\a                                   2         18:42         23:42
Navy\b                               1-1/2         16:30         18:15
Marine Corps                             3         30:00         33:00
Stationary bicycle\c
Air Force                            1-1/2         16:58         18:33
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These new standards were expected to become effective October 1,
1998.  However, according to Army Physical Fitness School officials,
implementation has been delayed until early January 1999 to allow for
additional review and feedback from commanders, and to complete and
distribute new fitness scorecard forms. 

\b This standard expected to become effective January 1999. 

\c Air Force standards are expressed in terms of approximate 1-1/2
mile run equivalents. 


--------------------
\1 According to officials, the Air Force used the 1-1/2 mile run up
until the early 1990s.  However, after several personnel died, the
decision was made to switch to the stationary bicycle test for safety
reasons. 


      MUSCULAR STRENGTH AND
      ENDURANCE TESTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.2

The services differ in the types of tests used to assess muscle
strength and endurance.  The Air Force is the only service with no
requirement for push-ups, sit-ups, or other tests of muscular
strength and endurance.  Air Force personnel acknowledged that the
service is not in compliance with DOD's policy requiring such testing
but could provide no explanation.  According to a 1997 study of the
Air Force fitness program\2 and DOD's 1981 report\3 on physical
fitness in the military, muscular endurance exercises were included
in the Air Force program as late as the early 1960s, but had been
dropped by the early 1980s.  The Air Force study, as well as a panel
of experts, concluded that muscle strength and endurance training,
such as sit-ups and bench and leg presses, should be added to the Air
Force fitness program.  According to Air Force officials, a plan to
begin muscular strength and endurance testing in two phases during
1999-2000 has been endorsed by the Surgeon General's Office and is
being reviewed by the Air Staff. 

While the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps all use sit-ups to test
muscular strength and endurance, the minimum number required to pass
these tests varied significantly across the services.  Once currently
pending changes take effect, the minimum number of sit-ups required
for a 45-year old man to complete within 2 minutes will be 32 in the
Army, 45 in the Marine Corps, and 29 in the Navy.  Both the Army and
the Navy have a push-up requirement, but their standards also
differed significantly.  The Marine Corps uses pull-ups for men and
flexed arm hang for women as its test of upper body strength and
endurance.  Table 2.2 shows the services' minimum standards for
muscular strength and endurance. 



                               Table 2.2
                
                Minimum Standards for Muscular Strength
                and Endurance for 45-Year-Old Personnel

Exercise                                             Men         Women
------------------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Sit-ups within 2 minutes
Army\a                                                32            32
Navy                                                  29            24
Marine Corps\b                                        45            45
Push-ups w/in 2 minutes
Army                                                  30            12
Navy                                                  20             5
Pull-ups/flexed arm hang\c
Marine Corps                                           3    15 seconds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Standard expected to become effective January 1, 1999. 

\b Navy and Marine Corps personnel are required to perform sit-ups
with knees bent and hands folded across their chests.  However, Army
personnel perform sit-ups with knees bent and hands clasped behind
the neck.  Some officials believe folding the hands across the chest
will reduce neck and lower back injuries, and allow better isolation
of abdominal muscles. 

\c Marine Corps men are required to perform pull-ups, women Marines
are required to perform a flexed arm hang.  The flexed arm hang test
consists of hanging from an elevated bar with feet off the ground and
elbows flexed. 


--------------------
\2 Expanded Air Force Physical Fitness Battery:  Muscle Strength,
Muscle Endurance, and Flexibility Considered:  Volume I, Final
Report; Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center,
October 30, 1997. 

\3 Department of Defense Study of the Military Services Physical
Fitness, April 3, 1981. 


      BODY COMPOSITION TESTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:1.3

The services each use a two-tier body composition test, as required
by DOD guidance.  The first tier involves an initial screening in
which servicemembers are required to pass a visual inspection for
appearance and/or be measured against weight-for-height tables
adjusted for gender.  Table 2.3 shows that each of the services uses
different weight-for-height values. 



                                    Table 2.3
                     
                       Military Weight and Height Standards

                           Maximum allowable weight in pounds
        ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Women                                 Men
        -----------------------------------  -----------------------------------
Height
in                           Marine     Air                       Marine     Air
inches    DOD   Army   Navy   Corps   Force    DOD   Army   Navy   Corps   Force
------  -----  -----  -----  ------  ------  -----  -----  -----  ------  ------
64        160    145    156     138     146    170    160    162     160     164
65        164    149    160     142     150    174    165    167     165     169
66        168    154    163     147     155    178    170    172     170     174
67        172    159    167     151     159    181    176    177     175     179
68        176    164    170     156     164    185    181    182     181     184
69        179    168    174     160     168    188    186    188     186     189
70        183    173    177     165     173    192    192    192     192     194
71        187    177    181     170     177    196    197    196     197     199
72               183    185     175     182    200    203    201     203     205
73               188    188     180     188    205    208    206     209     211
74               194    192     185     194    210    214    211     214     218
75               200    195     190     199    215    220    216     219     224
76               206    199             205           226    221     225     230
77               211    203             210           232    226     230     236
78               216    206             215           238    231     235     242
79               222    210             221           244    236     241     248
80               227    213             226           250    241     247     254
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The Army, unlike the other services, relaxes its weight for
height requirements as age increases.  The Army weights listed are
for soldiers age 40 and above.  Table values are not adjusted for
service differences in allowances for the weight of clothes and
shoes, which range between 0-3 pounds, depending on the service.  The
Navy revised its weights in September 1998 to be more closely aligned
with actual body fat percentage requirements. 

If this initial screen is failed, then the servicemember must have
their percentage of body fat determined using measures of the
circumference of various body sites plugged into service equations
that estimate the percentage of body fat.  The purpose of the body
fat calculation is to ensure that personnel with extra weight due to
muscle (not fat) are not unfairly required to leave the military. 

As shown in table 2.4, maximum allowable percentages of body fat vary
considerably by service.  The body fat percentage standards appear to
bear little logical relationship to the weight-for-height values that
are used as a body composition screening tool.  For example, the
maximum allowable Air Force weights are often higher than Army
weights for a given height, although the Air Force has more stringent
body fat percentage standards than those of the Army. 



                               Table 2.4
                
                 Standards for Percentage of Allowable
                                Body Fat

                                    Maximum standard (in percents)
                                --------------------------------------
Organization                                   Men               Women
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
DOD                                       18 to 26            26 to 36
Army                             20--ages 17 to 20   30--ages 17 to 20
                                 22--ages 21 to 27   32--ages 21 to 27
                                 24--ages 28 to 39   34--ages 28 to 39
                                   26--ages 40 and     36--ages 40 and
                                             older               older
Air Force                          20--ages 29 and     28--ages 29 and
                                             below               below
                                   24--ages 30 and     32--ages 30 and
                                             older               older
Navy                                            22                  33
Marine Corps                                    18                  26
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The Navy increased its female maximum standard from 30 to 33
percent effective September 1, 1998. 


   CONFUSION OVER PROGRAM
   OBJECTIVES CONTRIBUTES TO
   DIFFERENT STANDARDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:2

DOD guidance states that the services should place primary emphasis
on fitness programs that develop general health and physical fitness. 
However, they also state that the services should establish fitness
requirements in accordance with their particular mission, incorporate
job-specific standards into the programs, and implement body fat
programs that enhance military appearance.  Officials in all the
services cited health and fitness as program objectives, but
indicated the degree of emphasis on other objectives varied by
service.  Service officials told us that the inclusion of multiple
objectives in the guidance created confusion regarding the main
purpose of the program and that emphasis given to one or the other of
these objectives differed by service, with the difficulty of the
standards raised or lowered accordingly. 

The Navy and the Air Force focused mostly on health as the program
objective.  Consequently, they tended to have relatively less
vigorous standards than the Army and the Marine Corps, who placed
additional emphasis on fitness and appearance.  For example, Navy
officials told us that they saw health as the appropriate objective
of fitness programs, and their standards are set with that in mind. 
According to these officials, their maximum body fat standard of 22
percent for men is set at the clinical definition of obesity
established by a National Institutes of Health panel in 1985,\4 since
obesity is clearly related to health problems such as diabetes,
hypertension, heart disease, and cancer.  However, Navy officials
stressed that the standard is an upper limit, and they encourage Navy
personnel to remain well below this level.  In comparison, according
to Marine Corps regulations and officials, the Marine Corps relies on
maximum physical fitness more than any other service.  Accordingly,
the Marine Corps established its male body fat standard at 18
percent, the lowest level of all the services. 

Despite the apparent confusion, none of the services based its
general fitness standards on specific combat mission or job
requirements.  However, at one time the Marine Corps administered a
physical readiness test of combat skills, such as simulated marches
uphill at a rapid pace, rope climbing to resemble entering and
leaving a hovering helicopter, and evacuation of a wounded comrade by
sprinting 50 yards, lifting another Marine onto the shoulders, and
returning to the starting point.  That test has been discontinued as
an evaluated test for individuals, but units such as the Marine Corps
Officer Candidates School continue to conduct the test as a training
tool.  Marine Corps officials were unsure as to when and why the
individual test was discontinued.  Officials at the Army Physical
Fitness School also told us that they have been studying development
of a combat fitness test for infantry soldiers.  The test could
include exercises such as a 3-mile march carrying a 40-pound pack, a
weapons qualification test, and an obstacle course.  The specific
tasks would be linked to a unit's mission-essential task list.  If
these kinds of job-specific physical standards are developed, DOD
guidance calls for them to be incorporated into the service's
physical fitness program.  Such job-specific standards would then
augment the general fitness standards for personnel in those specific
occupations but would not supplant the requirement for periodic
testing against the general fitness standards. 

Officials from only two services, the Army and the Marine Corps,
cited "appearance" as one of their physical fitness program
objectives.  They indicated that image is an important aspect of
effectiveness, and because the image of a soldier is one of leanness,
an excessively fat appearance could weaken the military image and
undermine effectiveness.  Navy officials, told us that appearance is
not an appropriate objective of body fat programs.  However, Navy
body fat results are used to determine an individual's rating in the
"military bearing" category on officer fitness reports and enlisted
personnel evaluations. 

Although the references to additional objectives in the guidance has
apparently led to some confusion, the Office of the Secretary of
Defense official responsible for overseeing the fitness program
stated that physical fitness 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.  This distinction
between general fitness standards and job-specific physical
performance standards was also set forth in a 1995 DOD report to the
Congress on gender-neutral performance standards.\5


--------------------
\4 National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference,
February 1985. 

\5 Gender Neutral Standards, Report to the House Committee on
National Security, Senate Committee on Armed Services, and House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations, by the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), April 1995. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:3

In order to clarify the purpose of the physical fitness program, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD's regulations to
(1) clearly state that the objective of the physical fitness program
is to enhance general fitness and health and (2) make clear that the
program is not intended to address the capability to perform specific
jobs or missions. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense take steps to ensure
that all services implement testing in all three areas cited in the
regulation--cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and
endurance, and body composition. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 2:4

DOD agreed with our recommendations and said that its joint service
working group had reviewed DOD policy and the findings of the
National Academy of Science's 1998 report and determined that DOD's
policy should focus on general health and fitness.  According to
DOD's response, preliminary actions are underway to revise policy
documents to clarify that the objective of the program is to enhance
general fitness and health, and to explain that the policy is not
designed to address specific job or mission performance.  DOD also
agreed to require that all services test their personnel in
cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and body
composition.  DOD further noted that these actions do not preclude it
from establishing policies related to occupational or mission fitness
needs, if such policies are needed. 


INCONSISTENT AND SOMETIMES
ARBITRARY STANDARDS CREATE
POTENTIAL GENDER AND AGE
INEQUITIES
============================================================ Chapter 3

Service rationales for adjustments to the fitness standards were
often different for men and women.  This leads to questions about the
fairness of standards applied to men and women.  Some adjustments
were not based on scientific data, and many were poorly documented. 
Efforts are underway to correct some of these problems and ensure
that a consistent, science-based approach is used in setting
standards for both genders.  The approaches used to calculate the
percentage of body fat are also inconsistent and outdated, further
undermining the usefulness of the standards.  Researchers found that
service equations predict different body fat values when applied to
the same woman, the subject population used to develop the equations
is becoming increasingly less representative, and existing
calculation approaches do not account for racial differences in bone
density.  The National Academy of Sciences has called for major
changes to the program.  In addition, DOD guidance states that all
servicemembers, regardless of age, will be tested for cardiovascular
and muscular endurance.  However, the Navy and, until recently the
Marine Corps, have exempted senior personnel--ages 50 and older and
46 and older, respectively--from such testing for years.  The Air
Force and the Army adhere to DOD's policy to test servicemembers
throughout their careers. 


   ADJUSTMENTS TO FITNESS
   STANDARDS FOR AGE AND GENDER
   ARE APPROPRIATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:1

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 service members.\1 Although DOD policy allows adjustments to
the fitness standards based on age and requires adjustments based on
the physiological differences between genders, the approach to
adjusting the actual standards is generally left up to each service. 

DOD's current policy allows the services to set different minimums
according to age to account for the physiological changes and
diminished physical capabilities experienced as people age.  However,
DOD requires that all personnel, regardless of age, be tested against
cardiovascular and muscular endurance standards at least annually. 
This policy dates back at least to the 1981 DOD report assessing
military fitness programs.  The report stated that exempting
personnel from fitness testing at a certain age implied that fitness
was not important after that point and diluted the involvement and
support of senior leaders.  Mandatory testing was viewed as a
potential catalyst for change and more leader involvement and support
of physical fitness.  In contrast, some DOD personnel believe that
requiring older personnel to meet fitness standards will result in
the loss of senior leaders over time. 

Reports by the National Academy of Sciences and others indicate that,
in addition to generally being smaller, female soldiers demonstrate
only 50 to 70 percent of 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 and accumulate the fat in different
places.  As a result of these and other differences, women exerting
the same effort as men in running, push-ups, and other cardiovascular
and muscular strength and endurance tests are generally at a
disadvantage. 

To reflect these and other gender-based physiological differences,
DOD guidance directs that testing standards be adjusted.  The
guidance does not specify the degree of adjustment required in the
case of cardiovascular and muscular strength and endurance standards. 
DOD guidance cites an acceptable body fat range of 18 to 26 percent
for men and 26 to 36 percent for women.  However, the guidance
authorizes the services to establish more stringent standards based
on service needs or mission but require an 8 to 10 percentage point
difference (as is reflected in the DOD minimum and maximum allowable
body fat percentages) between male and female body fat standards. 
The guidance also states that the services may not derive,
extrapolate, or adjust female body fat standards using data from male
subjects, and vice versa.  DOD officials said that these body fat
policies are intended to ensure that service standards are based on
the results of objective, gender-specific scientific research.  The
officials also told us that the prohibition against inferring one
gender's standard from the other's, while contradictory to the
requirement for an 8 to 10 percentage point difference, is in place
because simply inferring differences is not an adequate approach to
setting standards.  Some officials believe that the prohibition
against inferring standards should apply to all physical fitness
standards and not just the body fat standards.  DOD officials could
provide no explanation for why there is no comparable restriction on
how the other female fitness standards are set. 


--------------------
\1 Report to the President, Presidential Commission on the Assignment
of Women in the Armed Services, 1992, p.  5. 


   THE EXTENT OF ADJUSTMENT FOR
   GENDER DIFFERENCES VARIES BY
   SERVICE
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:2

Each service established different standards for cardiovascular
endurance by gender allowing female servicemembers more time to
complete the same distance.  The degree of gender difference varied
by service.  For example, in the case used in table 2.1, a
45-year-old woman is allowed 9 percent more time than a man in the
Air Force, 10 percent more time in the Marine Corps, 11 percent more
time in the Navy, and 27 percent more time in the Army. 

The three services that test muscular strength and endurance\2 make
gender-based adjustments to some standards in that area, but not
others (see table 2.2).  Only the Navy currently relaxes its sit-up
requirements for women, allowing 45-year-old women to complete about
17 percent fewer sit-ups than their male counterparts.  In 1997, the
Marine Corps changed its sit-up standards to require identical
performances from men and women.  The Army is also expected to change
to identical sit-up standards in January 1999.  These changes are
consistent with research indicating that women may equal or exceed
male performance in sit-up tests.  The Navy is currently conducting a
study of fitness scores across the entire service, and officials
expect the sit-up standards to also change once the results are
analyzed. 

With regard to push-ups, both the Army and the Navy adjust the
standards for gender differences--the female standard in the Army is
60 percent lower than the male standard, and the female standard in
the Navy is 75 percent lower than the male standard.  The degree of
gender adjustment in the Marine Corps cannot be assessed, since it
uses different tests for men (pull-ups) and women (flexed arm hang). 


--------------------
\2 As noted in chapter 2, the Air Force physical fitness program does
not test men or women for muscular strength and endurance. 


   GENDER ADJUSTMENTS TO PHYSICAL
   FITNESS STANDARDS VARY AND ARE
   NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC
   RATIONALES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:3

One prevalent approach to determining appropriate differences in
fitness standards is through the use of statistics on the
distribution of actual performance scores.  In this approach, the
services analyze data on the actual performance of males and females
within their own service in push-ups, sit-ups, running, and other
fitness tests.  Minimum and maximum standards may then be set at a
particular percentile of performance.  According to service
researchers, this approach is modeled after the use of bell curves,
indicating the performance of students relative to one another, to
assign grades in the education sector. 

The rationale for current or pending female fitness standards,
however, have been different from males' in at least two of the
military services.  Male standards were usually based on actual data
on their performance 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.  Also, the rationale for the standards was poorly
documented in most services. 

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 Navy men and women identified in
Navy research reports.  According to Navy officials, minimum
requirements are set at the 10th percentile and maximums at the 90th
to 95th percentiles.  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 actual women's 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 the 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 in certain categories 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, with minimums set at the 10th percentile and maximums at the
90th.  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. 

A 1995 study by the Army\3 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.  For example,
according to Army officials, the difference between the minimum and
maximum requirement in the 2-mile run was set at exactly 4 minutes,
regardless of gender or age group.  Additional points above the
minimum were awarded for every 6 seconds shaved off the minimum
requirement.  In the two youngest age groups, women's requirements
were exactly
3 minutes slower than men's. 

Beginning in October 1998, the Army was scheduled to implement new
standards based on a more scientifically based approach, with a
gender neutral "equal points for equal effort" policy.  The new
minimum requirements are generally based on the 8th percentile of a
sample of actual scores collected by the Army's 1995 study, the
maximums on performances at the 90th percentile, and both
requirements are gradually reduced in 5-year increments as age
increases.\4 The new standards generally toughen the requirements for
both sexes, requiring women to perform the same number of sit-ups as
men, female run times to be set about 14 to 16 percent slower than
male times, and female push-up requirements to increase from 44 to
about 50 percent of the male standards.  According to the Army study,
these changes are consistent with a narrowing physical performance
gap between the genders in recent years.  The Army now plans to
implement these new standards in January 1999. 

Air Force officials could provide no studies or other records to
document the rationale for their cardiovascular endurance or body fat
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.  Researchers recommended that the minimum standard be set at
the 20th percentile of performance because that was the point with
the largest incremental gain in health benefits between percentile
groups.  However, Air Force officials wanted a higher standard for
readiness reasons:  as a result the next percentile grouping up, the
40th percentile, was selected as the minimum standard.  Female
standards were set the same way and at the same level. 


--------------------
\3 Army Physical Fitness Test Update Survey, 1995. 

\4 According to Army officials, in cases where the data from the
samples showed abnormally high values or fell below existing
minimums, the standards were manually adjusted from the 8th and 90th
percentiles.  However, in no case were the female standards based on
adjustments from the male baselines. 


   GENDER ADJUSTMENTS TO BODY FAT
   STANDARDS VARY AND ARE NOT
   BASED ON SCIENTIFIC RATIONALES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:4

Experts indicate that it is appropriate to base gender-specific body
fat standards on studies of the level of fat found in populations of
physically fit men and women or on life insurance actuarial studies
of the weights for heights associated with long life and good health. 
However, at least two services, the Army and the Navy, based their
female body fat standards on different rationales than the male
standards.  Officials from DOD and the other services could not
clearly document the basis for the standards. 

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, the 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 Academy's 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."

DOD's original body fat standards were in effect until 1995, when
they were changed to the current level of 18 to 26 percent for men
and 26 to 36 percent for women.  DOD officials 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 and that no
scientific research was conducted.  Similarly, the weights listed in
DOD's screening tables for body fat (see table 2.3) are based on the
National Institutes of Health 1985 definition of obesity, or 120
percent of certain weights-for-height identified in actuarial tables
produced by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in 1983. 
However, we could find little agreement between DOD's tables and the
Metropolitan Life tables they are supposed to match. 

Until September 1998, Navy regulations based 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 males
and 33 percent for females, and recommended these percentages be
adopted as maximum Navy body fat standards.  The recommendation for
males was adopted without change.  However, according to discussions
with Navy officials, command concerns about appearance resulted in
lowering the female standard to 30 percent.  The Navy revised its
regulations in September 1998 to raise the female standard back to
the 33 percent 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, although some limited
research appears to have been considered.  For example, Marine Corps
regulations\5 state that, more than any other service, the Marine
Corps 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 of the way up the interval between the
11-percent body fat level said by the regulation to be exhibited by
average gymnasts and the 30-percent level said by the regulation to
represent gross obesity in women. 

The Army's current 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 a result of increasing
the 20-percent minimum figure by 2 percentage points roughly for
every 10 years of age to accommodate increases associated with aging. 
The Army's current female standards were established in 1991.  Prior
to that year, the female standards were 28 to 34 percent, which Army
officials told us were determined simply by adding 8 percentage
points to the male minimum for each age category.  The female
standard was also viewed as unfairly restrictive compared with the
men's standard.  For example, an Army study found that the standard
provided young women 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 standard was increased by 2
percentage points for each age grouping, raising it to the current
level of 30 to 36 percent. 

Air Force officials could not determine the basis for their body fat
standards.  Consequently, they were also unable to tell us the basis
for adjustments to the standards for gender. 


--------------------
\5 Marine Corps Order 6100.10B, March 26, 1993. 


   PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINING BODY
   FAT MAY NOT ACCURATELY ACCOUNT
   FOR GENDER AND RACIAL
   DIFFERENCES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:5

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 entered 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 this approach yields consistent
results across the services for men, but not women.  According to
service researchers, men have basically one body type, whereas 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 predictions of the percentage of body
fat.  The three different body fat equations used by the services can
result in different percentages of body fat when applied to the same
woman.  For example, 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 Air Force equations, and
27 percent using the Marine 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, even though the Marine Corps set
its body fat standards at the most stringent level of any service,
the equation it uses 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, over time, become less
representative of the ethnic and age diversity of the current
military population.  The Army's female 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 female and non-Caucasian 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.  Table 3.1 shows the
ethnicity of U.S.  servicemembers as of the end of fiscal year 1997. 



                                     Table 3.1
                      
                        Ethnicity of U.S. Military Enlisted
                                   Personnel 1997

                                   Percentages
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Et
hn
ic                           Air       Air                        Marine    Marine
it      Army      Army     Force     Force      Navy      Navy     Corps     Corps
y        Men     Women       Men     Women       Men     Women       Men     Women
--  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
Wh      59.6      40.5      75.9      64.7      66.1      54.6      67.9      57.2
 i
 t
 e
Bl      26.7      46.8      15.6      25.5      18.0      30.5      16.3      24.6
 a
 c
 k
Hi       7.2       6.0       4.7       5.1       8.4       9.4      11.5      12.7
 s
 p
 a
 n
 i
 c
Ot       6.5       6.7       3.7       4.7       7.5       5.5       4.2       5.6
 h
 e
 r
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Column totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 

Source:  DOD. 

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 Academy's report concluded that agreement now exists
that four compartment models have been developed over the past decade
that are superior to the earlier two-compartment models.  The Marine
Corps was the first to base its equations on the newer four
compartment models, beginning in October 1997.  Navy researchers are
currently developing equations based on four-compartment models for
the remaining services. 


   POLICY REQUIRING TESTING AT ALL
   AGES NOT FOLLOWED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:6

DOD guidance states that all servicemembers regardless of age will be
tested for cardiovascular and muscular endurance.  However, the Navy
has exempted personnel age 50 and older, and the Marine Corps
personnel age 46 and older, from such testing for years due to
concerns about retaining senior leaders.  In contrast, members of the
Army and the Air Force are tested throughout their careers, in
accordance with DOD policy.  These inconsistencies can create
significant inequities.  For example, a 50-year-old, 70-inch tall
Army male needed to weigh 192 pounds and complete sit-ups, push-ups,
and a 2-mile run within specified timeframes to stay in that service. 
However, until recently, a Marine Corps male of the same age and
height would have had to maintain a similar weight, but would not
have to pass any cardiovascular endurance or strength tests to remain
in the Marine Corps.  The Marine Corps recognized that its fitness
testing policy did not comply with DOD guidance and therefore changed
the policy in July 1998, requiring that Marines of all ages pass
tests in distance running, sit-ups, pull-ups, and the flexed arm
hang.  Navy officials believed that their fitness testing policy
would also be changed, pending the results of an ongoing review. 

There is also disagreement over whether to relax body fat standards
as servicemembers age.  All services relaxed their cardiovascular and
muscular endurance standards as service personnel age.  However, the
Navy and the Marine Corps did not carry this policy over to body fat
standards.  Older members of those services must meet the same body
fat standards as the youngest members of their respective services. 
In contrast, the Army allows a 6-percentage point increase, and the
Air Force a 4-percent increase, as their men and women age.  This
difference can be significant.  For example, a 20-year-old female
weighing 130 pounds would be allowed to gain about 8 pounds of fat by
the age of 40 in the Army, while in the Navy and the Marine Corps no
increase would be allowed.  For a 20-year-old male weighing 200
pounds the difference would amount to about 12 pounds.  DOD guidance
allows relaxation of the cardiovascular and muscular endurance
standards with age, but do not address this issue in the case of body
fat standards. 

Army officials argued that it is realistic to reduce body fat
standards as personnel age, but Navy officials argued that relaxing
the standards implies that health is less important as men and women
age.  Researchers acknowledge that weight becomes progressively more
difficult to maintain with age.  There is a gradual loss of muscle
mass as one ages, which may be replaced with fat over time. 
Nonetheless, consistent with a focus on good health, neither the 1998
National Academy of Sciences report nor the 1995 federal Dietary
Guidelines for Americans found justification for allowing an increase
in body weight with age. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:7

While some flexibility and discretion should be available to the
services in setting their physical fitness policies, all of the
services should follow clear and consistent policies and adjustments
for age and gender should be scientifically based.  Therefore, we
recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise the physical fitness
guidance to

  -- establish clear DOD-wide policy for age- and gender-based
     adjustments to general fitness and body fat standards, requiring
     all services to derive them scientifically, clearly document the
     basis used, and submit exceptions for approval and

  -- establish a DOD-wide approach, based on current scientific
     research, to estimating body fat percentages. 

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense take steps to ensure
that the services adhere to the policy requiring physical fitness
testing of all servicemembers, regardless of age. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3:8

DOD agreed with our recommendations.  It said that it was already
analyzing revisions to the standards:  that considerations of age and
gender will be required to be scientifically derived, with any
exceptions to the policy submitted to the Secretary for approval; and
that the services will be required to provide a statement in the
annual fitness report that they are testing all military members,
regardless of age.  DOD also said that it has been working toward
establishing a single approach to body fat measurement and that a
change to establish a DOD-wide approach to estimating body fat will
be included in the revised fitness and body fat policy to be
completed by the end of 1999. 


DOD OVERSIGHT OF THE PHYSICAL
FITNESS PROGRAM IS INADEQUATE
============================================================ Chapter 4

Physical fitness oversight problems have persisted in DOD without
resolution for a considerable period of time.  Moreover, DOD has not
enforced the annual reporting requirement or identified a common set
of statistics needed to assess fitness.  Consequently, it is unable
to assess the effectiveness of the program.  Comparisons of limited
data we were able to obtain raised questions about program
effectiveness.  Failure rates among the services appear to be
markedly different, with women failing at significantly higher rates
than men.  In addition, concern about the fitness of recruits and
younger servicemembers is increasing. 


   PROBLEMS HAVE PERSISTED FOR
   YEARS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:1

Problems, such as confusion over multiple fitness program objectives
and failure to enforce key policy requirements, have persisted since
at least the early 1980s.  For example, Army research\1

traces confusion between health and military performance objectives
to the 1981 DOD Study of the Military Services Physical Fitness. 
This study acknowledged the benefits of designing programs with a
health objective, but concluded that the goal of military physical
fitness programs should be to make military personnel as fit for
combat as possible.  DOD's 1981 Physical Fitness and Weight Control
directive stated that physical fitness is essential to the general
health of military personnel and that primary emphasis should be
placed on programs that maintain physical fitness.  However, the
guidance also stated that ideally, physical training should be
designed to develop physical skills needed in combat.  Similarly,
DOD's requirement that all personnel, regardless of age, be tested
for physical fitness is clearly spelled out in DOD's 1981 directive,
and DOD's 1981 report on fitness in the military notes that the Navy
and the Marine Corps were already exempting older personnel from
fitness testing at that time.  The requirements for each service to
evaluate both cardiovascular and muscular endurance and provide
annual reports that assess the program can be traced back at least to
the 1995 version of the fitness guidance.  However, the Air Force had
stopped testing for muscular endurance by the early 1980s, and at the
time of our fieldwork, none of the services had ever provided the
required annual program reports. 

Officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Force Management Policy said that they were aware of the problems
with the physical fitness and body fat instructions and directives as
well as noncompliance with DOD policies.  According to these
officials, a joint service working group has been examining these
problems since the summer of 1996.  However, the officials cited two
factors delaying corrective action.  First, there was little
consensus among the working group on the usefulness of existing
research for resolving DOD fitness policy issues.  As a result, it
was deemed prudent to wait until the National Academy of Sciences
completed its study on body fat policies before revising DOD policy. 
Second, the office that monitors the services' fitness programs has
multiple responsibilities and frequent personnel turnover, and has no
resident technical expert in exercise physiology, all of which limit
the office's capability to quickly resolve such complex issues. 

Similar problems, however, were identified in DOD's 1981 report on
fitness programs.  For example, the report found that, compared with
other programs, physical fitness received little emphasis or resource
commitment in DOD, and there was a lack of fitness-related research
and qualified professional leadership and personnel with professional
degrees in physical fitness.  The report provided a number of
recommendations to improve DOD management of physical fitness,
including one for the Office of the Secretary of Defense to establish
a DOD Committee for Physical Fitness to provide coordinated and
continuing review and evaluation of the services' physical fitness
programs and research.  In 1985, DOD established a Joint Committee on
Fitness to establish internal operating objectives for service
fitness programs and function as a focal point for the exchange of
policy, program, and research information.  However, according to DOD
officials, this committee stopped meeting and has been inactive for
some time.  These officials were unsure of the specific time or
reasons the Committee stopped meeting. 

DOD officials told us that action to correct some of these problems
has begun.  For example, according to DOD, initial agreement has been
reached to continue to study implementing one body fat equation for
men and one for women across all services.  Additional
recommendations contained in the National Academy of Sciences' report
are still being reviewed, but drafting of policy revisions is planned
for the fall of 1998.  DOD officials also acknowledged that
enforcement of the annual reporting requirement could have provided a
useful monitoring mechanism.  After our discussions, the Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Defense informed the services by
memorandum dated March 24, 1998, that they would now be required to
provide the annual reports.  By September 1998, all of the services
had provided the initial reports.  DOD and service officials also
noted that the DOD fitness program could benefit from the
reestablishment of a joint fitness committee at the Secretary of
Defense level to help steer and accept policy recommendations. 


--------------------
\1 Body Composition and Military Performance:  Origins of the Army
Standards; Karl E.  Friedl, 1992. 


   DOD CANNOT DETERMINE OVERALL
   FITNESS OF MILITARY PERSONNEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:2

DOD has not defined the basic information needed to monitor the
fitness of military service personnel.  For example, information,
such as the number of annual failures and the characteristics of
those who fail, the results of remedial programs, and the number and
characteristics of those who are separated each year for failure to
meet fitness standards, are key to understanding the program. 
However, the services could not consistently provide this
information.  Similarly, the 1981 DOD report on fitness in the
military also reported that the services could not accurately assess
the fitness of their personnel and called for systems to be
established to monitor and measure program effectiveness. 

DOD and the services maintain a variety of statistics to describe
various aspects of the physical fitness programs.  However, this
information is difficult to compare across services and time periods
to provide meaningful conclusions about the level of fitness in the
military.  Differences in comprehensiveness, in the way in which data
is aggregated, or other problems create comparison problems.  For
example, according to officials, the Army does not maintain a
servicewide data base on physical fitness test results.  The
responsibility for maintaining this 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 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. 

According to service officials, most fitness-related separations
result from failure to achieve the body fat standards.  For example,
as shown in
table 4.1, an average of about 4,600 enlisted personnel were
separated during 1996 and 1997 for failing body fat standards.  Data
on officers was not consistently available.  The number of personnel
separated due to failures of the cardiovascular and muscular
endurance standards was generally not available, but service
officials believed that the number was relatively small. 



                               Table 4.1
                
                 DOD Separations of Enlisted Personnel
                for Failure to Meet Body Fat Standards,
                                1996-97

Service                                       1996                1997
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Army                                         2,123               1,945
Navy                                         1,956               1,692
Air Force                                      511                 601
Marine Corps                                   204                 209
======================================================================
Total                                        4,794               4,447
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Military service records. 

Although available data cannot be directly compared across services,
our comparisons of limited available data raised questions about the
effectiveness of the fitness programs.  For example, data provided to
us by the services indicates that failure rates in cardiovascular and
muscular endurance tests are markedly different.  A 1995 study by the
Army Physical Fitness School found overall officer and enlisted
failure rates at 12.5 percent.  In comparison, failure rates in the
Air Force totaled about 4.6 percent during 1997 and failure rates in
the Marine Corps totaled about 1 percent, based on 1997 data.  The
reason for the large differences is unclear.  For example, the Marine
Corps appears to have the most difficult standards, but its failure
rate appears to be the lowest.  Available data on body fat failures
showed somewhat less pronounced differences.  For example, during
1997 nearly 5 percent of Army officers and enlisted personnel had
their personnel records flagged for being overweight.  In contrast,
as of March 1998, about 2 percent of Air Force personnel were in
weight management programs. 

Service data also indicated that women consistently fail the fitness
standards at slightly higher rates than men.  For example, the data
cited above 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.  Based on 1997 data, Marine 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 about 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 versus 2 percent of men. 

Officials also raised concerns about the lack of fitness of recruits
and younger servicemembers in recent years.  For example, the fitness
of career soldiers was viewed as satisfactory, but the 1995 Army
Physical Fitness School study found that 32 percent of women and 27
percent of men aged 17 to 21 failed the fitness test.  By 1997,
according to Army Physical Fitness School officials, a similar study
found the failure rate was 55 percent of women and 38 percent of the
men.  Similarly, data provided by the Marine Corps showed that
physical fitness test scores for incoming male and female recruits at
one location were between 10 and 7 percentage points, respectively,
lower in 1996 than in 1992.  Officials in both services believed the
trends were due to the increasing lack of fitness in our society.  In
the early 1960s, national health surveys found that about 24 percent
of Americans ages 20 to 74 were overweight.  However, according to a
recent report by the National Institutes of Health, about 55 percent
of the U.S.  population is now considered overweight or obese.  The
reasons for the increase are unclear.  Some have pointed to an
increasingly sedentary lifestyle, with more focus on computers and
electronic games, and less time spent exercising or playing sports. 
Others have pointed to social or cultural changes.  Officials in both
the Army and the Marine Corps, however, believe that training was
able to improve the fitness of these personnel as they progressed
through military life.  Officials in the Navy and the Air Force were
unsure whether the same problem was occurring in their services. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:3

We recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise the physical
fitness guidance to

  -- establish a mechanism for providing policy and research
     coordination of the military services' physical fitness and body
     fat programs and

  -- 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. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 4:4

DOD agreed with each recommendation.  It said that the joint services
working group provides the nucleus of a body of experts that can
advise DOD policymakers on research and policy issues and that it is
currently studying the best way to formalize the mechanism we called
for.  This mechanism, as well as the statistical information needed
to monitor program trends and effectiveness, is to be included in the
upcoming revision to DOD fitness policy. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE
============================================================ Chapter 4



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(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

ATLANTA FIELD OFFICE

John Nelson
Katherine Chenault
Karen Thompson


*** End of document. ***