United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

November 1998 GENDER ISSUES

Information to Assess

Servicemembers’

Perceptions of Gender

Inequities Is

Incomplete

GAO/NSIAD-99-27

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-279460 

November 18, 1998

Congressional Committees

In recognition of the integral part women play in the all-volunteer force, the National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 directed us to conduct a study on any inequalities or

perceptions of inequalities in the treatment of men and women in the armed forces that are tied

to statutes and regulations governing the armed forces. The purpose of this report is to

(1) identify perceptions of gender inequities found in various surveys and studies of male and

female servicemembers and (2) examine what available data and studies reveal about those

perceptions.

This report includes recommendations which, if implemented, should help the Department of

Defense assess the validity of the perceptions that military men and women have about

inequities in the areas of career opportunities and fitness standards. We are sending copies of

this report to interested congressional committees and Members of Congress; the Secretaries of

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

will make copies available to other interested parties upon request.

Please contact me at ( 202) 512-5140 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this

report. The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities
B-279460 

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Strom Thurmond

Chairman

The Honorable Carl Levin

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Ted Stevens

Chairman

The Honorable Daniel Inouye

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Floyd Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

The Honorable C.W. Bill Young

Chairman

The Honorable John Murtha

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on National Security

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
B-279460 

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose In recognition of the integral part women play in the all-volunteer force,

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 19981

 directed GAO

to conduct a study on any inequalities or perceptions of inequalities in the

treatment of men and women in the armed forces that are tied to statutes

and regulations governing the armed forces. The purpose of this report is

to (1) identify perceptions of gender inequities found in various surveys

and studies of male and female servicemembers and (2) examine what

available data and studies reveal about those perceptions.

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 services’ authorized strength or be permanently promoted beyond

the rank of lieutenant colonel until 1967. In 1969, the Air Force opened its

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program to women and the other services

opened their programs in 1972. In 1976, women enrolled in the service

academies for the first time and in 1978, women were permitted to serve

permanently on ships not expected to be used in combat. In 1991 and 1993,

significant changes occurred in legislation with the lifting of the bans on

women flying Navy and Air Force combat aircraft and serving on combat

ships. In 1994, the assignment policy for women was liberalized across the

Department of Defense (DOD) to expand opportunities. With certain

exceptions, under the current policy, women can be assigned to almost all

positions, except those involving direct ground combat. Women now

comprise about 14 percent of the armed forces, up from less than

2 percent in 1973.

As the number of women in the military increases and the role of women

in the military changes, researchers, both in and out of the military, have

been studying servicemembers’ attitudes about the military and their

views regarding how the military treats men and women. Researchers

have explored the perceptions of men and women with regard to gender

equity in a variety of areas, including ground combat, career development,

and physical fitness. Information on the perceptions of male and female

servicemembers came from a variety of surveys and studies conducted

across DOD. Most of these research efforts collected perceptions largely

through the use of focus groups or other qualitative data gathering

methods that provide insights into attitudes, perceptions, and opinions.

The perceptions cited are not necessarily representative of the entire

military population and statistical estimates of how many people hold

such views cannot be projected from the results.

1

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

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

Results in Brief Based on the various surveys and studies of perceptions of military

personnel, articles in service-oriented publications, and discussions with

experts in the military personnel area, GAO identified two major areas

where studies indicate that servicemen and servicewomen perceive

inequities:

• career opportunities (including assignment policies and other factors that

may have an impact on career advancement) and

• physical fitness and body fat standards.

These areas of perceived inequities in the treatment of men and women

are related to various DOD and service policies and programs, rather than

specific statutes. The last statutory restriction on the assignment of

women in the military was eliminated in 1993 when Congress repealed the

restriction on the use of women on naval combat ships.

Some perceptions of inequality in the area of career opportunities involve

various local assignment policies and practices established by unit

commanders. Some women have raised concerns about being assigned to

clerical and administrative positions instead of positions requiring the

technical skills in which they were trained. Some women also believe that

they are being denied opportunities to serve in positions that are legally

open to them because of perceived unjustified prerequisite requirements

for a certain kind of experience, such as being in the infantry, that is

closed to women. GAO found that local commanders do have considerable

latitude in how they assign their personnel and that some positions do

carry prerequisite requirements for a skill or specialty that is closed to

women. However, GAO found no existing studies that show the extent to

which such practices take place or whether such policies and practices are

inequitable.

Researchers have also found perceptions among some men and women

that DOD’s policy restricting women from occupations and units involved in

direct ground combat affects their opportunities for promotions and

career advancement. GAO found no studies that specifically addressed

whether the ground combat exclusion policy has an inequitable impact on

the career opportunities of men and women. Consequently, GAO examined

the data submitted by the services as part of their annual equal

opportunity assessments to determine whether men and women were

selected at similar rates for promotion, key assignments, and professional

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

military education.2 GAO’s analysis of this data showed that the military

selected men and women for promotion at basically similar rates over

80 percent of the time and selected men and women for key assignments

and professional military education at similar rates approximately half of

the time. In those cases where the selection rates differed, no clear pattern

of a systematic advantage to either gender emerged—sometimes men had

higher selection rates and sometimes women did. While this data provides

some insights into the relative career success of servicemen and

servicewomen, it does not address the specific perceptions of inequitable

career opportunities raised by military personnel.

The services’ physical fitness programs are another area where there are

perceptions of inequality in the treatment of men and women. A 1997

RAND3

 study stated that many servicemembers, men and women alike,

believe that fitness standards are a measure of one’s ability to perform in a

combat environment. There is also a widespread perception that the

existence of lower physical fitness standards for women amounts to a

“double standard.” However, the physical fitness program is actually

intended only to maintain the general fitness and health of military

members and fitness testing is not aimed at assessing the capability to

perform specific missions or military jobs. Consequently, DOD officials and

experts agree that it is appropriate to adjust the standards for

physiological differences among servicemembers by age and gender. Thus,

the mere existence of different fitness standards for each gender, that do

not require women to run as fast as men or to perform as many push-ups,

does not constitute a “double standard.” General physical fitness standards

can be different for men and women without necessarily being inequitable.

Many military women have also expressed concerns about the fairness of

the service’s body fat standards, which they perceive as unrealistic, biased,

and selectively enforced to the detriment of women. In a recent study, GAO

found that (1) service body fat standards were not always based on

scientific data, (2) differences in each service’s equations for estimating

body fat can result in widely varying estimates of the percent of body fat

for the same woman, and (3) changes in the mix of ethnicity and other

population characteristics of the current military call into question the

2

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

1998).

3

Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon

Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Washington, D.C.: Rand, 1997) p. 47.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

representativeness of the populations used to develop the equations.4

Consequently, it is not possible to assess whether the services’ body fat

standards are fair to both men and women.

Principal Findings

Data to Assess

Perceived Inequities

in Career

Opportunities Is

Incomplete

The concerns of servicemen and servicewomen regarding the equity of

career opportunities were generally not centered around the selection

process itself. Rather, the concerns were focused on factors seen as either

enhancing or inhibiting career opportunities, such as their ability to

compete for key positions, the extent to which they have the opportunity

to use the skills in which they were trained and gain the necessary

experience for advancement, and the impact of the ground combat

exclusion policy.

Service-specific policies, as well as official and unofficial local assignment

policies and practices established by unit commanders, generate some

perceptions of inequality. For example, many enlisted women in the Army,

the Navy, and the Air Force told researchers that women were sometimes

assigned to clerical and administrative positions instead of positions

requiring the technical skills in which they were trained. These women

believed that this made them less competitive for career advancement

because they did not get the technical experience necessary to advance in

their careers. Some female officers report that they are being denied

opportunities to serve in positions that are legally open to them and are

being assigned to less prestigious positions or to jobs traditionally held by

women to the detriment of their careers. Some women believed that

unjustified requirements for a certain kind of experience that was closed

to women, such as being in the infantry, were unfairly added as a

prerequisite for otherwise gender-neutral positions, effectively foreclosing

these opportunities.

GAO found that some positions do carry prerequisite requirements for a

skill or specialty that is closed to women. For example, the drill sergeant

position in the Army is listed as being open to women, yet some are coded

as requiring infantry skills. In addition, local commanders can assign their

personnel as they see fit. For example, a commander may assign a given

4

For a more detailed analysis of service physical fitness programs, see Gender Issues: Improved

Guidance and Oversight Are Needed to Ensure Validity and Equity of Fitness Standards

(GAO/NSIAD-99-9, Nov. 17, 1998).

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

subordinate, male or female, to function primarily administrative in

nature. However, neither DOD nor the services have conducted studies

specifically addressing whether women are negatively affected by such

policies and practices more often than men.

A key factor cited by both men and women is DOD’s direct ground combat

exclusion policy. According to a recent GAO study of this policy, over

190,000 positions are closed to women because they involve direct ground

combat or operate alongside ground combat units.5

 The perceptions of the

impact of this policy on career opportunities varies between men and

women and officers and enlisted personnel in the studies GAO reviewed.

One study reported that at least half the female enlisted personnel,

non-commissioned officers, and officers surveyed believed that the

combat exclusion policy hurt their career security and promotion

opportunity because it prevented them from serving in the kinds of “ticket

punching” assignments associated with advancement to higher ranks.6

Another study of the attitudes of Army men and women revealed that

some men believe the combat exclusion policy is advantageous to women

because it gives them more time for career-enhancing education and

training and earlier opportunities for higher-echelon assignments.7

Again, neither DOD nor the services has conducted a specific assessment of

the effects of the ground combat exclusion policy on the career

opportunities of men and women. However, data was available on

selection rates for promotion to top non-commissioned officer and

non-flag officer grades, most key assignments to positions such as

command or executive officer positions, and the primary intermediate and

senior level professional military education. Although this data has some

limitations with regard to addressing perceptions about career

opportunities, it can provide some insights regarding relative career

success of men and women in the military. Meaningful analyses of

promotions of women to flag officer ranks were not possible because

many of the women who entered the regular officer corps after the

Reserve Officers’ Training Corps and the service academies were opened

5

Gender Issues: Information on DOD’s Assignment Policy and Direct Ground Combat Definition

(GAO/NSIAD-99-7, Oct. 19, 1998).

6

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

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

Harvard University, 1995, p. 12.

7

Laura Miller “Not Just Weapons of the Weak: Gender Harassment as a Form of Protest for Army Men,”

Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 60, No. 1, (1997) pp.45-46.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

to women are not yet at the normal phase point to be competitive for flag

officer positions.

The information on the selection rates for promotions, key assignments,

and professional military education was taken from a GAO report issued in

May 1998. To determine whether the rates differed significantly for men

and women, GAO used the four-fifths test, which is a rule-of-thumb adopted

by the federal agencies responsible for equal employment opportunity

enforcement. According to this test, a selection rate for a subgroup that is

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

highest selection rate is considered a significantly different rate.

For promotion selections, GAO analyzed the decisions made by 58 officer

promotion boards and 60 enlisted boards or examinations from fiscal 

years 1993 through 1997. GAO found that, the military as a whole selected

men and women for promotion to the top three non-flag officer and

enlisted grades at similar rates in about 81 percent of the promotion

boards or examinations reviewed. Of the remaining instances, 15 percent

were in favor of women, and 3 percent were in favor of men. In several

cases, the small number of women eligible for consideration compared to

men resulted in a situation where the selection of one servicemember

more or less would have changed the characterization of the selection rate

from similar to different, or vice versa.

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

women at similar rates in about 53 percent of the selection processes GAO

reviewed. For the remaining selections where there were significant

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

15 percent were in favor of women. Across the four services, the military

selected men and women for professional military education at basically

similar rates in about 46 percent of the board or decentralized selections.

The remaining 54 percent of the selections slightly favored women, 29 to

25 percent. In some of the services, the data for officers included only

those who were nominated for key assignments and professional military

education. Consequently, the data would not identify any disparities in the

rates at which eligible male and female officers were nominated.

Different Fitness Standards

for Men and Women Do

Not Necessarily Constitute

a Double-Standard

DOD requires each service to establish a physical fitness and body fat

program. DOD guidance sets out annual fitness testing requirements for all

servicemembers. Annual testing is conducted in three areas:

cardiovascular endurance (measured by activities such as running a

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

certain distance within a specified period of time), muscular strength and

endurance (measured by activities such as push-ups and sit-ups), and

maintenance of body fat within a certain percentage range.

A 1997 RAND8

 study found that many servicemembers believe that the

services’ general physical fitness standards are related to one’s ability to

perform in a combat environment or are related to a specific job or

occupation. Many see the existence of different physical fitness standards

for men and women as a “double standard” and evidence that women will

perform less well in a combat environment. Some men question whether

women are capable of performing physically-demanding jobs. Some of

these views may be the result of confusion regarding the two kinds of

physical requirements that a servicemember may have to meet: general

physical fitness standards and job-specific physical performance

standards.

Each service tests its personnel against general physical fitness standards

that apply to all members regardless of occupation. According to DOD,

these standards are intended only to set a minimum level of general fitness

and health for military personnel and are not directly related to job

performance. These general fitness standards are not intended to

specifically enhance the performance of a particular service mission or

job, and research9

 has identified little correlation between performance on

fitness tests and specific military task performance.

The purpose of job-specific physical performance standards, on the other

hand, is to ensure that those personnel assigned to physically-demanding

jobs are capable of performing the requirements of those jobs. The

Secretary of Defense is required by law to prescribe physical performance

standards for any occupation for which the Secretary determines strength,

endurance, or stamina are essential to performance.10 For any occupation

for which both men and women are eligible to serve, the law specifically

prohibits adjusting performance standards for gender.

The 1992 President’s Commission on the Assignment of Women in the

Armed Forces looked closely at the issue of physical strength and

endurance requirements. The Commission concluded that since general

8

Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon

Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Washington, D.C.: Rand, 1997) p. 47.

9

Assessing Readiness in Military Women: The Relationship of Body Composition, Nutrition, and Health

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998).

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

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

physical fitness standards are established to promote the highest level of

general wellness in the armed forces and are not aimed at assessing

capability to perform specific jobs or missions, it is appropriate to adjust

the standards for physiological differences among servicemembers. As

allowed by DOD guidance, each of the services has established fitness

standards keyed to the age and gender of the servicemember. Different

fitness standards for men and women are intended to compensate for the

physiological differences between them. Different fitness standards for

men and women do not constitute a “double standard” as long as meeting

the male and female standards requires the same relative degree of health

and conditioning.

Lack of Scientific Basis for

Fitness and Body Fat

Standards Makes

Assessment of Gender

Equity Problematic

Researchers have found that many men and women believe that the

women’s standards are much easier for women to meet than the men’s

standards are for the men to meet. However, it is not possible to assess the

accuracy of this perception at this time because the services have

generally not used a scientific basis to set the fitness standards for women.

The fitness standards for men have usually been based on actual test

performance data, whereas the female standards were often estimated,

inferred from male data, or based on command judgment. For example, in

September 1998, the Navy lowered by as much as 1 minute 15 seconds, the

maximum time allowed for women under 30 years old to complete the

1-1/2 mile run. The reduction in the time allowed for these women to

complete the run was not based on actual performance times. This change

was made because officials believed that the previous 4-minute difference

between the men’s and women’s standards in certain categories was not

appropriate and that female standards needed to be more stringent.

Women from all services have also expressed concerns about the fairness

of the services’ body fat standards. Some women perceive these standards

to be unrealistic, biased, and unfairly enforced. GAO found that women’s

body fat standards were not based on scientific data. Instead, these

standards were inferred from male standards or based on command

judgment regarding appearance. Also, researchers found that the

equations used by each service to determine body fat do not yield

consistent results for women because the equations do not adequately

adjust for the greater variety of female body types. In a GAO test case, the

Army’s equation estimated one woman’s body fat at 42 percent, whereas

the estimated percentage of body fat for the same woman was 29 percent

using the Navy and the Air Force equations and 27 percent using the

Marine Corps equation. In addition, the equations currently in use do not

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

account for racial differences in bone density, raising the potential for

overstating the percentage of body fat of minority servicemembers.

Moreover, researchers also report that the population of active-duty

women used to develop the equations have, with time, become less

representative of the ethnic and age diversity of the current military

population.

The services do not maintain the necessary statistics to determine if it is

easier for men or women to meet the fitness standards or if women fail the

body fat test at a higher rate than men. Basic information about the

program is either unavailable or highly decentralized and not easily

accessed. For example, the Navy does not separate its program statistics

by gender, so gender comparisons are not available. The Army maintains

fitness performance information at the unit level and does not maintain a

servicewide database. Other problems include unavailable data, unreliable

data due to unit under reporting, and data not separated to identify

characteristics such as rank.

In its November 199811 report on the services’ physical fitness programs,

GAO made recommendations to improve the services’ physical fitness

programs. These included establishing (1) a clear DOD-wide policy for

age-based and gender-based adjustments to general fitness and body fat

standards, requiring all services to derive them scientifically and (2) a

DOD-wide approach to scientifically estimating body fat percentages. GAO

also recommended that the Secretary of Defense define the statistical

information needed to monitor fitness trends and ensure program

effectiveness, and require that this information be maintained by all

services and provided in the currently required annual reports. DOD

concurred with GAO’s recommendations. Implementing a more scientific

approach to establishing standards and collecting program evaluation data

could be useful in assessing whether the physical fitness program is

equitable to both men and women. It could also help to dispel the

misconceptions that fitness standards measure a servicemember’s ability

to perform in the military and that different standards for men and women

constitutes a “double standard.”

Recommendations To provide DOD and service officials with information to address

perceptions of gender inequities in position prerequisites and skill

utilization, GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense direct the

services to assess whether

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

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

• requirements for skills or specialties that are presently closed to women or

have only recently been opened to women are being used inappropriately

as prerequisites for positions that are otherwise open to women and

• men or women are receiving an equal opportunity to work within the area

of their military specialties.

Agency Comments

and GAO’s Evaluation

DOD generally agreed with GAO’s findings and recommendations and said

that the Department would work with the services on methodologies to

assess the issues discussed in the recommendations within the next 

18 months. Additionally, DOD acknowledged that servicemembers may

have various perceptions, but stressed that the perceptions may not be

supported by facts. GAO agrees that various perceptions may be inaccurate,

which reinforces the need to assess whether perceptions are supported by

the facts. Regarding GAO’s findings on DOD’s physical fitness and body fat

standards, DOD noted that since 1996, the services have made progress in

adjusting standards based on more objective data and have worked

cooperatively to resolve research issues. Furthermore, DOD said that

developing standards for general fitness and health is a complex matter,

where academic and research experts often differ on conclusions and

research. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix I and

are also summarized throughout the report where appropriate. DOD also

provided technical comments concerning factual information in this

report, and GAO has modified the report where appropriate.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Contents

Executive Summary 4

Chapter 1 

Introduction

16

Women’s Role in the Military Has Grown 17

Current DOD and Service Assignment Policies and Practices 18

Processes Used for Promotions and Selections for Key

Assignments and Professional Military Education

20

DOD’s Physical Fitness and Body Fat Program 20

Scope and Methodology 21

Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not

Available to Assess

Whether Men and

Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career

Opportunities

25

Men and Women Have Different Perceptions About Work and

Assignments

25

No Studies Have Been Done Specifically Addressing Perceptions

of Inequities

29

Conclusions 36

Recommendations 36

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37

Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical

Fitness Standards

Cannot Be

Determined at This

Time

38

Different Fitness Standards for Men and Women Do Not

Necessarily Constitute a Double Standard

38

Fitness Standards for Women Are Not Scientifically-Based 40

Concerns Exist Regarding the Equity of Body Fat Standards 43

Data to Assess the Gender Impact of Fitness and Body Fat

Standards Not Available

46

Recent Recommendations to Improve the DOD Fitness Program 47

Conclusions 48

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 48

Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Defense 50

Appendix II: Major Contributors to This Report 53

Tables Table 1.1: Composition of the Military Services by Gender 18

Table 2.1: Comparison of Promotion Board Selections by Gender,

Fiscal Years 1993 through 1997

31

Table 2.2: Comparison of Professional Military Education Board

Selections by Gender, Fiscal Years 1993 through 1997

33

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Contents

Table 2.3: Comparison of Key Assignment Selections by Gender,

Fiscal Years 1993 through 1997

35

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DACOWITS Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The number of women in the military has grown significantly in recent

decades. Women now make up about 14 percent of the active duty force,

up from less than 2 percent in the early 1970s. Their role has also evolved

from the traditional concentrations in medical and administrative

occupations to almost all military occupations, including air, sea, and

combat support positions. The growing role of women has resulted in

debate within and outside the Department of Defense (DOD) over

fundamental and sometimes contentious issues regarding the treatment of

men and women in the military.

In recognition of the integral part women play in the all-volunteer force,

the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 19981

 directed us to

conduct a study on any inequalities or perceptions of inequalities in the

treatment of men and women in the armed forces that are tied to statutes

and regulations governing the armed forces. The purpose of this report is

to (1) identify perceptions of gender inequities found in various surveys

and studies of male and female servicemembers and (2) examine what

available data and studies reveal about those perceptions.

Various surveys and studies indicate there are two major areas where

servicemen and servicewomen perceive inequities: career opportunities

(including assignment policies and other factors that may have an impact

on career advancement) and physical fitness and body fat standards.

These areas of perceived inequities in the treatment of men and women

are related to various DOD and service policies and programs, rather than

specific statutes. The last statutory restriction on the assignment of

women in the military was eliminated in 1993 when Congress repealed the

restriction on the use of women on naval combat ships.

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

equal employment opportunity laws as the general public. However, the

Secretary of Defense has established a separate equal opportunity

program with similar requirements for these personnel. In 1969 and 1994,

DOD issued a Human Goals Charter, stating that DOD is to strive to provide

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

responsibility as possible based only on individual talent and diligence.

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

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

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

religion, or national origin. To carry out this mandate, a 1995 directive and

related instruction outlines DOD’s equal opportunity program, assigning

1

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

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

responsibility for ensuring compliance with the broad objectives set out in

the charter, and establishing departmentwide standards for discrimination

complaint processing and resolution2

Women’s Role in the

Military Has Grown

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

At the time of World War II, the only women in the armed services were

nurses. Increasing manpower requirements caused the services to begin

enlisting women and, in 1942, the Army established the Women’s Army

Auxiliary Corps (which later became known as the Women’s Army Corps).

Shortly after, the Navy established the WAVES and Marine Corps began

accepting women.

The Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 made the inclusion

of women in the military permanent, but limited their numbers, ranks, and

roles. The act established the Women’s Army Corps as a part of the regular

Army and permitted the enlistment and appointment of women to the

regular Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps. In addition, the act limited the

number of women in the services to 2 percent of the services’ authorized

strength and prohibited the promotion of women above the rank of

lieutenant colonel or commander. Furthermore, the act barred women

from serving on Navy ships, except hospital and transport ships, and from

serving on Navy and Air Force aircraft while such aircraft were engaged in

combat missions. There was no legal prohibition of women serving in

direct ground combat roles. However, as a matter of policy, the Army did

not assign women to such roles. Because the Marine Corps is a naval

oriented air and ground combat force, the exclusion of women from Navy

ships essentially barred them from combat positions in the Marine Corps

as well.

The late 1960s and 1970s was a time of great change for the women in the

military. In 1967, Congress removed the 2-percent ceiling on regular line

officers and enlisted strength and eliminated the promotion restrictions.

The Air Force opened its Reserve Officers’ Training Corps program in 1969

and, by 1972, the other services had opened their programs. In 1976,

women enrolled in the service academies for the first time. In 1978, the

Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 was amended to permit

women to serve on ships that were not expected to be assigned combat

missions and to serve up to 6 months on other Navy ships. Finally, in 1978,

Congress abolished the Women’s Army Corps and women were integrated

2

DOD Directive 1350.2, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program, dated August 18, 1995, and DOD

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

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

into the regular Army. In 1988, DOD adopted the “risk rule” as a

departmentwide policy for women. The risk rule excluded women from

non-combat units or missions if the risks of exposure to direct combat,

hostile fire, or capture were equal to or greater than the risk in the combat

units they support. The rule was devised to standardize the criteria for

determining which positions and units would be closed to women in the

services. Each service interpreted the risk rule according to its mission

requirements in evaluating whether a non-combat position should be open

or closed to women.

The Gulf War saw the largest deployment of women in U.S. military

history. Approximately 41,000 women were deployed, or 7 percent, of the

total forces. In part, because of women’s performance in the war, the last

remaining legislative restrictions regarding the assignment of women were

lifted. In 1991, Congress repealed the restriction on women flying combat

aircraft in the Air Force and the Navy; however, DOD did not implement

that change until April 1993. In November 1993, Congress lifted the ban on

the assignment of women to combat ships.

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

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

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

the Air Force. Table 1.1 shows the number and percentage of men and

women in the services as of September 30, 1997.

Table 1.1: Composition of the Military

Services by Gender Women Men

Service

Total

personnel Number Percent Number Percent

Air Force 373,357 65,176 17.5 308,181 82.5

Army 487,812 72,238 14.8 415,574 85.2

Navy 390,477 49,110 12.6 341,367 87.4

Marine Corps 173,976 9,286 5.3 164,690 94.7

Total DOD 1,425,622 195,810 13.7 1,229,812 86.3

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

Current DOD and

Service Assignment

Policies and Practices

When Congress acted in 1993 to lift the ban on the assignment of women

to combat ships, it eliminated the final statutory barrier to women in

combat. In January 1994, the former Secretary of Defense announced a

new assignment policy to go into effect October 1, 1994, to replace the risk

rule. That new policy, which is still in effect, states that “servicemembers

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are qualified,

except that women shall be excluded from assignments to units below the

brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the

ground.” The impact of DOD’s ground combat exclusion policy is greatest in

the Army and the Marine Corps and has very little impact in the Air Force

and the Navy.3

In addition to establishing the direct ground combat exclusion in 1994, the

Secretary of Defense also permitted the services to close positions to

women if (1) the units and positions are required to physically collocate

and remain with direct ground combat units; (2) the service secretary

attests that the cost of providing the appropriate living arrangements is

prohibitive; (3) the units are engaged in special operations forces’

missions, including those involving long-range reconnaissance; or

(4) job-related physical requirements would exclude the vast majority of

women. As of October 1998, a total of 119,353 positions were closed to

women for these reasons.

Although women are no longer prohibited by law from serving on combat

ships, a portion of the Navy’s combat fleet is still closed to women.

Women cannot serve on submarines, mine hunter, mine countermeasure,

or coastal patrol ships. These ships are closed to women because of the

cost of providing appropriate living arrangements. Many of the Navy’s

remaining combat ships are open or will be opened to women as the

necessary modifications to provide appropriate living spaces are made.

The Navy currently has a combat fleet of 298 ships. As of June 30, 1998,

women were serving on about one-third of the combat fleet—68

combatant ships have female enlisted personnel and officers and 29 ships

have female officers. This represents about 66 percent of the combat ships

that are eventually to be opened to women. Generally, women constitute

about 10 percent of the shipboard personnel. Women and men can only be

assigned to a ship if a gender-appropriate living space is available. The

availability of bunks, the Navy’s sea-shore rotation requirements, and the

number of women in occupations needed aboard ships all impact the

number of enlisted women that can be assigned to Navy ships.

The local policies and practices of military commanders can also affect

assignments. Military commanders have considerable discretion to assign

personnel under their command.

3

For more information on the numbers and types of positions closed to women and the associated

justifications for closure see Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-99-7, Oct. 19, 1998).

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Processes Used for

Promotions and

Selections for Key

Assignments and

Professional Military

Education

The services conduct centralized promotion boards for officer promotions.

Each promotion board reviews all qualified candidates being considered

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

generally conduct examinations or boards for promotions. A system

similar to that used for officer promotions is used for enlisted promotions

in the Marine Corps.

Officer promotion selection boards consider three cohort groups known

as “below the zone,” “in the zone,” and “above the zone.” Most promotions

are in the zone, which is considered the normal length of service for

promotion for that cohort group. However, a relatively small number of

officers who have demonstrated outstanding leadership potential are

promoted ahead of their cohort group, or below the zone. Similarly, a

small number of officers are promoted after their cohort group, or above

the zone.

Key assignment selection procedures differ among the services. The

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

nominated candidates while the selection process is generally

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

centralized board process for selection to command sergeant major,

lieutenant colonel command assignments, and colonel command

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

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

board process for nominated colonels only. Since 1996, the Air Force has

conducted boards for all colonels.

Each service selects members for professional military education

opportunities by conducting centralized boards. All of the services provide

professional military education opportunities to both officers and enlisted

servicemembers; however, not all of these opportunities were included in

the data we reviewed.

DOD’s Physical

Fitness and Body Fat

Program

DOD’s guidance, established in June 1981 and updated in 1995, requires that

the services establish physical fitness and body fat programs that include

fitness requirements for all servicemembers. This guidance requires

annual testing of cardiovascular endurance (measured by activities such

as running a certain distance within a specified period of time), muscular

strength and endurance (measured by activities such as push-ups and

sit-ups), and maintenance of body fat within a certain percentage range.

The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy is

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

responsible for oversight of the program and coordinating with the

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, who is responsible for

establishing a health promotion program to be implemented in

conjunction with the fitness program.

Program guidance states that individual servicemembers need to possess

cardiorespiratory endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and whole

body flexibility. However, the guidance does not identify requirements for

specific activities or levels of difficulty. DOD guidance states that each

service should develop its own program according to its particular needs,

placing primary emphasis on maintaining general health and physical

fitness. The guidance requires fitness testing standards to be adjusted for

physiological differences between men and women. The services may also

adjust the fitness standards for age.

DOD’s guidance also sets out body fat control policies and procedures. The

guidance requires the services to use a two-tier screening process. If a

servicemember exceeds the weight parameters for his or her height in a

screening table or the member’s immediate commander determines that

his or her appearance suggests an excess of body fat, then the

servicemember’s percent of body fat is to be estimated. DOD requires the

services to use similar validated circumferential equations for the

prediction of body composition. The men’s equation involves

measurements of the neck and waist or abdomen. The women’s equation

requires measurement of the hips, waist, and neck, but allows for optional

measurements of the abdomen and wrist, and/or forearm.

For both the fitness and body fat components of the program,

servicemembers who fail to perform successfully against the established

standards are to be given at least 3 months to improve. Servicemembers

who have not progressed during that time are to be referred to medical

authorities for further evaluation. If servicemembers continue to fail over

time they are to be considered for administrative separation under service

regulations.

Scope and

Methodology

To identify the perceptions of servicemembers, we reviewed studies,

surveys, and articles, and spoke with military and civilian experts on

gender issues. As agreed with congressional staff, we did not survey

military personnel ourselves since considerable information on

perceptions was already available. Recent studies have noted that

servicemembers believe they have been over-surveyed on gender issues.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Researchers have explored the perceptions of men and women with

regard to gender equity in a variety of areas, including the use of women in

ground combat, career development opportunities, and physical fitness

standards.

Information on the perceptions of male and female servicemembers came

from a variety of surveys and studies conducted across DOD.

4

 Most of these

research efforts collected perceptions largely through the use of focus

groups or other qualitative data gathering methods that provide insights

into attitudes, perceptions, and opinions. The perceptions cited are not

necessarily representative of the entire military population, and statistical

estimates of how many people hold such views cannot be projected from

the results.

We obtained the services’ Military Equal Opportunity Assessments for

Fiscal Years 1993 to 1997 and used those submissions in our May 1998

report5

 to determine whether the military was selecting men and women at

similar rates for (1) promotion to top non-commissioned officer and

non-flag officer grades, (2) key assignments (such as command or

executive officer positions), and (3) the primary professional military

education opportunities (such as the intermediate service schools and war

colleges). This data provides a partial indication of career opportunities by

showing the rate of promotion to higher ranks. Also, placement in key

assignments and attendance at professional military education are

considered to be important steps on the path to career success. This data,

however, has some limitations with regard to addressing perceptions

about career opportunities. For example, while the data address most of

the services’ promotions, it does not address promotions to flag officer

ranks (Generals and Admirals). In addition, in some of the services, the

data for officers only included those who were nominated for key

assignments and professional military education. As a result, the data

would not pick up any disparities in the rates at which eligible male and

female officers were nominated. Meaningful analysis of promotions of

women to flag officer ranks was not possible. As noted earlier, the Reserve

Officers’ Training Corps was opened to women by 1972 and the first

service academy class to include women graduated in 1980. Consequently,

4

Many of the perceptions in this report are those expressed by men and women in focus groups held

by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) during their visits to

military installations in 1996 and 1997 and included in their installation reports. DACOWITS meets with

men and women at installations to gather their perceptions about life in the military. To honor the

pledge of confidentiality given by DACOWITS to its participants, the names of the installations have

not been included in this report.

5

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

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

many of the women in the regular officer corps entered in the 1980s and

are not yet at the normal phase point to be competitive for flag officer

positions.

To determine whether selection rates were similar, we used the

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

agencies responsible for equal employment opportunity enforcement (the

Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel Management).6

Under the four-fifths test, a selection rate for a subgroup (in this report

men and women) that is less than four-fifths (or 80 percent) of the group

with the highest selection rate is considered a significantly different rate.

One limitation with this test is that, when sample sizes are small, this test

may flag a small difference as being significant. Likewise, for a large

sample size, the four-fifths test may provide too much latitude before a

difference would be seen as significant. For example, if 100 percent of one

group received promotions and 80 percent of the other group received

promotions, this would not be a significant difference under the four-fifths

test even though there is a difference of 20 percentage points between the

two groups. However, if 4 percent of one group received promotions

compared to 3 percent of the other group, the four-fifths test would

classify this difference as significant even though there is only

1 percentage point difference between the two groups.

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

necessarily mean they are the result of unwarranted or prohibited

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

gender disparities. Further analyses would be required to determine the

cause(s) of significant disparities. In several cases, the selection of one

servicemember more or less would have changed the characterization of

the selection rate from similar to different, or vice versa.

To assess DOD and military service rationales for adjustments to the fitness

standards for gender-based physiological differences, we reviewed DOD

and service regulations, handbooks, and supporting documents; analyzed

pertinent research and policy reports undertaken by DOD and a variety of

independent civilian agencies; and discussed the results with officials and

researchers from DOD, the military services, and the civilian agencies.

6

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

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

discrimination, does not apply to military personnel. See Randall v. U.S., 95 F.3d 339.

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

To develop comprehensive information on physical fitness policies and

programs and to gain insight into service implementation of the programs,

we interviewed officials at both the DOD and service levels. At the DOD

level, we interviewed officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Office of the Assistant Secretary

of Defense for Force Management Policy, and the Defense Advisory

Committee on Women in the Services. In the Army, we interviewed

officials and researchers from the Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Manpower and Reserve Affairs; the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for

Personnel; the U.S. Army Physical Fitness School at Fort Benning,

Georgia; and the U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command

at Fort Detrick, Maryland. In the Navy, we interviewed officials from the

Bureau of Naval Personnel and the Naval Health Research Center in San

Diego, California. In the Marine Corps, we interviewed officials from the

Combat Development Command in Quantico, Virginia. In the Air Force, we

interviewed officials from the Office of the Surgeon General.

To gain additional perspective on DOD and military service fitness policies,

we reviewed reports and interviewed officials from a variety of

independent civilian agencies, including the National Academy of

Sciences; the National Institutes of Health; the Centers for Disease

Control; the President’s Council on Physical Fitness and Sports; the

American Heart Association; and the Cooper Institute of Aerobics in

Dallas, Texas.

We conducted our review between June and November 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

Perceptions of equity in the area of career opportunities vary by gender.

Although some servicemembers expressed doubts about the processes

used to make promotion or assignment decisions, most of the concerns

raised were focused on factors that affected competitiveness for career

advancement. However, no study has addressed the specific issues. Data

does exist, however, on the rates at which the services selected men and

women for most promotions, key assignments, and professional military

education, as reported in our May 1998 report.

Men and Women Have

Different Perceptions

About Work and

Assignments

Servicemen and servicewomen have complained to researchers about a

variety of perceived inequities in the assignment process. Research

suggests that assignment of some tasks can be based on stereotypes,

paternalism, or fear.1

 Whatever the reason, the issue of assignments and

who does what work appears to be the cause of considerable tension

between men and women in the military. Additionally, research suggests

that some of the services’ assignment practices are the cause of much of

the gender harassment and gender discrimination that takes place in the

services.

Some servicewomen believe that women have to work harder than men to

prove their abilities and that men often do not believe that women are

qualified for the jobs they are assigned. As one Air Force woman stated, “If

you are a man, you come to the job and are expected to know

everything—until you prove otherwise. If you are a woman you’re

expected to know nothing until you prove otherwise.”2

 Other women

report that they are under closer scrutiny than their male peers and that a

failure of one woman is used to criticize the ability of women in general.3

Many women report that they are not allowed to work at the jobs for

which they were trained. They comment that they are routinely assigned

clerical or administrative duties instead of being given the opportunity to

work in the full range of their occupations. One junior enlisted woman in

the Navy told researchers that she had been allowed to work in her

occupation for only about 4 months in 4 years of active duty. A female

airman told researchers “I’m a senior airman, I hate being treated like a

secretary. I trained for my job and I want to do it.” Some Army women said

that they believe that they were losing mission readiness in their

1

Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 60, p.47.

2

DACOWITS.

3

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

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

occupations because they get assigned to clerical positions. These women

believe that this practice does not permit them to develop all of the

experience and skills necessary to advance in their careers. Some female

officers believe that they were being (1) kept from field positions and

placed in less prestigious positions such as in training, (2) directed into

positions with limited opportunities and low probabilities for

advancement, or (3) placed in positions that were still perceived as “girls’

jobs”. 4

Some men, particularly enlisted men, have told researchers that they

believe less is expected of women than men when it comes to job

performance. Men fear that women will claim sexual harassment if they

are pushed too hard.5

 Some men question women’s abilities or

commitment to perform their jobs effectively.6

 They tell researchers that

they believe that women do not want to do their jobs and that women try

to avoid work and will use their femininity to avoid the tough dirty jobs.

Some men believe that women deliberately get pregnant to avoid sea duty

or deployments, and some complain that women are not required to do the

heaviest or dirtiest part of any job and that they can get away without

reprimand because of their sex. One enlisted man told a researcher,

“Today all you hear in the Army is that we are equal, but men do all the

hard and heavy work whether it’s combat or not.”7

There is a perception among some women that some jobs, which should

be open, are effectively closed to them because these assignments require

a skill or an experience as a prerequisite, which is not, or was not,

available to them. For example, some Navy women noted that some shore

based positions at the Navy’s submarine bases, for example, the executive

officer’s position, are closed to women because the positions are coded as

needing to be filled by a person from the submarine community, a

community that is not open to women. Similarly, some Army women noted

that at one gender-integrated command, all first sergeants must have

experience in the combat arms. Some Army women also believe that some

positions, such as operations officers at the brigade level or above, which

are officially open to women, are, in reality, closed because the combat

exclusion policy does not permit them to serve in lower echelon

4

DACOWITS.

5

Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon

Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Washington, D.C.: Rand, 1997) pp. 73-74 .

6

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

7

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

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

assignments where the prerequisite experience for these positions is

gained. Similarly, the Air Force has non-flying positions on its

headquarters staff, as well as some of its lower level commands, that

require a fighter or bomber weapon systems qualification; these skills

were closed to women until 1993.

Some Navy women also believe that it is difficult for women to get

assigned to ships due to a lack of billets on gender-integrated ships. These

women believe that this can negatively impact their careers. Researchers

were told that women cannot progress in the Navy without the proper

boxes being checked on their evaluation and that unless a woman has had

command “afloat” she cannot advance. Some women also said that men

who go to sea will always have a better chance for promotions than

women who do not and, according to these women, few women get

assignments on ships. Some Marine Corps women also believed that there

are not enough ships open to women. Because of the lack of integrated

ships, some women in integrated Marine Corps units are not able to deploy

with their units. This can cause resentment among male troops.

A key factor cited by both men and women is the DOD policy excluding

women from assignments involving direct ground combat. Our recent

report on this policy found that over 190,000 positions across the four

services are closed to women because they involve direct ground combat

or collocate with units involved in direct ground combat.8

 Although the

ground combat exclusion policy bars women from direct ground combat

and would, therefore, seem inherently inequitable to men because it

exposes them to hazardous duty, a 1997 RAND study9

 found that Army and

Marine Corps men strongly support the ground combat exclusion policy.

Navy officers and enlisted men were less supportive of this policy. While

over 75 percent of Army and Marine Corps male officers and 57 percent of

enlisted men were satisfied with the combat exclusion policy only

48 percent of the male Navy officers were satisfied with the policy. When

the same question was asked of servicewomen, less than 22 percent of

those who were surveyed agreed that women should continue to be

excluded from direct ground combat. Branch of service was not a factor in

the women’s response.

The perception of the effect of the ground combat exclusion policy varies

greatly between men and women and between officers and enlisted

8

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

9

Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon

Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Washington, D.C.: Rand, 1997) pp. 90-91.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

personnel. For example, some Army men believe that the ground combat

exclusion policy is an advantage to women. According to one study,10

some Army men believe that because women cannot be assigned to

combat units, they have more opportunities to take advantage of training

opportunities that make them more competitive for career advancement

and promotions. This same study also reported that some Army men

believed that the combat exclusion rule results in women getting better

job assignments than their male counterparts, which again leads to faster

promotions. One officer in the study said that male officers in his combat

support branch typically start at the battalion level and move up to

command a platoon in a company at the division level while women,

because of the ground combat exclusion rule that prevents them from

being collocated with ground combat units, often start at the division level

without having to work their way up from the battalion level.

In contrast to the perceptions cited by the men, one study reported that

50 percent of the Army women surveyed believed that the combat

exclusion policy hurt promotion opportunities for enlisted women.11 In

addition, 61 percent of the female Army officers surveyed believed that

this policy had hurt promotion opportunities for female Army officers by

keeping them from getting their “ticket punched” in areas that are seen as

important avenues to advancement. Some women also believed that the

policy kept them from gaining field experience at lower levels that is

important to future advancement, making them less competitive for

responsible and prestigious positions.

A few men and women have expressed concerns about the equity of the

promotions process. For example, men expressed the feeling that women

are promoted over more qualified men because of affirmative action or

favoritism. Some men expressed the opinion that there was a double

standard in favor of women when it came to the promotion process.

Women on the other hand, believe that men are being preferentially

promoted over women. Still other women believe that, to successfully

compete with men, women must meet a higher standard then their male

peers.12

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

11Laura Miller, “Feminism and the Exclusion of Army Women from Combat,” Working Paper No. 2,

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

Harvard University, 1995, p. 12.

12DACOWITS.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

No Studies Have Been

Done Specifically

Addressing

Perceptions of

Inequities

Some DOD-wide assignment policies prevent women from holding

particular assignments. For example, the Army, Air Force and Marine

Corps have closed some positions to women because they would be

required to serve in a combat unit or collocate with a combat unit. For

example, enlisted women below the rank of staff sergeant are barred from

25 percent of the Marine Corps’ administrative billets because these billets

are in combat units.

Some positions that are listed as being open to women actually require, as

a prerequisite, a skill or occupation that is closed to women. For example,

although the Army lists the drill sergeant position as a gender-neutral

position, some are closed to women because they are coded as requiring

infantry skills. In addition, the Air Force has a number of non-flying

positions that are coded as requiring combat aircraft experience, an

experience that was unavailable to women until 1993. Similarly, the Navy

has shore-based assignments that are coded as requiring warfare

specialties that were either closed to women until 1994 or remain closed to

women. Such assignments would include the executive officer’s position

at Navy submarine bases.

In addition, there are an unknown number of positions in each service that

are effectively closed to women because of the informal and unofficial

discretionary assignment decisions of military commanders. Because such

decisions are not formally sanctioned by the services, they are not tracked

by the services. Such policies can affect the assignment of both women

and men in the military. One often cited example is a male commander

who refuses to select a woman for a driver or aide because of the fear of

rumors or sexual harassment charges. Another example is a commander

or supervisor who assigns or reassigns women to administrative rather

than technical duties that may not fully utilize the skills they were trained

in. On paper, the positions may appear to be filled by women, but women

may not actually work in the unit or perform their specific occupational

duties. According to a 1997 report by the RAND Corporation, reasons for

this may include supervisors who (1) believe they have enough women in

the unit, (2) exclude women because of their personal interpretation of the

collocation policy, or (3) allow women in the unit but assign them all of

the unit’s administrative duties.13

We found no studies that directly addressed whether service assignment

policies and practices or the ground combat exclusion policy have an

13Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon

Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Washington, D.C.: Rand, 1997) p. 31.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

inequitable impact on career opportunities of men and women.

Consequently, we examined the data submitted by the services as part of

their annual equal opportunity assessments to determine whether men and

women were selected at similar rates for promotion, key assignments, and

professional military education.14 While this data provides some insight

into the relative career success of servicemen and servicewomen, it does

not address the specific perceptions of inequitable career opportunities

raised by military personnel.

Men and Women Generally

Promoted at Similar Rates

In an earlier report, we examined the promotion data provided by the

services as part of their Military Equal Opportunity Assessments.15 This

data includes most of the services’ promotions to the top enlisted ranks

and the top non-flag officer ranks. As shown in table 2.1, in 47 of 58 officer

promotion boards (81 percent) and 49 of the 60 enlisted promotion boards

or examinations (about 82 percent), the military across DOD selected men

and women at similar rates. For those selections in which significant

differences occurred, the majority in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine

Corps were in favor of women, in both the enlisted force and officers. Only

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

the Army’s 30 promotion boards or examinations, 25 (83 percent) resulted

in men and women being selected at similar rates. For the remaining five,

one was in favor of enlisted men, two were in favor of male officers, and

two were in favor of enlisted women.

14For more details about the services’ selection rates for promotions, key assignments and professional

military education refer to Gender Issues (GAO/NSIAD-98-157, May 26, 1998).

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

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

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

Service

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 29 23 79.3 6 20.7 0 0

Army 30 25 83.3 2 6.7 3 10.0

Marine Corps 29 22 75.9 6 20.7 1 3.4

Navy 30 26 86.7 4 13.3 0 0

Total 118 96 81.4 18 15.3 4 3.4

Officer promotions

Air Force 14 10 71.4 4 28.6 0 0

Army 15 13 86.7 0 0 2 13.3

Marine Corps 14 9 64.3 4 28.6 1 7.1

Navy 15 15 100.0 0 0 0 0

Total 58 47 81.0 8 13.8 3 5.2

Enlisted promotions

Air Force 15 13 86.7 2 13.3 0 0

Army 15 12 80.0 2 13.3 1 6.7

Marine Corps 15 13 86.7 2 13.3 0 0

Navy 15 11 73.3 4 26.7 0 0

Total 60 49 81.7 10 16.7 1 1.7

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

We reviewed six types16 of promotion boards in each of the four services

for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and found only one type of board

selected the same gender at significantly higher rates in at least 3 of the 5

years we reviewed. The Air Force promoted women to colonel at

significantly higher rates than men in fiscal years 1993, 1994, 1996, and

1997.17 During these 4 years, the Air Force promoted 41 percent of the men

it considered and between 52 and 61 percent of the women it considered.

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

16We reviewed officer promotions to major, lieutenant colonel, and colonel for the Army, Air Force,

and Marine Corps and Navy promotions to lieutenant commander, commander, and captain. For the

enlisted force, we reviewed promotions to master sergeant, senior master sergeant, and chief master

sergeant for the Air Force; sergeant first class, master sergeant, and sergeant major for the Army; chief

petty officer, senior chief petty officer, and master chief petty officer in the Navy; and gunnery

sergeant, first sergeant/master sergeant, and sergeant major/master gunnery sergeant for the Marine

Corps.

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

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

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

colonel are limited, by law, to 50 percent of the eligible lieutenant

colonels. The 50 percent includes the above and below zone promotions,

which make up about 8 percent of the promotions. The number of women

being promoted at this level is small—less than 1 percent, leaving

41 percent of the promotions for men in the zone.

It is important to remember that the number of men considered for

promotion and actually promoted far exceeds the number of women

considered and promoted in any of the categories we looked at. For

example, in 1997, the Air Force considered 2,640 men for promotion to

major and selected 2,131. It also considered 222 women and selected 192

for promotion to major. Finally, it is also important to note that in some

cases whether a promotion board was categorized as similar or

significantly different was dependent on the selection or non-selection of

only one additional servicemember. For example, we found that the Army

promoted men to the rank of colonel at significantly higher rates in fiscal

years 1993 and 1996. However, we also found that if the Army had

promoted just one more woman in each of those 2 years, there would have

been no significant difference in those 2 years. When we reviewed

promotion data for all of the services, we found that in 8 of the 22

promotion boards or examinations that were categorized as having

significantly different selection rates, the selection rate would have been

considered similar if only one additional servicemember had been selected

or not selected.

Selection Rates of Men and

Women for Professional

Military Education

As noted earlier, some men believe that the ground combat exclusion

policy provides women with more time for career-enhancing training. We

reviewed available data on selections for professional military education

reported by the services in their annual Military Equal Opportunity

Assessments. Professional military education is intended to provide

professional knowledge required for all officers, non-commissioned

officers, and some enlisted personnel. Subjects covered include

leadership, command, operations, communications skills, and

management. Professional military education is different from functional,

or branch education and is considered a prerequisite for career

advancement. Generally, the services include selections for schools that

are made by centralized boards. However, the Army and the Air Force do

not report enlisted professional military education opportunities while the

Marine Corps and the Navy do. Also, the selection data for officers for

some of the services includes only those officers nominated to attend the

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

various schools. Consequently, the data would not identify any disparities

in the rates at which eligible male and female officers were nominated.

Looking across all services, selection rates for men and women considered

for professional military education opportunities were basically similar in

about 46 percent of the board or decentralized selections. For the

remaining 54 percent, selections slightly favored women, 29 to 25 percent.

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

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

significant differences in favor of women. Table 2.2 shows the number of

professional military education boards included in our review. The table

also shows, by service, the number of boards that had no significant

differences and the number that had significant differences in favor of men

and women.

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

Service

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 10 7 70.0 2 20.0 1 10.0

Army 10 5 50.0 1 10.0 4 40.0

Marine Corps 20 7 35.0 11 55.0 2 10.0

Navy 15 6 40.0 2 13.3 7 46.7

Total 55 25 45.5 16 29.1 14 25.5

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

We reviewed 11 types of professional military education boards across the

four services (Senior Enlisted Schools and Career, Intermediate, and

Senior Level schools for officers) and found that 4 boards selected the

same gender at significantly higher rates in at least 3 of the 5 years we

reviewed. The Army selected men for the Army War College at a

significantly higher rate in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1997, and the Navy

selected men for its Senior Enlisted Academy at a significantly higher rate

in fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 1997. The Marine Corps selected women at a

significantly higher rate for its career levels schools during fiscal years

1993 through 1996 and for its intermediate level schools in fiscal year 1993,

1996, and 1997. In the cases of the Army War College and the Navy’s Senior

Enlisted Academy, the overall selection rates are low (less than 10 percent

of all officers for the War College and less than 1 percent of all

non-commissioned officers for the Senior Enlisted Academy).

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

Consequently, the percentages used for calculating the four-fifths test are

low, and it is more likely that small percentage differences would appear

significant.

In some of the cases whether a professional military education board

selection rate was categorized as similar or different was dependent on the

selection or non-selection of one additional servicemember. During our

review, we found that the Navy selected men for post-graduate education

at significantly higher rates in fiscal years 1996 and 1997. A further analysis

of the data revealed, however, that if the Navy had selected one more

woman in fiscal year 1996, there would have been no significant difference

in that year. When we reviewed the professional military education data

for all of the services, we found that in 8 of the 30 instances that were

categorized as having significantly different selection rates, the selection

rates for men and women would have been considered similar if one

additional servicemember had been selected or not selected.

While men and women were selected for professional military education

opportunities at similar rates in 25 of the 55 boards, because of the small

number of women in the military, considerably more men were selected to

receive professional military education opportunities than women. For

example, in the 5 years we reviewed, the Air Force selected 1,101 men to

attend the Air War College out of 2,438 men it considered. During the same

5 years, it selected 139 women to attend the same school out of the

approximately 300 women it considered. Similarly, the Army and the

Marine Corps considered and selected over 20 times as many men as it did

women to attend senior level schools.

Selection Rates for Men

and Women for Key

Assignments

We reviewed the data for certain key assignments that the services provide

when they file their yearly equal opportunity assessments. Typically, the

data reported reflects assignments to command position or executive

officer positions, although the services decide which key assignments data

to report.18 Also, the centralized boards in the Navy and the Marine Corps

considered only those officers who had been nominated for key positions.

Similarly, the Air Force conducted boards for nominated officers only in

its selection of officers for commanding officer positions at the colonel

18The Air Force reports data on selections as senior enlisted advisor and command assignments for

majors, lieutenant colonels, and colonels. The Army reports on assignments to command sergeant

major positions and assignments to commands at the lieutenant colonel and colonel level. The Navy

provides data for the command master chief position and command or executive officer positions at

the lieutenant commander, commander, and captain levels. The Marine Corps provides no data on

enlisted key assignments and does not provide data on officer key assignments by rank.

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

level up until 1996, when it began conducting boards including all colonels.

Analysis of 60 key assignment selection boards showed that, of those

being considered, the military as a whole selected men and women for key

assignments at similar rates in 32 of the selection boards in fiscal years

1993 to 1997 (see table 2.3). When significant differences occurred, they

were in favor of men in about two-thirds of the cases. For the 28 key

assignment selections where significant differences occurred, 19 were in

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

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

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

significant differences.

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

Service

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 20 13 65.0 1 5.0 6 30.0

Army 15 6 40.0 5 33.3 4 26.7

Marine Corps 5 5 100.0 0 0 0 0

Navy 20 8 40.0 3 15.0 9 45.0

Total 60 32 53.3 9 15.0 19 31.7

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.

We reviewed the selections made for 12 types of key assignments across

DOD for fiscal years 1993 through 1997 and found that in four cases, the

same gender was selected at significantly higher rates in at least 3 of the 5

years we reviewed. These included the selections for Army command

sergeant major, Army colonel commands, and Navy commands at the

commander and captain level. The Army selected men for command

sergeant major at significantly higher rates in fiscal years 1993, 1996, and

1997 and selected women for colonel commands at a significantly higher

rate in fiscal years 1994 through 1996. In both of these cases, the selection

of one servicemember more or less would have resulted in similar

selection rates. For example, if the Army had selected one less woman for

a colonel level command in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, there would have

been no significant differences in either of those years. Similarly, if the

Army had selected one less man for command sergeant major in 1997,

there would have been no significant difference that year. On the other

hand, if the Army had selected one more woman in 1993, the difference in

selection rates would not have been significant.

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

The Navy selected men at significantly higher rates for executive or

commanding officer at the commander level in fiscal years 1994, 1995, and

1997 and for commanding officer at the captain level in fiscal years 1993,

1994, 1995, and 1997. Although the Navy did not know the specific reasons

why men where selected at higher rates, officials suggested some factors

that could have impacted the selection rate. One factor, according to Navy

officials, was that women were legally prohibited from serving on combat

ships until 1993 and their lack of afloat experience limited their

competitiveness when compared to men. Even though the exclusion has

been lifted, officials said senior women’s lack of sea experience will

continue to make them less competitive than senior men. In addition,

according to the Navy, most sea and operational commands require a

warfare specialty. Since many senior women officers did not have the

opportunity to acquire a warfare specialty, their command opportunities

are limited to certain shore commands.

Conclusions Research studies have indicated that men and women have widely varying

perceptions about equity in the area of career opportunities. In particular,

women tend to see assignment policies and practices as operating to their

detriment, while men perceived them as working to the benefit of women.

In the absence of data or studies related directly to the issues raised by the

servicemen and servicewomen, we analyzed available data reported by the

services in their annual Military Equal Opportunity Assessment reports.

This data included aggregate selection rates for promotions to most senior

enlisted and non-flag officer ranks, certain key assignments, and certain

professional military education. Overall, this data did not show systemic

gender disparities in favor of men or women. However, additional data

would be needed to directly address many of the most frequently cited

perceptions of inequities. DOD and service officials were unaware of any

studies of assignment practices at the unit level that could restrict women

from performing the full range of duties in their occupation or whether

prerequisites are unfairly attached to positions that would otherwise be

open to women.

Recommendations To provide DOD and service officials with information to address

perceptions of gender inequities in position prerequisites and skill

utilization, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the

services to assess whether

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Complete Data Not Available to Assess

Whether Men and Women Are Treated

Equitably in Career Opportunities

• requirements for skills or specialties that are presently closed to women or

have only recently been opened to women are being inappropriately used

as prerequisites for positions that are otherwise open to women and

• men or women are receiving an equal opportunity to work within the area

of their military specialties.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In comments to a draft of our report, DOD generally concurred with both

our findings and recommendations and said that DOD would be working

with the services to develop methodologies to assess both matters within

the next 18 months. While DOD did not question the perceptions cited in

our report, they believe that it is important to note that there is not always

data to support them. We agree that various perceptions may be

inaccurate, which reinforces the need to assess whether the perceptions

are supported by the facts.

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

Physical fitness is a fundamentally important part of military life for both

men and women.1

 Each year, thousands of servicemembers are denied

promotions, schooling, or other benefits for failing to meet fitness

standards. The growing role of women in many military occupations has

been accompanied by debate over whether the fitness standards are fair

and appropriate to both men and women in today’s military.

Different Fitness

Standards for Men

and Women Do Not

Necessarily Constitute

a Double Standard

Many servicemembers believe that the services’ physical fitness standards

are measures of one’s ability to perform in a combat environment2

 or are

related to a specific job or occupation. Some see the existence of different

physical fitness standards for men and women as a “double standard”.

Different fitness standards are seen as evidence that women will perform

less well in a combat environment and as proof that women cannot make

it in the military. Some men question whether women can compete for

physically-demanding jobs when their fitness standards are so much lower

than the men’s standards. As one man commented to researchers; “It does

not seem fair that a 44-year old man is held to a higher standard than a

19-year old woman.”3

 Men often comment that they believe that if women

want to be treated equally, they should be held to the same physical

standards as men. Some women agree that both men and women should

meet a single physical fitness standard. According to one study,4

 the few

women who support the idea of a single physical fitness standard do so

because they are tired of hearing men complain about the inequity of the

two standards. Other women believe that separate standards discredit

women and perpetuate the idea of women as “second class citizens.” Many

of these perceptions, however, may be the result of confusion regarding

the two kinds of physical requirements that a servicemember may have to

meet: job-specific physical performance standards and general physical

fitness standards.

The purpose of job-specific physical performance standards is to ensure

that those personnel assigned to physically-demanding jobs are capable of

performing those jobs. Section 543 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National

Defense Authorization Act requires the Secretary of Defense to prescribe

1

For a more detailed review of the service physical fitness programs, see Gender Issues

(GAO/NSIAD-99-9, Nov. 17, 1998).

2

Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon

Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Washington, D.C.: Rand 1997) p. 47.

3

DACOWITS.

4

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

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

specific physical requirements for servicemembers in any occupation in

which the Secretary has determined that strength, endurance, and

cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties. The act

requires that in any military occupation that is open to both men and

women, the Secretary shall ensure that qualification for and continuance

in that occupational career field is evaluated on the basis of common,

relevant performance standards, without differential standards or

evaluation on the basis of gender. In other words, job-specific physical

performance standards would identify the minimum level of physical

capability needed for successful performance and anyone in that

occupation, regardless of gender or age, would be required to meet the

same standard. However, only the Air Force currently uses physical

performance standards.5 DOD believes that there is no need to develop

such standards because there is no evidence that servicemembers are

unable to do their jobs due to a lack of physical strength.

The purpose of general fitness standards, on the other hand, is to maintain

the overall health and conditioning of personnel. Each of the services tests

its personnel against these standards regardless of occupation. As such,

these standards are not intended to specifically enhance the performance

of a particular mission or job. Consequently, performance on an annual

service fitness test is not a measure of capability to perform in a military

combat environment.

Aside from not being intended to measure ability to perform military jobs,

research has identified little correlation between performance on fitness

test activities such as timed runs, push-ups, and sit-ups, and specific

military task performance. According to a 1998 National Academy of

Sciences report,6

 the majority of the military’s physically-demanding

occupations involve occasional to frequent lifting and load carrying.

However, the report found little association between performance on

push-up, sit-up, and unloaded distance running tests, and lifting and load

carrying ability. Researchers concluded that this was so because tasks

such as unloaded distance running were rarely a part of a soldier’s military

duties, and the body type required to excel at lifting, for example, was

different than that required for distance running. Leaner individuals are

favored in unloaded distance running, while larger people do better at

lifting.

5

Physically-Demanding Jobs: Services Have Little Data on Ability of Personnel to Perform

(GAO/NSIAD-96-169, July 9, 1996).

6

Assessing Readiness in Military Women: The Relationship of Body Composition, Nutrition, and Health

(Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998).

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

The 1992 President’s Commission on the Assignment of Women in the

Armed Forces looked closely at the issue of physical strength and

endurance requirements. The Commission concluded that since physical

fitness standards are established to promote the highest level of general

wellness in the armed forces and are not aimed at assessing capability to

perform specific jobs or missions, it is appropriate to adjust the standards

for physiological differences among servicemembers.7

 The purpose of

physical fitness standards, as being intended only to set a minimum level

of general fitness and health, was reiterated in a 1995 DOD report to the

Congress on gender-neutral training standards8

 and recently confirmed by

the Office of the Secretary of Defense official responsible for overseeing

the fitness program.

Because it is appropriate to adjust general fitness standards for

physiological differences among servicemembers, such as those

associated with gender or age, the mere existence of different fitness

standards for men and women does not constitute a “double standard.”

General fitness standards can be different for men and women without

being inequitable. Reports by the National Academy of Sciences and

others indicate that, in addition to being generally smaller, female soldiers

have only 50 to 70 percent of a male’s strength, with the greatest disparity

in the area of upper body strength. Women have smaller lung capacities

and hearts than men. Women also carry about 10 percentage points more

body fat than men. As a result of these and other differences, women

exerting the same effort as men in running, push-ups, and other

cardiovascular and muscular endurance tests are generally at a

disadvantage. Therefore, a single fitness standard applicable to both men

and women would be unfair to women because meeting that standard

would require a much higher level of effort from a woman than it would

from a man.

Fitness Standards for

Women Are Not

Scientifically-Based

To be equitable, male and female fitness standards should require both

men and women to exert the same amount of effort to receive the same

scores on fitness tests. Many men and women believe that the women’s

7

Report to the President, Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces,

1992, p. 5.

8

Gender Neutral Standards, report to the House Committee on National Security, Senate Committee on

Armed Services, House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, by the Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), April 1995.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

standards are easier for women to meet than the men’s standards are for

men to meet.9

It is not possible at this time to determine whether male and female

standards require the same expenditure of effort because the services did

not develop the women’s standards scientifically. Male fitness standards

were usually based on actual data on the performance of men in the run,

push-ups, or other such tests. However, female standards were often

estimated, inferred from male data, or based on command judgment rather

than actual performance in fitness tests.

A 1995 study by the Army10 concluded that its current physical fitness

program contained gender disparities, with some women’s standards being

less demanding than they should be, and not based on scientific research.

For example, according to the report, research indicates that women’s

world record times for events similar to the 2-mile run are 8 to 12 percent

slower than men’s, but Army standards allow women to run 19 percent

slower than men and still get the same score. Similarly, research found

that women performed sit-ups at 95 to 110 percent of the male rate, but

Army standards required women to perform at only 93 percent of the

men’s standards. Officials at the Army Physical Fitness School could not

fully document the rationale behind the standards. They believed that the

minimum requirements were based on actual data collected in the early

1980s, but the incremental steps up to the maximum scores were based on

simple numerical progressions, not actual performance data.

Beginning in October 1998, the Army was scheduled to implement new

fitness standards based on a more scientifically-based approach, with a

gender-neutral, “equal points for equal effort” policy. The Army delayed

the implementation of these standards until January 1999 to allow for

additional review and feedback from commanders, and to complete and

distribute new fitness scorecard forms. The new standards generally

toughen the requirements for both sexes and require women to perform

the same number of sit-ups as men. Women’s push-up standards would be

increased from 44 to about 50 percent of the male standard and female run

times set about 14 to 16 percent slower than male times. According to the

Army study, these changes are consistent with a narrowing physical

performance gap between the genders in recent years.

9

Laura Miller, Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 60, p. 44.

10Army Physical Fitness Test Update Survey, 1995.

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

Navy standards for the 1-1/2 mile run/walk, push-ups, and sit-up exercises

for men and women 30-years old and above are based on the distribution

of actual scores for thousands of Navy men and women identified in Navy

research reports. However, 1-1/2 mile run standards for women under

30-years old were set by adding time to the men’s standards and not by

using women’s actual run times. Effective September 1998, the maximum

time allowed for women under 30 to complete the 1-1/2 mile run was

lowered by as much as 1 minute 15 seconds. The new female standards

were derived by multiplying the men’s standards by a factor to reflect a

mean 18-percent difference between male and female aerobic capabilities,

as calculated by Navy researchers, rather than using actual performance

data. According to Navy documents and discussions with officials, this

change was made because officials believed that the existing 4-minute

difference between male and female standards was not appropriate and

that female standards needed to be more stringent. According to Navy

officials, this change is temporary pending completion of an ongoing study

of fitness scores throughout the Navy. The standards for males and for

females ages 30 and older were not changed.

Marine Corps officials believed that their male standards dated back to

studies conducted in 1967 showing actual male times for the 3-mile run. In

January 1997, the Marine Corps raised the female run distance from 1-1/2

to 3 miles to match the male requirement. According to Marine Corps

officials, studies conducted in 1993 and 1996 revealed an approximate

3-minute difference, on average, between the male and female run times.

The resultant female standards were then established by adding the

3-minute average difference to the existing male standards. Marine Corps

officials stated that, although the data needed to provide actual

performance times was developed to ensure a solid basis for the new

female standards, the process described above was used.

Air Force officials could provide no studies or other records to document

the rationale for their cardiovascular endurance standards. However,

according to Air Force officials, an oral history of the standards was

developed through discussions with officers previously responsible for the

program. According to the oral history, the cardiovascular standard was

based on performance statistics from a population of Air Force men and

women in the early 1990s.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

Concerns Exist

Regarding the Equity

of Body Fat Standards

While men have generally made few comments about the weight and body

fat standards, many women in all services have indicated that the weight

standards and the body fat standards are unfair, unrealistic, and

inequitable. For example, some women believe that the body fat

measurement process favors men because of the body parts that are

measured. Some minority women believe that the body fat measurement

process may be racially biased. Additionally, some women believe that the

standards are selectively enforced against women more than men and that

women are disproportionately discharged for not meeting the body fat

standards. Finally, women and men both believe that enlisted

servicemembers are held to a higher standard than officers.11

Our review of the body fat standards found that the female body fat

standards were not scientifically determined, may not account for gender

and racial differences in body type, and were developed on a population

that does not reflect the ethnic make-up of today’s military. Additionally,

we found that neither DOD nor the services maintain adequate statistics on

their fitness programs to assess whether the body fat program is equitable

to both men and women.

Body Fat Standards Are

Not Based on Scientific

Rationales

DOD’s original body fat standards were established in 1981 based on the

recommendations of the study panel chartered to report on physical

fitness in the military. According to the National Academy of Sciences’

1998 report,12 the 1981 study panel recommended that both the male and

female body fat standards be based on scientific texts indicating that the

average body fat of physically fit young men was 20 percent and about

30 percent for fit young women, including a 5-percent margin for statistical

error. DOD’s guidance incorporated the 20-percent goal for men, but

lowered the female goal to 26 percent. According to the National Academy

of Sciences’ report, DOD decreased the female goal “in the belief that it was

desirable to recruit women whose body fat was closer to that of the

average man, as such women, possessing a higher than average proportion

of fat free mass, might also be more similar to men in strength and

endurance.”

The original standards were in effect until 1995, when they were changed

to the current levels of 18 to 26 percent for men and 26 to 36 percent for

women. DOD had no documentation of the rationale for the change.

11DACOWITS.

12Assessing Readiness in Military Women: The Relationship of Body Composition, Nutrition, and

Health (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998)

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

However, service officials told us that the change was based simply on the

desire to cover the full range of standards in effect in the services at the

time. No scientific research was conducted.

Until September 1998, Navy regulations also based the male and female

body fat standards on different rationales. The male standard is based on

the 1985 National Institutes of Health definition of obesity. Navy scientists

converted the 1983 Metropolitan Life weight-for-height values into mean

body fat percentages of about 22 percent for men and 33 percent for

women, and recommended their adoption as the maximum Navy body fat

standards. The recommendation for men was adopted without change.

However, according to discussions with Navy officials, command concerns

about appearance resulted in a lowering of the female standard to

30 percent. The Navy revised its regulations in September 1998 to raise the

female standard back to the 33-percent level originally recommended.

Marine Corps officials could not document a clear, scientific basis for

either its male or female standards. However, based on our discussions

with Marine Corps officials and review of regulations, the Marine Corps’

body fat standards appear to be based on command judgments regarding

fitness and appearance, rather than health-based actuarial studies or other

scientific bases. For example, Marine Corps regulations13 state that the

Marine Corps, more than any other service, relies on the maximum fitness

of its personnel. As a result, according to the regulation, the maximum

allowable percentage of body fat for male Marines was set at 18 percent.

This equates to just below the midpoint of the interval between the

10-percent body fat level said by the regulation to be exhibited by

marathon runners and the 30-percent level said by the regulation to

represent gross obesity. Similarly, the regulation sets the female standard

at 26 percent, or about 80 percent up the interval between the 11-percent

body fat level said to be exhibited by average gymnasts and the 30-percent

level said by the Marine Corps regulation to represent gross obesity in

women.

The current Army body fat standards of 20 to 26 percent for men and 30 to

36 percent for women, according to research cited in the 1998 National

Academy of Sciences report and our discussions with Army officials, are

based on different rationales. The 20-percent male minimum is based on

Army data on young male soldiers dating back to the 1980s. The 26-percent

male maximum was determined by increasing the 20-percent minimum

figure by roughly 2 percentage points for every 10 years of age to

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

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

accommodate increases in body fat associated with aging. Prior to 1991,

the female standards were 28 to 34 percent. Army officials told us that this

percentage range was based simply on adding 8 percentage points to the

male minimum for each age category. The female standard, however, came

to be viewed as unfairly restrictive compared to the men’s standard. For

example, an Army study found that the standard provided women with

only a 1 to 3 percentage point margin over the mean body fat for young

female recruits, while the men’s standard provided a 4 to 6 percentage

point margin over the mean for young male recruits. In 1991, the women’s

body fat standard was increased by 2 percentage points for each age

grouping, raising it to the current level of 30 to 36 percent.

For Air Force personnel, the current maximum body fat standards are 20

to 24 percent for men and 28 to 32 percent for women. Air Force officials,

however, could not determine the basis for their body fat standards for

either men or women.

Procedures for

Determining Body Fat May

Not Accurately Measure

Gender and Racial

Differences

The basic approach used by each service to determine the percentage of

body fat has been to first, develop a set of measures of the circumference

of various body sites, such as the waist and neck for men, and the neck,

waist, and hips for women. Next, these measures are fed into

gender-specific equations developed by each service to estimate the

percentage of body fat. These equations were developed through analysis

of population samples for relationships between measures of various body

sites and the percentage of body fat, as validated against underwater

weighing techniques.

Researchers found, however, that while this measurement approach yields

consistent results for men, it does not achieve consistent results for

women. According to service researchers, men have basically one body

type, while women have a variety of body types. The female body fat

equations do not adjust well for the variety of female body types, and thus

do not consistently provide accurate estimates of the percentage of body

fat. For example, we found that the different body fat equations used by

the services can result in widely varying estimates of body fat for the same

woman. A test we conducted found that the estimates for percentage of

body fat for the same woman was 42 percent using the Army equation,

29 percent using the Navy and the Air Force equations, and 27 percent

using the Marine Corps equation. The use of different equations producing

such wide variation in estimates can result not only in inequities, but also

in outcomes that are inconsistent with the intended objective. For

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

example, while the Marine Corps set its body fat standards at the most

stringent level of any service, the equation it uses actually resulted in the

lowest estimate of body fat of all the services.

Researchers also report that the populations of active-duty soldiers used

to validate the equations have, with time, become less representative of

the ethnic and age diversity of the current military population. The Army’s

female body fat equation, for example, was validated largely on a

Caucasian population because of problems in underwater weighing of

African American and Hispanic subjects, many of whom withdrew from

the testing because they could not swim. According to the National

Academy of Sciences’ 1998 report, because the percentage of minority

female soldiers is increasing and the average age of female soldiers is also

increasing, the subject population used to develop and validate the

equations is becoming increasingly less representative.

The National Academy of Sciences’ 1998 report also concluded that the

service equations are outdated because they fail to adjust for heavier bone

densities in minorities. In the past, all services compared the results of

their body fat equations with underwater weighing methods as a reference

to check for accuracy and standardization. These techniques were based

on so-called two-compartment models, which partition body weight into

two basic components: fat and fat free mass (defined as the difference

between body weight and fat mass). However, two-compartment models

do not account for racial differences in bone density, thus potentially

overstating the weight of minorities. In contrast, newer four-compartment

models measure bone mass, total body water, body weight, and body

volume, in part based on underwater weighing techniques. The National

Academy of Sciences’ report concluded that the four-compartment models

which have been developed over the past decade are superior to the

two-compartment models. The Marine Corps began basing its equations on

the newer four-compartment models in October 1997. Navy researchers

are currently developing equations based on four-compartment models for

the remaining services.

Data to Assess the

Gender Impact of

Fitness and Body Fat

Standards Not

Available

Information such as the proportion of men and women unable to meet the

various fitness standards, initial body fat screening, and body fat

measurement could provide some insights into whether the standards

have been set at equitable levels. Similarly, information on the proportion

of men and women discharged for failure to meet fitness or body fat

standards could provide insight into whether the standards are being

selectively enforced by gender. However, these kinds of information are

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

not being collected uniformly across the services because of inadequate

DOD oversight.

DOD has not defined the basic information it needs to monitor the services’

fitness programs. While DOD and the services maintain a variety of

statistics describing various aspects of physical fitness programs, it is

difficult to use them to make meaningful conclusions about the services

fitness programs because of differences in comprehensiveness, the way in

which data is aggregated, or other problems. For example, according to

officials, the Army does not maintain a servicewide data base on physical

fitness test results. Such information is decentralized to the unit level.

Further, Navy officials told us that they do not separate their data by

gender, so comparisons of male and female performance against the

standards are not available. Other problems included unreliable

information due to unit underreporting, results not separated to identify

other key characteristics such as rank, or data on recent years not being

available due to system changes. As a result of these problems, we were

unable to determine and compare fitness and body fat failure rates over

time, separation rates due to repeated failures of the fitness standards, and

other such key information.

The service data that is available indicates that women consistently fail the

fitness standards at higher rates than men. For example, data indicates

that Army women failed the cardiovascular and muscular endurance

standards at a 13-percent rate in 1995, while men failed at an 11-percent

rate. Air Force data indicates that in 1997, women in that service failed in

9 percent of the cases, while men failed in 4 percent of the cases. Based on

1997 data, Marine Corps women failed at a rate of 1.1 percent, while male

Marines failed at a rate of 0.8 percent. Available data on the results of the

body fat test was consistent with this trend. For example, Army data for

1997 showed that female Army personnel failed in 6 percent of the cases,

while Army men failed in about 5 percent of the cases. As of March 1998,

about 4 percent of Air Force women were in weight management

programs compared to 2 percent of men.

Recent

Recommendations to

Improve the DOD

Fitness Program

In our recent report on DOD’s fitness program, we made recommendations

to improve the equity of the services’ physical fitness programs.14 We

recommended that the Secretary of Defense establish (1) a clear DOD-wide

policy for age- and gender-based adjustments to general fitness and body

fat standards, requiring all services to derive them scientifically and (2) a

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

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

The Equity of Physical Fitness Standards

Cannot Be Determined at This Time

DOD-wide approach to scientifically estimating body fat percentages. We

also recommended that the Secretary of Defense define the statistical

information needed to monitor fitness trends and ensure program

effectiveness, and require that this information be maintained by all

services and provided in the currently required annual reports. DOD

concurred with these recommendations and indicated it was taking action

to implement them.

Conclusions Some of the key perceptions about the services’ fitness programs are

related to a fairly widespread lack of understanding about the real purpose

of the fitness standards. However, it is not possible to definitively assess

the accuracy of most of the perceptions of servicemembers about the

fairness and equity of the service physical fitness programs because the

services generally did not use a scientific approach in setting the standards

or adjusting them for gender differences and the services do not maintain

sufficient statistics to judge the effectiveness and fairness of their

programs. We believe that implementation of the recommendations in our

recently issued report will help dispel the misconceptions that fitness

standards measure a servicemember’s ability to perform in the military

and that having different standards for men and women constitutes a

“double standard.”

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In comments to a draft of our report, DOD generally concurred with both

our findings and conclusions. While DOD officials did not dispute the

perceptions included in our report, they believe that it is important to note

that perceptions are not always supported by facts. We agree that

perceptions may not be accurate, which reinforces the need to assess

whether perceptions are supported by the facts. DOD also noted that since

1996, the services have made progress in adjusting standards based on

more objective data and have worked cooperatively to resolve research

issues. Furthermore, DOD said that developing standards for general fitness

and health is a complex matter, where academic and research experts

often differ on conclusions and research.

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 12-13, 36-37.

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Carol Schuster

William Beusse

Carole Coffey

Colin Chambers

Atlanta Field Office John Nelson

Los Angeles Field

Office

Cheryl Gordon

(703221) Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-99-27 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