United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee

on Armed Services, U.S. Senate

May 1998 GENDER ISSUES

Analysis of Promotion

and Career

Opportunities Data

GAO/NSIAD-98-157

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-279797 

May 26, 1998

The Honorable Charles S. Robb

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Dear Senator Robb:

In 1993 and 1994, changes in policy and legislation1

 opened more than

250,000 positions in the armed services to women. Currently, 90 percent of

the services’ career fields and 80 percent of the services’ approximately

1,425,000 positions are open to women. Recent studies have highlighted

differing perceptions of the treatment of men and women who serve in the

military. For example, an Army report on sexual harassment2

 stated that

about half of the Army women surveyed thought that men have an

advantage over women when it comes to having a successful military

career while only about 20 percent of the men agreed with this statement.

Another study3

 reported 50 percent of the Army women surveyed believed

that the Department of Defense (DOD) policy limiting women’s

participation in combat had hurt promotion opportunities for enlisted

women. In that same survey, 61 percent of female Army officers and

49 percent of female noncommissioned officers believed that this policy

had hurt promotion opportunities for women officers in the Army.

Because of the variety of perceptions regarding men and women in the

military, you asked us to determine whether the military was selecting

women and men at similar rates for (1) promotion, (2) professional

military education (PME), and (3) key assignments.4

To determine if selection rates for promotions, PME, and key assignments

were similar, we used service-provided data for the active-duty force for

fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and applied a rule of thumb test developed

1

The fiscal year 1992-93 National Defense Authorization Act, P.L. 102-190 (Dec. 5, 1991), lifted the ban

on the assignment of women to combat aircraft. The fiscal year 1994 National Defense Authorization

Act, P.L. 103-160 (Nov. 30, 1993), lifted the ban on the assignment of women to combat ships.

2

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

3

Miller, Laura, “Feminism and the Exclusion of Army Women from Combat,” Working Paper No. 2,

Project on U.S. Post-Cold War Civil-Military Relations: John M. Olin Institute for Strategic Studies,

Harvard University, 1995, page 12.

4

The services define key assignments to include command opportunities as well as opportunities to

serve as executive officers or senior enlisted advisors.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
B-279797 

by the federal agencies responsible for equal employment opportunity

enforcement. Under this test, a selection rate for a subgroup that is less

than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of the rate for the group with the highest

selection rate is considered a significantly different rate. For this report,

the two subgroups being compared are men and women.

Results in Brief Our analysis of the promotion, professional military education, and key

assignment data for the services between fiscal year 1993 and 1997

showed that the military selected men and women for promotion at similar

rates over 80 percent of the time and selected men and women for

professional military education and key assignments at similar rates

approximately half of the time. However, when the data for promotions,

professional military education, and key assignments are viewed on a

service-by-service basis, the results, in some cases, vary significantly from

the aggregate data. Appendix I provides more data on the services’

aggregate data.

The military as a whole selected men and women for promotion to the top

three non-flag officer and enlisted grades at similar rates in about

82 percent of the promotion boards or examinations reviewed. For the

remaining instances, 15 percent were in favor of women, and 3 percent

were in favor of men. Only the Army had more significant differences in

favor of men. Of 30 Army promotion selections, 5 had significant

differences, and 3 of these were in favor of men. Appendix II provides

details on promotions by rank, gender, and service.

When the data for the four services were combined, the military selected

men and women for professional military education opportunities at

basically similar rates in about 46 percent of the board or decentralized

selections. The remaining 54 percent of the selections slightly favored

women, 29 to 25 percent. However, when the data was analyzed service by

service, the Army and the Navy had more significant differences in favor of

men, while the Marine Corps and the Air Force had higher numbers of

significant differences in favor of women. (See app. III for additional

information on the selection of men and women for professional military

education opportunities.)

For key assignment selections, the military as a whole selected men and

women at similar rates in about 53 percent of the board or decentralized

selections. For the remaining selections where there were significant

differences in selection rates, 32 percent were in favor of men, and

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
B-279797 

15 percent were in favor of women. The Air Force and the Navy had higher

instances of significant differences in favor of men, while the Army had

slightly more significant differences in favor of women. The Marine Corps

had no instances of significant differences for key assignment

opportunities. Appendix IV provides more details on the selection rates for

key assignments.

The existence of significant differences does not necessarily mean they are

the result of discrimination. Many factors can contribute to significant

differences and further analyses would be required to determine the

causes of the significant differences.

Background The role of women in the military has changed dramatically over the years.

For example, women were not allowed to constitute more than 2 percent

of the total enlisted force or be promoted beyond the rank of lieutenant

colonel until 1967. In 1993 and 1994, significant changes in legislation and

policy occurred that allowed women to fly combat aircraft, serve on

combat ships, and liberalized the assignment policy for women. Under the

current policy, women can be assigned to all positions for which they are

qualified, except for those positions below the brigade level whose

primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. This direct

ground combat exclusion policy impacts job opportunities in the Army

and the Marine Corps more so than in the Air Force and the Navy.

Women now comprise about 14 percent of the armed forces. The

percentages vary among the services from about 5 percent for the Marine

Corps, 13 percent for the Navy, 15 percent for the Army, and 17 percent for

the Air Force. Table 1 shows the number of men and women in the

services at the end of fiscal year 1997.

Table 1: Number of Women and Men in

the Military Services at the End of

Fiscal Year 1997 Service

Total number of

servicemembers

Number of

women

Number of

men

Air Force 373,357 65,176 308,181

Army 487,812 72,238 415,574

Marine Corps 173,976 9,286 164,690

Navy 390,477 49,110 341,367

Source: Service Fiscal Year 1997 Military Equal Opportunity Assessment Reports.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
B-279797 

Uniformed members of the armed forces are not covered by the same

equal employment opportunity laws as the general public.5

 However, in

1969 and in 1994, DOD issued a Human Goals Charter that became the basis

for its equal opportunity program. The charter states that DOD is to strive

to provide everyone in the military the opportunity to rise to as high a level

of responsibility as possible based only on individual talent and diligence.

The charter also states that DOD should strive to ensure that equal

opportunity programs are an integral part of readiness and to make the

military a model of equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, color, sex,

religion, or national origin.

Our November 1995 report entitled, Military Equal Opportunity: Certain

Trends in Racial and Gender Data May Warrant Further Analysis

(GAO/NSIAD-96-17, Nov. 17, 1995), examined military equal opportunity

reports for fiscal years 1989 through 1993. We found that women were

being promoted at slightly higher rates than men in all of the services but

were receiving fewer key assignment opportunities in the Air Force and

the Navy. We did not analyze data for professional military education in

that review.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense,

the Army, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. All the services

orally concurred with our report. Additionally, the Army, the Air Force,

and the Marine Corps provided technical corrections, which we

incorportated as appropriate.

Scope and

Methodology

A 1995 DOD directive and related instruction require that the services

prepare annual Military Equal Opportunity Assessments (MEOA) to help

ensure equal opportunity in the services.6

 In preparing their MEOAs, the

services collect, assess, and report gender and racial data in 10 categories.

Among the categories the services collect data for are promotions, key

assignments, and PME opportunities. The services do not report all of the

promotions in the MEOAs. They report those promotions that are obtained

in what the services considered the normal length of time. The promotion

data included in the MEOA reports constitute the majority of all promotions.

In addition, the services do not always report the same officer promotion

5

See Randall vs. U.S., 95 F.3d 339 (4th Cir. 1996) (holding that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

does not apply to uniformed members of the armed forces).

6

DOD Directive 1350.2, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program, dated August 1995, and DOD

Instruction 1350.3, Affirmative Action Planning and Assessment Process, dated February 29, 1988.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
B-279797 

data in their MEOA reports. For example, the Army and the Air Force do not

include promotions of doctors, nurses, medical corp personnel, lawyers,

and chaplains in their MEOA reports. The Navy and the Marine Corp do.

To determine whether the military was promoting, selecting professional

military education, and selecting key assignments for women and men at

similar rates, we obtained and analyzed MEOAs from fiscal years 1993 to

1997. We then discussed the MEOA data on promotions, PME, and key

assignments with officials from the Office of Secretary of Defense, Office

of Military Equal Opportunity; the Air Force Directorate of Civilian

Personnel, Policy, Personnel and Plans, Human Resource Development

Division; the Army Human Resources Directorate; the Marine Corps,

Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel; and the Bureau of Naval

Personnel, Equal Opportunity Division.

We discussed the policies and procedures used to ensure the reliability of

MEOA data with the Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base,

Texas; the Army Directorate Military Personnel Management;

Headquarters Marine Corps, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and

Reserve Affairs; and the Bureau of Naval Personnel. Although we did not

verify the MEOA data, we found that the procedures used to collect and

record the data were sufficient to ensure reliable data.

To determine whether possible gender significant differences existed for

promotions, professional military education, and key assignments, we

compared the percentage of women considered and selected to the

percentage of men considered and selected. We then applied the

“four-fifths” test. This test is a rule of thumb established by the four federal

agencies responsible for equal employment opportunity enforcement (the

Departments of Justice and Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management).7

 Under this test, a

selection rate for a subgroup that is less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of

the rate for the group with the highest selection rate is considered a

significantly different rate (for this report, the two subgroups being

compared are men and women). One limitation with this test is that, when

sample sizes are small, this test may flag a small difference as being

significant. Likewise, for a large sample size, the four-fifths test may

provide too much latitude before a difference would be seen as significant.

For example, if 100 percent of one group received promotions and

80 percent of the other group received promotions, this would not be a

7

See Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, 29 C.F.R. part 1607 (1997). We recognize

that title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects individuals against employment

discrimination, does not apply to the uniformed members of the armed forces. See footnote 5, infra.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
B-279797 

significant difference under the four-fifths test even though there is a

difference of 20 percentage points between the two groups. However, if

4 percent of one group received promotions compared to 3 percent of the

other group, the four-fifths test would classify this difference as significant

even though there is only 1 percentage point difference between the two

groups.

The existence of significant differences using the four-fifths test does not

necessarily mean they are the result of unwarranted or prohibited

discrimination. Many job-related or societal factors can contribute to

gender significant differences. Further analyses would be required to

determine the cause(s) of these significant differences.

We conducted our review between October 1997 and May 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional

committees; Members of Congress; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air

Force, the Army, and the Navy; and the Commandant of the Marine Corps.

We will also make copies available to any other interested parties.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please

contact me on (202) 512-5140. Major contributors to this report are listed

in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Selection Rates for

Promotions,

Professional Military

Education, and Key

Assignments

Reviewed

12

Promotions 13

PME 14

Key Assignments 15

Appendix II 

Comparison of

Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

16

Appendix III 

Comparison of PME

by Rank, Gender, and

Service

42

Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key

Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

55

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

69

Tables Table 1: Number of Women and Men in the Military Services at

the End of Fiscal Year 1997

3

Table I.1: Promotion Boards With No Significant Differences and

Boards with Significant Differences by Gender

12

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Contents

Table I.2: PME Boards With No Significant Differences and

Boards With Significant Differences by Gender

13

Table I.3: Key Assignment Boards With No Significant Differences

and Boards with Significant Differences by Gender

13

Figures Figure II.1: Percent of Promotion Boards Whose Results Showed

Similar Selection Rates or Differences in Favor of Women or Men

17

Figure II.2: Air Force Promotions to Master Sergeant for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

18

Figure II.3: Air Force Promotions to Senior Master Sergeant for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

19

Figure II.4: Air Force Promotions to Chief Master Sergeant for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

20

Figure II.5: Air Force Promotions to Major for Fiscal Years

1993-97

21

Figure II.6: Air Force Promotions to Lieutenant Colonel for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

22

Figure II.7: Air Force Promotions to Colonel for Fiscal Years

1993-97

23

Figure II.8: Army Promotions to Sergeant First Class for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

24

Figure II.9: Army Promotions to Master Sergeant for Fiscal Years

1993-97

25

Figure II.10: Army Promotions to Sergeant Major for Fiscal Years

1993-97

26

Figure II.11: Army Promotions to Major for Fiscal Years 1993-97 27

Figure II.12: Army Promotions to Lieutenant Colonel for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

28

Figure II.13: Army Promotions to Colonel for Fiscal Years

1993-97

29

Figure II.14: Navy Promotions to Chief Petty Officer for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

30

Figure II.15: Navy Promotions to Senior Chief Petty Officer for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

31

Figure II.16: Navy Promotions to Master Chief Petty Officer for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

32

Figure II.17: Navy Promotions to Lieutenant Commander for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

33

Figure II.18: Navy Promotions to Commander for Fiscal Years

1993-97

34

Figure II.19: Navy Promotions to Captain for Fiscal Years 1993-97 35

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Contents

Figure II.20: Marine Corps Promotions to Gunnery Sergeant for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

36

Figure II.21: Marine Corps Promotions to First Sergeant/Master

Sergeant for Fiscal Years 1993-97

37

Figure II.22: Marine Corps Promotions to Sergeant Major/Master

Gunnery Sergeant for Fiscal Years 1993-97

38

Figure II.23: Marine Corps Promotions to Major for Fiscal Years

1993-97

39

Figure II.24: Marine Corps Promotions to Lieutenant Colonel for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

40

Figure II.25: Marine Corps Promotions to Colonel for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

41

Figure III.1: PME Boards Whose Results Showed Similar

Selection Rates or Differences in Favor of Women or Men

43

Figure III.2: Air Force PME for Intermediate Service Schools for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

44

Figure III.3: Air Force PME for Senior Service Schools for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

45

Figure III.4: Army PME for Command and General Staff College

for Fiscal Years 1993-97

46

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

1993-97

47

Figure III.6: Navy PME for Senior Enlisted Academy for Fiscal

Years 1994-97

48

Figure III.7: Navy PME for Postgraduate Education for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

49

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

1993-97

50

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

1993-97

51

Figure III.10: Marine Corps PME for Career Level Schools for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

52

Figure III.11: Marine Corps PME for Intermediate Level School

for Fiscal Years 1993-97

53

Figure III.12: Marine Corps PME for Top Level Schools for Fiscal

Years 1993-97

54

Figure IV.1: Key Assignment Selections Whose Results Showed

Similar Selection Rates or Differences in Favor of Women or Men

56

Figure IV.2: Air Force Key Assignment for Senior Enlisted

Advisor for Fiscal Years 1993-97

57

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Contents

Figure IV.3: Air Force Key Assignment for Commanding Officer at

the O-4 Level for Fiscal Years 1993-97

58

Figure IV.4: Air Force Key Assignment for Commanding Officer at

the O-5 Level for Fiscal Years 1993-97

59

Figure IV.5: Air Force Key Assignments for Commanding Officer

at the O-6 Level for Fiscal Years 1993-97

60

Figure IV.6: Army Key Assignment for Command Sergeant Major

for Fiscal Years 1993-97

61

Figure IV.7: Army Key Assignment for Lieutenant Colonel

Command for Fiscal Years 1993-97

62

Figure IV.8: Army Key Assignment for Colonel Command for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

63

Figure IV.9: Navy Key Assignment for Command Master Chief for

Fiscal Years 1993-97

64

Figure IV.10: Navy Key Assignment for Executive/Command

Officer at the O-4 Level for Fiscal Years 1993-97

65

Figure IV.11: Navy Key Assignment for Executive/Command

Officer at the O-5 Level for Fiscal Years 1993-97

66

Figure IV.12: Navy Key Assignment for Commanding Officer at

the O-6 Level for Fiscal Years 1993-97

67

Figure IV.13: Marine Corps Key Assignment for

Command/Executive Officers for Fiscal Years 1993-97

68

Abbreviations

BOOST Broadened Opportunities for Officer Selection and Training

DOD Department of Defense

MEOA Military Equal Opportunity Assessments

PME professional military education

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Selection Rates for Promotions,

Professional Military Education, and Key

Assignments Reviewed

Tables I.1 through I.3 detail the number of promotion, professional

military education (PME), and key assignment selection boards or

examinations we included in our review. The tables also show the number

of boards that have no significant differences and the number that had

significant differences in favor of men or women.

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

Service

Periods

covered

Number of

comparisons

Number

showing no

difference

Percent

showing no

difference

Number in

favor of

women

Percent in

favor of

women

Number in

favor of men

Percent in

favor of men

All

promotions

Air Force 1993-97 29 23 79.3 6 20.7 0 0

Army 1993-97 30 25 83.3 2 6.7 3 10.0

Marine

Corps 1993-97 29 22 75.9 6 20.7 1 3.4

Navy 1993-97 30 26 86.7 4 13.3 0 0

Total 118 96 81.4a 18 15.3 4 3.4

Officer

promotions

Air Force 1993-97 14 10 71.4 4 28.6 0 0

Army 1993-97 15 13 86.7 0 0 2 13.3

Marine

Corps 1993-97 14 9 64.3 4 28.6 1 7.1

Navy 1993-97 15 15 100.0 0 0 0 0

Total 58 47 81.0 8 13.8 3 5.2

Enlisted

promotions

Air Force 1993-97 15 13 86.7 2 13.3 0 0

Army 1993-97 15 12 80.0 2 13.3 1 6.7

Marine

Corps 1993-97 15 13 86.7 2 13.3 0 0

Navy 1993-97 15 11 73.3 4 26.7 0 0

Total 60 49 81.7 10 16.7 1 1.7

aPercentages may not match text material due to rounding.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Selection Rates for Promotions,

Professional Military Education, and Key

Assignments Reviewed

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

Service

Periods

covered

Number of

comparisons

Number

showing no

difference

Percent

showing no

difference

Number in

favor of

women

Percent in

favor of

women

Number

in favor

of men

Percent

in favor

of men

Air Force 1993-97 10 7 70.0 2 20.0 1 10.0

Army 1993-97 10 5 50.0 1 10.0 4 40.0

Marine Corps 1993-97 20 7 35.0 11 55.0 2 10.0

Navy 1993-97 15 6 40.0 2 13.3 7 46.7

Total 55 25 45.5 16a 29.1 14 25.5

aPercentages may not match text material due to rounding.

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

Service

Periods

covered

Number of

comparisons

Number

showing no

difference

Percent

showing no

difference

Number in

favor of

women

Percent in

favor of

women

Number

in favor

of men

Percent

in favor

of men

Air Force 1993-97 20 13 65.0 1 5.0 6 30.0

Army 1993-97 15 6 40.0 5 33.3 4 26.7

Marine Corps 1993-97 5 5 100.0 0 0 0 0

Navy 1993-97 20 8 40.0 3 15.0 9 45.0

Total 60 32 53.3 9 15.0 19 31.7

The selection processes for promotions, PME, and key assignments and the

data that is required for the MEOA report are discussed in the following

sections.

Promotions The services are required to report officer promotions in the MEOA at the

major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel levels for the Air Force, the Army,

and the Marine Corps and the lieutenant commander, commander, and

captain levels for the Navy. For the enlisted force, the services are

required to report the master sergeant, senior master sergeant, and chief

master sergeant levels for the Air Force; sergeant first class, master

sergeant, and sergeant major levels for the Army; chief petty officer, senior

chief petty officer, and master chief petty officer levels for the Navy; and

gunnery sergeant, first sergeant/master sergeant, and sergeant

major/master gunnery sergeant levels for the Marine Corps. Some of the

services reported other levels of promotion. However, to be consistent

among the services, we only analyzed the levels stated above.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Selection Rates for Promotions,

Professional Military Education, and Key

Assignments Reviewed

The services do not report all of the promotions in MEOAs. They only report

the “in the zone” promotions. Officer promotion selection boards consider

three cohort groups known as “below the zone,” “in the zone,” and “above

the zone.” Most promotions are in the zone, which is considered the

normal length of service for promotion for that cohort group. However, a

relatively small number of officers who have demonstrated outstanding

leadership potential are promoted ahead of their cohort group, or below

the zone. Similarly, a small number of officers are promoted after their

cohort group, or above the zone. A similar system is used for enlisted

promotions in the Marine Corps. Those below the zone and above the zone

selections are not included in MEOAs. In addition, the services do not

always report the same officer promotion data in their MEOA reports. For

example, the Army and the Air Force do not include promotions of

doctors, nurses, medical corp personnel, lawyers, and chaplains in their

MEOA reports. The Navy and the Marine Corps do.

The services conduct centralized promotion boards for officer promotions.

Each promotion board reviews all qualified candidates being considered

for promotion to a given rank. For enlisted promotions, the services

generally conduct examinations or boards for promotions.

PME The Army, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy select service

members for PME opportunities by conducting centralized boards. All of

the services provide PME opportunities to both officers and enlisted

servicemembers.

The services report PME opportunities differently. For example, the Army

and the Air Force do not report enlisted PME opportunities while the

Marine Corps and the Navy do. Also, opportunities to attend the various

service and DOD schools vary among the services. The Air Force provides

the majority of its officers with PME opportunities. For example, Air Force

majors, selected as candidates on their promotion board, have a 3-year

window to attend an intermediate service school and have a 70-percent

chance of attending. Non-candidates may also be nominated and selected

to attend, however, at a significantly smaller percentage. Air Force

lieutenant colonels are eligible to attend the senior service school the year

following selection to lieutenant colonel and remain eligible up to 23 years

of total active federal commissioned service. The Navy on the other hand,

is more selective in regards to PME. According to a Navy official, only the

“best of the best” attend the different schools.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Selection Rates for Promotions,

Professional Military Education, and Key

Assignments Reviewed

Key Assignments The services decide which key assignments they will include in the MEOA

report. For example, the Navy and the Marine Corps provide data on

selection rates for executive officer positions, while the Army and the Air

Force do not.

Key assignment selection procedures differ among the services. The

Marine Corps and the Navy conduct a centralized board process to rank

nominated candidates while the selection process is generally

decentralized in both the Army and the Air Force. The Army conducts a

centralized board process for selection to command sergeant major,

lieutenant colonel command assignments, and colonel command

assignments. The Air Force changed its procedures for colonel-level key

assignments in fiscal year 1996. In earlier years, the Air Force would

conduct a board process for nominated colonels only. Starting in 1996, the

Air Force conducted boards for all colonels.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

Figure II.1 summarizes the percentage of promotion boards or

examinations the services conducted that were categorized as having

similar selecton rates and the percentage that did not meet the four-fifths

rule and were categorized as having significantly different rates. 

Figures II.2 through II.25 show, by rank, the percentage of men and

women promoted in fiscal year 1993 through 1997. The graphs display the

percent selected and the tables display the actual numbers of men and

women considered and selected. Caution should be used when just

comparing the percentages because the number of women eligible for

promotions is sometimes small.

Our analysis of 58 officer promotion boards1

 and 60 enlisted boards or

examinations from fiscal years 1993 through 1997 showed that the military

as a whole selected men and women for promotion at similar rates in the

vast majority of board or examination selections. In 47 of the 58 officer

boards and 49 of the 60 enlisted boards or examinations, the military made

selections at similar rates. For those selections in which significant

differences occurred, the majority were in favor of women for both the

enlisted force and officers. Only the Army had more significant differences

that were in favor of men. Of the Army’s 30 promotion boards or

examinations, 25 resulted in men and women being selected at similar

rates. For the remaining five, one was in favor of enlisted men, two were in

favor of male officers, and two were in favor of enlisted women.

1

In 1995, the Air Force did not hold promotion boards for promotion to the rank of colonel. Also in

1995, there were no women eligible for promotion to colonel in the Marine Corps.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

or Men

For Officers

Air Force Army Navy Marine Corps

0

20

40

60

80

100

In Percent

Similar Rate Favor Men Favor Women

For Enlisted

Air Force Army Navy Marine Corps

0

20

40

60

80

100

In Percent

Similar Rates Favor Men Favor Women

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

20

19

21

20

22

20 20 20

17

21

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

27,391

27,173

23,675

21,722

20,407

5,563

5,245

4,978

4,292

4,433

3,734

3,775

3,158

2,902

2,826

756

752

630

502

591

As shown in figure II.2, the Air Force promoted men and women to master

sergeant (E-7) at roughly the same rate from fiscal years 1993 through

1997.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

6

5

7 7

8

7

6

8

9

8

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

22,137

21,798

20,082

19,773

18,918

1,242

1,002

1,439

1,395

1,422

2,084

2,172

2,146

2,242

2,296

138

128

166

209

181

The Air Force also promoted men and women to senior master sergeant

(E-8) at roughly the same rate from fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see

fig. II.3).

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

9 9

12

16

19

15 15 15

20

24

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,426

4,255

3,863

3,516

2,890

398

377

452

565

547

285

335

332

334

307

44

51

51

67

74

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Air Force promoted women to the chief master sergeant (E-9) at

significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 (see fig. II.4). In

addition, if the Air Force had promoted just one additional woman during

fiscal years 1995 and 1997, then the differences would have been

significant for those years as well.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

100

74 73 72 73

81 83

76

81 79

86

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

2,678

5,186

2,548

2,615

2,640

1,995

3,760

1,841

1,896

2,131

237

446

202

244

222

196

341

163

192

192

As shown in figure II.5, during fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the Air

Force promoted men and women to major (O-4) at similar rates.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

63 63 63 62 63

68 66 64

70

68

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,746

1,991

2,533

1,918

1,697

1,100

1,245

1,587

1,190

1,062

141

255

397

282

148

96

168

256

196

101

The Air Force promoted men and women to the rank of lieutenant colonel

(O-5) at roughly the same rate from fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see

fig. II.6).

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

41 41 41 41

52

57

59

61

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,077

1,262

0

1,157

801

445

522

0

478

329

25

46

0

41

33

13

26

0

24

20

a a a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.7, from fiscal years 1993 through 1997, the Air Force

promoted women to colonel (O-6) at significantly higher rates, excluding

1995 when no boards were held. However, the number of women eligible

for and obtaining the promotions was relatively small. For example, in

fiscal year 1993, 25 women were eligible for promotion to this rank and 13

were promoted. In that same fiscal year, 445 men were promoted from the

1,077 eligible men. If the Air Force promoted one fewer woman in fiscal

year 1993, then there would have been no significant differences in the

promotion rates between men and women that year.

According to an Air Force official, the reason the Air Force promoted

41 percent of the men each year is because promotional opportunities to

colonel are limited to 50 percent of the eligible lieutenant colonels. The

50 percent includes the above and below zone promotions, which make up

about 8 percent of the promotions. The number of women being promoted

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

at this level is small—less than 1 percent, leaving 41 percent of the men in

the zone obtaining promotions.

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

18

23

13

11

20

18

33

15

10

16

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

45,717

32,035

29,030

30,653

28,371

8,364

7,356

3,768

3,443

5,651

4,839

3,791

3,082

3,523

3,504

853

1,259

460

347

549

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Army promoted men and women to sergeant first class (E-7) at about

the same rate for all fiscal years except fiscal year 1994, when the Army

promoted women at a significantly higher rate (see fig. II.8).

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

7

20

19

9

14

5

19

20

8

12

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

21,375

21,542

16,675

14,825

16,461

1,549

4,291

3,216

1,270

2,330

1,709

2,127

1,871

1,738

1,993

79

414

367

138

242

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Army promoted men and women to master sergeant (E-8) at roughly

the same rate for all fiscal years except fiscal year 1993 when the Army

promoted men at a significantly higher rate (see fig. II.9).

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

17

13

15

11

14

30

10

19

10

13

Percent

Male Female

a

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993 

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,940

3,913

4,380

3,257

3,063

856

523

661

354

425

194

182

270

243

285

58

19

50

24

36

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.10, the Army promoted men and women to sergeant

major (E-9) at roughly the same rate for all fiscal years except fiscal

year 1993 when the Army promoted women at a significantly higher rate.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

73

78

73 74 75 76

80

73

66

68

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,798

1,963

1,892

1,787

1,998

1,317

1,523

1,387

1,324

1,496

151

166

171

180

224

115

132

124

118

152

Men and women were promoted to the rank of major (O-4) by the Army at

similar rates in the fiscal years reviewed (see fig. II.11).

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

63

66

61 61 61

66

54

60

50

53

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,766

1,551

1,497

1,662

1,539

1,110

1,023

913

1,015

934

161

105

144

176

175

106

57

87

88

93

As shown in figure II.12, the Army promoted men and women to lieutenant

colonel (O-5) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993 through 1997.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

44 43 44

42

39

33

47

45

29

37

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women 

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

796

764

686

672

844

352

326

305

279

330

21

32

31

17

38

7

15

14

5

14

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.13, the Army promoted men and women to colonel

(O-6) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1997, but at

significantly higher rates for men during fiscal years 1993 and 1996.

However, the number of women eligible for promotion was relatively

small. For example, only 17 women were eligible for promotion to that

rank in fiscal year 1996, and 5 were promoted. During the same year, the

Army promoted 279 of the 672 eligible men. If the Army had promoted just

one additional woman during fiscal years 1993 and 1996, then there would

have been no significant differences in the promotion rates.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

10

11

16 16

12

15

16 16

19

15

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

28,708

27,821

25,938

23,979

23,949

2,848

2,954

4,254

3,750

2,929

2,177

2,174

1,996

1,902

1,854

325

341

328

359

275

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Navy promoted men and women to chief petty officer (E-7) at roughly

the same rate for fiscal years 1995-97 but at significantly higher rates for

women during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 (see fig. II.14).

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

6

8

10

11

5

6

8

13

10

5

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

20,204

20,288

18,340

16,580

16,147

1,307

1,600

1,783

1,787

812

1,183

1,272

1,178

1,143

1,165

71

100

151

114

63

The Navy promoted men and women to senior chief petty officer (E-8) at

roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see fig. II.15).

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

4

9

12

16

7

9

8

13

15

14

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

5,013

4,946

4,535

4,135

1,388

195

434

526

668

97

201

199

197

182

197

19

16

26

27

28

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.16, the Navy promoted men and women to master

chief petty officer (E-9) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994-96,

but at significantly higher rates for women during fiscal years 1993 and

1997. While the percentages of women promoted were higher then the

percentages of men promoted, the number of women promoted was

relatively small. In fiscal year 1997, for example, 197 women were eligible

for promotion to that rank and 28 were promoted, while 1,388 men were

considered and 97 were promoted. In fiscal year 1993, the Navy considered

5,013 men and 201 women and promoted 195 and 19, respectively.

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

72 72

69

66

68

74 73

77

73 73

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

2,398

2,944

1,900

2,118

2,370

1,724

2,111

1,312

1,402

1,612

356

475

896

344

294

264

347

689

251

216

The Navy promoted men and women to lieutenant commander (O-4) at

approximately the same rate for the years reviewed (see fig. II.17).

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

63 64 63

60

67

62

68

65

60 61

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,297

1,745

1,293

1,329

1,660

811

1,114

821

794

1,105

247

263

269

186

193

152

178

176

111

118

The Navy promoted men and women to commander (O-5) at similar rates

during fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see fig. II.18).

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

47 47 48 48 47 46

42

47

39

46

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

896

813

738

859

860

417

383

352

409

407

100

92

94

79

126

46

39

44

31

58

The Navy promoted men and women to captain (O-6) at roughly the same

rate for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 (see fig. II.19).

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

63

65 65

69

66 66

64

68

73

62

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

2,073

2,012

1,912

2,300

2,591

1,315

1,317

1,239

1,591

1,707

134

148

122

124

123

89

95

83

90

76

As shown in figure II.20, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to

gunnery sergeant (E-7) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993

through 1997. The promotion rates were higher than the other services for

this level (E-7) because the pool of eligible candidates in the Marine Corps

was much smaller than in the other services. As a result, the Marine Corps

selected a higher percentage of eligible candidates.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

42

19

25

23

27

36

26

23

22

28

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,194

3,497

2,976

3,274

2,913

500

679

739

743

788

55

141

133

125

145

20

36

30

27

40

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Marine Corps promoted men and women to first sergeant/master

sergeant (E-8) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993 and 1995-97,

but at significantly higher rates for women in fiscal year 1994 (see

fig. II.21).

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

56 55

57

53

56

71

67

50

67

60

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

394

332

310

401

317

221

183

176

213

178

7

3

2

6

10

5

2

1

4

6

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.22, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to

sergeant major/master gunnery sergeant (E-9) at roughly the same rate for

fiscal years 1994-97, but at significantly higher rates for women in fiscal

year 1993. However, the number of women eligible for promotion at this

level was small. For example, in fiscal year 1993, only seven women were

eligible for promotion and five promoted. In contrast, 221 men were

promoted out of 394 men considered. If the Marine Corps had promoted

one fewer woman in fiscal year 1993, then there would have been no

significant differences in the promotion rates. If one fewer woman had

been promoted in fiscal years 1994 and 1995, then there would be

significantly higher rates for men. On the other hand, if the Marine Corps

had promoted just one additional woman in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and

1996, then there would have been significantly higher promotion rates for

women.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

100

66 67 69

77 78

86

75

71

77

82

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

409

773

971

783

641

271

521

667

599

500

14

16

28

26

17

12

12

20

20

14

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.23, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to

major (O-4) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994-97, but at a

significantly higher rate for women in fiscal year 1993. However, the

number of women eligible for promotion to this level was relatively small.

For example, in fiscal year 1993, only 14 women were eligible for

promotion and 12 received promotions. If the Marine Corps had promoted

just one fewer woman during fiscal year 1993, then there would have been

no significant difference for that year.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

54

57 58

65

67

69

50

43

75

87

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

319

244

493

482

481

171

139

284

313

324

13

6

14

20

15

9

3

6

15

13

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.24, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to

lieutenant colonel (O-5) at significantly higher rates for women during

fiscal years 1993 and 1997 and at a higher rate for men in fiscal year 1995,

but at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994 and 1996. The number of

women eligible for promotion to lieutenant colonel was relatively small in

the years we reviewed. For example, in fiscal year 1994, six women were

eligible for promotion, of which three received promotions. If the Marine

Corps had promoted one fewer woman during fiscal years 1993 and 1997,

then there would have been no significant difference. In addition, if the

Marine Corps had promoted one fewer woman in fiscal year 1994, then

there would have been a significant difference in favor of men that year.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Comparison of Promotions by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

41 41

43

45

43

50

33

0

67

38

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

210

163

163

204

209

86

67

70

91

89

2

3

0

3

8

1

1

0

2

3

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure II.25, the Marine Corps promoted men and women to

colonel (O-6) at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1997,

but women were promoted at a significantly higher rate in fiscal year 1996.

However, the number of women eligible for promotion to this level was

small. For example, in fiscal year 1996, only three women were eligible for

promotion and two were promoted. Furthermore, if the Marine Corps had

promoted one more woman in fiscal years 1993 and 1994, then there would

have been significant differences in favor of women. On the other hand, if

the Marine Corps had promoted one fewer woman each year (excluding

fiscal year 1995 when no women were eligible), then there would have

been significant differences each year in favor of men.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

Figure III.1 summarizes the percentage of PME boards the services

conducted that were categorized as having similar selecton rates and the

percentage that did not meet the four-fifths rule and were categorized as

having significantly different rates. Figures III.2 through III.12 show by

rank, the percentage of men and women selected for PME in fiscal 

years 1993 through 1997. The graphs display the percentage of men and

women selected, the tables display the actual number of women and men

considered and selected. Caution should be used when comparing the

percentages because the number of women eligible for PME selection is

sometimes small.

PME is the only area we reviewed that had more significant differences

than nonsignificant differences in the rate selection. Our analysis showed

that selection rates for 25 of the 55 boards held from fiscal years 1993

through 1997 were similar. When significant differences occurred, in the

aggregate, they were slightly in favor of women. However, the Army and

the Navy had more instances of significant differences in favor of men.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

Figure III.1: PME Boards Whose

Results Showed Similar Selection

Rates or Differences in Favor of

Women or Men

Air Force Army Navy Marine Corps

0

20

40

60

80

100

In Percent

Similar Rates Favor Men Favor Women

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

39

42 41 40

47

43

61

43

47

60

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,061

1,044

1,087

1,047

883

411

435

446

422

413

203

136

134

138

104

87

83

57

65

62

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.2, the Air Force selected men and women for

intermediate service schools such as the Air Command and Staff College

at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993, 1995, and 1996; women were

selected at a significantly higher rate during fiscal years 1994 and 1997.

However, if the Air Force had selected just one fewer woman in fiscal

year 1997, then there would have been no significant difference for that

year.

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

32

38

47

64

68

36

38

42

49

74

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

708

616

514

300

300

226

235

244

192

204

83

55

65

61

42

30

21

27

30

31

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Air Force selected men and women for the Air War College or its

equivalent at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-95 and 1997, but at

a significantly higher rate for men in fiscal year 1996 (see fig. III.3).

However, if the Air Force had selected just one additional woman, then

there would have been no significant difference for fiscal year 1996.

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

20

21

16

12

16

20

26

18

19

17

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,407

4,354

4,001

4,038

4,318

895

913

646

496

675

449

427

347

349

378

89

110

63

68

65

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.4, the Army selected men and women for the

Command and General Staff College at roughly the same rate for fiscal

years 1993-95 and 1997, but at a significantly higher rate for women in

fiscal year 1996. Generally, promotable captains and majors attend this

school.

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

777

6

7

5 5

4

5

4

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,151

4,275

4,338

4,277

4,250

309

305

284

268

295

193

248

279

301

321

9

12

11

15

14

a a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Army selected men and women for the Army War College at a

significantly higher rate for men during fiscal years 1993-95 and 1997, but

at roughly the same rate for fiscal year 1996 (see fig. III.5). However, since

the selection rates are low, the percentages used for calculating the

four-fifths test are small and consequently more likely that differences will

appear significant. Lieutenant colonels and colonels attend this school.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1994 1995 1996 1997

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0.87

0.47

0.78

0.74 0.76

0.21

0.45

0.54

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1994

1995

1996

1997

40,289

36,713

35,870

36,717

349

174

280

270

2,495

2,427

2,422

2,766

19

5

11

15

aa a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.6, the Navy selected men at a significantly higher

rate for the Senior Enlisted Academy for fiscal years 1995-97 and men and

women at roughly the same rate in fiscal year 1994. However, the selection

percentages are so small during fiscal years 1994-97, that they trigger the

four-fifths test of a significant difference easily. The Navy selected women

at a significantly higher rate in fiscal year 1993. Data for that fiscal year,

however, were not included in this figure because the number of enlisted

personnel eligible to attend the Senior Enlisted Academy was so much

smaller in fiscal year 1993 than the other years (about 2,200 in fiscal

year 1993 vs. about 40,000 during fiscal years 1994-97). The difference in

the eligible population made a meaningful year-by-year comparison

impossible. The Navy did not provide an explanation for the difference in

the eligible population.

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

11

15

10

18

16

9

14

9

13

12

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

5,937

3,723

5,082

2,789

2,788

656

563

494

504

451

956

567

867

517

516

87

82

77

69

61

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.7, the Navy selected men and women for

postgraduate education at schools such as the Naval Postgraduate School

at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-95, but selected men at a

significantly higher rate for fiscal years 1996-97. However, if the Navy had

selected one additional woman in fiscal year 1996, then there would have

been no significant difference for that year.

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

10

20

30

40

50

24

28

21

30

34

22

20

17

22

45

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

2,034

1,686

1,996

1,509

1,212

489

466

416

452

415

214

255

302

213

75

47

52

52

46

34

a aa

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Navy selected men at significantly higher rates for the Navy War

College in fiscal years 1994 and 1996 and selected women at a significantly

higher rate in 1997. In fiscal years 1993 and 1995, men and women were

selected at roughly the same rate (see fig. III.8).

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

100

68 66

53

48 49

40

56

83

44

100

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

71

86

134

120

111

48

57

71

58

54

5

9

6

9

6

2

5

5

4

6

aaa

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.9, the Marine Corps selected women at a

significantly higher rate for the enlisted Broadened Opportunities for

Officer Selection and Training (BOOST) program in fiscal years 1995 and

1997 and selected men at a significantly higher rate for fiscal year 1993.

The Marine Corps selected men and women at roughly the same rate

during fiscal years 1994 and 1996. However, the number of women eligible

for this program was small and can affect whether the difference is or is

not significant. For example, in fiscal year 1995, six women were eligible

for the BOOST program and five were selected. If the Marine Corps had

selected one additional woman in fiscal year 1993, then there would have

been no significant difference in favor of men that year. In addition, if the

Marine Corps had selected one fewer woman, then there would have been

significant differences in favor of men in fiscal years 1994 and 1996 and no

significant difference in favor of women in fiscal year 1995.

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

16

25 26

21

25 24

92

65

37

24

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,334

1,155

1,108

1,416

1,226

208

292

291

297

302

54

12

20

38

38

13

11

13

14

9

aaa a

The Marine Corps selected women at a significantly higher rate for Career

Level Schools during fiscal years 1993 through 1996 (see fig. III.10). In

fiscal year 1997, the Marine Corps selected men and women at roughly the

same rate. However, the number of women eligible to attend these schools

is relatively small.

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

22

25

20 20

21

30

26

20

30

33

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

731

656

825

779

767

164

166

167

153

158

30

23

30

30

24

9

6

6

9

8

a aa

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.11, the Marine Corps selected women at a

significantly higher rate for intermediate level schools, such as the

Command and Staff College, during fiscal years 1993, 1996, and 1997 and

at roughly the same rate for men and women during fiscal years 1994 and

1995. However, the number of women eligible to attend these schools was

relatively small. For example, in fiscal year 1997, 24 women were eligible

to attend and 8 were selected. If the Marine Corps selected one fewer

woman in fiscal year 1993, then there would have been no significant

difference for that year.

Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix III 

Comparison of PME by Rank, Gender, and

Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

20

40

60

80

8

30

32

19

16

8

83

30

27

12

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,003

263

337

449

459

76

78

107

84

75

24

6

10

11

17

2

5

3

3

2

a aa

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure III.12, the Marine Corps selected women at a

significantly higher rate for schools like the Marine Corps War College or

other service war colleges during fiscal years 1994 and 1996 and at a

significantly higher rate for men in fiscal year 1997. During fiscal

years 1993 and 1995, men and women were selected at roughly the same

rate. However, the number of women eligible for this level of school was

relatively small, which can radically change the selection rate. For

example, in fiscal year 1994, six women were eligible of which five were

selected. If the Marine Corps selected one additional woman during fiscal

years 1993 and 1997, then there would have been a significant difference in

favor of women in fiscal year 1993 and no significant difference in fiscal

year 1997. If the Marine Corps had selected one fewer woman, then there

would have been significant differences in favor of men in fiscal years 1993

and 1995 and no significant difference in fiscal year 1996.

Page 54 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

Figure IV.1 summarizes the percentage of key assignment selections

processes the services conducted that were categorized as having similar

selecton rates and the percentage that did not meet the four-fifths rule and

were categorized as having significantly different rates. Figures IV.2

through IV.13 show by rank, the percentage of men and women selected

for key assignments in fiscal years 1993 through 1997. The graphs display

the percentage of men and women selected, the tables display the actual

number of women and men considered and selected. Caution should be

used when comparing the percentages because the number of women

eligible for key assignments selection is sometimes small.

Our analysis of 60 key assignment selection boards showed that the

military as a whole selected men and women for key assignments at

similar rates in the majority of board selections from fiscal years 1993 to

1997. In 32 of the 60 selection boards, the military made selections at

similar rates. However, when significant differences occurred, we found

that they were in favor of men in most cases. For the 28 key assignment

selection boards where significant differences occurred, 19 were in favor

of men. The Air Force and the Navy had more instances of significant

differences in favor of men, the Army had slightly more significant

differences in favor of women, and the Marine Corps had no significant

differences.

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

Figure IV.1: Key Assignment

Selections Whose Results Showed

Similar Selection Rates or Differences

in Favor of Women or Men

Air Force Army Navy Marine Corps

0

20

40

60

80

100

In Percent

Similar Rates Favor Men Favor Women

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

3,495

3,230

2,983

2,830

2,760

144

138

65

130

133

118

168

192

235

262

3

5

9

6

3

a a a 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

4 4

2

5 5

3 3

5

3

1

Percent

Male Female

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure IV.2, the Air Force selected men for senior enlisted

advisor positions at significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1996 and

1997 and selected women at a significantly higher rate for fiscal year 1995.

Men and women were selected at roughly the same rate during fiscal

years 1993 and 1994. However, the selection rates are small, which makes

them sensitive to the four-fifths test. For example, if the Air Force selected

one fewer woman in fiscal year 1993, then there would have been

significant differences in favor of men that year.

Page 57 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

2

4

6

8

8

5555

8

5

6 6

5

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

14,117

13,364

13,183

13,682

13,532

1,109

653

605

643

648

2,571

2,476

2,333

2,344

2,245

198

130

137

132

116

The Air Force selected men and women for commanding officer at the

major level at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-97 (see fig. IV.3).

Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

16

14 14

17

15

10

8

11

15

14

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

10,309

9,905

9,597

9,283

8,858

1,647

1,369

1,319

1,576

1,327

847

1,008

1,062

1,095

1,204

83

85

114

163

171

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Air Force selected men and women for commanding officer at the

lieutenant colonel level at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1995-97

and at a significantly higher rate for men in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 (see

fig. IV.4).

Page 59 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

28

19

21

26

25

14

12

20

23

25

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,172

4,130

3,953

3,817

3,578

1,176

796

818

1,011

890

181

193

203

204

240

25

24

41

47

59

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Air Force selected men and women for commanding officer at the

colonel level at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1995-97 and at a

significantly higher rate for men in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 (see 

fig. IV.5).

Page 60 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

4

6

9

4

6

3

8

14

2

4

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,933

5,189

1,144

4,129

3,610

221

334

105

184

204

203

279

51

262

273

7

22

7

6

10

a aa a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure IV.6, the Army selected men for command sergeant

major at significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1993, 1996, and 1997

and selected women at a significantly higher rate in fiscal year 1995. In

fiscal year 1994, the Army selected men and women at roughly the same

rate. However, most of the selection rates were low, which makes them

sensitive to the four-fifths test. For example, if the Army selected one

fewer man in fiscal year 1997, then there would have been no significant

difference that year. If the Army had selected one additional woman, then

there would have been no significant difference in fiscal year 1993 and a

significant difference in favor of women in fiscal year 1994. If the Army

had selected one fewer woman in fiscal year 1995, then there would have

been no significant difference.

Page 61 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

12

11 11 11 11

19

10 10

12 12

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

2,837

3,125

3,025

3,179

2,789

345

334

323

356

303

139

185

197

238

231

27

19

20

29

27

a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Army selected men and women for lieutenant colonel command at

roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1994-97. In fiscal year 1993, the Army

selected women at a significantly higher rate. During that year, the Army

selected 27 out of 139 women for key assignments (see fig. IV.7).

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

9

7

10

11

14

5

20

14

15

17

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1,608

1,455

1,235

1,011

918

144

100

119

107

128

20

25

28

33

29

1

5

4

5

5

aaaa

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure IV.8, the Army selected women for colonel command at

a significantly higher rate in fiscal years 1994-96 and selected men at a

significantly higher rate in fiscal year 1993. In fiscal year 1997, the Army

selected men and women at roughly the same rate. However, if the Army

had selected one additional woman, then there would have been no

significant difference in fiscal year 1993 and a significant difference in

favor of women in fiscal year 1997. On the other hand, if the Army had

selected one fewer woman, then there would have been no significant

differences in fiscal years 1995 and 1996.

Page 63 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

15

21

25

21 21

16

17

21

16 16

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

4,638

3,923

3,196

3,124

3,185

688

813

790

645

678

103

109

86

85

102

16

18

18

14

16

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Navy selected men and women for command master chief positions at

roughly the same rate during fiscal years 1993-95 but selected men at

significantly higher rates during fiscal years 1996 and 1997 (see fig. IV.9).

The addition or subtraction of one man or woman can make a difference

to the significance test. For example, if the Navy had selected one fewer

man or one more woman in fiscal year 1996, there would have been no

significant difference. If the Navy had selected one additional woman in

fiscal year 1997, there would have been no significant difference. Finally,

while there was no significant difference in fiscal year 1994, if the Navy

had selected one fewer woman that year, there would have been a

significant difference in favor of men.

Page 64 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

2

4

6

8

10

2

6

5

4

6

3

9

7

5

6

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

12,030

9,799

9,622

9,592

9,279

291

603

513

423

592

1,766

1,513

1,540

1,597

1,610

56

143

104

86

92

a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure IV.10, the Navy selected men and women for

executive/command officer positions at the lieutenant commander level at

roughly the same rate in fiscal years 1995 through 1997, but women were

selected at significantly higher rates in fiscal years 1993 and 1994.

However, the selection rates were small in fiscal year 1993, which makes

them sensitive to the four-fifths test. For example, if the Navy selected one

fewer woman that year, then there would have been no significant

difference.

Page 65 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

7,284

6,487

6,335

6,246

6,127

422

1,056

904

322

964

831

846

903

973

998

39

95

93

87

101

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 a a a a 0

5

10

15

6

16

14

5

16

5

11

10

9

10

Percent

Male Female

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

As shown in figure IV.11, the Navy selected men for executive/command

officer positions at the commander level at a significantly higher rate in

fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1997 and selected women at a significantly

higher rate in fiscal year 1996. During fiscal year 1993, the Navy selected

men and women at roughly the same rate. According to a Navy official,

women are beginning to move through the command pipeline. For

example, women will assume command of combat ships for the first time

in 1998.

Page 66 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

3,705

3,320

3,107

3,132

3,122

314

758

571

246

486

164

184

204

248

260

6

29

18

17

27

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

25

8

23

18

8

16

4

16

9

7

10

Percent

Male Female

aa a a

aDifference is significant using the four-fifths test.

The Navy selected men for executive/command officer positions at the

captain level at a significantly higher rate than women in fiscal years 1993

through 1995 and 1997. In fiscal year 1996, the Navy selected men and

women at roughly the same rate. However, the number of women

considered and selected is relatively small when compared to men. For

example, in fiscal year 1993, the Navy selected 6 out of 164 women while

the Navy selected 314 out of 3,705 men (see fig. IV.12).

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix IV 

Comparison of Key Assignments by Rank,

Gender, and Service

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

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

5

10

15

20

12

11

12 12

14

13

10

11

14

18

Percent

Male Female

Men

Considered

Men

Selected

Women

Considered

Women

Selected

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

13,810

13,504

13,320

13,507

12,933

1,723

1,441

1,579

1,558

1,873

442

410

420

451

489

57

43

46

64

86

The Marine Corps selected men and women for command/executive

officer positions at roughly the same rate for fiscal years 1993-97 (see 

fig. IV.13).

Page 68 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Carol R. Schuster

William E. Beusse

Cheryl L. Gordon

Carole F. Coffey

Roderick Moore

James Geibel

Julio Luna

(703241) Page 69 GAO/NSIAD-98-157 Gender Issues
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100