United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Readiness, Committee

on Armed Services, U.S. Senate

November 1998 GENDER ISSUES

Improved Guidance

and Oversight Are

Needed to Ensure

Validity and Equity of

Fitness Standards

GAO/NSIAD-99-9

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-281068 

November 17, 1998

The Honorable Charles Robb

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

Dear Senator Robb:

At your request, we have reviewed the services’ physical fitness and body fat standards to

determine if (1) differences exist among the military services in physical fitness standards and

tests and the basis for any difference, (2) the services have a sound basis for adjusting the

standards for gender and age, and (3) the Department of Defense (DOD) exercises adequate

oversight of the fitness program. We found that there are significant differences between the

standards and tests the services use to measure physical fitness, that adjustments made to these

standards for age and gender were not always based in science, and that DOD oversight of the

services’ programs has not always been adequate. This report includes recommendations

which, if implemented, should result in more scientifically based fitness standards and improve

DOD’s oversight.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and Members of

Congress; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy; the Commandant

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

copies available to other interested parties upon request.

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

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

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations

 and Capabilities Issues
Executive Summary

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

men and women in the Department of Defense (DOD). Each year,

thousands of servicemembers are denied promotions, schooling, or other

benefits for failing to meet fitness standards. Despite remedial programs,

many of these personnel are eventually forced to leave the military for

continued failure to meet the standards. The growing role of women in the

armed forces—some in physically demanding positions—has been

accompanied by debate over fundamental and sometimes contentious

issues, including whether the fitness standards are fair and appropriate to

both sexes in today’s military.

The Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate

Committee on Armed Services, requested that GAO review a series of issues

regarding the treatment of men and women in the military. This report

discusses issues related to the physical fitness program. Specifically, GAO

determined whether (1) differences exist among the military services in

physical fitness standards and testing and the basis for any differences,

(2) the services have a sound basis for adjusting the standards for gender

and age, and (3) DOD exercises adequate oversight of the fitness program.

Background DOD’s guidance requires that the services establish a physical fitness and

body fat program that includes fitness requirements for all

servicemembers. This guidance requires annual testing, regardless of age,

of cardiovascular endurance (measured by activities such as running a

certain distance within a specified time limit), muscular strength and

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

maintenance of body fat within a certain percentage range. The guidance

does not specify particular testing activities or minimum required levels of

difficulty. Each military service is required to design its own fitness

program and provide DOD with annual reports that assess the program. The

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy

within the Office of the Secretary of Defense is responsible for monitoring

the program. In response to rising problems with the existing policy, the

Assistant Secretary established a joint service working group in September

1996 to study these problems, and the National Academy of Sciences was

also requested to help analyze the complex research available on fitness

and body fat issues. The Academy’s report was issued in March 1998.

Two kinds of physical performance requirements are placed on members

of the military: job-specific physical performance standards applicable to

particular occupations and general physical fitness standards that are

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

applicable to all members regardless of their occupation. The purpose of

job-specific physical performance standards is to ensure that personnel

assigned to physically demanding jobs are capable of performing those

jobs. On the other hand, the primary purpose of general fitness standards

is to maintain the overall health and conditioning of personnel. These

standards are not intended to specifically enhance the performance of a

particular service mission or job. This report focuses on general physical

fitness standards.

Results in Brief Significant differences exist in the tests and standards that the military

services use to measure physical fitness. These differences reflect varying

levels of difficulty in required performance in all testing

areas—cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and

percentage of allowable body fat—and occurred for different reasons.

Specifically, services did not always adhere to DOD guidance for fitness

testing or, in some cases, interpreted the guidance differently. Service

officials stated that confusion over the program’s objectives, stemming

from conflicting statements in DOD’s guidance, contributed to differences

among the services.

Adjustments to account for physiological differences by age and gender

are, according to experts, appropriate for general fitness and health

standards, and DOD guidance requires that gender-based adjustments be

made. Although each of the services adjusts for gender, the degree of

adjustment varies considerably. Inconsistent and sometimes arbitrary

approaches to adjusting the standards have contributed to questions

concerning the fairness of the standards applied to military men and

women. For example, male standards were usually based on statistics

recording men’s actual performance on fitness tests. However, female

standards were often estimated, inferred from male data, or based on

command judgment rather than data on actual performance. Body fat

standards are also questionable due to (1) differences in each service’s

equations for estimating body fat, resulting in estimates ranging between

27 and 42 percent for the same woman; (2) outdated measurement

approaches that did not account for racial differences in bone density; and

(3) changes in ethnicity and other population characteristics of the current

military that question whether the populations used to develop the

equations represent the populations in today’s military. Moreover, despite

a clear requirement for all services to test all personnel regardless of age,

the Navy and, until recently the Marine Corps, have exempted older

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

personnel from fitness testing for years because of concerns about being

able to retain senior leaders.

DOD’s guidance and oversight of the service physical fitness programs are

not adequate. In particular, multiple program objectives and lack of DOD

monitoring of service compliance with key policies, have persisted since at

least the early 1980s without resolution. Also, DOD has not enforced annual

reporting requirements or identified a common set of statistics to use in

monitoring the services’ fitness programs. The statistics currently

maintained by the services lack standardization: some do not include

servicewide information, and others do not contain information on key

characteristics, such as failure or separation rates by gender or rank. The

limited data available raise questions about program effectiveness because

failure rates appear to be markedly different among the services and

women appear to fail at significantly higher rates than men.

Principal Findings

Lack of Adherence to DOD

Policy and Confusion Over

Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences

in Service Requirements

Physical fitness testing differs markedly by service. For example, although

DOD guidance requires testing of muscular strength and endurance, the Air

Force does not require any such tests. In contrast, the Army, Navy, and

Marine Corps require their personnel to perform push-ups, pull-ups, and

sit-ups to be promoted and remain in the military.

The level of difficulty of fitness standards varies widely among the

services. For example, to measure the cardiovascular endurance of

45-year-old men and women, the Navy requires a 1-1/2 mile run within

about 17 and 18 minutes, respectively; the Army, a 2-mile run within about

19 and 24 minutes;1

 and the Marine Corps, a 3-mile run within 30 minutes

for men and 33 minutes for women. The Air Force measures

cardiovascular endurance by having its personnel use a stationary bicycle,

and requires 45-year old men and women to complete a simulated distance

of about 1-1/2 miles in about 17 and 19 minutes, respectively.

The services also vary significantly regarding the weight-to-height

standards used to screen personnel to determine whether more specific

1

New Army fitness standards were expected to be implemented on October 1, 1998. However,

according to Army Physical Fitness School officials, implementation has been delayed until early

January 1999 to allow for additional review and feedback from commanders, and to complete and

distribute new fitness scorecard forms. The Army standards referred to in this report are the new

pending standards.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

measurement of body composition is required. In addition, the services’

maximum allowable percentages of body fat range from 18 to 26 percent

for men and 26 to 36 percent for women.

Service officials attribute some differences in the difficulty of the

standards to confusion regarding the primary objective of the physical

fitness program. DOD guidance states that the services should place

primary emphasis on fitness programs that develop general health and

physical fitness, and officials in each of the services cited this emphasis as

a main objective. However, DOD guidance also states that the services

should establish fitness requirements in accordance with their particular

mission, incorporate job-specific standards into the programs, and

implement body fat programs that enhance military appearance. Service

officials indicated that the inclusion of the additional objectives created

confusion regarding the main purpose of the program. Specifically, they

said that the emphasis given to these other objectives varied and that the

difficulty of the overall standards was raised or lowered in accordance

with that emphasis.

Despite the apparent confusion resulting from the language of the

guidance, this distinction between general fitness standards and

job-specific physical performance standards is set forth in a 1995 DOD

report to the Congress on gender-neutral standards. Also, according to the

Office of the Secretary of Defense official responsible for overseeing the

fitness program, physical fitness standards are intended only to set a

minimum level of general fitness and health for military personnel and are

not directly related to job performance.

Inconsistent and

Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential

Gender and Age Inequities

All services adhered to the DOD policy requiring adjustments to fitness

standards to take into account strength and other physiological

differences between the sexes. The extent to which the standards were

adjusted for gender, however, varied greatly by service. For example, the

standard for the cardiovascular endurance test varied, allowing women

from 9 percent more time in the Air Force to 27 percent more time in the

Army. For sit-ups, the Army and the Marine Corps required both men and

women to do the same number in the same time, but the Navy allowed

women to do about 17 percent fewer sit-ups. For push-ups, the Army’s

standard for women was 60 percent lower than its men’s standard, and the

Navy’s standard for women was 75 percent lower than its men’s standard.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

In most services, the rationale used to adjust the standards was poorly

documented. Also, the services’ bases for adjusting the standards for

women were often different than those used for men. Male standards were

usually based on actual test performance data, whereas the female

standards were often estimated, inferred from male data, or based on

command judgment. For example, in September 1998, the Navy reduced

by as much as 1 minute and 15 seconds the time allowed for women under

30 years old to complete the 1-1/2 mile run. However, the time allowed for

these women to complete the run was not based on actual performance

times, as were the men’s and women 30 or over. Instead, the standards

were derived by multiplying the men’s standards by a factor to reflect a

mean 18-percent difference between male and female aerobic capabilities,

as calculated by Navy researchers. This change was made because of

command beliefs that the existing 4-minute difference between the

standards in certain categories was not appropriate, and female standards

needed to be more stringent. The standards for men and for women 30 and

older were not changed.

Additional questions about body fat standards result from differences in

each service’s equations for estimating body fat; outdated measurement

approaches that did not account for racial differences in bone density; and

changes in ethnicity and other demographic characteristics, making the

population used to develop the equations less representative of the current

military. Researchers found that the equations used by each service to

determine body fat yield consistent results for men but not for women

because the equations do not adequately adjust for the greater variety of

female body types. For example, the Army’s equation estimated one

woman’s body fat at 42 percent, whereas the estimated percentage of body

fat for the same woman was 29 percent using the Navy and the Air Force

equations and 27 percent using the Marine Corps equation. In addition, the

equations currently in use do not account for racial differences in bone

density, raising the potential for overstating the percentage of body fat of

minority servicemembers. Moreover, researchers also report that, because

the percentage of minorities is increasing in the female service population

and the average age of women in the service is increasing, the populations

of active-duty soldiers used to develop the equations have, over time,

become less representative of the ethnic and age diversity of the current

military population.

Personnel of different ages were also treated differently, depending upon

the service. Members of the Army and the Air Force are tested for fitness

throughout their careers, regardless of age, in accordance with DOD policy.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

However, for years the Navy and the Marine Corps have not tested older

personnel—currently those 50 and older in the Navy and as recently as

June 1998, those 46 and older in the Marine Corps—due to concerns about

retaining senior leaders. In July 1998, the Marine Corps changed its policy

to require Marines of all ages to be tested.

DOD Oversight of the

Physical Fitness Program

Is Inadequate

Problems, such as multiple program objectives and failure to consistently

enforce key policies, have existed in DOD’s fitness program for many years

due to inadequate oversight. For example, the references to objectives

such as job-specific requirements and mission that are included in the

most recent fitness directive also appeared in DOD’s 1981 Physical Fitness

and Weight Control directive. Similarly, the Navy and the Marine Corps

have apparently not complied with DOD’s guidance requiring testing of all

personnel regardless of age since the requirement was established in 1981.

Further, despite requirements for all services to evaluate muscular

strength, the Air Force stopped testing for muscular strength and

endurance in the early 1980s. Finally, at the time of our fieldwork, DOD had

not enforced the annual report requirement that had been in place since

1995.

DOD officials said that action to correct some of the fitness program

problems has begun. For example, initial agreement has been reached to

continue to study implementing one body fat equation for men and one for

women across all services. Additional recommendations made in a 1998

report by the National Academy of Science are still being reviewed, but

drafting of policy revisions is planned for the fall of 1998. DOD officials

noted that, following discussions with GAO, the Office of the Assistant

Secretary for Force Management Policy informed the services that they

would now be required to provide the annual reports. By September 1998

all services had provided the initial reports. DOD officials also

acknowledged that enforcement of the annual reporting requirement could

have provided a useful monitoring mechanism.

While enforcing the annual reporting requirement will provide some

information for oversight, neither DOD nor the services have a basis to

evaluate the overall fitness of military personnel or the effectiveness of the

service fitness programs because DOD has not identified a common set of

statistics needed to monitor fitness. As a result, the services could not

provide basic information essential to understanding fitness in the

military, including much of the statistical information the Assistant

Secretary requested in the annual reports.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

Although available data limited comparisons across the services,

comparisons made by GAO raised questions about the effectiveness of the

fitness programs in two areas. First, failure rates in cardiovascular and

muscular endurance tests appear to vary significantly among the services.

For example, a 1995 Army study stated that the overall failure rate for that

service was 12.5 percent. In comparison, the failure rates for the Air Force

and the Marine Corps in 1997 totaled 4.6 and 1 percent, respectively.

Second, the available data indicated that women consistently failed the

fitness tests at a slightly higher rate than men. In 1995, 13 percent of Army

women did not meet the cardiovascular and muscular endurance

standards, whereas 11 percent of Army men failed the standards. Likewise,

Air Force data showed that about 9 percent of its women did not meet the

standards in 1997 compared with 4 percent of its men.

Recommendations GAO recommends that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD’s physical

fitness regulations to

• clearly state that the objective of the military physical fitness program is to

enhance general fitness and health and make clear that the program is not

intended to address the capability to perform specific jobs or missions;

• establish clear DOD-wide policy for age- and gender-based adjustments to

fitness and body fat standards, requiring all services to derive them

scientifically, clearly document the basis used, and submit exceptions for

approval;

• establish a DOD-wide approach, based on current scientific research, to

estimating body fat percentages;

• establish a mechanism for providing policy and research coordination of

the military services’ physical fitness and body fat programs; and

• define the statistical information needed to monitor fitness trends and

ensure program effectiveness, and require that this information be

maintained by all services and provided in the currently required annual

reports.

GAO also recommends that the Secretary of Defense take steps to ensure

that the services implement the existing requirements that

• personnel be tested in all three areas cited in the

regulation—cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance,

and body composition and

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

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Executive Summary

Agency Comments

and GAO’s Evaluation

DOD agreed with GAO’s findings and recommendations and said that it had

already begun actions to implement them. DOD noted that since 1996, the

services have made progress in adjusting standards based on more

objective data and have worked cooperatively to resolve research issues.

Specifically, DOD said that it is revising its fitness program regulations to

focus the purpose of the program on general fitness and health, and to

create common DOD-wide standards for fitness and body fat evaluation and

measurement. A number of the issues GAO raised remain under study, but

DOD said it expected to publish revisions to the policies by the end of 1999.

Furthermore, DOD said that developing standards for general fitness and

health is a complex matter, where academic and research experts often

differ on conclusions and research. DOD’s comments are reprinted in their

entirety in appendix I and are also summarized throughout the report

where appropriate. DOD also provided technical comments concerning

factual information in the report, and GAO has modified the report where

appropriate.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

12

DOD’s Physical Fitness and Body Fat Program 12

The Role of DOD Physical Fitness Standards Is to Maintain

General Fitness and Health

14

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 16

Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to

DOD Policy and

Confusion Over

Multiple Objectives

Contribute to

Differences in Service

Requirements

18

Fitness Standards Differ by Service 18

Confusion Over Program Objectives Contributes to Different

Standards

22

Recommendations 24

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 24

Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and

Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create

Potential Gender and

Age Inequities

25

Adjustments to Fitness Standards for Age and Gender Are

Appropriate

25

The Extent of Adjustment for Gender Differences Varies by

Service

27

Gender Adjustments to Physical Fitness Standards Vary and Are

Not Based on Scientific Rationales

27

Gender Adjustments to Body Fat Standards Vary and Are Not

Based on Scientific Rationales

30

Procedures for Determining Body Fat May Not Accurately

Account for Gender and Racial Differences

32

Policy Requiring Testing at All Ages Not Followed 34

Recommendations 35

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Contents

Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the

Physical Fitness

Program Is

Inadequate

37

Problems Have Persisted for Years 37

DOD Cannot Determine Overall Fitness of Military Personnel 39

Recommendations 41

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 41

Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Defense 44

Appendix II: Major Contributors to This Report 49

Tables Table 2.1: Service Standards for Cardiovascular Endurance for

45-Year-Old Personnel

19

Table 2.2: Minimum Standards for Muscular Strength and

Endurance for 45-Year-Old Personnel

20

Table 2.3: Military Weight and Height Standards 21

Table 2.4: Standards for Percentage of Allowable Body Fat 22

Table 3.1: Ethnicity of U.S. Military Enlisted Personnel 1997 33

Table 4.1: DOD Separations of Enlisted Personnel for Failure to

Meet Body Fat Standards, 1996-97

40

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

GAO General Accounting Office

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 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 active duty forces, up

from about 2 percent in the early 1970s. Their role has also evolved from

the traditional concentration in medical and administrative occupations;

women are now eligible to serve in over 80 percent of all military jobs,

including many air, sea, and other combat-related positions. The growing

role of women has also resulted in debate within and outside of the

Department of Defense (DOD) over fundamental and sometimes

contentious issues, including whether physical fitness standards are fair

and appropriate to both men and women. The Defense Advisory

Committee on Women in the Services reported that men and women at

military installations across the country are confused about the need for

differing standards among the services, particularly those regulating body

fat, and lack confidence in the fairness of the standards. In addition, the

Rand Corporation recently reported that some military men believe that

fitness standards have been adjusted to the point of being too easy for

women.1

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

military personnel. DOD guidance requires that servicemembers pass

physical fitness tests at least annually regardless of age and gender.

Personnel who fail to meet fitness standards can be denied promotions,

schooling, and other activities and may be forced to leave the military. In

recent years, the downsizing of active duty forces and the increased rate of

deployments and redeployments for peace operations and other activities

have increased the physical demands on soldiers.

DOD’s Physical

Fitness and Body Fat

Program

DOD’s guidance, issued in 1981 and updated in 1995, requires that the

services establish physical fitness and body fat programs, which include

fitness requirements for all servicemembers. The program guidance states

that individual servicemembers need to possess the cardiorespiratory

endurance, muscular strength and endurance, and whole body flexibility

to successfully perform in accordance with a service-specific mission and

military specialty. However, the guidance does not identify requirements

for specific activities or levels of difficulty. In addition, the guidance states

that maintaining desirable body composition is an integral part of physical

fitness, general health, and military appearance. The Assistant Secretary of

Defense for Force Management Policy is responsible for oversight of the

program and coordinating with the Assistant Secretary of Defense for

1

New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale, Rand

Corporation, October 1997.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Health Affairs, who is responsible for establishing a health promotion

program to be implemented in conjunction with the fitness and body fat

program.

DOD guidance states that each service must develop its own program

according to its particular needs, placing primary emphasis on maintaining

general health and physical fitness. Evaluation of individual fitness is an

integral component of the program. DOD Instruction 1308.3 sets out a

number of key requirements for this evaluation, including the following:

• The services must use physical fitness tests of cardiovascular endurance,

such as running a certain distance within a specified time limit, and

muscular strength and endurance, such as sit-ups and push-ups.

• All servicemembers are to be tested regardless of age.

• Testing standards may be adjusted for age and must be adjusted for

physiological differences between men and women.

• All servicemembers are to be formally tested for the record at least

annually.

• Efficiency or fitness reports must include comments if the servicemember

fails to meet physical fitness standards.

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

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

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

screening table or the member’s immediate commander determines that

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

servicemember’s percent of body fat is to be estimated. To standardize as

much as possible, DOD requires the services to use similar validated

circumferential equations for the prediction of body composition. The

men’s equation involves measurements of the neck and waist or abdomen.

The women’s equation requires measurement of the hips, waist, and neck,

but allows for optional measurements of the abdomen and wrist, and/or

forearm.

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

servicemembers who fail to perform successfully against the established

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

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

authorities for further evaluation. If servicemembers continue to fail over

time, they are to be considered for administrative separation under service

regulations.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The Role of DOD

Physical Fitness

Standards Is to

Maintain General

Fitness and Health

Two kinds of physical performance requirements are placed on members

of the military: job-specific physical performance standards that are

applicable to particular occupations and general physical fitness standards

that are applicable to all members regardless of their occupation. The

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

those personnel assigned to physically demanding jobs are capable of

performing the requirements of those jobs. On the other hand, the primary

purpose of general fitness standards is to maintain the overall health and

conditioning of personnel. As such, these standards are not intended to

specifically enhance the performance of a particular service mission or

job.

Job-Specific Physical

Performance Standards

Section 543 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization Act

required the Secretary of Defense to prescribe physical performance

standards for any occupation in which the Secretary determined that

strength, endurance, and cardiovascular capacity was essential to the

performance of duties. The act required that any such standards developed

were to pertain to job activities that were commonly performed in that

occupation, relevant to successful performance, and not based on gender.

In other words, job-specific physical performance standards would

identify the absolute minimum level needed for successful performance in

those occupations. Anyone in that occupation, regardless of gender, would

be required to meet the same standard.

In 1996, we reported on the development and use of gender-neutral

occupationally specific performance standards in the military.2

 Neither the

Navy nor the Marine Corps had adopted occupational strength standards.

Although the Army categorized each enlisted occupational specialty into

one of five categories based on physical demand, it discontinued testing

recruits’ physical capabilities to perform such activities in 1990 and had

previously used the results of that testing only for counseling recruits

about serving in certain occupations. The Air Force had categorized each

of its enlisted occupations into one of eight physical demand categories. It

used a strength aptitude test administered to recruits to screen out those

who would be likely to have difficulty performing physically demanding

jobs, but it did not incorporate the strength test into the required annual

fitness evaluation for personnel in those jobs.

2

Physically Demanding Jobs: Services Have Little Data on Ability of Personnel to Perform

(GAO/NSIAD-96-169, July 9, 1996).

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Physical Fitness

Requirements Linked to

Health but Not to the

Ability to Perform Military

Tasks

The DOD physical fitness program involves more than just periodic testing

against standards. Passing an annual fitness test is not synonymous with

maintaining a high level of health and physical fitness. The research

literature provides a large body of information linking physical activity to

health and a variety of recommendations for the amount and intensity of

exercise needed to achieve fitness. For example, organizations such as the

American College of Sports Medicine and the Department of Health and

Human Services recommend 20 to 60 minutes of cardiovascular exercises

most days of the week at a moderate level of intensity—for example over

50 percent of the maximum heart rate—as well as resistance exercises to

condition the major muscle groups for strength and endurance. Some

groups also recommend exercises to maintain flexibility. Although these

recommendations were directed at the general U.S. population, a 1998

National Academy of Sciences report recommended that DOD personnel

follow a similar regimen.3 DOD guidance recommends that servicemembers

engage in regular physical fitness training of about 1-1/2 hours, three times

a week. Duty time can be authorized for such training.

Research literature also supports linking body fat percentages,

cardiovascular endurance, and muscular endurance to the overall health

objective. For example, the 1998 report by the National Academy of

Sciences indicates that increases in the percentage of body fat are

associated with health problems and a decrease in some aspects of fitness.

Individuals with excess accumulation of abdominal fat appear to be at

increased risk for a number of diseases.

Research has identified little correlation between performance on timed

runs, push-ups, sit-ups, and other fitness tests and specific military task

performance. According to the 1998 National Academy of Sciences report,

the majority of the military’s physically demanding occupations involve

occasional to frequent lifting and load carrying. However, the report found

little association between performance on push-up, sit-up, and unloaded

distance running tests, and lifting and load carrying ability. Researchers

concluded that tasks, such as unloaded distance running, were rarely a

part of a soldier’s military duties and that the larger body type required to

excel at lifting, for example, was different from the leaner body type

required to excel at distance running.

The relationship between the percentage of body fat and task performance

is more complex. Some research has found that the higher the percentage

3

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

Health, National Academy Press, 1998.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

of body fat the lower the performance in running tests. However, research

also shows that women recruits who failed body fat standards were

stronger than their counterparts who passed. This situation presents a

dilemma for the military: setting a high body fat limit favors selection of

women who are strong but may lack optimum endurance, and vice versa.

The Academy’s report pointed out that, to some degree, current body fat

standards may discriminate against women who would be the most

capable of performing jobs requiring strength, which might be the most

critical for survival in a combat situation.

In addition, the 1998 report by the National Academy of Sciences, as well

as an earlier report in 1992,4

 concluded that the “appearance” objective

does not seem to be linked to performance, fitness, nutrition, or health.

Research5

 conducted in 1990 explored this relationship by having a panel

of military officers and enlisted personnel rate the military appearance of

1,075 male and 251 female Army personnel in uniform, and then comparing

these judgments to measures of the percent of body fat for each

participant. The results were only a “modest” correlation (0.53 for males,

and 0.46 for females), and the report concluded that factors other than

body composition, notably subjective judgment, influence appearance

ratings. The National Academy of Sciences reports recommended that the

military should develop objective criteria with which to judge appearance

if it deems such a standard necessary.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness, Senate

Committee on Armed Services, requested that we review a series of issues

regarding the treatment of men and women in the military. This report

discusses (1) the rationale for differences in difficulty among the military

services physical fitness standards, (2) how the services adjust the

standards for gender and age, and (3) DOD’s oversight of the fitness

program.

To assess the differences in the difficulty of fitness standards, adjustments

to the standards for differences based on gender and age, and DOD

oversight, we reviewed DOD directives and instructions, service

regulations, manuals, and supporting documents; analyzed pertinent

research and policy reports undertaken by DOD and a variety of

4

Body Composition and Physical Performance: Applications for the Military Services, National

Academy Press, 1992.

5

Relationships Between Body Fat and Appearance Ratings of U.S. Soldiers. Naval Health Research

Center, Report No. 90-01, 1990.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 1 

Introduction

independent civilian agencies; and discussed the results with officials and

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

did not visit individual units to test the implementation of the guidance. To

address the issues of DOD policies, service differences, and level of

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

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

Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy, and the Defense

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

interviewed officials and researchers from the Assistant Secretary of the

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

Staff for Personnel; the Army Physical Fitness School at Fort Benning,

Georgia; and the Army Medical Research and Development Command at

Fort Detrick, Maryland. We interviewed Navy personnel from the Bureau

of Naval Personnel and the Naval Health Research Center in San Diego,

California. We met with Marine Corps personnel from the Combat

Development Command in Quantico, Virginia. To complete our work in

the Air Force, we interviewed officials from the Office of the Surgeon

General.

To gain additional perspectives on physical fitness programs, we reviewed

various research and evaluation reports and interviewed officials from a

variety of government and civilian organizations. These organizations

included the National Academy of Sciences; the National Institutes of

Health; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; the President’s

Council on Physical Fitness and Sports; the American Heart Association;

and the Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research in Dallas, Texas.

We conducted our review between January and September 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

Physical fitness programs enacted by the services are a mixture of

different requirements, lacking a clear rationale for marked differences in

difficulty. In some cases, differences were due simply to failures to follow

stated DOD policy, while in others, differences were due largely to

confusion over program objectives.

Fitness Standards

Differ by Service

The services differ significantly in the types of physical fitness tests they

use and the minimum levels of performance required on those tests. These

differences occur in all three testing areas—cardiovascular endurance,

muscular strength and endurance, and body composition. However, all

services adjust program standards for physiological differences between

the sexes in all three testing areas, and for age in the case of

cardiovascular and muscular strength and endurance standards. To

simplify comparisons of the cardiovascular and muscular strength and

endurance standards in the tables which follow, we used a baseline age of

45 for both men and women.

Cardiovascular Endurance

Tests

As shown in table 2.1, fitness standards for cardiovascular endurance

differ significantly by service in the type of test used and the minimum

level of performance required. Standards for running activities varied in

both the distance of the test run and the required maximum time for the

run. For a 45-year-old servicemember, the Navy requires its men and

women to run 1-1/2 miles within about 17 and 18 minutes, respectively; the

Army requires a 2-mile run within about 19 and 24 minutes; and the Marine

Corps requires a 3-mile run within 30 minutes for men and 33 minutes for

women. The Air Force tests its personnel for cardiovascular endurance by

measuring the body’s oxygen consumption while riding a stationary

bicycle.1

1

According to officials, the Air Force used the 1-1/2 mile run up until the early 1990s. However, after

several personnel died, the decision was made to switch to the stationary bicycle test for safety

reasons.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

Table 2.1: Service Standards for

Cardiovascular Endurance for

45-Year-Old Personnel

Maximum time allowed

(in minutes:seconds)

Exercise Distance (in miles) Men Women

Run/walk

Armya 2 18:42 23:42

Navyb 1-1/2 16:30 18:15

Marine Corps 3 30:00 33:00

Stationary bicyclec

Air Force 1-1/2 16:58 18:33

aThese new standards were expected to become effective October 1, 1998. However, according

to Army Physical Fitness School officials, implementation has been delayed until early

January 1999 to allow for additional review and feedback from commanders, and to complete

and distribute new fitness scorecard forms.

bThis standard expected to become effective January 1999.

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

Muscular Strength and

Endurance Tests

The services differ in the types of tests used to assess muscle strength and

endurance. The Air Force is the only service with no requirement for

push-ups, sit-ups, or other tests of muscular strength and endurance. Air

Force personnel acknowledged that the service is not in compliance with

DOD’s policy requiring such testing but could provide no explanation.

According to a 1997 study of the Air Force fitness program2

 and DOD’s 1981

report3

 on physical fitness in the military, muscular endurance exercises

were included in the Air Force program as late as the early 1960s, but had

been dropped by the early 1980s. The Air Force study, as well as a panel of

experts, concluded that muscle strength and endurance training, such as

sit-ups and bench and leg presses, should be added to the Air Force fitness

program. According to Air Force officials, a plan to begin muscular

strength and endurance testing in two phases during 1999-2000 has been

endorsed by the Surgeon General’s Office and is being reviewed by the Air

Staff.

While the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps all use sit-ups to test muscular

strength and endurance, the minimum number required to pass these tests

varied significantly across the services. Once currently pending changes

2

Expanded Air Force Physical Fitness Battery: Muscle Strength, Muscle Endurance, and Flexibility

Considered: Volume I, Final Report; Crew System Ergonomics Information Analysis Center, 

October 30, 1997.

3

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

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

take effect, the minimum number of sit-ups required for a 45-year old man

to complete within 2 minutes will be 32 in the Army, 45 in the Marine

Corps, and 29 in the Navy. Both the Army and the Navy have a push-up

requirement, but their standards also differed significantly. The Marine

Corps uses pull-ups for men and flexed arm hang for women as its test of

upper body strength and endurance. Table 2.2 shows the services’

minimum standards for muscular strength and endurance.

Table 2.2: Minimum Standards for

Muscular Strength and Endurance for

45-Year-Old Personnel

Exercise Men Women

Sit-ups within 2 minutes

Armya 32 32

Navy 29 24

Marine Corpsb 45 45

Push-ups w/in 2 minutes

Army 30 12

Navy 20 5

Pull-ups/flexed arm hangc

Marine Corps 3 15 seconds

aStandard expected to become effective January 1, 1999.

bNavy and Marine Corps personnel are required to perform sit-ups with knees bent and hands

folded across their chests. However, Army personnel perform sit-ups with knees bent and hands

clasped behind the neck. Some officials believe folding the hands across the chest will reduce

neck and lower back injuries, and allow better isolation of abdominal muscles.

cMarine Corps men are required to perform pull-ups, women Marines are required to perform a

flexed arm hang. The flexed arm hang test consists of hanging from an elevated bar with feet off

the ground and elbows flexed.

Body Composition Tests The services each use a two-tier body composition test, as required by DOD

guidance. The first tier involves an initial screening in which

servicemembers are required to pass a visual inspection for appearance

and/or be measured against weight-for-height tables adjusted for gender.

Table 2.3 shows that each of the services uses different weight-for-height

values.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

Table 2.3: Military Weight and Height Standards

Women Men

Maximum allowable weight in pounds

Height in inches DOD Army Navy

Marine

Corps Air Force DOD Army Navy

Marine

Corps Air Force

64 160 145 156 138 146 170 160 162 160 164

65 164 149 160 142 150 174 165 167 165 169

66 168 154 163 147 155 178 170 172 170 174

67 172 159 167 151 159 181 176 177 175 179

68 176 164 170 156 164 185 181 182 181 184

69 179 168 174 160 168 188 186 188 186 189

70 183 173 177 165 173 192 192 192 192 194

71 187 177 181 170 177 196 197 196 197 199

72 183 185 175 182 200 203 201 203 205

73 188 188 180 188 205 208 206 209 211

74 194 192 185 194 210 214 211 214 218

75 200 195 190 199 215 220 216 219 224

76 206 199 205 226 221 225 230

77 211 203 210 232 226 230 236

78 216 206 215 238 231 235 242

79 222 210 221 244 236 241 248

80 227 213 226 250 241 247 254

Note: The Army, unlike the other services, relaxes its weight for height requirements as age

increases. The Army weights listed are for soldiers age 40 and above. Table values are not

adjusted for service differences in allowances for the weight of clothes and shoes, which range

between 0-3 pounds, depending on the service. The Navy revised its weights in September 1998

to be more closely aligned with actual body fat percentage requirements.

If this initial screen is failed, then the servicemember must have their

percentage of body fat determined using measures of the circumference of

various body sites plugged into service equations that estimate the

percentage of body fat. The purpose of the body fat calculation is to

ensure that personnel with extra weight due to muscle (not fat) are not

unfairly required to leave the military.

As shown in table 2.4, maximum allowable percentages of body fat vary

considerably by service. The body fat percentage standards appear to bear

little logical relationship to the weight-for-height values that are used as a

body composition screening tool. For example, the maximum allowable

Air Force weights are often higher than Army weights for a given height,

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

although the Air Force has more stringent body fat percentage standards

than those of the Army.

Table 2.4: Standards for Percentage of

Allowable Body Fat Maximum standard (in percents)

Organization Men Women

DOD 18 to 26 26 to 36

Army 20—ages 17 to 20

22—ages 21 to 27

24—ages 28 to 39

26—ages 40 and older

30—ages 17 to 20

32—ages 21 to 27

34—ages 28 to 39

36—ages 40 and older

Air Force 20—ages 29 and below

24—ages 30 and older

28—ages 29 and below

32—ages 30 and older

Navy 22 33

Marine Corps 18 26

Note: The Navy increased its female maximum standard from 30 to 33 percent effective

September 1, 1998.

Confusion Over

Program Objectives

Contributes to

Different Standards

DOD guidance states that the services should place primary emphasis on

fitness programs that develop general health and physical fitness.

However, they also state that the services should establish fitness

requirements in accordance with their particular mission, incorporate

job-specific standards into the programs, and implement body fat

programs that enhance military appearance. Officials in all the services

cited health and fitness as program objectives, but indicated the degree of

emphasis on other objectives varied by service. Service officials told us

that the inclusion of multiple objectives in the guidance created confusion

regarding the main purpose of the program and that emphasis given to one

or the other of these objectives differed by service, with the difficulty of

the standards raised or lowered accordingly.

The Navy and the Air Force focused mostly on health as the program

objective. Consequently, they tended to have relatively less vigorous

standards than the Army and the Marine Corps, who placed additional

emphasis on fitness and appearance. For example, Navy officials told us

that they saw health as the appropriate objective of fitness programs, and

their standards are set with that in mind. According to these officials, their

maximum body fat standard of 22 percent for men is set at the clinical

definition of obesity established by a National Institutes of Health panel in

1985,4

 since obesity is clearly related to health problems such as diabetes,

4

National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Conference, February 1985.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

hypertension, heart disease, and cancer. However, Navy officials stressed

that the standard is an upper limit, and they encourage Navy personnel to

remain well below this level. In comparison, according to Marine Corps

regulations and officials, the Marine Corps relies on maximum physical

fitness more than any other service. Accordingly, the Marine Corps

established its male body fat standard at 18 percent, the lowest level of all

the services.

Despite the apparent confusion, none of the services based its general

fitness standards on specific combat mission or job requirements.

However, at one time the Marine Corps administered a physical readiness

test of combat skills, such as simulated marches uphill at a rapid pace,

rope climbing to resemble entering and leaving a hovering helicopter, and

evacuation of a wounded comrade by sprinting 50 yards, lifting another

Marine onto the shoulders, and returning to the starting point. That test

has been discontinued as an evaluated test for individuals, but units such

as the Marine Corps Officer Candidates School continue to conduct the

test as a training tool. Marine Corps officials were unsure as to when and

why the individual test was discontinued. Officials at the Army Physical

Fitness School also told us that they have been studying development of a

combat fitness test for infantry soldiers. The test could include exercises

such as a 3-mile march carrying a 40-pound pack, a weapons qualification

test, and an obstacle course. The specific tasks would be linked to a unit’s

mission-essential task list. If these kinds of job-specific physical standards

are developed, DOD guidance calls for them to be incorporated into the

service’s physical fitness program. Such job-specific standards would then

augment the general fitness standards for personnel in those specific

occupations but would not supplant the requirement for periodic testing

against the general fitness standards.

Officials from only two services, the Army and the Marine Corps, cited

“appearance” as one of their physical fitness program objectives. They

indicated that image is an important aspect of effectiveness, and because

the image of a soldier is one of leanness, an excessively fat appearance

could weaken the military image and undermine effectiveness. Navy

officials, told us that appearance is not an appropriate objective of body

fat programs. However, Navy body fat results are used to determine an

individual’s rating in the “military bearing” category on officer fitness

reports and enlisted personnel evaluations.

Although the references to additional objectives in the guidance has

apparently led to some confusion, the Office of the Secretary of Defense

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 2 

Lack of Adherence to DOD Policy and

Confusion Over Multiple Objectives

Contribute to Differences in Service

Requirements

official responsible for overseeing the fitness program stated that physical

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

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

performance. This distinction between general fitness standards and

job-specific physical performance standards was also set forth in a 1995

DOD report to the Congress on gender-neutral performance standards.5

Recommendations In order to clarify the purpose of the physical fitness program, we

recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise DOD’s regulations to

(1) clearly state that the objective of the physical fitness program is to

enhance general fitness and health and (2) make clear that the program is

not intended to address the capability to perform specific jobs or missions.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense take steps to ensure

that all services implement testing in all three areas cited in the

regulation—cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance,

and body composition.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD agreed with our recommendations and said that its joint service

working group had reviewed DOD policy and the findings of the National

Academy of Science’s 1998 report and determined that DOD’s policy should

focus on general health and fitness. According to DOD’s response,

preliminary actions are underway to revise policy documents to clarify

that the objective of the program is to enhance general fitness and health,

and to explain that the policy is not designed to address specific job or

mission performance. DOD also agreed to require that all services test their

personnel in cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength and endurance,

and body composition. DOD further noted that these actions do not

preclude it from establishing policies related to occupational or mission

fitness needs, if such policies are needed.

5

Gender Neutral Standards, Report to the House Committee on National Security, Senate Committee

on Armed Services, and House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, by the Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), April 1995.

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

Service rationales for adjustments to the fitness standards were often

different for men and women. This leads to questions about the fairness of

standards applied to men and women. Some adjustments were not based

on scientific data, and many were poorly documented. Efforts are

underway to correct some of these problems and ensure that a consistent,

science-based approach is used in setting standards for both genders. The

approaches used to calculate the percentage of body fat are also

inconsistent and outdated, further undermining the usefulness of the

standards. Researchers found that service equations predict different body

fat values when applied to the same woman, the subject population used

to develop the equations is becoming increasingly less representative, and

existing calculation approaches do not account for racial differences in

bone density. The National Academy of Sciences has called for major

changes to the program. In addition, DOD guidance states that all

servicemembers, regardless of age, will be tested for cardiovascular and

muscular endurance. However, the Navy and, until recently the Marine

Corps, have exempted senior personnel—ages 50 and older and 46 and

older, respectively—from such testing for years. The Air Force and the

Army adhere to DOD’s policy to test servicemembers throughout their

careers.

Adjustments to

Fitness Standards for

Age and Gender Are

Appropriate

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

Armed Forces looked closely at the issue of physical strength and

endurance requirements. The Commission concluded that, since physical

fitness standards are established to promote the highest level of general

wellness in the armed forces and are not aimed at assessing capability to

perform specific jobs or missions, it is appropriate to adjust the standards

for physiological differences among service members.1

 Although DOD

policy allows adjustments to the fitness standards based on age and

requires adjustments based on the physiological differences between

genders, the approach to adjusting the actual standards is generally left up

to each service.

DOD’s current policy allows the services to set different minimums

according to age to account for the physiological changes and diminished

physical capabilities experienced as people age. However, DOD requires

that all personnel, regardless of age, be tested against cardiovascular and

muscular endurance standards at least annually. This policy dates back at

least to the 1981 DOD report assessing military fitness programs. The report

1

Report to the President, Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed

Services, 1992, p. 5.

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

stated that exempting personnel from fitness testing at a certain age

implied that fitness was not important after that point and diluted the

involvement and support of senior leaders. Mandatory testing was viewed

as a potential catalyst for change and more leader involvement and

support of physical fitness. In contrast, some DOD personnel believe that

requiring older personnel to meet fitness standards will result in the loss of

senior leaders over time.

Reports by the National Academy of Sciences and others indicate that, in

addition to generally being smaller, female soldiers demonstrate only 50 to

70 percent of male’s strength, with the greatest disparity in the area of

upper body strength. Women have smaller lung capacities and hearts than

men. Women also carry about 10 percentage points more body fat than

men and accumulate the fat in different places. As a result of these and

other differences, women exerting the same effort as men in running,

push-ups, and other cardiovascular and muscular strength and endurance

tests are generally at a disadvantage.

To reflect these and other gender-based physiological differences, DOD

guidance directs that testing standards be adjusted. The guidance does not

specify the degree of adjustment required in the case of cardiovascular

and muscular strength and endurance standards. DOD guidance cites an

acceptable body fat range of 18 to 26 percent for men and 26 to 36 percent

for women. However, the guidance authorizes the services to establish

more stringent standards based on service needs or mission but require an

8 to 10 percentage point difference (as is reflected in the DOD minimum

and maximum allowable body fat percentages) between male and female

body fat standards. The guidance also states that the services may not

derive, extrapolate, or adjust female body fat standards using data from

male subjects, and vice versa. DOD officials said that these body fat policies

are intended to ensure that service standards are based on the results of

objective, gender-specific scientific research. The officials also told us that

the prohibition against inferring one gender’s standard from the other’s,

while contradictory to the requirement for an 8 to 10 percentage point

difference, is in place because simply inferring differences is not an

adequate approach to setting standards. Some officials believe that the

prohibition against inferring standards should apply to all physical fitness

standards and not just the body fat standards. DOD officials could provide

no explanation for why there is no comparable restriction on how the

other female fitness standards are set.

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

The Extent of

Adjustment for

Gender Differences

Varies by Service

Each service established different standards for cardiovascular endurance

by gender allowing female servicemembers more time to complete the

same distance. The degree of gender difference varied by service. For

example, in the case used in table 2.1, a 45-year-old woman is allowed

9 percent more time than a man in the Air Force, 10 percent more time in

the Marine Corps, 11 percent more time in the Navy, and 27 percent more

time in the Army.

The three services that test muscular strength and endurance2

 make

gender-based adjustments to some standards in that area, but not others

(see table 2.2). Only the Navy currently relaxes its sit-up requirements for

women, allowing 45-year-old women to complete about 17 percent fewer

sit-ups than their male counterparts. In 1997, the Marine Corps changed its

sit-up standards to require identical performances from men and women.

The Army is also expected to change to identical sit-up standards in

January 1999. These changes are consistent with research indicating that

women may equal or exceed male performance in sit-up tests. The Navy is

currently conducting a study of fitness scores across the entire service,

and officials expect the sit-up standards to also change once the results

are analyzed.

With regard to push-ups, both the Army and the Navy adjust the standards

for gender differences—the female standard in the Army is 60 percent

lower than the male standard, and the female standard in the Navy is

75 percent lower than the male standard. The degree of gender adjustment

in the Marine Corps cannot be assessed, since it uses different tests for

men (pull-ups) and women (flexed arm hang).

Gender Adjustments

to Physical Fitness

Standards Vary and

Are Not Based on

Scientific Rationales

One prevalent approach to determining appropriate differences in fitness

standards is through the use of statistics on the distribution of actual

performance scores. In this approach, the services analyze data on the

actual performance of males and females within their own service in

push-ups, sit-ups, running, and other fitness tests. Minimum and maximum

standards may then be set at a particular percentile of performance.

According to service researchers, this approach is modeled after the use of

bell curves, indicating the performance of students relative to one another,

to assign grades in the education sector.

2

As noted in chapter 2, the Air Force physical fitness program does not test men or women for

muscular strength and endurance.

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

The rationale for current or pending female fitness standards, however,

have been different from males’ in at least two of the military services.

Male standards were usually based on actual data on their performance in

the run, push-ups, or other such tests. However, female standards were

often estimated, inferred from male data, or based on command judgment

rather than actual performance in fitness tests. Also, the rationale for the

standards was poorly documented in most services.

Navy standards for the 1-1/2 mile run/walk, push-ups, and sit-up exercises

for men and women 30 years old and above are based on the distribution

of actual scores for Navy men and women identified in Navy research

reports. According to Navy officials, minimum requirements are set at the

10th percentile and maximums at the 90th to 95th percentiles. However,

1-1/2 mile run standards for women under 30 years old were set by adding

time to the men’s standards and not by using actual women’s run times.

Effective September 1998, the maximum time allowed for women under 

30 to complete the 1-1/2 mile run was lowered by as much as 1 minute 15

seconds. The new female standards were derived by multiplying the men’s

standards by a factor to reflect the mean 18-percent difference between

male and female aerobic capabilities, as calculated by Navy researchers,

rather than using actual performance data. According to Navy documents

and discussions with officials, this change was made because officials

believed that the existing 4-minute difference between male and female

standards in certain categories was not appropriate and that female

standards needed to be more stringent. According to Navy officials, this

change is temporary pending completion of an ongoing study of fitness

scores throughout the Navy. The standards for males and for females ages

30 and older were not changed.

Marine Corps officials believed that their male standards dated back to

studies conducted in 1967 showing actual male times for the 3-mile run,

with minimums set at the 10th percentile and maximums at the 90th. In

January 1997, the Marine Corps raised the female run distance from

1-1/2 to 3 miles to match the male requirement. According to Marine Corps

officials, studies conducted in 1993 and 1996 revealed an approximate

3-minute difference, on average, between the male and female run times.

The resultant female standards were then established by adding the

3-minute average difference to the existing male standards. Marine Corps

officials stated that, although the data needed to provide actual

performance times was developed to ensure a solid basis for the new

female standards, the process described above was used.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

A 1995 study by the Army3 concluded that its current physical fitness

program contained gender disparities, with some women’s standards being

less demanding than they should be, and not based on scientific research.

For example, according to the report, research indicates that women’s

world record times for events similar to the 2-mile run are 8 to 12 percent

slower than men’s, but Army standards allow women to run 19 percent

slower than men and still get the same score. Similarly, research found

that women performed sit-ups at 95 to 110 percent of the male rate, but

Army standards required women to perform at only 93 percent of the

men’s standards. Officials at the Army Physical Fitness School could not

fully document the rationale behind the standards. They believed that the

minimum requirements were based on actual data collected in the early

1980s, but the incremental steps up to the maximum scores were based on

simple numerical progressions, not actual performance data. For example,

according to Army officials, the difference between the minimum and

maximum requirement in the 2-mile run was set at exactly 4 minutes,

regardless of gender or age group. Additional points above the minimum

were awarded for every 6 seconds shaved off the minimum requirement. In

the two youngest age groups, women’s requirements were exactly 

3 minutes slower than men’s.

Beginning in October 1998, the Army was scheduled to implement new

standards based on a more scientifically based approach, with a gender

neutral “equal points for equal effort” policy. The new minimum

requirements are generally based on the 8th percentile of a sample of

actual scores collected by the Army’s 1995 study, the maximums on

performances at the 90th percentile, and both requirements are gradually

reduced in 5-year increments as age increases.4

 The new standards

generally toughen the requirements for both sexes, requiring women to

perform the same number of sit-ups as men, female run times to be set

about 14 to 16 percent slower than male times, and female push-up

requirements to increase from 44 to about 50 percent of the male

standards. According to the Army study, these changes are consistent with

a narrowing physical performance gap between the genders in recent

years. The Army now plans to implement these new standards in

January 1999.

3

Army Physical Fitness Test Update Survey, 1995.

4

According to Army officials, in cases where the data from the samples showed abnormally high values

or fell below existing minimums, the standards were manually adjusted from the 8th and 90th

percentiles. However, in no case were the female standards based on adjustments from the male

baselines.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

Air Force officials could provide no studies or other records to document

the rationale for their cardiovascular endurance or body fat standards.

However, according to Air Force officials, an oral history of the standards

was developed through discussions with officers previously responsible

for the program. According to the oral history, the cardiovascular standard

was based on performance statistics from a population of Air Force men

and women in the early 1990s. Researchers recommended that the

minimum standard be set at the 20th percentile of performance because

that was the point with the largest incremental gain in health benefits

between percentile groups. However, Air Force officials wanted a higher

standard for readiness reasons: as a result the next percentile grouping up,

the 40th percentile, was selected as the minimum standard. Female

standards were set the same way and at the same level.

Gender Adjustments

to Body Fat Standards

Vary and Are Not

Based on Scientific

Rationales

Experts indicate that it is appropriate to base gender-specific body fat

standards on studies of the level of fat found in populations of physically

fit men and women or on life insurance actuarial studies of the weights for

heights associated with long life and good health. However, at least two

services, the Army and the Navy, based their female body fat standards on

different rationales than the male standards. Officials from DOD and the

other services could not clearly document the basis for the standards.

DOD’s original body fat standards were established in 1981 based on the

recommendations of the study panel chartered to report on physical

fitness in the military. According to the National Academy of Sciences’

1998 report, the study panel recommended that both the male and female

body fat standards be based on scientific texts indicating that the average

body fat of physically fit young men was 20 percent and about 30 percent

for fit young women, including a 5-percent margin for statistical error.

DOD’s guidance incorporated the 20-percent goal for men but lowered the

female goal to 26 percent. According to the Academy’s report, DOD

decreased the female goal “in the belief that it was desirable to recruit

women whose body fat was closer to that of the average man, as such

women, possessing a higher than average proportion of fat free mass,

might also be more similar to men in strength and endurance.”

DOD’s original body fat standards were in effect until 1995, when they were

changed to the current level of 18 to 26 percent for men and 26 to

36 percent for women. DOD officials had no documentation of the rationale

for the change. However, service officials told us that the change was

based simply on the desire to cover the full range of standards in effect in

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

the services at the time and that no scientific research was conducted.

Similarly, the weights listed in DOD’s screening tables for body fat (see

table 2.3) are based on the National Institutes of Health 1985 definition of

obesity, or 120 percent of certain weights-for-height identified in actuarial

tables produced by the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in 1983.

However, we could find little agreement between DOD’s tables and the

Metropolitan Life tables they are supposed to match.

Until September 1998, Navy regulations based male and female body fat

standards on different rationales. The male standard is based on the 1985

National Institutes of Health definition of obesity. Navy scientists

converted the 1983 Metropolitan Life weight-for-height values into mean

body fat percentages of about 22 percent for males and 33 percent for

females, and recommended these percentages be adopted as maximum

Navy body fat standards. The recommendation for males was adopted

without change. However, according to discussions with Navy officials,

command concerns about appearance resulted in lowering the female

standard to 30 percent. The Navy revised its regulations in September 1998

to raise the female standard back to the 33 percent originally

recommended.

Marine Corps officials could not document a clear, scientific basis for

either its male or female standards. However, based on our discussions

with Marine Corps officials and review of regulations, the Marine Corps

body fat standards appear to be based on command judgments regarding

fitness and appearance, rather than health based actuarial studies or other

scientific bases, although some limited research appears to have been

considered. For example, Marine Corps regulations5

 state that, more than

any other service, the Marine Corps relies on the maximum fitness of its

personnel. As a result, according to the regulation, the maximum

allowable percentage of body fat for male Marines was set at 18 percent.

This equates to just below the midpoint of the interval between the

10-percent body fat level said by the regulation to be exhibited by

marathon runners and the 30-percent level said by the regulation to

represent gross obesity. Similarly, the regulation sets the female standard

at 26 percent, or about 80 percent of the way up the interval between the

11-percent body fat level said by the regulation to be exhibited by average

gymnasts and the 30-percent level said by the regulation to represent gross

obesity in women.

5

Marine Corps Order 6100.10B, March 26, 1993.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

The Army’s current body fat standards of 20 to 26 percent for men and 30

to 36 percent for women, according to research cited in the 1998 National

Academy of Sciences report and our discussions with Army officials, are

based on different rationales. The 20-percent male minimum is based on

Army data on young male soldiers dating back to the 1980s. The 26-percent

male maximum was a result of increasing the 20-percent minimum figure

by 2 percentage points roughly for every 10 years of age to accommodate

increases associated with aging. The Army’s current female standards

were established in 1991. Prior to that year, the female standards were 28

to 34 percent, which Army officials told us were determined simply by

adding 8 percentage points to the male minimum for each age category.

The female standard was also viewed as unfairly restrictive compared with

the men’s standard. For example, an Army study found that the standard

provided young women only a 1-to-3 percentage point margin over the

mean body fat for young female recruits, while the men’s standard

provided a 4-to-6 percentage point margin over the mean for young male

recruits. In 1991, the women’s standard was increased by 2 percentage

points for each age grouping, raising it to the current level of 30 to

36 percent.

Air Force officials could not determine the basis for their body fat

standards. Consequently, they were also unable to tell us the basis for

adjustments to the standards for gender.

Procedures for

Determining Body Fat

May Not Accurately

Account for 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 entered into

gender-specific equations developed by each service to estimate the

percentage of body fat. These equations were developed through analysis

of population samples for relationships between measures of various body

sites and the percentage of body fat, as validated against underwater

weighing techniques.

Researchers found, however, that this approach yields consistent results

across the services for men, but not women. According to service

researchers, men have basically one body type, whereas women have a

variety of body types. The female body fat equations do not adjust well for

the variety of female body types and thus do not consistently provide

accurate predictions of the percentage of body fat. The three different

body fat equations used by the services can result in different percentages

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

of body fat when applied to the same woman. For example, a test we

conducted found that the estimates for percentage of body fat for the same

woman was 42 percent using the Army equation, 29 percent using the Navy

and Air Force equations, and 27 percent using the Marine equation. The

use of different equations producing such wide variation in estimates can

result not only in inequities, but also in outcomes that are inconsistent

with the intended objective. For example, even though the Marine Corps

set its body fat standards at the most stringent level of any service, the

equation it uses resulted in the lowest estimate of body fat of all the

services.

Researchers also report that the populations of active-duty soldiers used

to validate the equations have, over time, become less representative of

the ethnic and age diversity of the current military population. The Army’s

female equation, for example, was validated largely on a Caucasian

population because of problems in underwater weighing of African

American and Hispanic subjects, many of whom withdrew from the testing

because they could not swim. According to the National Academy of

Sciences’ 1998 report, because the percentage of female and

non-Caucasian soldiers is increasing, and the average age of female

soldiers is also increasing, the subject population used to develop and

validate the equations is becoming increasingly less representative. Table

3.1 shows the ethnicity of U.S. servicemembers as of the end of fiscal year

1997.

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

Percentages

Ethnicity

Army

Men

Army

Women

Air Force

Men

Air Force

Women

Navy

Men

Navy

Women

Marine

Corps

Men

Marine

Corps

Women

White 59.6 40.5 75.9 64.7 66.1 54.6 67.9 57.2

Black 26.7 46.8 15.6 25.5 18.0 30.5 16.3 24.6

Hispanic 7.2 6.0 4.7 5.1 8.4 9.4 11.5 12.7

Other 6.5 6.7 3.7 4.7 7.5 5.5 4.2 5.6

Note: Column totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Source: DOD.

The National Academy of Sciences’ 1998 report also concluded that the

service equations are outdated because they fail to adjust for heavier bone

densities in minorities. In the past, all services compared the results of

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

their body fat equations with underwater weighing methods as a reference

to check for accuracy and standardization. These techniques were based

on so-called two-compartment models, which partition body weight into

two basic components: fat and fat free mass (defined as the difference

between body weight and fat mass). However, two-compartment models

do not account for racial differences in bone density, thus potentially

overstating the weight of minorities. In contrast, newer four-compartment

models measure bone mass, total body water, body weight, and body

volume, in part based on underwater weighing techniques. The Academy’s

report concluded that agreement now exists that four compartment

models have been developed over the past decade that are superior to the

earlier two-compartment models. The Marine Corps was the first to base

its equations on the newer four compartment models, beginning in

October 1997. Navy researchers are currently developing equations based

on four-compartment models for the remaining services.

Policy Requiring

Testing at All Ages

Not Followed

DOD guidance states that all servicemembers regardless of age will be

tested for cardiovascular and muscular endurance. However, the Navy has

exempted personnel age 50 and older, and the Marine Corps personnel age

46 and older, from such testing for years due to concerns about retaining

senior leaders. In contrast, members of the Army and the Air Force are

tested throughout their careers, in accordance with DOD policy. These

inconsistencies can create significant inequities. For example, a

50-year-old, 70-inch tall Army male needed to weigh 192 pounds and

complete sit-ups, push-ups, and a 2-mile run within specified timeframes to

stay in that service. However, until recently, a Marine Corps male of the

same age and height would have had to maintain a similar weight, but

would not have to pass any cardiovascular endurance or strength tests to

remain in the Marine Corps. The Marine Corps recognized that its fitness

testing policy did not comply with DOD guidance and therefore changed the

policy in July 1998, requiring that Marines of all ages pass tests in distance

running, sit-ups, pull-ups, and the flexed arm hang. Navy officials believed

that their fitness testing policy would also be changed, pending the results

of an ongoing review.

There is also disagreement over whether to relax body fat standards as

servicemembers age. All services relaxed their cardiovascular and

muscular endurance standards as service personnel age. However, the

Navy and the Marine Corps did not carry this policy over to body fat

standards. Older members of those services must meet the same body fat

standards as the youngest members of their respective services. In

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

contrast, the Army allows a 6-percentage point increase, and the Air Force

a 4-percent increase, as their men and women age. This difference can be

significant. For example, a 20-year-old female weighing 130 pounds would

be allowed to gain about 8 pounds of fat by the age of 40 in the Army,

while in the Navy and the Marine Corps no increase would be allowed. For

a 20-year-old male weighing 200 pounds the difference would amount to

about 12 pounds. DOD guidance allows relaxation of the cardiovascular and

muscular endurance standards with age, but do not address this issue in

the case of body fat standards.

Army officials argued that it is realistic to reduce body fat standards as

personnel age, but Navy officials argued that relaxing the standards

implies that health is less important as men and women age. Researchers

acknowledge that weight becomes progressively more difficult to maintain

with age. There is a gradual loss of muscle mass as one ages, which may

be replaced with fat over time. Nonetheless, consistent with a focus on

good health, neither the 1998 National Academy of Sciences report nor the

1995 federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans found justification for

allowing an increase in body weight with age.

Recommendations While some flexibility and discretion should be available to the services in

setting their physical fitness policies, all of the services should follow clear

and consistent policies and adjustments for age and gender should be

scientifically based. Therefore, we recommend that the Secretary of

Defense revise the physical fitness guidance to

• establish clear DOD-wide policy for age- and gender-based adjustments to

general fitness and body fat standards, requiring all services to derive them

scientifically, clearly document the basis used, and submit exceptions for

approval and

• establish a DOD-wide approach, based on current scientific research, to

estimating body fat percentages.

We also recommend that the Secretary of Defense take steps to ensure

that the services adhere to the policy requiring physical fitness testing of

all servicemembers, regardless of age.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD agreed with our recommendations. It said that it was already

analyzing revisions to the standards: that considerations of age and gender

will be required to be scientifically derived, with any exceptions to the

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 3 

Inconsistent and Sometimes Arbitrary

Standards Create Potential Gender and Age

Inequities

policy submitted to the Secretary for approval; and that the services will

be required to provide a statement in the annual fitness report that they

are testing all military members, regardless of age. DOD also said that it has

been working toward establishing a single approach to body fat

measurement and that a change to establish a DOD-wide approach to

estimating body fat will be included in the revised fitness and body fat

policy to be completed by the end of 1999.

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the Physical Fitness

Program Is Inadequate

Physical fitness oversight problems have persisted in DOD without

resolution for a considerable period of time. Moreover, DOD has not

enforced the annual reporting requirement or identified a common set of

statistics needed to assess fitness. Consequently, it is unable to assess the

effectiveness of the program. Comparisons of limited data we were able to

obtain raised questions about program effectiveness. Failure rates among

the services appear to be markedly different, with women failing at

significantly higher rates than men. In addition, concern about the fitness

of recruits and younger servicemembers is increasing.

Problems Have

Persisted for Years

Problems, such as confusion over multiple fitness program objectives and

failure to enforce key policy requirements, have persisted since at least the

early 1980s. For example, Army research1

 traces confusion between health

and military performance objectives to the 1981 DOD Study of the Military

Services Physical Fitness. This study acknowledged the benefits of

designing programs with a health objective, but concluded that the goal of

military physical fitness programs should be to make military personnel as

fit for combat as possible. DOD’s 1981 Physical Fitness and Weight Control

directive stated that physical fitness is essential to the general health of

military personnel and that primary emphasis should be placed on

programs that maintain physical fitness. However, the guidance also stated

that ideally, physical training should be designed to develop physical skills

needed in combat. Similarly, DOD’s requirement that all personnel,

regardless of age, be tested for physical fitness is clearly spelled out in

DOD’s 1981 directive, and DOD’s 1981 report on fitness in the military notes

that the Navy and the Marine Corps were already exempting older

personnel from fitness testing at that time. The requirements for each

service to evaluate both cardiovascular and muscular endurance and

provide annual reports that assess the program can be traced back at least

to the 1995 version of the fitness guidance. However, the Air Force had

stopped testing for muscular endurance by the early 1980s, and at the time

of our fieldwork, none of the services had ever provided the required

annual program reports.

Officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force

Management Policy said that they were aware of the problems with the

physical fitness and body fat instructions and directives as well as

noncompliance with DOD policies. According to these officials, a joint

service working group has been examining these problems since the

summer of 1996. However, the officials cited two factors delaying

1

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

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the Physical Fitness

Program Is Inadequate

corrective action. First, there was little consensus among the working

group on the usefulness of existing research for resolving DOD fitness

policy issues. As a result, it was deemed prudent to wait until the National

Academy of Sciences completed its study on body fat policies before

revising DOD policy. Second, the office that monitors the services’ fitness

programs has multiple responsibilities and frequent personnel turnover,

and has no resident technical expert in exercise physiology, all of which

limit the office’s capability to quickly resolve such complex issues.

Similar problems, however, were identified in DOD’s 1981 report on fitness

programs. For example, the report found that, compared with other

programs, physical fitness received little emphasis or resource

commitment in DOD, and there was a lack of fitness-related research and

qualified professional leadership and personnel with professional degrees

in physical fitness. The report provided a number of recommendations to

improve DOD management of physical fitness, including one for the Office

of the Secretary of Defense to establish a DOD Committee for Physical

Fitness to provide coordinated and continuing review and evaluation of

the services’ physical fitness programs and research. In 1985, DOD

established a Joint Committee on Fitness to establish internal operating

objectives for service fitness programs and function as a focal point for the

exchange of policy, program, and research information. However,

according to DOD officials, this committee stopped meeting and has been

inactive for some time. These officials were unsure of the specific time or

reasons the Committee stopped meeting.

DOD officials told us that action to correct some of these problems has

begun. For example, according to DOD, initial agreement has been reached

to continue to study implementing one body fat equation for men and one

for women across all services. Additional recommendations contained in

the National Academy of Sciences’ report are still being reviewed, but

drafting of policy revisions is planned for the fall of 1998. DOD officials also

acknowledged that enforcement of the annual reporting requirement could

have provided a useful monitoring mechanism. After our discussions, the

Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense informed the services by

memorandum dated March 24, 1998, that they would now be required to

provide the annual reports. By September 1998, all of the services had

provided the initial reports. DOD and service officials also noted that the

DOD fitness program could benefit from the reestablishment of a joint

fitness committee at the Secretary of Defense level to help steer and

accept policy recommendations.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the Physical Fitness

Program Is Inadequate

DOD Cannot

Determine Overall

Fitness of Military

Personnel

DOD has not defined the basic information needed to monitor the fitness of

military service personnel. For example, information, such as the number

of annual failures and the characteristics of those who fail, the results of

remedial programs, and the number and characteristics of those who are

separated each year for failure to meet fitness standards, are key to

understanding the program. However, the services could not consistently

provide this information. Similarly, the 1981 DOD report on fitness in the

military also reported that the services could not accurately assess the

fitness of their personnel and called for systems to be established to

monitor and measure program effectiveness.

DOD and the services maintain a variety of statistics to describe various

aspects of the physical fitness programs. However, this information is

difficult to compare across services and time periods to provide

meaningful conclusions about the level of fitness in the military.

Differences in comprehensiveness, in the way in which data is aggregated,

or other problems create comparison problems. For example, according to

officials, the Army does not maintain a servicewide data base on physical

fitness test results. The responsibility for maintaining this information is

decentralized to the unit level. Further, Navy officials told us that they do

not separate their data by gender, so comparisons of male and female

performance against the standards are not available. Other problems

included unreliable information due to unit underreporting, results not

separated to identify other key characteristics such as rank, or data on

recent years not available due to system changes. As a result of these

problems, we were unable to determine and compare fitness and body fat

failure rates over time, separation rates due to repeated failures of the

fitness standards, and other such key information.

According to service officials, most fitness-related separations result from

failure to achieve the body fat standards. For example, as shown in 

table 4.1, an average of about 4,600 enlisted personnel were separated

during 1996 and 1997 for failing body fat standards. Data on officers was

not consistently available. The number of personnel separated due to

failures of the cardiovascular and muscular endurance standards was

generally not available, but service officials believed that the number was

relatively small.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the Physical Fitness

Program Is Inadequate

Table 4.1: DOD Separations of Enlisted

Personnel for Failure to Meet Body Fat

Standards, 1996-97

Service 1996 1997

Army 2,123 1,945

Navy 1,956 1,692

Air Force 511 601

Marine Corps 204 209

Total 4,794 4,447

Source: Military service records.

Although available data cannot be directly compared across services, our

comparisons of limited available data raised questions about the

effectiveness of the fitness programs. For example, data provided to us by

the services indicates that failure rates in cardiovascular and muscular

endurance tests are markedly different. A 1995 study by the Army Physical

Fitness School found overall officer and enlisted failure rates at

12.5 percent. In comparison, failure rates in the Air Force totaled about

4.6 percent during 1997 and failure rates in the Marine Corps totaled about

1 percent, based on 1997 data. The reason for the large differences is

unclear. For example, the Marine Corps appears to have the most difficult

standards, but its failure rate appears to be the lowest. Available data on

body fat failures showed somewhat less pronounced differences. For

example, during 1997 nearly 5 percent of Army officers and enlisted

personnel had their personnel records flagged for being overweight. In

contrast, as of March 1998, about 2 percent of Air Force personnel were in

weight management programs.

Service data also indicated that women consistently fail the fitness

standards at slightly higher rates than men. For example, the data cited

above indicates that Army women failed the cardiovascular and muscular

endurance standards at a 13-percent rate in 1995, while men failed at an

11-percent rate. Air Force data indicates that in 1997, women in that

service failed in 9 percent of the cases, while men failed in 4 percent.

Based on 1997 data, Marine women failed at a rate of 1.1 percent, while

male Marines failed at a rate of 0.8 percent. Available data on the results of

the body fat test was consistent with this trend. For example, Army data

for 1997 showed that female Army personnel failed in about 6 percent of

the cases, while Army men failed in about 5 percent of the cases. As of

March 1998, about 4 percent of Air Force women were in weight

management programs versus 2 percent of men.

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the Physical Fitness

Program Is Inadequate

Officials also raised concerns about the lack of fitness of recruits and

younger servicemembers in recent years. For example, the fitness of

career soldiers was viewed as satisfactory, but the 1995 Army Physical

Fitness School study found that 32 percent of women and 27 percent of

men aged 17 to 21 failed the fitness test. By 1997, according to Army

Physical Fitness School officials, a similar study found the failure rate was

55 percent of women and 38 percent of the men. Similarly, data provided

by the Marine Corps showed that physical fitness test scores for incoming

male and female recruits at one location were between 10 and

7 percentage points, respectively, lower in 1996 than in 1992. Officials in

both services believed the trends were due to the increasing lack of fitness

in our society. In the early 1960s, national health surveys found that about

24 percent of Americans ages 20 to 74 were overweight. However,

according to a recent report by the National Institutes of Health, about

55 percent of the U.S. population is now considered overweight or obese.

The reasons for the increase are unclear. Some have pointed to an

increasingly sedentary lifestyle, with more focus on computers and

electronic games, and less time spent exercising or playing sports. Others

have pointed to social or cultural changes. Officials in both the Army and

the Marine Corps, however, believe that training was able to improve the

fitness of these personnel as they progressed through military life.

Officials in the Navy and the Air Force were unsure whether the same

problem was occurring in their services.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Defense revise the physical fitness

guidance to

• establish a mechanism for providing policy and research coordination of

the military services’ physical fitness and body fat programs and

• define the statistical information needed to monitor fitness trends and

ensure program effectiveness, and require that this information be

maintained by all services and provided in the currently required annual

reports.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

DOD agreed with each recommendation. It said that the joint services

working group provides the nucleus of a body of experts that can advise

DOD policymakers on research and policy issues and that it is currently

studying the best way to formalize the mechanism we called for. This

mechanism, as well as the statistical information needed to monitor

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Chapter 4 

DOD Oversight of the Physical Fitness

Program Is Inadequate

program trends and effectiveness, is to be included in the upcoming

revision to DOD fitness policy.

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

See p. 9.

See pp. 2, 9.

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 8, 24.

Now on pp. 8, 35.

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 8, 35.

Now on pp. 8, 41.

Now on pp. 8, 41.

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on pp. 8, 24.

Now on pp. 8, 35.

Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 Gender Issues
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Carol Schuster

William Beusse

Carole Coffey

Atlanta Field Office John Nelson

Katherine Chenault

Karen Thompson

(703256) Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-99-9 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