Report of Inquiry (S8918P)

Independent Racial Disparity Review

December 2020

The Inspector General

Department of 

the Air Force
i

This page intentionally blank 
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

I. Introduction 1

Methodology 1

Highlights 3

II. Magnitude of the Problem 6

Military Justice and Discipline Data 6

Opportunities Data 34

Air Force Instruction (AFI) Review 88

The Voice of the Airmen and Space Professionals 89

III. History: What we’ve known, what we’ve done, what has worked, what has not? 117

IV. Understanding the Magnitude 130

V. Summary and Recommendations 131

VI. Acknowledgments 133

Table of Figures 134

List of Exhibits 136

Appendix A: DAF-Directed ACTION Plans A1

Appendix B: Future Analysis B1
1

REPORT OF INQUIRY (Case S8918P)

CONCERNING

INDEPENDENT RACIAL DISPARITY REVIEW

PREPARED BY

THE SAF/IGS IRDR TEAM

December 2020

I. INTRODUCTION

The Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF), Chief of Staff of the Air Force (CSAF), and 

Chief of Space Operations (CSO) directed the Department of the Air Force Inspector General 

(DAF IG) to assess racial disparity in military discipline processes and personnel development 

and career opportunity as they pertain to black Airmen and Space Professionals. For purposes of 

this review, “racial disparity” refers to a noted data difference between races. Specifically, this 

Review defines racial disparity as existing when the proportion of a racial/ethnic group within a 

subset of the population is different from the proportion of such groups in the general population. 

While the presence of a disparity alone is not evidence of racism,1 discrimination, or disparate 

treatment, it presents a concern that requires more in depth analysis.

2 Guided by the disparities 

identified and concerns raised in this report, the root cause analyses and systemic action plan

phase will follow as outlined in the “Highlights” section below. 

The DAF recognizes other disparities across a range of minority groups are equally 

deserving of such a review. However, this Review was intentionally surgically-focused on 

discipline and opportunity regarding black service members to permit a timely yet thorough 

review that should lead to systemic and lasting change, as appropriate. Nonetheless, lessons 

learned and insights gained from this Review should benefit broader minority initiatives.

It is worth noting this Review and resulting actions are a subset of, and will feed into, 

broader and more comprehensive Department of Defense and Department of the Air Force 

Diversity & Inclusion initiatives directed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the 

Air Force.

METHODOLOGY

It is important for the reader to understand the scoping and methodology of this Review. 

A key element of the effort was timeliness, which in turn required a careful focus to ensure 

 1 Racism--1: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences 

produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; 2: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, 

economic, and political advantage of another. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, https://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/racism. Accessed 9 Nov, 2020.

2 Importantly, this Review was not chartered to determine whether or not racial bias or discrimination is present. 

Such an examination would require considerable social sciences expertise, a broader look at American society in 

general, and was outside the defined scope.
2

thoroughness without delaying the report. The initial goal was to complete the Review in 120 

days. Root cause analyses of the disparities found during the Review were not conducted as that 

would have taken considerably more time. The intent was that root cause analyses would follow 

completion of the DAF IG report, as necessary.

Most crucially, this Review was designed to not only analyze existing information, but 

also to hear directly from our Airmen and Space Professionals through five lines of effort: (a) 

anonymous surveys, (b) written feedback to DAF IG, (c) feedback through the DAF IG 

telephone and email hotline, (d) individual interviews of senior leaders, subject matter experts 

(SMEs), and service members, and (e) in-person group discussions with Airmen and Space 

Professionals across all MAJCOMs and the USSF.

While the Review team fully appreciates limitations of surveys, this tool was deliberately 

chosen and included to capture the voice of our Airmen and Space Professionals. The response 

we received was strong and the substance was detailed. Over 123,000 members of the DAF 

chose to share their views through the survey in just a two week period. Another 1300 plus 

Airmen and Space Professionals offered their inputs in small-group discussions with DAF IG. 

Our service members and civilians also provided their experiences and thoughts in the form of 

more than 27,000 single-spaced pages of free text comments. The voice of our Airmen and 

Space Professionals was an important element of this Review and its intended purpose to ensure 

commanders at all levels heard the perspectives and concerns of all our DAF members.

Key themes from the surveys, individual feedback from Airmen and Space Professionals, 

and interviews were further explored in 138 in-person group discussions with members from 

across all MAJCOMs and the USSF as well as meetings with wing commanders, vice 

commanders, command chiefs, Staff Judge Advocates, and Area Defense Counsels across 20 

installations. Importantly, the Review found that all feedback conduits consistently reinforced 

common themes, providing confidence in the overall findings. 

Next, the Review assessed the feedback received as it related to Air Force demographic 

data in the areas of military discipline as well as career development and opportunities. 

Specifically, this Review included an examination of the DAF military justice data dating back 

to 2012; an examination of career development and opportunity data involving civilian, enlisted, 

and officer ranks; a review of all pertinent 36-series (personnel) and 51-series (legal) Air Force 

Instructions and related publications; a re-examination of 23 past studies and reports involving 

race and demographics in the military; and an examination of other information and data culled 

from thousands of Airmen, Space Professionals, and civilian employees, DAF and third-party 

subject matter experts, retired senior military officers, and Air Force MAJCOM as well as Space 

Force representatives. 

Finally, please note that the identification of racial disparity does not automatically mean 

racial bias or racism is present. This Review focused on the existence of racial disparity, but it 

did not specifically assess racial bias or individual acts of racism within the DAF, which may 

cumulatively contribute to racial disparity overall. Thousands of black service members and 

civilians reported experiencing issues ranging from bias to outright racial discrimination. These
3

experiences indicate bias and isolated individual acts of racism may contribute to the racial 

disparities identified in this report.

HIGHLIGHTS

This Independent Review confirmed racial disparity exists for black service members in 

the following areas: law enforcement apprehensions, criminal investigations, military justice, 

administrative separations, placement into occupational career fields, certain promotion rates, 

professional military educational development, and leadership opportunities. While the data 

show racial disparity, it does not indicate causality. Data alone do not address why racial 

disparity exists in these areas. Examples of disparities identified include:

Military Justice and Discipline – enlisted black service members were 72% more likely 

than enlisted white service members to receive Uniform Code of Military Justice 

(UCMJ), Article 15, commanding officer’s non-judicial punishment (NJP), and 57% 

more likely than white service members to face courts-martial. 

Administrative Disciplinary Actions and Discharges – young black enlisted members are 

almost twice as likely as white enlisted members to be involuntarily discharged based on 

misconduct. 

Investigations – black service members are 1.64 times more likely to be suspects in 

Office of Special Investigations (OSI) criminal cases, and twice as likely to be 

apprehended by Security Forces. Based on limited data, black service members are 

investigated and substantiated for Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) sexual harassment 

cases at a higher rate than white members. No racial disparity was identified in IG 

reprisal and restriction investigations, and the DAF does not maintain demographic data

on Commander Directed Investigations. 

Accessions – enlisted black service members are overrepresented3 in accessions when 

compared to their proportion of the eligible U.S. population. Black service members are 

underrepresented4 in operational career fields and overrepresented in support career 

fields, which may affect their promotion opportunities.

Professional Military Education (PME) – since 2015, black officers have been 

overrepresented in PME nominations but underrepresented in designations to attend. The 

gap between nomination percentages and designation percentages is larger in Senior 

Developmental Education (SDE) than Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE). 

Enlisted PME are all “must attend” courses based on rank and promotion date.

Promotions – black service members are underrepresented in promotions to E5-E7 and 

O4-O6. Additionally, black officers are underrepresented in Definitely Promote (DP) 

 3 Overrepresentation is defined as including a disproportionately large number of (a particular category or type of 

person), as in a statistical study. 4 Underrepresentation is defined as including a disproportionately small number of (a particular category or type of 

person), as in a statistical study.
4

allocations for O5 and O6. Black, permanent, full-time civilians are underrepresented in 

GS-13 through Senior Executive Service (SES) grades. 

Retention – across the enlisted population, the data revealed no consistent disparity in 

retention rates by race. Within the officer population, the data revealed black officers 

were slightly overrepresented in separations at 5-15 years of service and 

underrepresented in separations at 16-20 years of service. 

AFI Review – no inherent, systemic, or procedural biases were found in the twenty 36-

series (personnel) guidance documents or the 51-series (legal) publications pertaining to 

discipline. Edits to enhance clarity were recommended.

The Voice of the Airmen and Space Professionals – black service members voiced a 

consistent lack of confidence in DAF discipline processes and developmental 

opportunities compared to their white peers. For example, of the 123,000+ DAF IG 

Survey respondents:

• 2 out of every 5 black enlisted, civilians, and officers do not trust their chain of 

command to address racism, bias, and unequal opportunities

• 1 out of every 3 black service members said they believe the military discipline 

system is biased against them

• 3 out of every 5 black service members believe they do not and will not receive the 

same benefit of the doubt as their white peers if they get in trouble

• 1 out of every 3 black officers do not believe the Air Force and Space Force 

provide them the same opportunities to advance as their white peers, and 

• 2 out of every 5 black civilians have seen racial bias in the services’ promotion 

system

History – What we’ve known, what we’ve done, what has worked, what has not? – The 

Review Team examined 23 previous reports and studies related to diversity and racial 

disparities dating back to 1973. The findings of these studies and associated proposed 

recommendations often did not identify root causes, often did not compel follow-through, 

often lacked mechanisms to measure effectiveness over time, and broadly lacked 

accountability for progress. 

This report is designed to address racial disparities as noted across the “life of an Airman

or Space Professional.” First, the report examines military justice processes and development 

and opportunities afforded to Airmen and Space Professionals. Second, the report reviews all 

DAF policies and guidance related to military discipline and personnel development matters. 

Next, is a compelling discussion of the insightful input and substance received in over 27,000 

pages of feedback, 123,000 surveys, and 138 sessions with members across the DAF. Finally, 

the report takes an historical look at the wide array of past investigations, inquiries, and reviews 

on the same or similar issues and provides an assessment of the results of those efforts.
5

Due to the complex nature of the issues addressed herein and their wide-ranging impact on 

the force, this report provides broad recommendations. SecAF, CSAF, and CSO tasked key 

stakeholders in the DAF to thoroughly review this report, conduct a root cause analysis for the 

disparity areas within their responsibility, and develop substantive recommendations and plans 

that will systemically address the highlighted issues. DAF Stakeholder’s initial assessment/ 

action plans are summarized in Appendix A of this report. We recommend DAF stakeholders 

begin root cause analysis and provide updated action plans, as appropriate, to SecAF, CSAF, and 

CSO within 60 days. Once approved, we recommend any updated initial action plans be publicly 

released to all Airmen and Space Professionals. DAF IG will conduct and publicly release a 

“progress report” six months after this report’s publication, followed by full reviews 

annually. The progress report and subsequent annual reviews will assess the stakeholders’ root 

cause analyses, the development of substantive recommendations to address the highlighted 

issues, and most importantly, the effectiveness of any changes.

The 60-day updates to SecAF, CSAF, and CSO must, as a minimum, specifically address 

the issues listed below which are identified in this report, as well as propose appropriate action

plans, as warranted:

Military Discipline Processes

• The racial disparity in military justice actions, including Article 15s and courts-martial 

(p. 6-15)

• The disparity in marijuana use among our youngest enlisted members as evidenced by the 

random drug testing program (p. 10-15)

• The racial disparity in administrative discipline as evidenced by administrative discharges 

as well as substantive feedback from a large number of Airmen and Space Professionals 

(p. 16-20)

• The racial disparity in Security Forces (SF) apprehensions (p. 27-30)

• The racial disparity in substantiated Military Equality Opportunity (MEO) sexual 

harassment complaints (p. 32-34)

Personnel Development & Career Opportunities

• The disparity in Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs), especially as it relates to operational 

versus support career fields (p. 34-45)

• The disparity in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) accession and graduation rates by 

race, gender, and ethnicity (p. 40-42)

• The disparity in the officer IDE and SDE process, given that analysis shows black 

officers are being nominated for PME at higher than the overall nomination rate but 

designated to attend at a lower rate (p. 52-57)

• The disparity in the civilian Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) and Senior 

Developmental Education (SDE) selection process given black civilians are identified to 

meet the Civilian Developmental Education Board (CDEB) at a consistently lower rate 

than white civilians (p. 57-59)

• The racial disparities in promotions to E5-E7 and O4-O6 (p. 59-74) 

• The racial disparities in civilian leadership representation from GS-13 to SES (p. 75-78)
6

• The lack of thorough Barrier Analysis among some Developmental Teams5 (p. 79-86)

• The racial disparity in wing command and equivalent positions (p. 84-86)

Other Department-wide Concerns

• The lack of satisfaction service members expressed regarding IG and EO, with special 

emphasis on the process of referring cases back to the chain of command (p. 106-107)

• The lack of trust black DAF members expressed in their chain of command to address 

racism, bias, and unequal opportunities (p.91, 104-116)

• The sentiment expressed by a majority of black DAF members that they are not given the 

benefit of the doubt by their chain of command (p. 99, 104-116)

II. MAGNITUDE OF THE PROBLEM

MILITARY JUSTICE AND DISCIPLINE DATA

Measured in Rates Per Thousand (RPT), black Airmen are more likely to face 

formal disciplinary action than their white peers. Specifically, black service members were 

74% more likely to receive Article 15s and 60% more likely to face courts-martial than 

white service members. The primary offenses where the difference could be seen were: 

willful dereliction, failure to go to/leaving from appointed place of duty, making a false

official statement, and drug-related offenses. Data alone cannot provide insight on the 

cause of the racial disparity in Air Force discipline, and further analysis is required.

RATE PER THOUSAND (RPT) DATA

The percentage of personnel facing courts-martial or Article 15 (NJP) represents a small 

fraction of the total service population, 2.39% from 2012 to 2016. However, a close examination 

of demographics based on RPT methodology shows a persistent disparity between white and 

black service members. For example, the 2017 to 2019 RPT data show racial disparity in courtsmartial and Article 15s, with substantial gaps between black and white Active Duty enlisted 

members in the ranks of E1-E4. Since 2017, the number of courts-martial and Article 15s has

decreased overall; however, the RPT gap between white and black service members in the ranks 

has increased. 

 5 AFI 36-205, Affirmative Employment Program (AEP), Special Emphasis Programs (SEPS) and Reasonable 

Accommodation Policy, dated 15 Dec 16, defines barrier analysis as “an investigation of anomalies found in 

workplace policies, procedures, and practices that limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members of 

any race or national origin, either sex, or based on an individual’s disability status. Barrier analysis identifies the 

root causes of those anomalies, and if necessary, eliminates them.” (Ex 62) A barrier analysis includes the following 

steps: identify triggers (trends, disparities, or anomalies), explore root causes of triggers, develop an action plan, 

implement the action plan, and assess the action plan result. A detailed explanation of the barrier analysis process 

may be found in AFI 36-205 and EEOC MD-175. (Ex 62; Ex 63)
7

Fig 1: Enlisted Courts-Martial and Article 15s (FY12-FY16 and FY17-FY19)

Due to the small number of Article 15s and courts-martial involving officers, the overall 

data did not change much when including officer information. Further analysis of the officer 

data separate from the enlisted numbers revealed a similar racial disparity in officer NJP. Note: 

both the enlisted and officer data highlight the importance of continuing efforts like this Review 

to examine disparities between other races and groups.

Fig 2: Officer Courts-Martial and Article 15s (FY12-16 and FY17-19)

The RPT data demonstrate disparity in the proportional number of military justice cases 

by race, but it does not indicate the root cause of the disparity. Evidence indicates factors other 

than race impact the RPT disparity. For example, data indicates socio-economic factors may 

contribute to the disparity. While further study is required, AF/A1 data indicates a link between 

Enlisted Rank

Benchmark: Active Duty Enlisted Rank Population

Data Source: Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS)

Rates Per Thousand

Rates Per Thousand in Enlisted Courts Martial and Article 15s (FY12-FY16)

Black or African American Other White

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9

Enlisted Rank

Benchmark: Active Duty Enlisted Rank Population

Data Source: Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS)

Rates Per Thousand

Rates Per Thousand in Enlisted Courts Martial and Article 15s (FY17-FY19)

Black or African American Other White

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

120.0

E1 E2 E3 E4 E5 E6 E7 E8 E9

Officer Rank

Benchmark: Active Duty Officer Rank Population

Data Source: Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS)

Rates Per Thousand

Rates Per Thousand in Officer Courts Martial and Article 15s (FY12-FY16)

Black or African American Other White

0.0

5.0

10.0

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6

Officer Rank

Benchmark: Active Duty Officer Rank Population

Data Source: Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System (AMJAMS)

Rates Per Thousand

Rates Per Thousand in Officer Courts Martial and Article 15s (FY17-FY19)

Black or African American Other White

0.0

5.0

10.0

O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6
8

the quality of education prior to joining the service and behavior while in the military. Objective 

investigation data from OSI and Security Forces indicate some of the disparity in NJP results 

from a disparity in behavior rather than race. Accessions data show that members who joined 

the service with moral waivers are more likely to receive military discipline during their time in 

service. (Ex 56:10) Finally, the disparity in population numbers between demographic groups

disproportionally impacts the RPT data. Because there are fewer black service members than 

white service members (ratio of about 1:5 overall and 1:13 for officers), even one additional 

individual disciplinary action will have a far greater impact on the RPT for black service 

members. 

To accurately assess and better understand the magnitude of racial disparity in military

discipline, DAF IG examined additional quantitative data: 

Racial Disparity in Military Justice (Further Data Analysis)

Racial disparities in military justice actions against black service members is a complex 

issue that has been reviewed in-depth by the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps 

(AFJAG). A 20-year analysis of Air Force NJP data and courts-martial revealed the following:

• For every single year between 1999 and 2019, black Airmen were more likely to 

receive NJP than white service members, in terms of RPT. Black service members 

were 1.74 times more likely than white service members to receive NJP and 1.60 

times more likely than white service members to be court-martialed.

• For every single year, black service members were more likely to face courtsmartial than white service members. Black service members were court-martialed 

at an average RPT of 3.39, compared with white service members at an average 

RPT of 2.12. This data reveals that black Airmen were 60% more likely to face 

court-martial than white service members. 

In 2016, an AFJAG analysis revealed the racial disparity in NJP for black service 

members primarily involved two offenses: marijuana use/possession and absent without leave 

(AWOL) – which includes reporting late, leaving early, or generally being absent from unit, 

organization, or place of duty without authorization. An AFJAG-led review of data from the Air 

Force Automated Military Justice and Analysis Management System (AMJAMS) from 2006-

2016 showed black service members receive NJP at a much higher rate for wrongful use,

possession, etc., of controlled substances (Article 112a, UCMJ). Specifically, black service 

members received NJP for Article 112a offenses at a rate of approximately 2.6 to 1 (average 

RPT of 2.72 for black service members compared to 1.03 for white service members) for all 

controlled substances; and approximately 3.9 to 1 (average RPT of 2.15 for black service 

members compared to 0.55 for white service members) for use or possession of marijuana. 

This Review’s analysis of AMJAMS data confirmed the disparity AFJAG identified. 

Our data review provided further details focused on total specifications (or allegations of 

misconduct under the UCMJ) and enlisted members from FY12 to FY19. 
9

Fig 3: Total Article 15 Specifications (E1-E9) RPT and Disparity Ratio

This Review identified the eight specifications with the highest disparity in RPT for black

and white service members. Analysis identified substantial racial disparity in drug-related 

offenses as well as willful dereliction, failure to go to or going from appointed place of duty, and 

making a false official statement.

Fig 4: Article 15 Rates Per Thousand by Race and Top Offenses

Total Article 15s have been steadily decreasing over time. However, the racial disparity gap has been widening 

during that same timeframe.
10

Both the AFJAG data and this Review’s data analysis clearly show racial disparity, and 

the offenses most likely to involve disparity, but the data does not reveal “why” there is a 

disparity. 

Accessions data of new recruits indicates that certain service members are more prone to 

disciplinary action than others, regardless of race. The data show black and white male recruits 

who enter the Air Force or Space Force with moral waivers due to previous criminal convictions 

(such as those involving assault, DUI, grand theft, marijuana use/possession, and vehicular 

infractions, among a host of other categories) are more likely to receive an Article 15 at some 

point during their time in the service. Note: Whether a recruit enters the service with a “moral 

waiver” for misconduct depends on the severity, frequency, and category of the crime. 

The RAND Corporation found recruits who entered the Air Force with moral waivers 

receive Article 15s more often than those who do not. Among those with moral waivers, black

males receive Article 15s at higher rates than white males with the same waivers. While this 

data sheds light on why some service members are more likely to receive Article 15s, it still does 

not fully explain the disparity in the rate at which service members who had moral waivers

receive Article 15s.

The DAF military justice process ensures sufficient grounds exist for taking action in 

every case. Prior to a commander imposing an Article 15, a military attorney reviews witness 

testimony and documentary evidence to determine whether a UCMJ violation may have 

occurred. Commanders have discretion on whether to impose disciplinary action and which 

level of action to utilize--including no action, administrative action, Article 15, or courtmartial. Without interviewing a representative sample of commanders who imposed 

punishments and probing all potential reasons for punishment decisions, it is difficult to 

determine conclusively why black service members were punished more frequently for offenses

such as AWOL or dereliction of duty. Further, there are many variables to consider, such as 

whether it was a first-time offense or repeated offenses. In contrast, Article 15s for marijuana 

use are usually the result of a positive urinalysis test, and there is less commander discretion in 

this offense category. More study is needed to understand why black service members are 

punished disproportionately for some offenses. 

Drug Use Cases

The DAF does not tolerate the illegal or improper use of drugs and employs a random 

urinalysis program to test all service members. If an Airman or Space Professional tests positive 

for marijuana use, the usual course of action is to impose Article 15 punishment and then 

administratively separate those personnel from the service. Use of other illegal drugs – such as 

cocaine and heroin – will typically result in a court-martial. The various charts below show 

black service members are overrepresented when it comes to positive drug tests, including by 

rank and drug class.
11

Fig 5: Drug Offenses: Positive Test Rate 

Fig 6: Racial Disparity in Positive Random Drug Tests 
12

Fig 7: Racial Disparity in Positive Random Drug Tests by Rank

Fig 8: Drug Offenses: Trends in % of Positive Drug Tests by Drug Class and Race 

An initial review of random urinalysis data found that black service members appear to 

be consistently overrepresented in testing by approximately 1% to 2% from 2015 to 2019. 

Although the percentages are small, data analysts consider this anomaly to be statistically 

significant, considering several hundred thousand Airmen comprise the sample set. However, 

this anomaly does not mean the testing is not random. The overrepresentation could result from 

a confluence of factors such as differences in availability for testing after random selection.
13

Furthermore, racial disparities in rank combined with testing rate differences by rank could 

influence the overrepresentation. 

Fig 9: Racial Disparity in Random Drug Test Selection 

Although there is an up to 2% racial disparity in overall testing rate for black service 

members from 2015 to 2019, when broken down by rank, the numbers show black E1-E4s are 

actually underrepresented in random testing when compared to their white peers, which indicates 

there was no inappropriate targeting of young black enlisted members for drug testing. Overall, 

this report revealed enlisted members were tested at a higher rate than officers consistently from 

2015 to 2019, as depicted below.
14

Fig 10: Random Drug Test Selection by Rank

Fig 11: Racial Disparity in Random Drug Testing by Rank

Given this Review’s data analysis and the fact that random test selections are based on 

social security numbers, the IG concluded black E1s to E4s are not being singled out based on 

their race to disproportionally provide urinalysis samples leading to positive test results.
15

As the data show, black E1-E4s are not overrepresented in random testing rates. As the 

standard disciplinary action for a positive drug test for marijuana is an Article 15, the disparity 

between the numbers of Article 15s for drug use between white and black Active Duty Airmen 

E1s to E4s appears to be the result of a disparity in behavior rather than racial bias. 

Conclusion on Military Justice Data 

As early as 1974, the DAF identified racial disparity in military justice actions. AFJAG

is aware of the racial disparity in Article 15 actions and courts-martial and informs leadership at 

all levels of this disparity. Also, AFJAG analyzed the military judicial process to address the 

potential of racial bias. In 2016, the DAF determined there was no evidence of selective 

prosecution in courts-martial based on a review of courts-martial records under the guidelines set 

in the Supreme Court case Batson v. Kentucky6 The DAF also found no disparity among 

conviction rates between black and white service members. Based on the available data, this

Review found no instances of intentional racial bias or discrimination after an accused entered 

the court-martial process.

While the DAF has taken some action to address potential bias in the judicial process, it

has not answered that next-level question of “why” racial disparity exists in military justice 

actions. AFJAG provides training to commanders highlighting that racial disparity exists; 

however, no training is provided on what causes the racial disparity and how to address the 

disparity. For more subjective cases such as AWOL or dereliction of duty, where the 

commander has discretion to impose disciplinary action and the severity of that disciplinary 

action, the DAF has not analyzed why racial disparity is present. This Review included 

interviews with members of the Disciplinary Actions Analysis Team (DAAT), which was 

established in 2017 to address racial disparity in military justice actions. These interviews

revealed the DAAT, after meeting more than three years, was unable to ascertain the reason for 

such disparity. For more objective cases, such as marijuana drug use cases arising from random 

testing, this Review determined behavioral disparity accounts for at least some disparity

indicated. However, the DAF must conduct further review to understand why there may be

behavioral disparity among racial groups and how to address that behavioral disparity. Multiple 

studies show certain racial and age groups view marijuana use differently resulting in disparate 

use among those groups. (Ex 57) As of this Review, it appears the DAF has not examined these 

studies and considered how this behavioral disparity among its youngest enlisted members might 

be addressed.

 6 As a note, the Air Force did receive criticism for relying on a case involving discretionary juror removal which was 

not germane to selective prosecution.
16

Administrative Disciplinary Actions and Discharges

Young black service members are almost twice as likely to be involuntarily 

discharged from the DAF with misconduct as the basis. The DAF will soon require 

commanders to report the type of administrative action, rank, age, gender, race, and 

ethnicity of the person imposing the administrative disciplinary action, along with the same 

information for the recipient of the disciplinary action.

Outside of non-judicial punishment and courts-martial under the UCMJ, service members 

may also receive administrative disciplinary action to correct and punish bad behavior. 

Administrative disciplinary actions consist of Letters of Reprimand, Letters of Admonishment, 

and Letters of Counseling (LORs, LOAs, LOCs), with the LOR being the most severe rebuke 

and the LOC the least. The DAF has not historically tracked racial demographics in 

administrative disciplinary actions. However, a review of administrative separation actions 

shows there is racial disparity in the percentage of black enlisted members in the rank of E1 to 

E4 whom the DAF involuntarily discharges with misconduct as a basis, which is generally and 

largely based upon a record of LORs, LOAs, and LOCs. Thus, young black service members as 

a whole may be receiving more administrative disciplinary actions than their peers, based on the 

frequency with which they are being administratively discharged for misconduct.

Administrative disciplinary actions

First-line supervisors and commanders have wide latitude and the discretion to issue 

administrative disciplinary actions to service members. An Airman or Space Professional who 

reports late to work for the first time could receive no punishment, verbal counseling, or an LOC 

that, depending on the circumstances, could serve as part of the basis for an administrative 

discharge later on. Similarly, a service member consistently late to work for a week could 

receive no punishment, or a verbal counseling, or a combination of LOCs, LOAs, and LORs. 

The last of these might establish the basis that the service member committed several minor 

disciplinary infractions or engaged in a pattern of misconduct that could result in administrative 

discharge, when coupled with other instances of misconduct.

Unlike Article 15s and courts-martial, there is no requirement for supervisors, First 

Sergeants, or commanders to consult with the base legal office on administrative disciplinary 

actions. There is no tracking of whether supervisors and commanders issue LORs, LOAs, and 

LOCs in a similar manner, magnitude, and frequency to enlisted members, regardless of race, 

gender, or ethnicity. The service relies on the judgment and training of supervisors and 

commanders on these matters. The DAF trusts relatively young and inexperienced service 

members with significant supervisory responsibilities at the beginning of their careers, with 25-

year-old staff sergeants and 22-year-old second lieutenants in supervisory roles. As such, 

oversight and mentorship by commanders and senior non-commissioned officers (SNCOs) is 

needed to ensure supervisors are guided through administrative disciplinary actions and aware of 

the role bias may play in decision making. To this end, within the past several years, the Air 
17

Force has incorporated bias training7 for commanders and non-commissioned officers (NCOs) at 

various points in their career to help address the racial disparity the DAF faces in the disciplinary 

realm. 

Next year, the DAF will begin computerized tracking of administrative disciplinary 

actions. New policies will require commanders to report the type of administrative action, rank, 

age, gender, race, and ethnicity of the person issuing the paperwork, along with the same 

information for the recipient of the disciplinary action.

Administrative discharges

Overall, black enlisted members were consistently overrepresented by about 50% in 

administrative discharge cases versus the rest of the Active Duty enlisted corps, as shown below. 

That means black enlisted members received 50% more discharges than we would have expected 

based on their population proportion. For black enlisted personnel, the top three bases for

administrative discharges were: discharge in lieu of courts-martial, unsatisfactory performance, 

and misconduct.

 7 This Review recognizes the direction promulgated by Executive Order 13950: Combating Race and Sex 

Stereotyping, as well as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo M-20-34 (4 Sep 20), Training in the 

Federal Government, and OMB memo M-20-37 (28 Sep 20), Ending Employee Trainings that Use Divisive 

Propaganda to Undermine the Principle of Fair and Equal Treatment for All. Nothing in this Review is intended to 

imply or endorse sentiments or recommendations other than that which would be fully consistent with this guidance.
18

Fig 12: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Administrative Discharges 

Similar to courts-martial and Article 15s, administrative discharges contained the most 

significant racial disparity in black enlisted members in the E1-E4 category. These service 

members were disproportionately discharged with misconduct as a basis. In FY15 black service 

members overrepresented by 52% in administrative discharges. That number steadily increased

to 86% in FY19, as shown in the chart below. That means in FY15, black service members

received 1.5 times the rate of administrative discharges expected based on their proportion of all 

E1 through E4, and, in FY19, they received almost twice the rate expected.8

 8 This Review also looked at administrative discharges for misconduct involving non-commissioned and senior noncommissioned officers, but there were not enough cases to provide statistical analysis.

Fiscal Year

Benchmark: Active Duty Enlisted Population

Data Source: Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)

Percent Over- or Under-Represented

Racial Disparity in Enlisted Administrative Discharges (FY15-FY19)

Black or African American Other White

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
19

Fig 13: Racial Disparity in Administrative Discharges: Misconduct

Fig 14: Administrative Discharge (E1-E4) for Misconduct

Administrative Discharge of Airman (E1-E4) for Misconduct FY15-19

FY Black White Other Total

2015 456 1,206 214 1,876

2016 460 1,019 196 1,675

2017 501 1,103 200 1,804

2018 583 1,068 214 1,865

2019 619 1,013 212 1,844

Airman (E1-E4) Population, FY15-19

FY Black White Other Total

2015 18,563 83,829 13,957 116,349

2016 20,358 86,385 14,946 121,689

2017 21,407 86,476 15,228 123,111

2018 22,007 87,270 15,326 124,603

2019 23,184 89,146 15,922 128,252

Source: MilPDS

When a commander recommends an enlisted member for administrative discharge, the 

base legal office plays a larger role. Military attorneys review the proposed discharge action to 

determine whether it is legally sufficient before passing the case onto higher-level commanders 

for review, concurrence, and approval. In other words, military attorneys help determine 

whether an enlisted member’s misconduct supports a basis for discharge.

Fiscal Year

Benchmark: Active Duty Enlisted Population

Data Source: Military Personnel Data System (MilPDS)

Percent Over- or Under-Represented

Racial Disparity in Airman [E1-E4] Adminstrative Discharges by Category (FY15-FY19) 

Category Type: Misconduct

Black or African American Other White

-100%

-50%

0%

50%

100%

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19
20

Military attorneys review the LORs, LOAs, and LOCs to ensure the misconduct is 

recorded properly in form and substance, and they review the proposed discharge action to 

determine whether the documented misconduct is sufficient for involuntary separation (for 

example, discharge based on a pattern of misconduct would require more than one LOC). This 

legal review process serves as a check and balance for the commander, supervisor, and the 

enlisted member. However, what is typically not checked and balanced is whether the 

commander and supervisor have given similar administrative disciplinary actions and discharge 

recommendations for other unit members of other races for similar misconduct. If there is a 

disparity in this area, it may contribute to the belief that black service members are not getting 

the benefit of the doubt in disciplinary actions, as discussed later in this report. 

Data show there is racial disparity among young black service members as they are 

almost twice as likely to be discharged with misconduct as a basis. (Ex 2:61) The DAF is aware 

of this racial disparity but has not formally analyzed why the racial disparity exists. As noted 

above, individual supervisors and commanders may make these decisions and discharge 

recommendations with little, if any, oversight over the LORs, LOAs, and LOCs on which they 

are based. 

INVESTIGATIONS

Upon a thorough review of case and investigative records and data, this Review 

found no evidence of racial bias on the part of law enforcement. It found, however, black 

service members are 1.64 times more likely to be suspects in OSI criminal cases, and twice 

as likely to be apprehended by Security Forces. Based on limited data, black service 

members are investigated and substantiated for MEO sexual harassment cases at a higher 

rate than white service members. No racial disparity was identified in IG reprisal and 

restriction investigations, and the DAF does not maintain demographic data on 

Commander Directed Investigations. Further analysis by the DAF enterprise is warranted 

to determine why there is racial disparity among suspects in investigations and 

apprehensions.

OSI Investigations

OSI provided the following criminal investigations data. Fig 15 shows OSI case 

percentages by types of offenses from CY16 to May 2020. Sexual offenses (51%) and drug 

offenses (33%) are the two largest case categories, collectively comprising 84% of OSI 

investigations. Sexual offenses include child and adult victim cases. 
21

Fig 15: OSI Criminal Cases

Additional data from OSI showed black Active Duty suspects are overrepresented in OSI 

criminal cases compared to the population of black Active Duty service members. Specifically, 

from CY 2016 to May 2020, 25.6% of suspects were black, while black service members only 

account for 15% of the total Active Duty population based on January 2020 data.

Fig 16: OSI Investigations Race Demographics

Independent analysis of the raw data correlates with the information provided by OSI. 
22

Fig 17: OSI Investigations: Overall

Among all closed OSI criminal investigations from 2010 to 2019, black service members

are the only race overrepresented compared to their population. The magnitude of this 

overrepresentation is approximately nine percentage points (black service members represent 

23% of the OSI investigations, but only 14% of the population), which means they are 64% 

overrepresented (disparity index9 = 1.64).

Fig 18: OSI Investigations: Offense Type

 9 In this report, the term “Disparity Index” is defined as the Rate Per Thousand (RPT) of black service members in a 

particular category divided by the white RPT for the same category. RPT black/RPT white. 
23

Breaking down the OSI investigations by category and making the same comparison as 

the previous chart, black service members are specifically overrepresented in Drugs, Sex, and 

Other investigations. White service members are consistently underrepresented except in the 

category of Death investigations.

The charts below break the categories out to observe their trends over time while 

displaying the percent difference of OSI investigations in relation to the population of the race.

Drug Investigations

Looking at OSI investigations involving drug-related offenses, black service members

were overrepresented by a substantial amount compared to other races. Drug-related offenses 

include use, possession, distribution, and manufacturing.

Fig 19: OSI Drug Investigations

Approximately 85% of OSI drug cases stem from positive urinalysis reports from the 

DAF Drug Demand Reduction Program (DDRP). These cases are considered “reactive” drug 

cases because they did not result from OSI-initiated actions. In these instances, OSI agents must 

either open an investigation or refer the matter to Security Forces to open a case. Regardless of 

agency, it is mandatory to open a criminal investigation on a service member with a positive 

urinalysis result. OSI is not informed of the race of service members who test positive for illicit 

substances. That data is acquired during the investigation. 

Approximately 15% of OSI drug cases are “proactive,” in that the cases resulted from 

OSI-initiated activities, including information from informants. Of note, many OSI drug 

informants arise from positive urinalyses cases. The person testing positive may confess to 

illegal drug involvement and agree to provide information on others and/or make drug “buys” 

under OSI’s control and direction. OSI officials have some discretion concerning opening 
24

proactive cases. According to OSI officials, all proactive drug investigations are based on 

evidence, and the majority of that evidence is gathered during reactive drug investigations. 

Fig 20 compares reactive drug cases versus proactive drug cases conducted by OSI over 

the past five years by race. The data show a direct correlation between reactive and proactive 

cases and supports OSI’s assertion that subjective (proactive) cases are based on evidence 

gathered during objective (reactive) drug investigations.

Fig 20: OSI Reactive versus Proactive Drug Cases

Sex Crime Investigations

OSI investigations involving sex-related offenses also indicate an overrepresentation of 

black service members as suspects by 50%. Further analysis in this category showed that white 

service members are overrepresented in one subcategory of sex crimes, Child Sex Offenses. 

(Ex 2)
25

Fig 21: OSI Sex Investigations

DoD and DAF policy require OSI to open investigations on all sexual assault allegations

involving adult victims where the perpetrator is reported to be an Active Duty member. 

Death Investigations

Fig 22: OSI Death Investigations
26

OSI investigations for deaths comprise approximately 3% of all cases since 2010 and 1% 

since 2016. Due to the smaller sample size, all races have fluctuated within this category. The 

only predominant trend is that white service members are overrepresented.

OSI runs full investigations into Active Duty deaths when the manner of death is ruled 

homicide or an unknown manner. Deaths due to suicide, natural causes, and accidents are only 

investigated so far as is necessary to support the manner of death is not a homicide. 

Other Investigations

Fig 23: Other OSI Investigations 

The “Other” category of OSI investigations includes crimes such as assault, fraud, 

robbery, and any crime not included in the previous three categories. Black service members are 

consistently overrepresented, varying from about 40% to over 100%. The other races are 

generally underrepresented (except for FY17).

Conclusion on OSI investigations

The significant majority, approximately 94%, of OSI cases are “reactive,” in that offenses 

are reported/referred to OSI by command officials, DDRP, Sexual Assault Response 

Coordinators (SARCs), local law enforcement, victims, or witnesses. OSI agents do not have 

discretion regarding opening these investigations. The remaining 6% of OSI investigations are 

“proactive” investigations into drug-related offenses and “other” offenses. Although OSI agents 

have some discretion in these investigations, the evidence indicates proactive drug investigations 

are primarily the result of information gathered during reactive drug cases and “other” 

investigations are based on evidence of criminal activity. 
27

The latest OSI data show black service members make up 15% of the Active Duty 

population but account for 25.6% of the subjects in OSI investigations. OSI’s preliminary 

analysis indicates that the racial disparity observed in the number of case openings is consistent 

with the racial disparity in sexual assaults reported to OSI, victim and witness statements, 

command referrals, and referrals from the DDRP. 

OSI leadership is aware of the racial disparity in OSI investigations and assesses

proactive versus reactive investigations to monitor for potential racial bias in the OSI 

investigation process. OSI believes further analysis by the DAF enterprise on causation of the 

overrepresentation is warranted. 

Security Forces Apprehensions

Review of Security Forces (SF) apprehensions was limited to the timeframe of 1 October 

2019 to June 2020. The Security Forces Management Information System (SFMIS) was 

replaced in late 2019 and, as such, historical information prior to Oct 19 was not available. 

In the apprehension process, an SF member consults with a military attorney on whether 

probable cause exists for an apprehension, and the SF member (also called a “defender”) makes 

the final call. After being apprehended, service members10 are normally returned to their 

commander or First Sergeant. The types of offenses most often listed in apprehensions include 

violations of federal and local laws, false official statement, assault, DUI/drunkenness/wrongful

use, domestic violence, failure to obey a lawful order, and miscellaneous/multiple offenses. The 

data available included 3,094 apprehensions, of which 115 were officers and 2,979 were enlisted. 

(Ex 39:2-4)

 10 SF personnel are only authorized to apprehend Active Duty military members.
28

Fig 24: SF Apprehensions - Officers 

Data Source: HAF/A4S (Air Force Justice Information System (AFJIS)

The officer apprehension data broken down by rank and race show black officers are 

slightly overrepresented, and white officers are slightly underrepresented compared to their 

population size. Officers account for only 3.7% of all apprehensions.
29

Fig 25: SF Apprehensions - Enlisted 

Data Source: HAF/A4S AFJIS

Black enlisted service members are overrepresented in enlisted apprehension rates, with a 

disparity ratio of 1.76, while white enlisted service members are underrepresented with a 

disparity ratio of 0.72. (Ex 39:4) In addition, black E1 to E5 service members account for 91.9% 

of black service member apprehensions. White E1 to E5 service members account for 85.8% of 

white apprehensions. (Ex 39:4) 

Fig 26: Airman Apprehensions: Rank RPT and Disparity Index

RANK Black RPT White RPT Disparity Index

AMN (E1-E4) 29.3 13.0 2.25

SSGT (E5) 12.1 6.0 2.01

TSGT (E6) 8.2 4.48 1.83

MSGT (E7) 4.0 2.75 1.45

SMSGT (E8) 5.2 2.4 2.16

CMSGT (E9) 2.4 3.4 0.71

Data Source: HAF/A4S AFJIS 

Conclusions about Security Forces Apprehensions

The reviewed data show racial disparity in Active Duty enlisted apprehensions. Black 

enlisted members are twice as likely as white enlisted members to be apprehended by Security 

Forces and are the only race overrepresented when compared to their population.. The magnitude 

of this overrepresentation is approximately 13% (black service members represent 27.7% of SF 

apprehensions, but only about 15% of the population), which means they are 76% 
30

overrepresented (disparity index = 1.76). Black enlisted service members were apprehended at 

19.7 RPT, other enlisted service members apprehended at 11.2 RPT, and white enlisted service 

members were apprehended at an 8.1 RPT. According to a SF representative, SF does not 

actively monitor the demographics associated with apprehensions and was not aware of the racial 

disparity prior to this data call. 

Additional data show that black enlisted service members were overrepresented in drug 

usage apprehensions. The data show that the apprehension rate for black service members is 3.5 

times higher than white service members. This rate includes apprehensions resulting from the 

DAF random drug test program. In accordance with AFI 71-101 Volume 1, Criminal 

Investigations Program, SF is directed to handle most positive random drug tests for the DAF

except when the Joint Drug Enforcement Team, a combined OSI and SF team, takes the lead.

Complaints System Investigations (IG and EO) 

The DAF has a robust complaints system that provides service members with several 

avenues to voice concerns. While using the chain of command for solving administrative issues 

is the primary method in the majority of circumstances, other agencies, including OSI, Security 

Forces, the Inspector General (IG), and Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) can take complaints 

and may conduct investigations. This Review analyzed data from IG and MEO as well as 

Commander Directed Investigations (CDI) to determine if any racial disparity exists in these 

investigations.

IG Investigations 

This Review analyzed more than 1,036 IG reprisal and restriction investigations 

completed in the past five years. The data show no racial disparity between black and white 

subjects. The IG investigation process for reprisal and restriction investigations is defined in 

AFI 90-301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution. The number of subjects from these 

investigations was consistent with racial demographic statistics.
31

Fig 27: IG Reprisal and Restriction Investigations 

RANK WHITE 

INVEST

BLACK 

INVEST

OTHER 

INVEST

WHITE 

SUB

BLACK

SUB

OTHER 

SUB

LIEUTENANT (O1-O2) 12 5 0 2 1 0

CAPTAIN (O3) 39 3 9 3 0 1

MAJOR (O4) 81 17 16 7 1 2

LT COL (O5) 190 8 24 28 0 6

COLONEL (O6) 195 14 6 23 3 0

SSGT (E5) 8 5 3 0 1 2

TSGT (E6) 27 8 6 4 1 2

MSGT (E7) 77 35 23 12 10 5

SMSGT (E8) 55 34 16 12 3 4

CMSGT (E9) 71 12 8 6 0 2

TOTAL 755 141 112 97 20 24

RPT 2.38 RPT 2.1 RPT 1.08 RPT .31 RPT .30 RPT .23

*INVEST = INVESTIGATION; SUB = SUBSTANTIATED 

*INCLUDES 5 YEARS OF REPRISAL AND RESTRICTION INVESTIGATIONS

*INCLUDES TOTAL FORCE, AD, AFR, ANG

* POPULATION AVERAGE USED: WHITE: 317,686; BLACK: 66,161; OTHER 103,974

* TOTAL INVESTIGATIONS 1,008 Data Source: SAF/IG Automated Case Tracking System (ACTS)

Fig 28: IG Investigations: Command Action 

RANK WHITE 

CA

No 

Action

WHITE 

CA

Verbal 

Counsel

WHITE 

CA 

LOC

WHITE 

CA RIC

WHITE 

CA 

LOA

WHITE 

CA 

LOR

BLACK 

CA

No 

Action

BLACK 

CA

Verbal 

Counsel

BLACK 

CA 

LOC

BLACK 

CA RIC

BLACK 

CA 

LOA

BLACK 

CA 

LOR 

LT(O1-O2) 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

CAPTAIN (O3) 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MAJOR (O4) 1 4 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

LT COL (O5) 5 6 7 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0

COLONEL (O6) 12 7 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

SSGT (E5) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

TSGT (E6) 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

MSGT (E7) 1 4 1 0 0 3 0 4 1 1 0 4

SMSGT (E8) 2 0 1 1 3 5 1 2 0 0 0 0

CMSGT (E9) 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

TOTAL 22 29 17 1 9 15 1 9 2 1 2 5

* CA = Command Action Data Source: SAF/IG ACTS

Overall, the number of investigations of white subjects was slightly above their 

population percentage, 73% versus 71%. IG investigations with black subjects were slightly 

below their population percentage, 13% versus 15%. When using Rate Per Thousand (RPT) 

analysis, investigations on white subjects had a 2.38 RPT. Investigations on black subjects were

slightly lower at 2.1 RPT. Additionally, the substantiation rate of investigations was 12% for 

black subjects and 13% for white subjects. The RPT shows that white subjects were 

substantiated at .31 RPT, and black subjects were substantiated at .30 RPT. (Ex 41: Chart 1) 

Additionally, command action resultant from these substantiated investigations shows the range 

of actions taken included no action, verbal counseling, LOC, LOA, LOR, Record of Individual

Counseling (RIC), Unfavorable Information File (UIF), or removal from command/position. 

(Ex 43: Chart 2) The IG Review found no racial disparity in command actions arising from IG 

investigations, and the severity of the violation drove the command action. 
32

Conclusions on racial disparity of IG investigations

The data do not indicate a racial disparity in Higher Headquarters (HHQ)-reviewed 

reprisal or restriction investigations. However, in accordance with AFI 90-301, Inspector 

General Complaints Resolution, many types of complaints are referred back to command for 

action and thus are not reviewed by HHQ.

MEO Investigations 

Limited data were available regarding racial disparity in MEO actions because of a 

change in their data administration and other IT limitations. From November 2016 to February

2018, DAF MEO handled 97 formal discrimination complaints; 9 were substantiated (2 incidents 

based on race, 5 subjects were white). During the same period, after completing intakes on 

complaints, MEO referred 101 informal complaints to command; 58 were substantiated (38 

incidents based on race, 48 subjects were white). AFI 36-2706, Equal Opportunity Program, 

Military and Civilian, directs MEO to conduct investigations when there is a formal complaint

and the resultant report requires a legal review. For informal complaints, the MEO specialist 

takes the complaint, does an intake, and then returns it to command for action. The commander 

reviews the matter and is required to get a legal review. According to the MEO statistics from 

2016 to 2018, the service had 40 substantiated race-based incidents in that time period. 

The EO office also conducts sexual harassment investigations in the same manner as 

discrimination investigations. Because of legal reporting requirements, EO had three years of 

data on those complaints. 
33

Fig 29: Sexual Harassment Complaints

YEAR FORMAL 

INVEST

FORMAL

SUB

INFORMAL

INVEST

INFORMAL

SUB

TOTAL % OF SUB

2017 15 14 145 102 160 64%

2018 20 7 134 98 154 64%

2019 14 7 139 96 153 63%

INVEST = INVESTIGATIONS; SUB = SUBSTANTIATIONS Data Source: DAF/A1Q

Fig 30: Sexual Harassment Substantiations

RACE FORMAL 

SUB*

INFORMAL 

SUB

TOTAL SUB PERCENTAGE 

of SUB

RPT**

2017 Black 4 18 22 20.4% 0.33

2017 White 9 15 59 54.6% 0.19

2017 Other 1 26 27 25.0% 0.26

2018 Black 3 21 24 22.8% 0.36

2018 White 4 49 53 50.5% 0.17

2018 Other 0 28 28 26.7% 0.27

2019 Black 1 23 24 23.3% 0.36

2019 White 3 44 47 45.6% 0.15

2019 Other 3 29 32 31.3% 0.31

SUB = SUBSTANTIATED

RPT = RATE PER THOUSAND

INCLUDES TOTAL FORCE: AD, AFR, ANG

POPULATION AVERAGE USED Data Source: DAF/A1Q

The data in Fig 30 shows racial disparity in substantiated MEO sexual harassment 

complaints. According to the RPT, black service members are the subject of substantiated sexual 

harassment allegations slightly over twice as often as white service members. 

The EO career field is composed of civilians, SNCOs and a few Technical Sergeants 

(TSgts), with a racial breakdown of 37.5% white, 47.5% black, and 15% other. The Director of 

DAF Equal Opportunity and Senior Program Manager (EEO/MEO) stated they believe the EO 

career field is understaffed. For example, they do not have time to analyze EO data and spend a 

disproportionate amount of their time reacting to HHQ’s requests for information. AF/A1 

explained that for years, there have been competing priorities for EO funding and resources. As 

such, the EO program has not necessarily been a high priority or received necessary senior leader 

focus from the DAF to the wing level. AF/A1 stated that recent events have appropriately 

increased the priority and focus on the EO program. 

Conclusions on racial disparity of MEO investigations

The majority of substantiated EO cases involved white subjects. However, the EO sexual 

harassment investigation data show that black service members were more likely to be 

investigated for sexual harassment. Based on RPT, black service members are twice as likely to 

be the subject of a substantiated sexual harassment complaint. AF/A1Q was not aware of this 

disparity as they do not currently have the resources to analyze data. As such, AF/A1 was not 

made aware of this disparity. Further review of these issues is recommended to understand the 

causes of existing disparities. 
34

Commander Directed Investigations (CDIs) 

The Air Force does not centrally track CDIs. CDIs are directed by commanders at various 

levels to investigate issues occurring within their command. Due to the lack of centralized 

recordkeeping, there was not enough data to reach any conclusions. The DAF IG is in the final 

coordination process of formalizing a CDI Air Force Manual (AFMAN) to replace the 

Department’s current CDI Guide. This CDI AFMAN, coupled with current guidance in AFI 90-

301, Inspector General Complaints Resolution, will drive more centralized recordkeeping and 

allow for data analysis in the future. 

SUMMARY OF DISCIPLINE DATA

Empirical data directly shows racial disparity in military discipline between black and 

white service members in the following areas: 

• Article 15s and courts-martial 

• OSI investigations

• Security Forces apprehensions

• Positive drug test results

• Administrative discharges 

No data is tracked or recorded to assess whether racial disparity exists in administrative 

disciplinary actions involving LOCs, LOAs, and LORs. Plans and funding are in place to build a 

database to capture and track administrative disciplinary command actions in the future.

OPPORTUNITIES DATA

This Review next assessed whether racial disparity exists in leadership development 

opportunities throughout a service member’s career, from accessions to exit surveys. 

OFFICER ACCESSIONS 

Officer accessions roughly meet the applicant pool goals, and there does not appear 

to be disparity in accessing black officers from the eligible population. However, black 

officers are consistently overrepresented in the support, medical, and acquisition fields and 

are underrepresented in the rated11 operations Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs).

Recruitment of officers

Black officers represent six percent of the DAF Active Duty population. There are 

currently 64,500 Active Duty DAF officers, roughly 3,800 are black, and 47,000 are white. 

 11 Paragraph 1.2 of AFI 11-412, Aircrew Management, 15 January 2019 identifies rated officers as pilots, Combat 

Systems Officers (CSOs), Air Battle Managers (ABMs), Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Pilots, and Flight 

Surgeons.
35

Air Force and Space Force Officers receive their commissions from four possible 

sources: the United States Air Force Academy (USAFA); Air Force Reserve Officer Training 

Corps (AFROTC); Officer Training School (OTS); and direct accession for specialized

professions such as doctors, lawyers, pharmacists, and chaplains. For black officers, roughly 

37% were commissioned via ROTC, 21.5% went through OTS, 17% graduated from USAFA,

and 24% received their commission through another route, such as direct accession. 

There are prerequisites to becoming a line officer: age (under 35), U.S. citizenship, 

health, and a college (bachelor’s) degree. As such, the pool from which to select qualified 

candidates for the Officer Corps is narrower than the general U.S. population, regardless of race.

In 2014, RAND Corporation published a study on Improving Demographic Diversity in 

the U.S. Air Force Officer Corps. (Ex 21) At the time, given education, age, citizenship, and 

medical requirements, RAND calculated that of the U.S. population eligible to be commissioned 

6% were black Americans. 

Between 2015 and 2019, the Air Force commissioned about 1,500 black Active Duty 

officers, representing about 6% of all commissions. Thus, there does not appear to be disparity 

in accessing black officers from the eligible population using RAND’s determination that black 

Americans made up 6% of the U.S. population eligible to become officers.

Qualifying Entrance Exam

The Air Force uses the Air Force Officer Qualifying Test (AFOQT) as an eligibility 

requirement for individuals to commission via OTS and to determine in which career field entrylevel officers will serve. The AFOQT is a multiple-choice test measuring verbal and quantitative 

aptitudes to predict performance in the service, including for selection into specific jobs such as 

pilots and aircrew members. (Ex 58) A 2010 RAND study, The Air Force Qualifying Test: 

Validity, Fairness, and Bias, looked at demographic test scores and found moderate to large 

differences in test results among white and black test-takers. (Ex 58) For example, white testtakers earned a mean score of 59.67 in academics and 61.31 in pilot subtests, compared with 

mean scores of 30.91 and 25.42 respectively for black test-takers. However, the RAND study 

found the Air Force AFOQT is a “good selection test” that “is not biased against minorities or 

women” and may even be slightly skewed in favor of Hispanic and female applicants. 

The RAND study noted “the differences in AFOQT scores observed, on average, across 

race and gender groups, provide no insight into the scores of any one individual who is a member 

of a given race or gender group. Even though minorities and women tend to score lower than 

white or male applicants, respectively, there are still many high-scoring individuals who are 

minorities and women. These high-scoring individuals would be predicted to do well as officers 

regardless of their race and gender.” (Ex 58:33) The study concluded the use of the AFOQT 

“would result in a smaller proportion of minority individuals and women being selected into the 

officer corps than exists in the officer applicant pool” but that “such a reduction in the diversity 

of selectees does not negate its importance as a valid selection tool for the Air Force,” since the 

test is an “unbiased predictor of who will succeed in officer training without regard to race and 

gender.” (Ex 58) 
36

ROTC

As of June 2020, the ROTC program produced the largest percentage of officers serving 

in the Air Force (40.4%, or about 26,000). Of those who received their commission through 

ROTC, 5.5% were black, compared with roughly 5% Asian, 8% Hispanic, and 75% white (the 

remainder were officers who had multiple or unknown racial/ethnic background).

Those racial demographic percentages roughly mirror the number of ROTC accessions 

from fiscal years 2015 to 2019:

Fig 31: ROTC Accessions by Racial Demographic

FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

Black/African American 6% 4% 4% 6% 6%

American Indian/Alaskan Native 0% 1% 0% 1% 1%

Asian 5% 6% 5% 8% 7%

Hispanic/Latino 8% 10% 10% 11% 10%

2 or More Races 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0% 0% 0% 1% 1%

Unknown 2% 3% 3% 3% 3%

Source: Holm Center

The ROTC program relies on Program Guidance Letters that list career/occupational 

requirements by AFSC for rated and non-rated officers as overall targets. ROTC representatives 

say there are no racial demographic goals regarding recruitment of ROTC applicants. The 

ROTC program, however, does use analytics to determine locations and areas to recruit qualified 

minority students. In August 2020, the DAF added 100 new scholarships to award to students 

attending historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) in order to increase interest from 

that demographic in the Air Force and Space Force.

USAFA

As of June 2020, there are roughly 14,600 USAFA graduates in the Air Force and Space 

Force. They comprise 23% of all DAF officers. 4.4% of USAFA graduates are black officers, 

while 76% are white.

In 2014, the Air Force established USAFA applicant pool goals to reflect America’s 

eligible population based on information at the time. The overall goal was to have 30% of the 

applicants be either minority or female. The applicant pool goals were as follows: 

Fig 32: USAFA Applicant Pool Goals

RACE APPLICANT POOL GOAL

American Indian/Native Alaskan 1%

Asian American 8%

Black 10%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 1%

White 80%

ETHNICITY

Hispanic/Latino 10%
37

A review of data for the class of 2020 to 2024 applicants shows USAFA met or exceeded 

goals for recruiting black students and other minorities to apply for admission in the last five 

years:

Fig 33: USAFA Applicant Pool (Class of 2020-2024)

For that five-year period, the Academy’s percentage of black applicants ranged from 

12.9% to 15.3%, exceeding the Air Force goal of 10%. Black applicants selected and chosen to 

attend the Academy during those years ranged from 8.5% to 11.3% of the overall cadet 

population. The percentage of black and other minority students who entered USAFA closely 

match the Academy’s initial applicant pool goals. The racial demographics of each entering 

class is below. For the Class of 2020, 72 black cadets graduated, representing 7.4% of the 

graduating class.

Fig 34: USAFA Enrollment (Class of 2020-2024)

Race 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Asian 8.9% 8.1% 9.3% 9.2% 13.6%

Black 8.5% 10% 11.3% 10.5% 9%

Hispanic 9.4% 9.6% 9.9% 10.5% 13.6%

White 69.6% 63.7% 66.7% 67.9% 62.7%

OTS

As of June 2020, about 13,200 officers in the Active Duty Air Force commissioned 

through OTS, representing 20% of the officer corps. . Black officers comprised about 6% of the

OTS commissionees. OTS has as an applicant pool target that changes annually, depending on 

the number of individuals who earn a bachelor’s degree for that year. The figure below shows 

that in 2019, black college graduates represented 10% of the population who received a 

bachelor’s degree (without regard for other eligibility requirements to enter the Air Force, such 

as age or citizenship). In FY19, about 8% of OTS applicants were black college graduates, 

which is less than what the DAF hoped it would attract to apply. Black college graduates 

represented 7.5% of those selected to attend OTS in FY19. In FY 20, a year when the DAF 

requirements for OTS accessions were drastically reduced, OTS held one board composed of 

Active Duty enlisted Airmen seeking to become officers. OTS selected 24 candidates, none of 

them were black.

RACE USAF 

GOAL

APPLICANT POOL FOR 

CLASS OF:

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

American Indian/Native Alaskan 1% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2%

Asian American 8% 8.5% 9.1% 9.6% 9.8% 10.4%

Black 10% 15.0% 15.3% 13.5% 13.3% 12.9%

Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 1% 1.8% 1.3% 1.6% 1.8% 2.1%

ETHNICITY

Hispanic/Latino 10% 12.7% 12.9% 13.1% 13.4% 13.9%

**Excludes Internationals Source: USAFA
38

Fig 35: OTS Demographics (Application and Select Rates)

Whether OTS selects an applicant for commissioning depends on several factors, one of 

which is whether the individual’s major/college degree meets the Air Force’s mission 

requirements, which may change each year based on the Air Force’s need for certain AFSCs. 

Because an interview is required, OTS has incorporated bias training into its board selection 

process. In 2018, OTS restructured the interview process to standardize its applicant assessment 

to mitigate potential interviewer’s bias. Additionally, selection boards are comprised of both 

genders from diverse backgrounds, including rated and non-rated officers.

Black Officers Overrepresented in Support Roles

Black officers are overrepresented in the acquisition, support, medical, and 

logistics/maintenance fields and are underrepresented in the operations AFSCs, as shown in the 

chart below. The disparity of black officers in the pilot career field could be a factor that 

translates to fewer promotion and career development opportunities, as discussed later in this 

report.
39

Fig 36: Racial Disparity in Officer Career Fields 

Personal choice and socio-economic factors affecting education may impact a black 

student’s desire to select the Air Force or Space Force as a career path or choose a science, 

technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) based career in the DAF. 
40

Lack of mentoring or guidance early on also come into play. One black officer we 

interviewed stated that had she been advised officers in the rated career fields are more likely to 

be promoted to higher ranks and senior positions, she would have chosen a rated path. The rated 

career field requires neither a STEM degree nor any other specific educational degree. 

Pilot Accession

As of May 2020, there were 305 black pilots (about 2%) out of the roughly 15,000 Active 

Duty pilots in the Air Force. As will be discussed later, rated officers have an advantage when 

competing to become General Officers. There are four categories of rated officers: air battle 

managers, navigators, pilots, and remotely piloted aircraft pilots. According to those in Air 

Force recruiting, one of the most influential criteria in becoming an Air Force pilot is possessing 

the interest and desire. With less black pilots in the Air Force, black applicants may not have

realized it was a viable option because they are less likely to have seen someone like them doing 

so. The second criteria is whether the individual is physically and medically qualified. These 

qualifications include no history of hay fever, asthma, or allergies after age 12, and visual acuity, 

such as normal color vision with near visual acuity of 20/30 without correction, among other 

criteria.12 There are also height requirements, depending on the airframe, age (under 33), and 

education (a bachelor’s degree, any major, with a grade point average of at least 2.5). Finally, an 

applicant’s ability – or inability – to earn flying hours before selection for pilot training will also 

impact an applicant’s competitiveness. Applicants from lower socio-economic groups may not 

compete as well when compared to those who might more easily afford flying lessons. The more 

flying hours a pilot applicant earns, the higher the applicant’s score will be on the Pilot 

Candidate Selection Method (PCSM), which the Air Force uses to not only determine who is 

best qualified, but also as a predictor of how well an applicant will fare in the rigorous 

Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) program. 

USAFA and ROTC each receive a little more than 40% of the pilot slots, with about 10% 

going to OTS. The final approximately 10% is for other types of accessions, such as Active 

Duty Airmen who cross-train. USAFA, ROTC, and OTS do not consider gender or race in 

making selections for pilot training. The Air Force recognizes, however, there is a disparity in 

the number of pilots and rated officers from underrepresented groups (minorities and women). 

As of July 2020, there were about 19,000 rated officers in the rank of O5 and below. About 3% 

of those rated officers are black, compared with 86% white. (Ex 59) UPT graduation and 

attrition rates by race, gender, and ethnicity require further study.

USAFA

Each USAFA cadet learns how to fly gliders as part of their course of study. Successful 

completion at USAFA confers a benefit: roughly half of the cadets who graduate go on to 

become pilots, representing about 400 to 500 of the pilot training slots each year. To become an 

 12 https://www.airforce.com/frequently-asked-questions/officer-path/what-are-the-general-qualifications-to-flyincludingheight#:~:text=Meet%20Air%20Force%20weight%20and%20physical%20conditioning%20requirements.&text=Ha

ve%20no%20history%20of%20hay,or%20allergies%20after%20age%2012.&text=Have%20normal%20color%20vi

sion%20with,%2C%20correctable%20to%2020%2F20.
41

Air Force pilot, cadets must show an interest in and explicitly volunteer for the career field, earn 

a bachelor’s degree in any field, and be medically qualified. USAFA selects cadets for pilot 

training based on their order of merit, a ranking system comprising how students fared in 

military training, academics, and athletic training. Additionally, USAFA considers a cadet’s 

PCSM score, a combination of flying hours, AFOQT results, and Test of Basic Aviation Skills13

(TBAS) results. The higher the cadet's order of merit and PCSM score, the better cadet's chance 

to be selected for pilot training. 

ROTC

ROTC holds two digital boards each year to select cadets for pilot training. The board is 

not composed of people but rather a computer, which ranks cadets based on a combination of 

factors, in descending order: PCSM score, commander’s ranking, field training, and academics 

and physical fitness (weighted equally). Only after the computer program has racked and 

stacked candidates does ROTC see the pilot selection board’s results, including demographics. 

According to an ROTC representative who visited HBCUs to recruit black cadets to fly for the 

Air Force, black cadets are less interested in the pilot field. Some black cadets stated they were

the first to go to college in their family and have no interest in serving long-term in the Air Force 

(a pilot incurs a 10-year service commitment). These cadets stated they intend to complete their 

four-year Active Duty service commitment then leave the Air Force for higher-paying jobs in the 

civilian world, which the cadets told the ROTC representative is a measure of success for their 

families. Not all black cadets feel this way, as many go on to serve long pilot careers, but such 

circumstances may partly help explain why there may be less interest among black ROTC cadets 

to become pilots.

OTS

OTS has the fewest number of allocated pilot training slots, about 10% a year. Everyone 

who commissions through OTS must already have a college degree, in addition to taking the 

AFOQT and meeting age and medical requirements. To become a pilot through this program, 

OTS considers a candidate’s aptitude (education, PCSM score), leadership, and adaptability 

(statement of intent, letter of recommendation, experience). OTS holds one to two boards a year, 

manned by three to four O6s. Although there is no explicit guidance requiring diversity on the 

boards, OTS strives to have diverse representation on each board (i.e., a female officer and/or a 

minority officer). These board members have discretion and may weigh STEM degrees more 

preferentially among candidates vying for pilot training slots. 

Initiatives to decrease racial disparity 

Air Force recruiters have cited a lack of role models and lack of exposure to the pilot 

career field as reasons there may be less interest among black applicants to become pilots. 

Recognizing there is a disparity in the number of minority and women pilots, the Air Force 

initiated a task force to study barriers hindering these groups from becoming pilots, and the Air 

Force has begun different programs to increase diversity in its pilot corps. In 2018, the Air Force 

stood up Air Force Recruiting Service Detachment 1 (Det 1), whose explicit purpose is to 

 13 The TBAS is a computerized psychomotor, spatial ability, and multi-tasking test.
42

increase interest in flying among underrepresented groups (minority/female students). Det 1 

serves as the Chief of Staff of the Air Force’s Rated Diversity Improvement initiative to 

publicize opportunities at USAFA, ROTC, and OTS. 

One barrier to becoming an Air Force pilot is the PCSM score, which is partly based on 

the number of flying hours a candidate has earned. Candidates who do not have the financial 

means for, or access to private lessons to earn flight hours, are disadvantaged. Thus, their PCSM 

score will be lower than those who could pay for and take private flying lessons. One initiative 

of Det 1 is to hold summer flight camps for underrepresented youths to teach them to fly and 

earn hours to improve their PCSM scores. Additionally, with an eye at increasing interest among 

minority and women officers, the Air Force also started the Rated Preparatory Program to crosstrain officers into the rated career fields by providing them basic aviation experience and up to 

10 hours of flying hours to raise their PCSM score. Students are then required to apply for that 

year’s Undergraduate Pilot Training board.

ENLISTED ACCESSIONS

Black Americans represent 8% of the total population eligible to enlist. However,

black service members make up 15% of the DAF total enlisted force. There is racial

disparity in enlisted entrance exam scores and enlisted career fields. On average, black 

applicants score lower on the AFQT, and black enlisted service members are 

overrepresented in support, medical, and acquisitions career fields and underrepresented 

in operations and logistics/maintenance career fields.

Fig 37: Enlisted Racial Demographics (Eligible Population and DAF Enlisted Force)

Source: RAND
43

Entrance Exam

Like the rest of the Department of Defense, the Air Force uses the multiple-choice Armed 

Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) test as an entrance exam for high school (and 

equivalent) graduates interested in the enlisted corps.14 Four subject areas of the ASVAB 

(Arithmetic Reasoning, Math Knowledge, Word Knowledge, and Paragraph Comprehension) 

comprise the bases for an applicant’s Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) score. Both 

score results are used to determine eligibility for enlistment as well as potential military 

occupational specialties. 

Across the Department of Defense, black applicants score lower on the AFQT. 

According to the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness’s 2020 

Report on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), black applicants’ mean 

AFQT scores were about 44, compared with roughly 58 and 60 for Asian American and white 

applicants respectively. (Ex 60 and Figure 38)

Fig 38: Mean AFQT Scores by Race

 14 The ASVAB tests General Science, Arithmetic Reasoning, Word Knowledge, Paragraph Comprehension, Math 

Knowledge, Electronics Information, Auto Information, Shop Information, Mechanical Comprehension, and 

Assembling Objects.
44

Enlisted Service Member Career Fields

More than 86% of DAF enlisted positions are in support career fields. Roughly 4% are 

in medical, 3% each are in operations and logistics, and the remainder are in special duty 

positions or acquisition. ASVAB and AFQT test scores are the main factor in determining an 

enlisted service member’s career field. Personal choice and the needs of the services at the time 

a person enlists are also factors.

Compared to the proportion of race and ethnic groups in the Active Duty Air Force and 

Space Force enlisted rank groups, black enlisted service members are concentrated in support, 

medical, and acquisitions AFSCs. They are underrepresented by 20 to 30% in logistics and 

operations career fields in all rank groups. Similarly, Hispanic and other minority enlisted 

service members are underrepresented by 5 to 20% in logistics and operations career fields. By 

contrast, white enlisted service members are underrepresented by 5 to 30% in medical and 

support career fields, and they are overrepresented in operations and logistics career fields.

The fact that black enlisted service members are concentrated in specific fields may 

adversely affect their promotion chances. Enlisted promotion rates are set to fill vacancies 

within an AFSC at a higher grade using factors in the Weighted Airmen Promotion System 

(WAPS), like test scores. Certain career fields, like pararescue (where black enlisted service 

members are underrepresented) have higher promotion rates, given the field’s higher turnover 

rate and larger number of vacancies that need to be filled.

Several factors may explain why black enlisted service members are overrepresented in 

support fields. Interviews with those in the Air Force recruiting field, along with anecdotal 

evidence, suggest black enlisted service members choose to pursue career tracks for reasons such 

as: advice from veterans or family members; the career field is perceived to be more 

transferrable in the civilian world; the individual may not have been exposed to operational-type 

jobs; or their ASVAB and AFQT scores did not qualify them for other fields. Further, some jobs 

impose stricter medical standards, which further restricts the candidate pool, and this may limit 

the number of enlisted service members, regardless of race, who select these career fields.
45

Fig 39: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Career Fields by Rank Groups

AIR FORCE RETENTION

Within the enlisted population, the data show no consistent racial disparity in 

retention rates. Black service members were slightly overrepresented in separations at 11-

20 years of service and underrepresented in separations at 5 and 10 years of service. 

Within the officer population, the data show that black officers were slightly 

overrepresented in separations at 5-15 years of service and underrepresented in 

separations at 16-20 years of service. 

The Review considered Air Force separation data from the Military Personnel Data 

System (MILPDS) broken down by officer and enlisted service members. The data covers 2015 

through 2019 and showed disparity in separation rates relative to Race and Ethnicity and years of 

service. Fig 40 shows the racial disparity percent and number of over or underrepresented. 
46

Fig 40: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Separations Rates

Enlisted retention rates over the past five years show black enlisted service members

were overrepresented in separations at 11-20 years of service and underrepresented in 

separations at 5-10 years of service. White enlisted service members were underrepresented in 

separations at 11-15 years of service. Hispanic and Latino enlisted service members were 

overrepresented in separations at 5-15 years of service, but underrepresented in separations at 16-

20 years of service.15

 15 The number of Airmen over or underrepresented is rounded to the nearest whole number.
47

Fig 41: Air Force Racial Disparity Enlisted Separations: Relative to years of service

Enlisted retention rates over the past five years also show black enlisted service members

were underrepresented in separations at 5 and 10 years of service but were overrepresented in 

separations at 15 years of service. Hispanic or Latino enlisted service members and enlisted 

service members of other races were approximately evenly represented in separations, but with 

substantial variation, limiting how informative the relative racial disparity metric is for these 

groups. White enlisted service members were slightly overrepresented in separations at 5 and 10 

years of service, but underrepresented in separations at 15 years of service.

Note: The separations line charts only include separations at exactly the respective year 

of service, while the heatmaps (see Fig 42) include ranges (6-10, 11-15, 16-20) for years of 

service. A similar overrepresentation for black enlisted service members exists for both the 15 

years of service group and the 11 to 15 years of service group.
48

Fig 42: Air Force Officer Retention Rate: Relative to Race/Ethnicity

When looking at officer retention rates over the past five years, the data show black 

officers were overrepresented in separations at 5-15 years of service and underrepresented in 

separations at 16-20 years of service. White officers were underrepresented in separations at 5-

10 years of service, and overrepresented in separations from 11-20 years of service. Hispanic 

and Latino officers were overrepresented in separations at 16-20 years of service, but 

underrepresented in separations at 5 years of service. 
49

Fig 43: Racial Disparity in DAF Officer Separations: Relative to years of service

Officer retention rates over the past five years show black officers were generally 

overrepresented in separations at 5, 10, and 15 years of service. Hispanic or Latino officers and 

officers of other races were approximately evenly represented in separations, but with substantial 

variation, which limits how informative the relative racial disparity metric is for these groups. 

White officers were approximately evenly represented in separations at all years of service. 

Note: The separations line charts only include separations at exactly the respective year 

of service, while the heatmaps include ranges (6-10, 11-15, 16-20) for years of service.
50

Fig 44: Racial Disparity in Officer Separations by Career Field

Black officer separations by career fields show a disparity in separation rates for the 

operations career fields during years one through ten and a disparity in the support career fields

for most years.
51

Air Force Exit Survey Data

The Review team examined service members’ responses to exit surveys completed 

during the separation process. 

Fig 45: Air Force Exit Survey: Programs/Policies that influenced a service member’s 

decision to separate 

Fig 45 illustrates that black enlisted and officers were more likely to separate/retire than 

white service members based on Equal Opportunities in the Air Force and Opportunities for 

Professional Development. Black enlisted members are also more likely to separate/retire due to 

“opportunities to work with and learn from individuals who come from diverse backgrounds.” 

Finally, the data show black officers are more likely to separate/retire due to the Air Force 

Officer Evaluation System. 
52

Conclusions about Retention Issues

The enlisted population data show no consistent disparity in retention rates by race. 

While black service members were overrepresented in separations at 11-20 years of service, 

white service members were overrepresented in separations at 5 and 10 years of service. The 

exit survey responses from enlisted for both races are similar. However, exit survey responses 

should be reviewed thoroughly to help improve overall retention in the future. 

The officer population data show that black officers were overrepresented in separations 

at 5-15 years of service and underrepresented in separations at 16-20 years of service. White 

officers were underrepresented in separations at 5-10 years of service and overrepresented in 

separations from 11-20 years. When looking at officer retention rates over the past five years, 

the data show that black officers are consistently overrepresented in separations at 5, 10, and 15 

years of service. Hispanic or Latino officers are overrepresented in separations at 20 years of 

service and are underrepresented in separations at 5 years of service. Officers of other raceethnicity groups are overrepresented in separations at 5 and 10 years of service but 

underrepresented in separations at 15 years of service. White officers are consistently 

underrepresented in separations. 

The data also indicates black enlisted and officers are more likely to separate/retire due to 

Equal Opportunities in the Air Force and Opportunities for Professional Development. Black

enlisted service members are also more likely to separate/retire due to “opportunities to work 

with and learn from individuals who come from diverse backgrounds.” Black Officers are more 

likely to separate/retire due to the Air Force Officer Evaluation System. 

PROFESSIONAL MILITARY EDUCATION (PME)

Since 2015, black officers have been overrepresented in PME nominations but 

underrepresented in designations to attend. The gap between nomination percentages and 

designation percentages is more significant in SDE than IDE. Enlisted PME programs are 

all “must attend” courses based on rank and promotion date. All individuals are scheduled 

to attend based on when they were promoted. 

Officer PME

Officer PME is structured to provide continuous development opportunities across a 

career. It consists of Primary Developmental Education (PDE) for captains, Intermediate 

Developmental Education (IDE) for majors/major selects, and Senior Developmental Education 

(SDE) for lieutenant colonels (O5s), colonel selects (O6 select), and colonels (O6). (Ex 43:95, 

96) Officers complete PME programs either in-residence or by distance learning. The DAF 

does not provide opportunities for all officers to attend all levels of PME in-residence.

PDE primarily consists of Squadron Officer School but also includes some advanced

degree and other special programs. All eligible officers in the grade of captain within the 

following competitive categories are required to attend in-resident Squadron Officer School: line 

of the Air Force, LAF-J (judge advocates), and the non-line of the Air Force Chaplain Corps, 

Medical Services Corps, Biomedical Science Corps, Nurse Corps, Medical Corps, and Dental 
53

Corps. Medical Corps and Dental Corps officers are not eligible to attend SOS in-residence 

during Graduate Medical/Dental Education (GME/GDE) nor in the nine months following 

GME/GDE completion. (Ex 43:94)

IDE programs include graduate education, fellowships, and PME at military command 

and staff colleges. Intermediate developmental education denotes a period of development 

during which, for example, officers typically earn Joint Professional Military Education Phase I 

credit. (Ex 43:95) 

SDE programs include graduate education, fellowships, and PME at military war 

colleges. Senior developmental education denotes a period of development during which, for 

example, officers typically earn Joint Professional Military Education Phase II credit. (Ex 43:95)

For IDE and SDE in-residence programs, officers are nominated by their Senior Rater

(SR) and meet a Central Developmental Education (DE) Board. Officers are designated once 

they meet the Central DE Board, are vectored by the Developmental Team (DT), matched to a 

program, and approved at the Developmental Education Designation Board (DEDB) to attend a 

specific in-resident DE program. Senior Raters must nominate selects and candidates in 

accordance with annual guidance. Lieutenant colonel promotion boards are no longer 

identifying officers as “selects” for SDE, and starting with the 2004 year group, all lieutenant

colonels will be candidates and must be nominated by their SR for SDE. 16 IDE seats are 

allocated using field grade requirements above the wing level and squadron commander or 

equivalent billets for each AFSC (LAF). SDE seats are currently distributed using a fair share 

methodology on the eligible pool’s size for SDE. For Academic Year (AY) 21-22, the AF/A1D 

guidance was 70% of SDE seats would go to selects (e.g., identified at the O5 board) and 30% of 

seats would go to candidates across all AFSCs. According to A1, SDE seats will soon go to a 

requirements-based allocation similar to IDE. (Ex 44:3, 6)

AF/A1 provided IDE/SDE nomination/designation data for 2015-2019. Except for 2015 

IDE, black officers exceeded the average nomination rate for all officers. Black officers, 

however, are designated at a lower rate than average for all officers in both IDE and SDE (except 

for 2019 IDE where the black officer designation rate exceeded the average by 1.5%). As seen 

in the figure below, the number of additional black officers that would have been necessary to 

meet the average designation rate for all races ranged from a low of 2 for 2018 IDE to a high of 

10 for 2019 SDE. The data show that black officers are consistently below the average 

designation rate for IDE and SDE compared to their white counterparts.

 16 The term “select” refers to officers formerly chosen during their respective promotion boards to attend school inresidence; the term “candidate” applies to all other officers while they remain within their respective windows of 

eligibility; the term “designee” refers to Selects or Candidates designated for school through the Developmental 

Education Designation Board process. Currently there are still some SDE selects who were selected at their 

lieutenant colonel promotion board to slated attend SDE (Ex 43:92)
54

Fig 46: 2015-2020 IDE/SDE Nomination/Designation Rates

Source: AF/A1

In 2019, CSAF implemented a Definitely Attend (DA) process that gave every wing CC/

Senior Materiel Leader (SML) and a few additional SRs direct input into which officers are 

guaranteed IDE. 194 DAs were awarded for AY20-21 IDE and 275 were awarded for AY21-22. 
55

According to AF/A1, the intent of the DA was to allow SRs, who are closest and most familiar 

with the talent of their officers, to select a small number of officers to attend IDE without having 

to be selected by the central board. This would allow SRs to use a DA for an officer who is a 

strong performer now, but may not have a strong record from earlier in their career, which would 

lower their order of merit at the DE board. AF/A1 provided the following demographic data for 

DAs. (Ex 44:14)

Fig 47: AY20-22 DA Demographics

Source: AF/A1

AF/A1 indicated the DA process has given more minorities the opportunity to attend 

IDE. Black officers comprised 5.7% of the 194 DAs Awarded in 2019 and 6.2% of the 275 DAs 

awarded in 2020, which is higher than their percentage of the O4 population. AF/A1 correlated 

black officers meeting the average designation rates in 2019/2020 with the DA process, but said 

they had not done the analysis to see if the success was a direct result of the DA process. AF/A1 

is building on a plan similar to DAs for IDE, wherein SRs will be able to designate an officer to 

attend SDE using a DA. AF/A1 is still working on the details, but intends to start allowing SDE 

DAs in approximately two years.

According to AF/A1, eligible officer records are ranked 1 to N at the Central DE board 

and the primary nominees are sent to the DTs. The DTs vector nominees to specific programs. 

After the DTs are complete, officers are matched to a specific DE program followed by a 

review/validation at the DEDB. (Ex 44:4)

It does not appear the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) or AF/A1 analyzes designation 

rates to determine if there are disparities in the nomination/designation process. The charts 

above indicate that IDE designation rates for black officers met or exceeded the average for 2019 

and 2020. However, SDE designation rates are lower than the average designation rate for 2015 

through 2020. AF/A1 is aware of the disparities, especially for SDE. Diversity slides briefed to 

the DEDB simply show what percentage of each race makes up the total IDE/SDE designees, 

which may have limited utility for comparing across races. 

AF/A1 acknowledged the disparity and offered several points related to the issue. First, 

the DE board is a diverse group that is shown videos on bias and the records are masked for 

demographics. The board process is similar to promotion boards in that the records are scored 

on performance indicated by their performance reports, and any splits are resolved during the 

board process. AF/A1 senior leadership believes the board process is fair and has no reason to 

believe bias exists within the board process. Although this Review found no evidence of racial 

White 162 83.5% White 211 76.7%

Black 11 5.7% Black 17 6.2%

Other 21 10.8% Other 47 17.1%

Total 194 100.0% Total 275 100.0%

AY 20-21 IDE DA AY 21-22 IDE DA
56

bias, the potential for racial bias exists when SRs have discretion to decide which officers they 

will nominate for DE and control the comments they include in the nomination.

Second, AF/A1 also published guidance stating the criticality of DTs identifying potential 

barriers that inhibit any group of Air and Space Professionals from key developmental 

milestones. According to AF/A1, there have been a number of good examples of DTs 

performing analyses, but many do not conduct analyses, citing time limitations based on mission 

requirements. 

Enlisted PME Attendance

Enlisted PME is composed of Airman Leadership School (ALS), Noncommissioned 

Officer Academy (NCOA), Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy (SNCOA), and the Chief 

Leadership Course. All programs are “must attend” courses based on rank and promotion date. 

ALS is a primary level in-residence force development opportunity that meets all enlisted 

professional military education requirements for the service’s most junior service members. 

Airmen and Space Professionals participate beginning at the three-year time-in-service mark. 

Completion of ALS is required for senior airmen selected for staff sergeant before their 

promotion increment month. (Ex 43:101)

NCOA is a primary level in-residence force development opportunity and completion is 

required prior to promotion to Master Sergeant (MSgt) based on grade, priority, and eligibility. 

Technical sergeants (TSgt) must attend NCOA before two years’ time-in-grade. (Ex 43:101)

SNCOA is an intermediate and senior-level in-residence force development opportunity 

and is required for promotion to Senior Master Sergeant (SMSgt). Senior noncommissioned 

officers who complete a resident sister service equivalent course or Joint Special Operations 

Forces Senior Enlisted Academy receive enlisted professional military education credit for 

completing resident SNCOA. (Ex 43:101)

Chief Leadership Course is a senior-level in-residence force development opportunity 

and is required for all newly-selected Chief Master Sergeants (CMSgts/E9). CMSgts must attend 

Chief Leadership Course before one year time-in-grade. (Ex 43:101)

According to AF/A1DL, there are approximately 75-80 SNCOs who attend sister service 

Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) per year. These SNCOs are nominated by their 

respective MAJCOMs. Each MAJCOM is allowed to nominate SNCOs based on the number of 

slots allocated. For example, if the DAF were offered two slots at the U.S. Army Sergeants 

Major Academy, each MAJCOM would be allowed to nominate two SNCOs. The nominees are 

then sent to the MAJCOM Command Chiefs, sanitized of demographics, to score. 

Except for the small number of JPME courses that use a nomination process, attendance 

at Enlisted PME is required for all Airmen and Space Professionals based on rank and promotion

dates. Because all enlisted members attend PME, this Review found no racial disparities for the 

enlisted PME courses. As for the JPME courses, AF/A1 does not keep a database or analyze for 

racial disparities in nominees or selectees. AF/A1 was able to produce some data for FY19

JPME courses. AF/A1 filled 83 JPME slots with 54% white service members, 13% black 
57

service members, and 22% other races. AF/A1 did not have any data on the number and 

demographics of nominees. Demographics were not masked for scoring. This Review notes the 

potential for racial bias in both the nomination and scoring processes. The diversity of the chiefs 

scoring the packages depends on the diversity of the MAJCOM Command Chiefs. Since AF/A1 

does not track the demographic data needed to allow analysis for potential racial disparity, there 

is no way to know if there is a disparity in the selection of JPME candidates.

Civilian PME Attendance

As demonstrated in the AFPC data in Figs 48 and 49, black civilians met the DT at a 

higher rate than the average rate of all civilians meeting the DT, for both IDE and SDE for AYs 

2018-2021. However, black civilians met the Civilian Developmental Education Board (CDEB)

at a lower rate than the average across the same AYs. Despite being below the average rate that 

met the CDEB, black civilians met or exceeded the average select rate for IDE AY18 and 19 and 

were above the average select rate for AY18 and AY20. In addition, AF/A1 indicated they had 

not analyzed the data in this manner, and therefore, were not aware of the racial disparity for 

black civilians meeting the CDEB. 
58

Fig 48: 2018-2021 Civilian IDE Selection Rates

Fig 49: 2018-2021 Civilian SDE Rates
59

Civilian PME follows a process similar to the military IDE/SDE process. First, there is a 

call for nominations, followed by a Civilian DT, and then a Civilian DE board. Civilian 

personnel have to apply for IDE/SDE opportunities. Once they apply, they need an endorsement 

by their supervisor, and the endorsement must be from at least a GS-15 or SES. Unlike the 

military DE process, there is no cap on the number of civilians the supervisor (GS-15 or above) 

may endorse. The civilian DTs then evaluate the endorsed candidates to verify their eligibility, 

assess the candidate’s performance, and determine which candidates meet the Civilian 

Developmental Education Board (CDEB). The CDEB then designates who will attend PME. 

According to AF/A1, the CDEB is a diverse board and the school designations are merit 

based. Based on the data received from Civilian DE personnel in AFPC/A1, it does not appear 

designation rates are analyzed. Similar to the military IDE/SDE brief, the AF/A1 civilian 

diversity slides only show the percentages of the designees by race. They provide a comparison 

to the previous year by highlighting differences of plus or minus 3%. (Ex 45) Since the data 

only compares individual race groups to the same race group from the previous year, there is no 

way to identify potential racial disparity. This Review used the raw numbers to create Figures 

48 and 49, which show the different rates black civilians and their white counterparts met the 

DT, were nominated by the DT for the CDEB, and were ultimately designated by the CDEB.

This Review found black civilians were nominated to the CDEB at a rate lower than the 

average rate and lower than the rate for white civilians for IDE and SDE AY18-21. Likewise, 

the selection rate for black civilians was below the average selection rate for half of the eight 

IDE/SDE AYs. This Review was unable to determine if racial bias contributed to the disparity. 

Points in the process susceptible to racial bias include the endorsement comments by supervisors 

and senior leadership and the DTs who review the applicants and decide who meets the CDEB. 

According to AF/A1, racial demographics are discussed during the CDEB outbrief to AF/A1 

leadership. AF/A1 should consider conducting a more detailed analysis to determine why these 

disparities exist.

PROMOTIONS 

The IG Review found that black service members are underrepresented in 

promotions to E5-E7 and O4-O6. Additionally, black officers are underrepresented in 

Definitely Promote (DP) allocations for O5 and O6. Black, permanent, full-time civilians 

are underrepresented in GS-13 to SES grades.

Demographics

The July 2019 Census estimated the U.S. population is 60% white, 18% Hispanic, 13% 

black, 6% Asian or Other Pacific Islander, and 4% other races. An April 2020 snapshot of 

enlisted and officer ranks show 16.9% of enlisted Airmen (E1-E4) are black, which is 

overrepresented compared to the U.S. population (13%) and the eligible population (8%). On 

the other hand, Air Force O1s are 6.3% black, which is underrepresented compared to the 7% 

eligible population and 13% of the total population. (Ex 42)
60

Fig 50: Enlisted Rank by Demographic Group

Fig 51: AD Officer Demographic by Rank

The representation of civilian leadership is challenging to assess because, unlike the 

military promotion system, there is no standardized central promotion system for civilian 

members. For DAF civilians, hiring actions and promotions are individual actions taken by 

individual hiring officials. Hiring officials can promote from within an organization, or they can 

select a candidate from outside of the organization or DAF. Furthermore, hiring priorities 

established by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must be observed. Nevertheless, the 

April 2020 snapshot of civilian representation by grade shows black civilians are overrepresented 
61

compared to the U.S. population in the lower grades (GS-1 through GS-11) and underrepresented

in higher GS grades (GS-12 through SES). The disparity in black civilian representation 

increases as the grade increases.

Fig 52: Civilian Workforce Grade by Demographic Group

Enlisted Promotions 

Enlisted promotion data from 2015 through 2019 provided by AFPC and AF/A1 reveals 

disparities among some ranks and demographics. During these five years, black enlisted service 

members were underrepresented in promotion rates for all promotion categories and ranks except 

E8 and E9. White enlisted service members were overrepresented in all ranks. Enlisted service 

members of other races were underrepresented in all ranks except for E7. The most substantial 

disparity for promotion is evident in E5. Black service members promoted below the average by 

5.7% in 2015 to 9.1% in 2019. After comparing the proportion of race groups in Active Duty 

enlisted year groups with their proportion in promotions, black enlisted service members are 

underrepresented by 10 to 20% in E5, E6, and E7 promotions. White enlisted service members 

are overrepresented by up to 10% in E5, E6, and E7 promotions. Small group sizes introduce 

more variability in the higher ranks. 

Enlisted service members in the grades of E4, E5, and E6, who are eligible for 

promotion, are given a promotion recommendation through the Forced Distribution process.17 

Members’ performance reports are reviewed, and their chain of command either advocates for or 

decides on the recommendation. While race, gender, and ethnicity are published in post-board 

statistics, SNCO selection boards are not provided this information and do not consider it during 

 17Per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, Forced Distribution is “The allocation of the top two 

promotion recommendations, “Promote Now” and “Must Promote”, from a force distributor...or promotion eligible 

SrA, SSgts, and TSgts.” Large units receive their own forced distribution promotion allocations and allocations are 

awarded at the unit level. Promotion allocations for small units roll-up to compete at and received promotion 

recommendations allocations by the Senior Rater or Management Level Enlisted Forced Distribution Panel (EFDP). 

Large units are any organizational structure with 11 or more eligible Airmen, and small units are organizational 

structures with ten or less eligible Airmen. (Ex 53:115-118)
62

the selection process. However, board members may deduce a member’s gender, race, or 

ethnicity based on the name of the individual.

Fig 53: Enlisted Promotion Rates
63

Fig 54: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Promotion Rates 

With the exception of the acquisition career field, black enlisted service members 

consistently take longer to promote to E5, E6, and E7. Figure 54 is based on total time in 

service, not the time to achieve each rank. Thus, delays in promotion to E5 contribute to the 

time to achieve the ranks of E6 through E9. Additionally, the following disparities are present in 

enlisted promotions (See Ex 2:87 for detailed graphics):

• Compared to the average years in service before promotion for each Active Duty 

enlisted year group from 2008 to 2012, black enlisted service members 

consistently take longer to promote to E5 across operations, logistics, support, and 

medical career fields. 

• Compared to the average years in service before promotion for each Active Duty 

enlisted year group from 2004 to 2008, black enlisted service members 

consistently take longer to promote to E6 across operations, logistics, support, and 

medical career fields.

• Compared to the average years in service before promotion for each Active Duty 

enlisted year group from 2001 to 2005, black enlisted service members 

consistently take longer to promote to E7 across operations and support career 

fields.

• Compared to the average years in service before promotion for each Active Duty 

enlisted year group from 2001 to 2005, there seems to be no disparity in time to 

promote to E8 across race-ethnicity groups. 
64

In order to understand E5 and E6 promotion disparities, it is necessary to understand how

Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS) points are allocated. Promotion factors include 

Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) score (if applicable), Promotion Fitness Examination (PFE) 

score, decorations, and EPRs (promotion recommendations increase points, referral evaluations18

reduce points). Promotion eligibility requires members to earn a minimum score on the SKT and 

PFE.

Promotion recommendations are strong predictors of promotion and may largely explain 

promotion rates to E5 and E6. For E5 between 2017 and 2019, a "Promote Now" (PN) rating 

resulted in a 99% promotion rate, and a "Must Promote" (MP) resulted in an 86 to 90% 

promotion rate. The average promotion rate was around 50%. Between 2017 and 2019, E6s 

with a PN recommendation promoted at a 96-98% rate, and 71-76% rate with an MP 

recommendation. The average promotion rate was around 30%.

Data for the 2019 E5 promotion cycle provide some insight into the disparity in black 

enlisted promotions. Black airmen received a PN or MP recommendation at a slightly lower rate 

than the average rate. Black males received a PN or MP recommendation at a rate of 19%, 

which is below the 21% service average for males. Black females received a PN or MP 

recommendation at a rate of 26%, which was below the Air Force 30% average for females, but 

5% above the service average for males and 7% above the average for black males. The overall 

average PN and MP recommendation rate for 2019 promotion to E5 was 23%, and the overall for 

black service members was 21%. Hispanic service members were above the average at 24%, 

and white service members met the average rate at 23%. 

Lower test scores and increased quality force indicators also contributed to the lower 

promotion recommendation and promotion rates for black service members.19 For enlisted 

members under 25 years old and have less than 5 years of service, black Airmen have an 

increased likelihood of having quality force indicators, including an Unfavorable Information 

File (UIF), Article 15s, and demotions.

In 2019, E6 promotion rates, promotion recommendations, and test scores for black 

males were below the service average. Black males averaged the lowest test scores of 

race/ethnic and gender groups. Black males promoted at 27%, which was 5% below the Air 

Force average, and at a lower rate than other racial and ethnic groups. A 2008 RAND study on 

WAPS standardized test scores found black enlisted service members’ PFE and SKT scores 

 18 Per AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluations Systems, performance evaluations must be “Referred” when

“[c]omments in any OPR, EPR, LOE, or TR (to include attachments), regardless of the ratings, that are derogatory 

in nature, imply or refer to behavior incompatible with or not meeting AF standards, and/or refer to disciplinary 

actions,” “[w]hen an officer fails to meet standards in any one of the listed performance factors, in Section III or 

Section IX of the OPR,” which “drives the overall evaluation to be marked "Does Not Meet Standards" and/or “an 

evaluator marks “Does Not Meet Standards” in Section III of AF Form 707 [Officer Performance Report (Lt thru 

Col)] or “Do Not Retain” in Section IV of AF Form 912 [Enlisted Performance Report (CMSgt)].” (Ex 53:34-35) 19 Per AFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, quality indicators include UIF, Control Roster, and Article 15s. 

The UIF is an “official record of unfavorable information about an individual. It documents administrative, judicial, 

and nonjudicial actions.” The Control Roster “is a rehabilitative tool that commanders may use to establish a 6-

month observation period,” and Article 15, UCMJ is “nonjudicial punishment that allows commanders to 

administratively discipline Airmen without a court-martial.”(Ex 54:19) 
65

tended to be below average, and low test scores were consistent with lower AFQT test scores at 

accession. (Ex 15:102)

Starting in 2015, the Air Force removed time-in-grade (TIG) and time-in-service (TIS) 

points from WAPS scores, removing one-third of the point value each year until completely 

eliminating this point category in 2017. This Air Force decision was focused on driving and 

rewarding better performance by removing points based solely on seniority. With the removal of 

TIG and TIS points, a greater premium is placed on testing and performance with an opportunity 

to earn additional performance points through the award of PN or MP recommendations, as 

previously discussed. In addition, given known disparities in testing and the inability to centrally 

board the large number of E5s and E6s for promotion, greater emphasis was placed on 

performance and lower point values were placed on testing. Service members who have 

difficulty with SKT and PFE testing and whose performance does not earn them the additional 

points through a PN or MP will have a lower chance of promotion. E4 and E5 promotions rates 

in 2019 and 2020 also reveal service members who test well and often have fewer years of 

service tend to earn higher PN and MP promotion recommendation rates. Enlisted members 

who, over time, overcome their testing challenges may still promote at a lower rate as their TIG 

increases unless they earn the higher performance recommendations of PN and MP.

Black enlisted members are underrepresented in promotions to E7, whereas they are 

overrepresented in E8 and E9 promotions. In the past, SNCO promotion scoring was similar to 

NCOs. However, in 2019, the Air Force removed the WAPS testing requirement and decoration 

scores for E7 through E9 promotions. After these changes took effect in 2020, black service 

members were promoted to E7 near the service average. Analysis of E7, E8, and E9 promotions 

reveals the most recent promotion recommendation (“on-top” recommendation) and EPR ratings 

reflecting the most recent performance primarily explain promotion board scores. It is important 

to note that the enlisted evaluation board at AFPC (SNCO promotions) evaluates the last five 

years of performance reports, while Force Distributors (NCO promotions) evaluate the last three 

EPRs (including the “on top” year). In this manner, the emphasis is placed on recent 

performance and accomplishments since their last promotion. This ensures early discrepancies 

in performance or negative quality indicators from a younger portion of a career can be 

overcome and will not cause a continued negative impact for high performing Airmen. Coupled 

with removing testing, AF/A1 believes these changes are expected to help underrepresented 

groups – at the E7 level in particular. 

Other factors drive promotion rates. Data indicate authorization structures impact 

promotion rates thus promotion rates vary by AFSC. Promotion rates are used as force shaping 

tools in overmanned and undermanned AFSCs. Career fields with higher turnover rates also 

tend to have higher promotion rates. Furthermore, for E5 and E6 promotions, testing and EPR 

scores do not have the same impact in every AFSC. In some career fields, test scores have a 

higher impact on promotion rates. More difficult SKTs for select career fields result in higher 

promotion disqualification rates. Finally, decorations could have an amplified impact for E5 

promotions because enlisted service members earn points for decorations, and E5s with more 

medals are more likely to be awarded PNs and MPs.
66

AF/A1 is aware of the disparities in enlisted promotions by race and believes promotion 

board members appropriately score records. According to AF/A1, promotion disparities have 

three causes:

• Higher rate of quality force indicator issues for black E4s and E5s

• Lower test scores for black E4s, E5s, and E6s

• Overrepresentation of black service members in AFSCs that have lower promotion 

rates and lower turnover

AFPC and RAND research data support these points. AF/A1 believes bias may play a 

role as well. This Review’s survey comments and group sessions also reveal black service 

members feel they are not given the benefit of the doubt, lack mentoring, and do not have equal 

opportunity for development. 

Officer Promotions

According to AFPC and AF/A1 data, black officers were promoted below the average 

rates during the last five years. Between 2015 and 2019, black officers were promoted below the 

overall average rate and below white officers’ rate in every IPZ board to O4, O5, and O6, except 

in the 2018 O6 board. Furthermore, black officers were consistently underrepresented from 

2015 to 2019 APZ to O4. Also, black officers were underrepresented for both O5 and O6 BPZ. 

It is important to note, however, that small sample sizes introduce more variability in the higher 

ranks and smaller race/ethnic groups. 

Over the past five years, compared to the proportion of other races, black officers were 

underrepresented in O4 Above Primary Zone (APZ) promotions, O5 and O6 Below Primary 

Zone (BPZ) promotions, and for all three grades for In Primary Zone (IPZ) promotion rates. 

Officers in the category of “other” races were underrepresented in all promotion categories and 

ranks except for O4 APZ. White officers were consistently overrepresented at every rank and in 

every promotion category. There is no BPZ data for O4 from 2015 to 2019 and no APZ data for 

O4 2018 to 2019. Group size for O6 APZ is not sufficient to calculate the relative racial 

disparity.
67

Fig 55: Officer Promotion Rates 
68

Fig 56: Racial Disparity in Officer Promotion Rates

Pilots historically have a higher rate of BPZ selection than other AFSCs. Black officers' 

underrepresentation in the pilot AFSCs (2% of pilots) likely contributes to the disparity in black 

representation at higher officer ranks.20 

 20 As of May 2020, 77.9% of the total AD officer force is white, but makes up 86.7% of the pilot force (11Xs). By 

comparison, 5.3% of the AD officer force is black, but only 2.0% of AF pilots are black. (Source MilPDS, 

HAF/A1DV).
69

Fig 57: O5 and O6 Below the Promotion Zone (BPZ) Selection Rates

O5 BPZ Rate By Occupation Below Primary Zone 

(Selection Rate)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pilot 5.5% 5.5% 4.9% 6.7% 4.3%

Combat Systems Officer/Nav (2015-16) 2.1% 3.7% 1.8% 2.9% 2.1%

Air Battle Manager 2.5% 2.4% 6.5% 1.1% 4.6%

Non Rated Ops 4.2% 2.4% 3.4% 2.3% 4.6%

Mission Support 3.8% 1.6% 2.1% 2.3% 3.5%

Overall Rate 4.3% 3.4% 3.4% 3.9% 3.9%

In a 2016 interview, former Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen (Ret) Larry Spencer, 

addressed the importance of BPZ selection rates in shaping the future of the Air Force's top 

leadership. He said, "[b]elow-the-zone is where, probably 99.9% of the time, General Officers 

come from...[T]hose are your future General Officers. That's when the Air Force as a system 

starts breaking out superstars who have the greatest potential. There's a lot that goes into that. 

Obviously, potential and talent goes into it, but also mentoring and the ratings you get and those 

types of things." (Ex 32:8) In 2019, the Air Force announced the transition from the below-thezone system to a more merit-based system that allows for further development and advancement 

among later-blooming, superior performing officers. 

Promotion recommendations largely explain promotion rates. Between 2015 and 2019, a 

"Definitely Promote" (DP) recommendation resulted in over a 99% selection rate for IPZ and a 

100% selection rate for APZ to O4. For promotion to O5 from 2015 to 2019, 98.8 to 99.8% of 

DPs were selected IPZ. A DP BPZ increased the promotion rate to O5 from the average rate of 

3.4 to 4.3% to the DP rate of 24.8 to 32.5%. 2015 to 2019 IPZ selection rate for O6 with a DP 

was 94.2 to 99.4%. 

A closer look at the DP data by race shows from 2015 to 2019, black officers and other 

races consistently received DP recommendations to O5 below the average rate, while white 

officers were recommended for DP above the average rate. Black officers received DP 

recommendations to O6 from 2016 to 2019 below the average rate. In 2015, black officers 

received DP recommendations above the average rate – the same year, black officers were above

the average for BPZ rates.

O6 BPZ Rate By Occupation Below Primary Zone 

(Selection Rate)

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Pilot 3.3% 4.3% 2.6% 2.3% 2.0%

Combat Systems Officer 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1% 1.6%

Air Battle Manager 2.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

Non Rated Ops 1.5% 1.0% 1.6% 2.0% 3.2%

Mission Support 1.7% 1.0% 1.2% 2.3% 1.2%

Overall Rate 2.2% 2.1% 1.7% 2.0% 1.9%
70

Fig 58: Racial Disparity O5 and O6 Definitely Promote (DP) Recommendation Rates 

According to data provided by HAF/A1 and AFPC, there is a disparity in DP 

recommendations within AFSC categories. For instance, operational AFSCs (1XXX) appear to 

have a DP recommendation rate near the overall average. However, upon closer examination, it 

is apparent that pilots (11X) received DP recommendations well above the average rate, and all 

other 1XXX AFSCs combined receive DP recommendations well below the average rate. Pilots 

are the largest AFSC in the Air Force and the least diverse: only 2% of the pilot force is black.

For operational AFSCs, black officers comprise 5.6% of intelligence officers and 10.1% of cyber 

officers. The AFSCs with higher percentages of black officers receive DP recommendations at a 

below-average rate. A similar trend is present with 2XXX Logistics AFSCs, which includes 

Aircraft Maintenance (21A), Munitions and Missile Maintenance (21M), and Logistics 

Readiness (21R). Logistics Readiness (21R) has the highest percentage of black officers (9.6% in 

2019). Aircraft Maintenance (21A) and Munitions and Maintenance (21M) have lower 

percentages of black officers at approximately 6.5%. However, Aircraft Maintenance officers 

(21A) consistently received higher DP recommendations for O5 than the other 2XXX AFSCs, 

and well above the average. The higher rate of DPs for AFSCs with lower populations of black 

officers contributes to the racial disparity in officer promotions.
71

Fig 59: O5 and O6 Definitely Promote (DP) Recommendation Rates by AFSC
72

Fig 60: Select Officer AFSCs by Demographic Group

AF/A1 is aware of the racial disparities in officer promotions and assesses that the officer 

promotion boards appropriately score records. In 2014, RAND published a study on Improving 

Officer Diversity, which supported AF/A1’s position. The study found "no evidence of 

differential promotion outcomes, suggesting that systematic bias is not present the Air Force's 

[officer] promotion system." (Ex 21:40) However, the study found unexplained gaps in the 

"Definitely Promote" (DP) and selection for black line officers' promotion as shown in the figure 

below. RAND's model for this gap analysis did not include other essential factors, such as 

stratification given to officers by their senior rater, enthusiastic endorsements for future positions 

or PME opportunities in performance reports, or positional opportunities and advantages such as 

working directly for a General Officer. Accordingly, RAND could not infer that DP and select 

gaps for minority groups were indicators of discriminatory practices. 
73

Fig 61: Gaps in Definitely Promote (DP) and Promotion Selection for Line Officers

RAND’s 2014 study also found several variables established early in an officer's career,

such as AFSC, are strong predictors of promotion to senior levels. The report said, "[t]he 

importance of these characteristics grows over time because promotion prospects at each level 

take into account an officer's entire career; they are not reset at each pay grade. For minority 

groups, who are less likely to have at least some of these vital characteristics, promotion 

prospects diminish as their career moves forward." (Ex 21: xviii) Furthermore, minorities are 

generally less represented in operational AFSCs that tend to have higher promotion rates. As

career paths are generally selected at accession, any analysis of promotion must circle back to 

recruiting and accession. The RAND study concluded, "if improving promotion prospects for 

minorities is a policy goal, the Air Force likely needs to begin with recruiting." (Ex 21:28)

AF/A1’s position is that bias in the system may cause black officers to be underexposed 

to career-broadening opportunities, less aware of or not pushed for key developmental positions, 

and less afforded mentorship engagements. This perspective is supported by black senior 

leaders' perspectives, service member responses in the Racial Disparity Review survey, and 

Racial Disparity Review group sessions. As such, on 8 September 2020, AF/A1 published a 

memorandum addressing bias and released the “Unconscious Bias Mitigation Training 

Architecture.” If funded, training will be fully implemented by FY22 and embedded in every 

formal training and education touchpoint for officers, enlisted, and civilians. (Ex 33; Ex 34; Ex 

35)

Although AF/A1 did not believe there was bias in the formal promotion board process, 

the training architecture includes a “just-in-time” tailored bias presentation for use before “Talent 

Evaluation.” (Ex 35) Research shows that adequately crafted bias training can provide positive 

outcomes for a limited time. (Ex 36) 

Bias training alone will not reduce promotion disparities. More research is needed to 

understand the disparities in DP allocation and promotion rates. Although AF/A1 requires 

functional Developmental Teams (DTs) to complete barrier analyses, there is little accountability 

Source: RAND, Ex 21:41
74

for DTs who do not take this type of analysis seriously and do not fully comply with AF/A1’s 

mandate. More oversight should be considered to ensure DTs are complying with AF/A1

direction to complete barrier analyses.

In 2020, the Air Force overhauled its Line of the Air Force (LAF) promotion system by 

creating six new promotion categories: air operations and special warfare, space operations, 

nuclear and missile operations, information warfare, combat support, and force modernization. 

This new system allows officers in each specialty category to compete against a standard that is 

more applicable to their respective career fields. By introducing specialty categories, AF/A1 

expects promotions rates for minorities to improve. Based on data analyzed, the Review team 

concurs with AF/A1’s prediction. The largest two AFSCs are pilots (15,011) and combat system 

officers (CSOs) (3,992). These AFSCs also have a low representation of minorities at 2% for 

black pilots and 3% for black CSOs; and pilots are consistently given DP recommendations 

above the average rate. 

Under the new system, pilots and CSOs will compete in the air operations and special 

warfare category. AFSCs that have a higher representation of minorities, such as cyber officers 

and force support officers, will be assessed in separate categories allowing them to compete 

against officers of similar qualifications and experience. For example, acquisition AFSCs 

traditionally are given DP recommendations for promotion at a rate below the average, at least 

partly because officers in these fields have non-traditional, career-specific milestones they must

meet, and they have fewer command opportunities, making them less competitive for promotion 

as compared to other AFSCs. According to May 2020 MilPDS data, the acquisition manager 

AFSC (63A) is composed of 2,692 officers, 9.2% of which are black, while the contracting 

officer AFSC (64P), with 825 officers, has 13.5% black officers. Under the new system, these 

officers will compete with officers in similar paths, increasing their overall promotion chances. 

As mentioned previously, the 2020 overhaul of the officer promotion system also 

removed the BPZ system in favor of a more merit-based system. This change will increase the 

IPZ and APZ rates and is expected to reduce disparities in the promotion rates among AFSCs 

and minority officers over time. In May 2020, the Air Force conducted its first promotion board 

that included the changes mentioned above. Once the board results are released, AF/A1 plans to 

review the results to determine the impact of these changes. It is recommended that promotion 

disparities be examined after each promotion board to determine the long-term effects of these 

changes.

Civilian Leadership Representation

The DAF draws from the U.S. labor market to capitalize on available civilian talent.21 As 

with the military service members, the DAF has not maintained a demographically diverse 

civilian workforce. (Ex 26:vii) Black civilians are underrepresented in Air Force civilian senior 

 21 Due to “Veteran’s Preference,” the largest labor market for the DAF is military veterans. Veterans' Preference 

“gives eligible veterans preference in appointment over many other applicants. Veterans' preference applies to all 

new appointments in the competitive service and many in the excepted service. Veterans' preference does not 

guarantee veterans a job, and it does not apply to internal agency actions such as promotions, transfers, 

reassignments, and reinstatements.” There are three types of preference eligibility: sole survivorship, non-disable, 

and disabled. (https://www.fedshirevets.gov/job-seekers/veterans-preference/)
75

leadership positions. Approximately 13% of the DAF permanent, full-time civilian workforce is 

composed of black service members. Yet, between 2015 and 2019, black civilians represented 

8% to 8.8% of the GS-13/15 grades and 4.4% to 5.1% of the Senior Executive Service (SES) 

grades. Conversely, white civilians make up approximately 74.5% of the workforce. Their

representation increases to approximately 82% of the grades of GS-13/15 and above 85% of 

SESs. All remaining race, ethnic, and gender groups are underrepresented in GS-13 through 

SES compared to the entire permanent workforce. 

Fig 62: DAF Permenant Full-Time Civilians by Demographic Group

A 2020 RAND study on Advancement and Retention Barriers in the U.S. Air Force 

Civilian White Collar Workforce found that women, black men, and Hispanic men start at lower 

entry grades than white men. RAND’s quantitative model found civilian employees who start at 

a lower grade cannot “catch up,” limiting their opportunity to qualify for senior leadership 

positions. (Ex 31:viii, x)
76

Fig 63: Grade Level of Employees at Entry by Demographic Group

The 2020 RAND study also found women and racial and ethnic minorities expressed 

slightly less awareness of promotion opportunities than white men. Many surveyed groups, 

regardless of race, ethnicity, or gender, reported that feedback, mentoring, and career 

development support are limited or lacking. Furthermore, several participants indicated their 

supervisors do not feel responsible for providing feedback, and some reported a lack of 

transparency surrounding selections for training opportunities. (Ex 34:xii) Finally, the RAND 

study found four factors that are important to promotion: (Ex 34:xi)

• Individuals’ social networks (the survey population reported this as the most 

important factor)

 Source: RAND, Ex 31:26
77

• Individual qualifications, such as education and strong prior performance or 

experience

• Individual characteristics, such as initiative and drive 

• Mobility or the willingness to move for a higher pay grade position 

A promotion system where social networks play an important role in hiring decisions 

leaves room for bias in the selection process. 

The 2020 RAND study provided three recommendations to overcome barriers to 

recruitment and retention in the civilian workforce: (Ex 34:xv)

• Identify root causes for the entry-level gap for women and other minority groups 

• Ensure that supervisors and managers take responsibility for the career 

development and disability management of their staff 

• Monitor the advancement and retention of civilian demographic groups that have 

lower-than-expected advancement or retention rates 

Between 2015 and 2019, the representation for black GS-13/15s increased from 8.0% to 

8.8%, and other races increased from 9.0% to 9.9%. Similarly, black SES representation 

increased from 4.2% to 5.1%, and other races increased from 8.4% to 9%. The improvements in 

minority and women representation may result from targeted efforts to increase diversity in 

civilian leadership positions. In 2015, the Air Force adopted significant policy changes after the 

Air Force Barrier Analysis Working Group (AFBAWG) identified several barriers to recruitment 

and selection. These barriers included using a “military lens” during the selection process, 

preferential hiring of retired military members, and geographic mobility expectations for 

development opportunities and promotions, limiting opportunities for women and minorities. 

( Ex 37:10) An April 2015 memorandum from the Secretary of the Air Force and Chief of the 

Staff of the Air Force on 2015 Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Initiatives outlined changes to 

hiring and selection of DAF civilians: (Ex 37; Ex 38)

• Diverse hiring panels for GS-14 and GS-15 positions are required. The panel must 

include one civilian with no prior military experience. 

• External-only recruitment is prohibited.

• Use of specific military job requirements and attributes that may only be attained 

through uniformed service are prohibited unless absolutely required for the 

position.

• External, non-competitive, by-name requests for hiring into GS-14 and GS-15 

positions are limited to mission-critical reasons

• All civilian jobs must be posted for a minimum of five business days. For GS-13 

positions and above, 10 days is recommended.

The Review team was unable to obtain more data on civilian leadership representation 

between 2015 and 2019. DAF civilian leadership can only be as diverse as the representation of 

people who apply for positions and are minimally qualified for the job. A factor to consider is the 

role of “Veteran’s Preference” in the hiring process. A qualified veteran is given hiring priority 
78

over other candidates, which could limit the hiring authority’s ability to hire diverse applicants. 

Regardless, it is unknown if there is racial disparity in applicants for civilian leadership 

positions, a disparity in applicants' qualifications, or disparity in selection rates for those 

positions based on race, ethnicity, or gender. More data and study are suggested to understand 

why, despite incremental progress, there continue to be disparities in women and minority 

representation in DAF civilian leadership. 

Interim Conclusion

The Air Force and Space Force promote officer and enlisted members from within the 

service. As such, representation across minority groups is influenced by the representation of 

these groups at accession. If promotion and retention are equivalent across race, ethnic, and 

gender groups, senior leaders will not be any more diverse than their cohort representation at 

accessions.(Ex 21:4) According to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), 

increases in the representation of minorities or women in the higher ranks are not possible 

"unless DoD implements systematic changes in how the services outreach, recruit, develop, 

retain, and promote their members." (Ex 21:1) Without policy intervention, the gap in minorities 

and women among senior leaders will not be closed. Furthermore, it is unclear why there is a 

disparity in women and minorities in civilian leadership position representation; additional study 

is suggested.

OFFICER ASSIGNMENTS

Officer and Civilian Development Teams

A critical component of officer and civilian development is Development Teams (DT). 

Under AFI 36-2670, Total Force Management, paragraph 1.4.1. Development Team 

Establishment, force development for officers and DAF civilians “is managed by development 

teams. Development teams should develop an understanding of both officer and civilian 

resources and requirements, and ensure all career field members are provided with appropriate 

development opportunities. Functional managers should integrate officer and civilian 

development teams to the maximum extent possible.” (Ex 43:20, 21) Although the AFI does not 

specifically state DTs must be diverse, additional AF/A1 guidance states, “[i]t is incumbent upon 

the DT Chair to ensure their DT has diversity amongst voting and non-voting members as

defined in AFI 36-7001, Diversity and Inclusion, paragraph 1.3., Air Force diversity includes but 

is not limited to: personal life experiences, cultural knowledge, philosophical/spiritual 

perspectives, geographic, socioeconomic, educational, and work background, language and 

physical abilities, age, race, ethnicity, and gender.” (Ex 55:2; Ex 61:3)

Each DT is chaired by an O-6/GS-15 (or equivalent) or higher. For a development 

education DT, the chair must be a General Officer or member of the senior executive service. 

DT membership consists of the development team chair, career field manager, and key force 

development stakeholders (must be O-6/GS-15 or higher (e.g., Air Staff Directors/Deputy 

Directors, Air Staff-level subject matter experts, Major Command-level functional leadership). 

The overall responsibility of the DT is to identify education, training, and experiences 

appropriate for officers and civilians within each functional community based on current and 
79

future requirements. The AFI lists over 40 DT responsibilities, but for the purpose of this 

Review, the following related responsibilities are highlighted: (Ex 43:21)

• DTs provide developmental vectors to officers at five mandatory trigger points starting 

at promotion to major (O4): IDE outplacement, squadron commander outplacement, 

promotion to lieutenant colonel, and SDE outplacement. DTs validate and endorse selfnominated GS-14/15 candidates for the Civilian Strategic Leadership Program, and they

determine Developmental Education Designation Board nominations (civilian) and 

vectors (military), squadron command and squadron director candidate lists, Advanced 

Studies Group nominations, and AF/A1-approved, functionally-sponsored development 

programs. (Ex 43:23-25)

• In addition, DTs are responsible for identifying and providing special attention to highpotential officers (HPO). Senior rater inputs are given primary consideration in making 

HPO determinations. HPOs demonstrate depth and expertise through exceptional 

performance in functional skills, and they excel in managing resources, leading people, 

improving the unit, and executing the mission. The AFI adds specific guidance 

regarding HPOs. To prevent unintended effects to both those identified and not 

identified, the specific outcomes of high-potential officer decision processes/tracking 

(e.g., names and targeted high-potential officer positions) will not be publicly shared or 

released. (Ex 43:22) 

• Lastly, DTs are responsible for reviewing the functional community’s demographic 

makeup and identifying potential barriers to all Airmen and Space Professionals 

reaching their highest potential. DTs conduct gap and barrier analyses to address any 

negative trends. AF/A1 provides DTs with diversity statistics by career field, and DTs 

analyze the data to determine if the career field lacks diversity. If a lack of diversity is 

found due to barriers identified, then DTs conduct barrier analyses, provide action plans, 

and/or recommended diversity discussion topics. (Ex 43:22) AF/A1 officer DT 

guidance states, “[i]t is critical that DTs identify potential barriers that inhibit any group 

of Air and Space Professionals from key developmental milestones, and the Office of the 

General Counsel (SAF/GC) will provide DTs with specific guidance and support on 

conducting the Barrier Analysis process.” 

DTs are a key component to ensuring officers and civilians are vectored to the 

appropriate developmental opportunities during their careers. Although AFI 36-2670, Total 

Force Management, does not direct diverse DTs, AF/A1 provides additional guidance placing 

responsibility on the DT chair to ensure diversity of its members. Since there is less diversity 

among the O-6 and GS-15 population, it is likely harder for DT chairs to ensure their DT’s 

diversity. Because DTs have significant input on career development opportunities, there is a 

greater potential to introduce racial bias in the process. For example, the type of vectors DT 

members provide, which officers are identified as HPOs, and how closely they manage those 

HPOs, could all be influenced by bias. Both AFI and AF/A1 guidance call on DTs to identify 

barriers, conduct analyses, and provide action plans or discussion topics to address the barriers. 

However, this Review found the 2019 Barrier Analysis report provided to AF/A1DV was lacking 

in specifics. AF/A1 acknowledged not all DTs provide the required effort and analysis to 

identify and track diversity and potential barriers. 
80

Executive Officer and Aide-De-Camp Positions

Fig 64: Executive Officer and Aide De Camp Positions by Race

Source: AF/A1

AF/A1 found black officers are overrepresented in Executive Officer 97E and Aide-DeCamp 88A selection compared to the overall officer population. These data refer just to the 97E 

and 88A positions. However, executive officer positions at the squadron, group, and wing levels 

are not usually 97E positions. Typically, wing and group commanders hire strong performers 

from the wing’s squadrons to fill key executive officer positions. Executive officer positions are

key officer development opportunities, and officers selected over their peers for executive officer 

positions, particularly at the group and wing level, are typically considered high performers. In 

addition, officers whose performance reports are rated by a group or wing commander rather 

than a squadron commander could be a differentiator among officers with otherwise similar 

records. To analyze the demographics of wing level and below executive officer positions, 

AF/A1 should consider conducting a comprehensive review to identify officer performance 

reports with executive officer duty titles. 

LEADERSHIP

Black officers are underrepresented in wing command and group command 

positions. Black enlisted service members are underrepresented at the group 

superintendent positions.

Squadron, group, and wing commander selection processes are important in the life cycle 

of an officer. An officer’s performance as a squadron commander is a key indicator of whether 

the officer can successfully serve in the next higher grade. Similarly, strong performance as a 

wing commander would make it more likely the officer is promoted into General Officer ranks. 
81

Officer Leadership

Squadron Commanders

The selection process begins with the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) issuing a 

Personnel Services Delivery Memorandum (PSDM) to announce the schedule of events for the 

Consolidated Squadron Commander, Mission Support Group, and Air Base Group Deputy 

Commander Candidate selection process. According to PSDM 20-17 for the CY21 Squadron 

Commander and Deputy Group Commander Candidate selection process, Development Teams 

from 29 different career fields met to consider candidates for available positions. (Ex 46)

Most communities have an “all in” policy where eligible officers are required to submit a 

Statement of Intent (SOI). Nominating authorities are Senior Raters (SR), such as wing 

commanders or equivalent and directors. There is no limit on the number of officers a 

nominating authority may nominate. However, SRs should only nominate those who possess the 

qualities required for command, such as exceptional leadership skills, set the example through 

unquestioned integrity and professional competence, can motivate others, demonstrate concern 

and interest in subordinates, show excellent mentoring skills, and possess a drive to take the 

initiative. Most career fields require the SRs to endorse, provide comments, and sometimes rank 

order their squadron commander nominations. (Ex 46)

AF-level DTs are typically held at AFPC and led by a GO or SES. The DTs consist of 

career field managers and senior officers and civilians from the HAF and MAJCOM staffs. For 

the larger flying category DTs such as Combat Air Forces (CAF), Mobility Air Forces (MAF), 

and Special Operations Forces (SOF), the leads are typically from the MAJCOMs. Under AFI 

36-2670, DT membership will consist of the DT Chair, Career Field Manager (CFM), and key 

stakeholders representing the functional community. DTs are used to identify squadron 

commander candidates and identify career field-specific primary squadron commander lists from 

SR nominations. (Ex 43:21)

The data in the next figure shows, except for 2018, the percentage of black squadron 

commanders from 2012-2019 has been above 5.4%.

Fig 65: 2012-2019 Squadron Commander Demographics

SQUADRON COMMANDER

RACE/ETHNICITY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

American Indian 0.35% 0.48% 0.41% 0.46% 0.34% 0.48% 0.36% 0.27%

Asian 1.82% 2.13% 2.03% 1.79% 2.36% 2.51% 2.93% 2.60%

Black/African American 6.94% 6.77% 6.44% 7.64% 7.48% 6.95% 5.33% 5.83%

Declined to Respond 3.73% 4.51% 4.46% 5.43% 5.26% 5.45% 6.27% 6.41%

Hispanic 2.73% 2.52% 2.30% 2.90% 3.04% 2.95% 2.71% 2.38%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.22% 0.17% 0.18% 0.09% 0.24% 0.44% 0.44% 0.40%

Two or More 1.13% 0.91% 1.40% 1.38% 1.40% 1.27% 1.38% 1.88%

White Non-Hispanic 83.09% 82.51% 82.79% 80.31% 79.87% 79.96% 80.58% 80.22%

Source: MilPDS

Provided by: HAF/A1XD, HAF/A1DV
82

The data do not indicate racial disparity in selection for squadron command. Most DTs 

use a promotion board-like scoring process to produce a merit-based list of candidates. CAF, 

MAF, and SOF boards are primarily made up of sitting wing commanders as their functional 

experts, whereas the support AFSCs usually have functional representation from each 

MAJCOM. Inputs to the process include SR comments, endorsements, and sometimes the SR’s

rank order, which could introduce biases into the process. (Of note, this is not unique to this 

process as reports, such as OPRs and EPRs, include subjective input controlled by a rater or SR.) 

As SRs and DTs do influence the identification and selection of squadron commander 

candidates, however, the process may be vulnerable to bias. The barrier analysis requirements 

discussed above, if given serious consideration and include a thorough analysis by the DTs, 

should provide good information for MAJCOMs and DTs to address any identified disparities or 

barriers. 

Command Screening Board (CSB) Process

The Air Force has a command selection process to identify the most qualified colonels 

(O6) for the limited number of group, vice, and wing commander positions. Approximately 24% 

of all O6 positions are command billets. About half of the approximately 780 group, vice wing, 

wing command, and equivalent positions become vacant each year. (Ex 47:6)

AF/A1 identifies all Colonels and Colonel-selects who meet the published CSB eligibility 

criteria. The CSB is not a promotion board. All Colonels have access to their senior officer 

personnel briefs (SOPBs) that will be reviewed by the board electronically at any time. The 

memorandum of instruction provided to the board members includes a statement on the 

importance of diversity and inclusion and directs the board members to afford fair and equitable 

consideration for all potential command candidates. A board consisting of a panel of General 

Officers, chaired by a 4-Star General, reviews the Master Selection Folder (e-Record) consisting 

of performance reports, decorations, promotion recommendations, and SOPB for each eligible 

officer and scores the record. When the board is complete, and a cut line is established, the 

board conducts a diversity review for each category. According to AF/A1, the board reviews the 

list for diversity, and the board president has the option to adjust the candidate cut line and 

increase the number of candidates on the list if it would increase diversity without compromising 

the quality level of the list. CSAF approves the list of candidates, and AF/A1 publishes the 

Command Candidate List (CCL). (Ex 48)

Hiring authorities (typically MAJCOM/CCs) bid for candidates from the CCL for their 

projected command vacancies. The CSB is complete after AF/A1 deconflicts all bids, CSAF 

approves the projected matches, and the Command Selection List (CSL) is released. The 

remaining CCL candidates who are not matched with an assignment could be matched to unprojected command vacancies that may occur during the following year.

In addition to the diversity review during the board, AF/A1 also reviews the 

demographics of the officers on the CCL and provides an outbrief to the CSAF. This Review 

requested demographic data and AF/A1 provided the CCL data below. The CSL data, which is 

not presently tracked, would be useful to analyze if there were any racial disparities in the 

demographics of colonel who were actually matched to valid command positions.
83

The Review team noted that for 2017-2018, black group commanders were 

underrepresented by four and five candidates respectively for the CCL. With the small numbers 

of black officers, it only takes a difference of one or two officers to match the candidate select 

rate for all races. The Review noted there did not appear to be racial disparity in the number of 

black candidates for 2019-2020, and for all years, black candidates matched the overall select 

rates for the Health Profession and overrepresented in the Senior Materiel Leader positions. The 

“number to meet rate” in the figure below is the number of additional officers needed to match 

the overall select rate for the category.

Fig 66: 2017-2020 CCL Select Rates

Source: HAF/A1LO

# to 

Meet Rate

Overall White Black

Wing/CC 19% 20% 15% 1

SML 48% 45% 71%

Group/CC 52% 54% 41% 4

HP 12% 13% 12%

2017 CCL Select Rates

# to 

Meet Rate

Overall White Black

Wing/CC 19% 20% 13% 1

SML 78% 76% 88%

Group/CC 57% 59% 45% 5

HP 13% 13% 16%

2018 CCL Select Rates

# to 

Meet Rate

Overall White Black

Wing/CC 32% 33% 25% 2

SML 89% 89% 86% 1

Group/CC 64% 66% 67%

HP 12% 12% 12%

2019 CCL Select Rates

# to 

Meet Rate

Overall White Black

Wing/CC 37% 38% 32% 1

SML 84% 84% 100%

Group/CC 69% 71% 65% 1

HP 31% 32% 29% 1

2020 CCL Select Rates
84

Group Commanders

When this data was compared to the 6% black Colonel population, there did not appear to 

be racial disparity in the percentage of black group commanders.

Fig 67: 2012-2019 Group Commander Demographics

SQUADRON COMMANDER

RACE/ETHNICITY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

American Indian 0.35% 0.48% 0.41% 0.46% 0.34% 0.48% 0.36% 0.27%

Asian 1.82% 2.13% 2.03% 1.79% 2.36% 2.51% 2.93% 2.60%

Black/African American 6.94% 6.77% 6.44% 7.64% 7.48% 6.95% 5.33% 5.83%

Declined to Respond 3.73% 4.51% 4.46% 5.43% 5.26% 5.45% 6.27% 6.41%

Hispanic 2.73% 2.52% 2.30% 2.90% 3.04% 2.95% 2.71% 2.38%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.22% 0.17% 0.18% 0.09% 0.24% 0.44% 0.44% 0.40%

Two or More 1.13% 0.91% 1.40% 1.38% 1.40% 1.27% 1.38% 1.88%

White Non-Hispanic 83.09% 82.51% 82.79% 80.31% 79.87% 79.96% 80.58% 80.22%

Source: MilPDS

Provided by: HAF/A1XD, HAF/A1DV

Wing Commanders

When this data was compared to the 6% black colonel population, black officers were 

underrepresented in wing commander positions.

Fig 68: 2012-2019 Wing Commander Demographics

WING COMMANDER

RACE/ETHNICITY 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

American Indian/Native Alaskan 

Asian 0.86% 0.92% 0.99% 0.85% 0.90% 1.77% 2.59%

Black/African American 2.59% 2.75% 1.98% 5.61% 5.13% 4.50% 3.54% 4.31%

Declined to Respond 0.86% 0.92% 0.99% 3.74% 3.42% 2.70% 3.54% 2.59%

Hispanic 0.86% 1.98% 1.87% 1.71% 0.90% 0.88% 0.86%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander 0.88% 0.86%

Two or More 1.80% 2.65% 2.59%

White Non-Hispanic 94.83% 95.41% 94.06% 88.79% 88.89% 89.19% 86.73% 86.21%

Source: MilPDS

Provided by: HAF/A1XD, HAF/A1DV

This Review’s analysis found that compared to the proportion of race and ethnicity 

groups in the Active Duty Air Force O6 population, black, Hispanic, and Latino Colonels were 

generally underrepresented by between 10 and 50% respectively in wing commander positions. 

White Colonels were consistently overrepresented in wing commander positions. (Ex 2:68)
85

Fig 69: Racial Disparity in Wing Commanders 

Fig 70: Career Field Disparity in Wing Commanders
86

The Review’s analysis also found that although 40 to 50% of Company Grade Officers 

(CGOs) and Field Grade Officers (FGOs) were in operations career fields, more than 80% of 

wing commanders come from an operations background. Furthermore, at the O6-level, 

operations career fields were overrepresented by close to 100% compared to the O6 population

as a whole. As stated earlier in this report, black officers are underrepresented in the operations 

career fields, which then leads to underrepresentation in wing commander positions. (Ex 2:69) 

This racial underrepresentation is important because when there is a smaller pool at the lower 

ranks, it translates into a smaller pool at the O6 level, particularly when one accounts for 

attrition.

Leadership positions are key milestones in an officer’s career. Officers who perform well 

in junior leadership roles increase their chances of promotion and serving in more senior group 

and wing leadership positions. The Review found DTs play a large role in determining 

command candidates. The Review also found, and AF/A1 acknowledged, that many DTs do not 

conduct a thorough review or a thorough barrier analysis as required by AFI 36-2670, Total 

Force Management. Although, the overall CSB process was found to be thorough and included 

diversity reviews, SR and DT comments and vectors are potential areas where bias could be 

introduced into the process. 

Based on data provided by AF/A1, this Review found racial disparity in the CCL 

selection rates for wing commanders. AF/A1 does not capture the actual CSL or match rates, so 

this Review was unable to assess racial disparities in that process. AF/A1 acknowledged the 

racial disparity in wing commanders, but comprehensive analysis on the root cause of this 

disparity has not been conducted. AF/A1 advised that the low representation of black officers in 

operational career fields (2-10%), with the high percentage of commanders coming from those 

career fields (80%) is likely a substantial factor.

Enlisted Leadership

According to this Review’s analysis of AF/A1 data, black enlisted members were 

underrepresented in group superintendent positions, overrepresented in command chief positions

over the past five years, and evenly represented in First Sergeants. White enlisted service

members were overrepresented in First Sergeants and group superintendent positions, and evenly 

represented in command chief positions. Hispanic or Latino enlisted service members and 

enlisted service members of other race-ethnicity groups were consistently underrepresented in all 

enlisted leadership positions. (Ex 2:70)
87

Fig 71: 2015-2019 Racial Disparity in Enlisted Leadership Roles

Group commanders typically interview and hire group superintendents from the pool of 

Chief Master Sergeants in the group’s squadrons. Depending on the demographics of the 

squadron chiefs, there may not be an opportunity to hire a black chief. Not enough data exists

for further analysis. This Review recommends AF/A1 consider further analysis into the group 

superintendent racial disparity.
88

SUMMARY OF OPPORTUNITIES DATA

Empirical data show racial disparities exist between black and white service members in

several areas directly impacting a black service member’s progression and advancement in the 

service:

• Accessions

• Test results – ASVAB, AFQT, AFOQT

• AFSC demographics

• Promotions

• Leadership Assignments

• PME Selections

The empirical data do not provide insight into why racial disparities in opportunities 

afforded to black and white service members exist. An AFI review of all personnel-related 

instructions outlined in the next section of this report did not identify any policy-driven or 

structural racial bias in the military leadership development and promotion process. 

AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION (AFI) REVIEW

As part of the Racial Disparity Review, Air Force Manpower, Personnel and Services 

(AF/A1), AFJAG, and Air Force, Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAF/MR) reviewed Air Force 

Instructions and guidance to determine if any guidance or policy could have disparate impact on 

any group or population. AF/A1 review found “no identifiable instances of applying policy 

which would discriminate against any group or population.” Additionally, the AFJAG review 

determined “[n]o inherent/systemic/procedural bias found.” Finally, the SAF/MR review stated,

“[w]e found no policies that were overtly discriminatory. Rather, the policies normally provided 

an objective standard framework for executing military programs in an equitable fashion.”

The following AFIs/AFPDs/AFHs/AFMANs were reviewed:

1. AFPD 36-26, Total Force Development and Management

2. AFI 36-2670, Total Force Development

3. AFH 36-2618, The Enlisted Force Structure

4. AFMAN 36-2643, Air Force Mentoring Program

5. AFPD 36-25, Military Promotion and Demotion

6. AFI 36-2501, Officer Promotions and Selective Continuation

7. AFI 36-2502, Airman Promotion/Demotion Programs

8. AFI 36-2504, Officer Promotion, Continuation and Selective Early Removal in the 

Reserve of the Air Force

9. AFPD 36-24, Military Evaluations

10. AFPD 36-26, Total Force Development

11. AFI 36-2110, Assignments

12. AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems

13. AFI 36-2670, Total Force Development
89

14. AFH 36-2643, Air Force Mentoring Program

15. AFMAN 36-2806, Awards 

16. AFI 36-808, Pay Administration

17. AFI 36-116, Civilian Faculty Personnel Management

18. AFI 36-128, Pay Setting and Allowances

19. AFI 36-130, Civilian Career Programs and Development

20. AFI 36-202, Civilian Mobility

21. All 51-Series AFIs

This Review found no inherent, systemic, or procedural bias in the publications listed.

While no procedural biases or discrimination were found, some recommendations were 

made by AFJAG and SAF/MR. AFJAG made proposals for AFI 51-202, Nonjudicial 

Punishment, and AFI 51-1201, Negotiation and Dispute Resolution Program, which were 

designed to be a proactive effort to avoid a perception of bias and ensure gender equality. 

SAF/MR recommendations included policies to add diversity requirements (diverse membership 

requirements on boards and requirements to review diversity demographics) to help ensure 

equitable development and promotion. Additionally, SAF/MR noted concerns with the 

execution of policies at the lowest levels, citing “mentoring” as an example.

THE VOICE OF THE AIRMEN AND SPACE PROFESSIONALS 

A consistent and substantial disparity exists in the confidence black service 

members have in the DAF discipline and developmental opportunity processes compared 

to their white peers. Survey responses from 123,758 Total Force personnel, 138 DAF IG 

sessions with Airmen across all MAJCOMs, 27,000 pages of feedback, and targeted 

interviews show a substantial percentage of black DAF members believe racial bias exists 

in the DAF discipline and developmental opportunity processes. 

SURVEYS

This Review was focused on hearing directly from the Airmen and Space Professionals 

regarding racial disparities in military discipline and developmental opportunities. The Review 

team developed a narrowly focused survey targeted at racial disparities between black and white

service members in military discipline and developmental opportunities. The anonymous survey 

collected from a wide range of demographics and consisted of standard Likert scale questions.22 

Depending on how respondents answered specific questions, the survey presented an option to 

include write-in text responses. The write-in responses were included for respondents to share 

their personal experiences and recommendations. The write-in responses resulted in more than 

 22 Various rating scales have been developed to measure attitudes directly (i.e., the person knows their attitude is 

being studied). The most widely used is the Likert Scale. The Likert Scale is named for American social scientist 

Rensis Likert, who devised the approach in 1932. Likert developed the principle of measuring attitudes by asking 

people to respond to a series of statements about a topic, in terms of the extent to which they agree with them, and so 

tapping into the cognitive and affective components of attitudes. (McLeod, S. A. (2008). Likert scale. Retrieved 

from https://www.simplypsychology.org/likert-scale.html)
90

27,000 pages of written comments. The survey was launched on 28 June 20 and closed on 12 

July 20. More than 123,700 Total Force personnel responded to the survey. The component 

breakdown, including civilians as aligned with the component they most directly support, was 

70% Active Duty, 18% Air National Guard, and 11% Air Force Reserves.

23 

Likert Question Data 

The Likert response data was broken down by race, officer, enlisted, and civilian ranks. 

The data was analyzed comparing just the percentages of Agree and Disagree responses for each 

question to see respondent attitudes about the questions. The N/A, Neither Agree nor Disagree, 

and Don’t Know responses are not included in the figures below. This Review analyzed the data 

to determine the magnitude of the issues as they relate to racial disparities in military justice and 

opportunities and gain insight into areas where service members believe there are racial 

concerns. The Review first analyzed the data, broken down by rank and race (white, black, and 

other), to compare the percent of responses for Agree and Disagree for each Likert question. 

 23 No survey involving human response can be completely free of bias. To minimize its effect, the Independent 

Racial Disparity Review team ensured respondents knew their respective submissions were anonymous and made 

the survey widely accessible to all DAF members. For the Independent Racial Disparity Review survey, the DAF 

population was defined as 663,000 and more than 123,000 Airmen completed the survey.
91

Trust in Leadership, Opportunities for Mentorship, and Role Models

Fig 72: RDR Survey Question 7 Source: RDR Survey

A service member’s chain of command is one of the first lines of defense against racism, 

bias, and unequal opportunity.24 The survey asked, “I trust my chain of command to address 

racism, bias, and unequal opportunities regarding all enlisted, officer, and civilian Airmen and 

Space Professionals.” 40% of black officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents disagreed, 

indicating they did not trust their chain of command to address those issues. Whereas 7%, 10%, 

and 9% of white officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents respectively disagreed. In the more 

senior leadership enlisted ranks, 39% black E7-E9s and 45% black O7-O10s disagreed, and just 

7% white E7-E9s and 3% white O7-O10s disagreed. The magnitude becomes clearer when the 

perspective gap is viewed across the Total Force. 

 24 The survey did not define the term “bias,” or make a distinction between “unconscious” or “conscious bias.”
92

Fig 73: RDR Survey Question 8 Source: RDR Survey

Mentorship, feedback, and role models are crucial to ensuring service members perform 

up to their full potential. The team surveyed the respondents with the question, “Enlisted, 

officer, and civilian black Airmen and Space Professionals have the same opportunities for 

mentorship, feedback, and role models as others in my organization.” Black members, as they 

increased in rank, did not agree: 39% of enlisted, 54% of officers, and 73% of black general 

officers did not feel they had the same opportunities as their counterparts, nor did 41 percent of 

black civilian employees. Among white respondents, only a small percentage (between 4-7%) of 

white officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents did not believe black service members had the 

same opportunities, as did 13 percent of white general officers. 

Military Justice

The Review team used specifically targeted survey questions to gain insight into 

disciplinary actions across the spectrum of administrative and non-judicial punishment. The 

survey asked the question, “I believe racial bias (including potential unconscious bias) exists 

when my leadership takes the following actions.” There were five sub-questions: 

1. Informal feedback, mentoring, and formal verbal counseling

2. Letters of Counseling, Letters of Admonishment, Letters of Reprimand

3. Referral performance reports, unfavorable information files, and control roster

4. Separations and discharges

5. Article 15s and Courts-Martial
93

Fig 74: RDR Survey Question 10a Source: RDR Survey

Roughly half of all black service members and a third of black civilian employees believe 

there is racial bias when their leadership conducts informal feedback, mentoring, and formal 

verbal counseling (54%, 46%, and 31% of black officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents 

agreeing). That belief was even higher among black general officers, where 64 percent felt 

leadership engaged in racial bias in those activities (compared with 18 percent of their white 

general officer counterparts). In contrast, 14%, 11%, and 7% of white officer, enlisted, and 

civilian respondents felt the same way. 
94

Fig 75: RDR Survey Question 10b Source: RDR Survey

Half of all black service members and almost a third of black civilian employees felt 

racial bias played a part in administrative disciplinary actions (45% enlisted, 54% officers, and 

28% civilian), while only between 5-14% of white officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents felt 

the same way. 
95

Fig 76: RDR Survey Question 10c Source: RDR Survey

Roughly half (41-55%) of black enlisted and officers believe racial bias exists in their 

leadership’s decisions concerning referral performance reports, unfavorable information files, 

and control rosters, while between 6-9% of their white peers responded similarly. 
96

Fig 77: RDR Survey Question 10d Source: RDR Survey

Over a third of black enlisted and officers (39% and 41%, respectively) believe racial 

bias exists when their leadership makes administrative separation and discharge decisions. 

Among DAF senior leadership however, 64% of black general officers believe racial bias exists 

when leadership makes those decisions, compared with only 9% of their white counterparts.
97

Fig 78: RDR Survey Question 10e Source: RDR Survey

The survey responses show 36% of black enlisted, 54% of black officers, and 73% of 

black general officers felt racial bias exists when leadership makes decisions on UCMJ 

disciplinary actions. In contrast, 7% of white enlisted, 14% of white officers, and 9% of white 

general officers felt the same way. 
98

Fig 79: RDR Survey Question 11 Source: RDR Survey

Investigations are often conducted prior to military justice decisions. When asked if 

respondents believe racial bias exists in the conduct of investigations (CDE, EEO, IG, and OSI), 

48%, 39%, and 36% of black officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents agreed. White officer, 

enlisted, and civilian respondents agreed at 16%, 12%, and 9% respectively. 43% of black E7-

E9s and 64% of black O7-O10s agreed. 
99

Fig 80: RDR Survey Question 14 Source: RDR Survey

Respondents were asked whether, “black service members are less likely to receive the 

benefit of the doubt in Air Force discipline.” A high percentage, 64%, 59%, and 39% of black 

officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents agreed, whereas white officer, enlisted, and civilian 

respondents agreed at substantially lower percentage of 12%, 10%, and 5% respectively. 63% of 

black E7-E9s and 82% of black O7-O10s agreed. 

Based on the survey responses of black service members, roughly 50% or more believe 

racial bias exists when leadership executes the full range of administrative, non-judicial 

punishment, and courts-martial actions. Quantitative data shows that black enlisted Airmen in 

the ranks of E1-E4 are almost twice as likely to receive Article 15s and face courts-martial as 

their white counterparts. Survey results also revealed that 31% of black officers and 31% of 

black enlisted respondents believe black service members receive administrative disciplinary 

actions (LOCs, LOAs, and LORs) more frequently than other Airmen for the same behavior. 

Lastly, three out of five black officer and enlisted respondents believe black Airmen do not 

receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to military discipline.
100

Developmental Opportunities

Along with examining racial disparities in military justice, this Review was charged with 

identifying racial disparities in developmental opportunities for black service members. The 

survey included four targeted questions regarding developmental opportunities. Two questions 

asked respondents if their organization provided recognition and opportunities for promotion and 

advancement on an equal and fair basis. The first question asked if all members had the same 

opportunities for competitive assignments, training, career-broadening experience, and 

education. The second question asked if respondents had seen bias as it relates to career 

development opportunities for black enlisted, civilians, and officers. 

Fig 81: RDR Survey Question 17 Source: RDR Survey

Roughly half of black officers, enlisted, and civilian respondents believe they have the 

same opportunity for competitive assignments, training (e.g., advanced technical training, 

specialty schools), career broadening experience (e.g., exercises, deployments, career broadening 

assignments), and education (e.g., PME, advanced academic educations, self-development). In 

comparison, a substantial majority of white respondents (76-82%) felt they had the same 

opportunities for career enhancing assignments, training, education, and experiences. Notably, 

only 45% of black general officers believe everyone receives similar opportunities for 

advancement, compared with 92% of white general officers. 
101

Fig 82: RDR Survey Question 18 Source: RDR Survey

Almost half to more than half (41-64%) of black respondents had seen bias as it relates to 

career development opportunities for black service members and civilian employees. Only 8-

14% of white respondents said the same. The vast majority of white respondents (67-80%) had 

not seen bias related to opportunities for black service members. 

Overall, a large percentage of black service members believe they did not have the same 

career development opportunities as their white counterparts. Notably, 50% of black officer and 

64% of black General Officer responded that they had observed bias related to career 

development.
102

Discrimination

The survey included two questions regarding racial discrimination. One question asked 

respondents if they ever experienced racial discrimination by another DAF member. The second 

question asked respondents if they had witnessed an act of racial discrimination by another DAF 

member. 

Fig 83: RDR Survey Question 19 Source: RDR Survey

Between 45-50% of black respondents said a DAF member had discriminated against 

them because of their race or ethnicity. A smaller percentage of white respondents (8-14%) also 

said they faced discrimination based on their race/ethnicity by a DAF member. Among senior 

leaders, 45% of black general officers said they have experienced discrimination, while 94% of 

white general officers did not face any discrimination based on race/ethnicity from a member in 

the DAF. 

Yes No

Black Enlisted 50% 50%

White Enlisted 14% 86%

Other Enlisted 26% 74%

E7 - E9 Black 42% 58%

E7 - E9 White 15% 85%

Black Officers 48% 52%

White Officers 8% 92%

Other Officers 28% 72%

O7-O10 Black 45% 55%

O7-O10 White 6% 94%

Black Civilians 45% 55%

White Civilians 9% 91%

Other Civilians 21% 79%

(Y/N) Have you ever been discriminated against by a 

member of the Department of the Air Force, because 

of your race or ethnicity? 
103

Fig 84: RDR Survey Question 20 Source: RDR Survey

Almost half of black respondents have witnessed a DAF member engage in 

discrimination because of race or ethnicity. For white respondents, that number dropped to 

roughly 20%. According the survey, 45% of black general officers have witnessed racial/ethnic 

discrimination, while only 12% of white general officers have done so.

Of black service members who experienced or witnessed racial discrimination, about 

80% said a supervisor or commander initiated the discrimination. Only about 35% of those 

black service members reported the incidents to leadership. 70% of black Airmen who reported 

the incident to their commander were not satisfied with the leadership response. Only 18% said 

they reported the incident to EO or IG, and of those, over 50% were not satisfied with the 

response from EO/IG. 

The percentages of white Airmen who experienced or witnessed racial discrimination 

were lower (10% and 12% respectively). Nearly one third of those respondents reported the 

incidents to their leadership. Over half of those who reported to leadership were not satisfied 

with their leadership’s response. Only 10% of the white service members who experienced or 

witnessed racial discrimination reported the incidents to IG or EO, and 60% of those said they 

were not satisfied with the response from EO/IG. 

The survey write-in responses indicate many survey respondents did not go to their 

commanders because they believed their commanders and leadership lacked integrity, were 

dishonest, self-serving, and would abuse their authority. Some respondents believed leadership 

lied and covered up for themselves; and, instead of being protected, the complainant received 

Yes No

Black Enlisted 46% 54%

White Enlisted 17% 83%

Other Enlisted 24% 76%

E7 - E9 Black 49% 51%

E7 - E9 White 17% 83%

Black Officers 44% 56%

White Officers 12% 88%

Other Officers 22% 78%

O7-O10 Black 45% 55%

O7-O10 White 12% 88%

Black Civilians 41% 59%

White Civilians 11% 89%

Other Civilians 19% 81%

(Y/N) Have you ever witnessed an act of 

discrimination based upon race or ethnicity by a 

member of the Department of the Air Force?
104

additional disciplinary actions by leadership for reporting an issue. 44% of black service 

members and 33% of white service members who experienced racial discrimination and reported 

the incident or incidents to their commander, reported experiencing some form of reprisal for 

contacting their commander. 

The survey and interview responses indicate service members have concerns about using 

the IG and EO because they believe complaints will be referred back to their chain of command. 

45% of black service members and 37% of white members who went to EO or IG said they were 

reprised against by leadership as a result. 

Overall, respondents thought IG and EO investigations were ineffective. Some members 

indicated the perpetrator was never held accountable or action was not taken at the conclusion of 

the investigation. Participants reported several instances of the IG refusing to take on their cases. 

Other times, they indicated their cases were not properly investigated, or their concerns were 

completely disregarded. 

Finally, some white respondents indicated the IG or EO office would not consider their 

case because they were white and held the perception they could not be discriminated against 

due to being white. 

Survey Response Conclusion

Survey responses revealed that black service members generally lacked trust in their 

chain of command to address racism, bias, and unequal opportunities. The perspective gap 

between black and white members was large. 40% of the black respondents indicated they did 

not trust their leadership in these areas, while only 10% of white respondents expressed doubt. 

This gap is more prominent when looking at officers, wherein 49% of black officers indicated 

they did not trust leadership compared to only 7% of white officers. A similarly large 

perspective gap was revealed in whether black Airmen had the same opportunities for 

mentorship, feedback, and role models as others in their organization. 43% of the black officer 

respondents indicated that all Airmen had the same developmental opportunities, while 82% of 

white officers believed everyone had the same opportunities. Of particular concern, 

approximately 50% of black officer, enlisted, and civilian respondents have either experienced 

and/or witnessed racial discrimination by another DAF member.

This Review found black survey respondents overwhelmingly believe racial bias exists in 

DAF disciplinary actions. In addition, the survey responses highlighted that black members 

believed racial disparities extend beyond the disparity in Article 15s and courts-martial. In 

particular, responses reveal a large perspective gap on whether racial bias exists when leadership 

issues Letters of Counseling, Admonishment, and Reprimand. Almost half (45%) of black 

enlisted and more than half (54%) of black officers believe racial bias exists when their 

leadership issues administrative disciplinary action, compared with less than 15% of white 

enlisted and white officers. The survey also reveals that black respondents believe they do not 

receive the same benefit of the doubt as white Airmen for the same infractions, which may play a 

role in the racial disparities in both military justice and administrative separation actions. The 

Review found that racial disparity in military justice actions likely extends beyond Article 15s, 
105

courts-martial and discharges to include lessor disciplinary actions such as LORs, LOC, and 

LOAs. 

Survey Text Responses

In addition to the Likert scale questions, respondents were prompted to elaborate with 

written responses if they answered with a negative sentiment. Through this process, the survey 

recorded over 27,000 pages of write-in comments. A computer-based analysis of the comments 

was conducted to identify the most common themes. These themes, organized by their 

associated survey question, are listed below.25 Of note, because the survey was anonymous, we 

could not validate individual text feedback. However, when many Airmen identified the same 

issue(s), and a consistent theme emerged, the Review team captured that consistent theme. 

Please explain why your organization does not value contributions and ideas of black 

Airmen and Space Professionals?

The top themes were contributions, promotions, exclusion, or camaraderie. The 

comments on contributions included black members’ ideas not being understood or disregarded 

because of their race. Others indicated black members are not included in planning and decision 

processes and are passed over for promotion because of a “good old boy” system. Some Airmen

said they had to identify a white ally in order to get their views heard.

Please explain why you do not trust your chain of command to address racism, bias, and 

unequal opportunities?

Comments from this question focused on the presence of both bias and inequality when 

leadership makes decisions. Many respondents indicated they believe the bias is unconscious. 

Respondents report that leaders seem to avoid discussing race or seem to think that racism does 

not exist in the Air Force or Space Force. Some participants discussed behavior that ignores, 

minimalizes, or hides racial incidents.

Another theme identified was respondents’ belief that black service members are not 

given equal career development opportunities. Many respondents said leaders do not ask for their 

input while they see others being asked for input. Some respondents said they are not given 

recognition for their ideas.

The respondents indicated they cannot trust one or more members in their chain of 

command regarding racism or bias in making decisions. Many respondents said they do not trust 

their chain of command on this issue based on past experiences within their chain and watching

how their leadership has treated others in similar situations.

 25 The responses of individual Airmen and Space Professionals are provided for context and to illustrate themes 

identified by in-depth data analysis conducted by the Air Force Survey Office and the Air Force Inspection Agency. 

These responses, as representative of themes, are supported by corroborating inputs, but, as anonymous and/or 

protected communications to the IG they could not be independently validated. Specific complaints registered 

during the course of this Review were or are in the process of being handled in accordance with AFI 90-301.
106

Please explain why you believe racial bias (including potential unconscious bias) exists 

when your leadership takes any of the actions mentioned previously that are related to military 

personnel?

This question was offered when respondents agreed that racial bias existed when their 

leadership executed administrative and non-judicial punishment as well as Article 15 and courtsmartial actions. Most respondents provided personal experiences as evidence of racial bias. The

personal stories focused on issues of bias, injustice, and inequality. In addition, comments 

highlighted either experiencing or witnessing first-hand intolerance towards black service 

members compared to their white counterparts when facing the same level of infraction.

Please explain why you believe racial bias (including potential unconscious bias) exists 

in the conduct of investigations (e.g., CDI, EO/EEO, IG, OSI, etc.)?

The most prevailing theme in the responses to this question was the belief that since

racism and bias exist in people, it must also exist in the conduct of investigations. The majority 

of responses in this category did not cite any particular incident or evidence related to bias in 

investigations, but instead were more general about the biases inherent in people. Some of these 

comments also suggested that investigators should be trained to recognize and work through 

their own biases.

Survey respondents also indicated a belief that investigations may be impacted by racially 

biased assumptions. The main concern was that black service members are presumed guilty until 

proven innocent, and thus black service members are not provided the benefit of the doubt before 

or during investigations. 

Some respondents shared personal experiences of racial bias or of witnessing 

investigations in which race seemed to play a role. This included instances where they suspected 

the treatment during the investigation was based on race, where they observed people of different 

races receiving unequal punishments, or where they filed complaints about racism that were not 

resolved in a satisfactory manner.

Was there a particular reason why you didn’t contact EO/EEO or IG?

The survey asked if respondents had been discriminated against or if they had witnessed 

someone being discriminated against. If the respondents agreed, they were then asked if they 

had contacted EO/EEO or IG. If they answered that they had not, respondents were then asked 

why they did not contact EO/EEO or IG. Survey respondents reported various reasons, but the 

most common ones were: lack of knowledge about the EO/EEO or IG processes, concerns with 

their chain of command or leadership, lack of proof/evidence, fear of reprisal, and negative 

impact on a member’s career.

Many survey respondents indicated they did not contact the EO/EEO or IG because of the 

relationship between both offices and their chain of command. Expressly, survey respondents 

indicated they feared reprisal, retribution, or retaliation from their chain of command, peers, or 

other members in their organization.
107

Because the question asked why respondents did not contact “EO/EEO or the IG” 

combined, the Review team conducted subsequent analysis that revealed additional themes and 

comments that were attributable to EO and IG separately. 

Three themes were specific to IG. First, some survey participants believed IG personnel 

protected the commander and/or leadership during investigations. Members also indicated that 

other commanders or leadership usually protected the commanders who were under 

investigation. Respondents identified a lack of objectivity amongst IG personnel and leadership 

and emphasized concern that those tasked with investigating complaints were not impartial. 

Furthermore, some members indicated the commander and IG personnel were often friends or 

part of “the good ole boys club.” 

Second, several participants reported instances of the IG refusing to take on their case. 

Other times, they indicated their cases were not properly investigated, or their concerns were 

completely disregarded. 

Third, some participants indicated the IG would not consider their case because they were 

white. These members indicated they were not given the benefit of the doubt and that IG 

personnel automatically took the minority individual’s side.

The Review also found themes that were somewhat unique to EO. First, members 

reported a lack of objectivity amongst EO/EEO personnel. Specifically, they felt EO/EEO 

personnel were not impartial in their decision making or while conducting an investigation. 

Members also indicated that EO/EEO personnel automatically leaned in favor of the minority 

complainant.

Second, participants who were white indicated the EO/EEO would not consider their case 

because they could not be victims of racial bias. Members indicated they were not given the 

benefit of the doubt and that EO/EEO automatically took the minority individual’s side.

Third, some members reported that individuals sometimes abused the EO/EEO system. 

Members also claimed that individuals used the “race card” to their advantage, making false 

allegations to avoid working or if they felt slighted due to a missed promotion or job opportunity.

Lastly, participants indicated that leadership sometimes treated service members 

differently to avoid an EO/EEO complaint. Often, a member was given preferential treatment in 

the form of a hiring action, promotion, or positive performance appraisal because leadership 

wanted to avoid receiving an EO/EEO complaint against them.

If you would like to describe the discriminatory behavior you experienced, please do so 

below?

Respondents who indicated they experienced discrimination were asked to describe the 

discrimination they experienced. Common themes involved denial of promotion or advancement 

opportunities or receipt of punitive/disciplinary actions.

Many survey respondents identified racial slurs, and comments regarding dress and 

personal appearance as forms of discrimination against black service members. Specifically, 
108

survey participants, the majority of them military members, indicated they were targeted because 

of their hair and grooming standards, such as shaving. Under this question, survey participants 

indicated they experienced discrimination primarily from their immediate supervisors and/or 

leadership. For example, members described being assigned extra work, picked on, harassed, 

isolated, or humiliated based on their race.

What changes would you recommend to ensure a fair and equitable military discipline 

process for all uniformed Airmen and Space Professionals?

The following themes were identified as top recommendations:

• Treat every Air Force and Space Force member fairly by holding everyone to the same 

standards. Setting specific standards for infractions could set the tone across the Total 

Force and remove subjectivity from the process.

• Require a diverse, independent panel to review disciplinary actions for legal sufficiency 

and proportionality in a completely transparent process. Convene diverse juries in 

courts-martial.

• Document all disciplinary actions (both UCMJ and administrative) in a database. Some 

respondents also indicated that the Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management 

System (AMJAMS) should include race categories beyond black, white, and other to 

allow more transparency and analysis of overall statistics and the proportionality of 

disciplinary actions across demographic groups.

• Require cultural and bias training. A typical comment was:

Cultural training for all members working in a supervisory or leadership role. Each ethnic 

group has a different culture that may lead leaders to feel as though they are disrespected 

due to actions/reactions of individuals. We must fully understand WHY people act/react 

the way they do and it is often a result of their community or culture.

“What changes would you recommend to ensure a fair and equitable career development 

system for all enlisted, officer, and civilian Airmen and Space Professionals?”

Top recommendations were:

• Increase diversity through accession and recruitment programs. Typical comments 

included:

Change recruiting and accession methods to ensure minorities are provided job lists that 

include opportunities to operations and other high aptitude career fields. There is a disparity 

in recruiting African Americans in support AFSCs. Give more opportunities across all 

specialties.

Recruiters should go into communities and schools and target minorities, encouraging them 

and inspiring them to believe in themselves and what they can aspire to be. I've seen too 

many people, of all races, but frequently minorities, who have developed the belief that 

they will only make it so far, that there exists a ceiling preventing them from accomplishing 

what their white counterparts can (promoting to higher ranks, becoming commanders, 

entering the USAFA or ROTC). There are far too few minorities who believe they can 
109

achieve these things. They also don't see enough Airmen in those roles who look like they 

do.

• Increase and expand mentorship opportunities. Enhance career development for service 

members of all ranks. Typical themes included: 

Fund a group or commission to develop a mentorship and sponsorship program that 

involves crossover in racial background. A goal of this would be to inform existing white 

officers, NCOs and executives how to be better leaders of diverse military organizations. 

This, in turn, could increase the likelihood of more minorities being exposed to 

opportunities for faster promotions, real mentorship (and possibly sponsorship) from 

commanders and military influencers who shape our Force and PME opportunities.

I think mandating mentors across the board should occur. Cross utilize and mandate all 

Airmen have mentors and carve out mentoring sessions at FTAC, ALS, NCOA and any 

other session that is feasible. Create a platform that you can connect to a mentor virtually 

and have roundtable sessions that discuss what is impacting them, limiting them to reach 

their full potential and what they need to do to expand in their career. I think there is value 

in grooming our junior Airmen and officers but the stats on who is getting the opportunities 

will still be disproportionate if we are not advertising and mentoring all in the same manner 

and fashion.

The mentoring program is broken. There needs to be a way for minority officers to get the 

same mentoring and developmental opportunities as their white peers. There needs to be a 

conscious effort to mentor minorities and women better.

• Increase transparency over the application/selection processes for PME and special duty 

assignments. Ensure personnel are aware of career development opportunities and better 

understand why candidates for these opportunities were selected. Common statements 

included:

Make career development information widely available. Find ways to expose everyone to 

good information equally. It seems like most career development information is received 

by those lucky enough to have a mentor or small tight knit groups of individuals. Maybe 

an annual CBT tailored towards each rank. ‘Congratulations on making E-5, this is what 

you should be working on over the next year. You commissioned in 2012, this is what you 

can expect in 2020 and what you should be doing to prepare. This is when your boards will 

be meeting.’ Things like that would extremely helpful.

• Ensure diversity for selection boards/panels 

• Provide the same opportunities to all service members 

• Remove or mask all identifying elements from records or applications for career 

development and advancement, including promotion records, professional military 

education, and awards.

Summary: In their responses, black service members very clearly expressed their 

frustration with bias and race-related obstacles and barriers throughout their careers. They 

consistently commented they do not trust their leadership to address racism and bias, leadership 

does not value their contributions to the organization, and favoritism exists among leadership and 

supervisors because of the “good old boy” system. 
110

With regard to military justice, the written comments supported strong beliefs about the 

lack of fairness and existence of racial bias in the military justice system. Although service 

members may not always have the full context for differences in levels of punishment, comments 

suggested the inequalities were more than just perceptions. Respondents commented they have 

personally seen harsher penalties for black service members for the same infractions as white

service members and provided examples. Respondents also provided examples of black service 

members who did not receive the same benefit of the doubt as their white counterparts. 

Written comments also included examples of racial bias in IG, EO, and other 

investigations. Airmen and Space Professionals pointed to a lack of trust in their leadership to 

objectively conduct investigations and to properly hold people accountable. They strongly 

believed IG and EO offices worked for and were too friendly with commanders and therefore 

protected commanders during investigations. Black service members also indicated a strong fear 

of reprisal or retaliation for raising complaints to either the IG or EO. 

In both the survey and written comments, black service members identified obstacles and 

barriers that have led to an overall lack of confidence and trust in the system. Many comments 

pointed to a lack of trust in leadership to address racial bias and racism in the organization.

Base Visits and Group Discussions

The Review team interviewed personnel at all levels of the Department seeking

experiences regarding disparity in military discipline processes and career development 

opportunities for black service members. Over a three-week period, the Review team executed 

138 boots-on-the-ground and remote (virtual) sessions with Department members across all 

MAJCOMs. To gain a perspective from the Airmen themselves, the team interviewed more than 

1,400 service members in small, diverse, anonymous group sessions of 8-10 people. These small 

group sessions were organized by rank/position: E1-E4s, NCOs and Civilian Equivalent FirstLine Supervisors, First Sergeants, CGOs and Civilian Equivalents, and Squadron Commanders 

and Civilian Equivalents. Additionally, the Review team interviewed twenty wing command

teams (commander, vice commander, and command chief), Staff Judge Advocates, and Area 

Defense Counsels. General session themes and specific group observations as well as comments 

from the command team sessions are discussed below: 

General Group Session Observations

A notable portion of black service members felt they received harsher punishments than 

white service members when it came to lower-level disciplinary actions, such as documented 

verbal counseling, LOCs, LOAs, and LORs. Some NCOs and first-line supervisors shared that 

they felt pressured by leadership to issue punishment to black service members for very minor 

infractions. Several, first-line supervisors stated when black service members came into work 

late, leadership would not give them the benefit of the doubt and “go hard” on them. In contrast, 

if white service members came in late they would ask if the person is ok and give them the 

benefit of the doubt.

A large majority of service members believe they were not denied basic developmental 

opportunities based on their race or sex, and some stated these areas were never a factor in
111

selection. However, some stated access to these opportunities depended heavily on the first-line 

supervisors, who set the tone for expectations within the flight. If black service members were 

viewed as “disagreeable,” it reduced their chances for developmental opportunities. Some 

opined that black service members had to work “ten times harder” to be viewed as worthy of 

developmental opportunities, and if they had any type of discipline in their records, they were 

rarely afforded the opportunity for rehabilitation or development. Lack of diversity at many 

units led service members to believe they did not have someone to aspire to be like or see that 

getting to such roles was truly attainable for them. Some commented, “[p]eople of color are not 

seen as leaders in my unit.”

The Review team found that organizational climate had a strong influence on young 

service members’ attitudes regarding their sense of belonging, personal relationships, loyalty, 

and even work performance. These experiences could result in negative feelings towards job 

satisfaction, need for achievement, affiliation, overall effectiveness, performance, and 

commitment. However, black service members noted their strength, tenacity, tolerance, and 

resiliency helped them through all the negativity. 

E1-E4

Very few participants felt their organizations initiated investigations fairly or 

implemented corrective and disciplinary measures without bias or favoritism. Some service 

members believed discrimination occurred in some organizations across the base, and black

service members received harsher punishments at a higher rate than white service members with 

similar infractions. Many indicated their experiences were related to punishment in violation of 

the Air Force drug use policy, underage drinking, driving under the influence, dress and 

appearance standards, and weapons control. Some service members perceived the corrective and 

disciplinary measures for each of these instances were warranted, but also perceived that the

level of punishment for black service members versus their white counterparts was not 

administered fairly. 

Service members with personal experiences of being treated unfairly due to race or ethnic 

background described racial profiling, bias, and favoritism as reasons why black service 

members disproportionally received corrective or disciplinary actions. Others cited upbringing, 

poor communication, and being junior in rank as contributing factors. A majority of black 

service members felt they are constantly under the microscope and singled out by their unit and 

expected to do more than others.

Additionally, black service members believed they were repeatedly labeled the “angry 

black person.” Black respondents believed that, at all levels of supervision and leadership, 

discipline was often administered to black service members for having an attitude or coming 

across as angry. Many black service members felt once they were on the radar, recovery was 

impossible. They also believed leadership continuously issued administrative paperwork in 

order to ultimately discharge black service members. 

As for opportunities, some believed the more selective developmental opportunities were 

awarded to white co-workers more often because of favoritism. Many black service members
112

stated that if they did not “hang out” or develop a common bond with their first-line supervisors, 

they were typically not awarded developmental opportunities.

NCOs and Civilian Equivalent First-Line Supervisors

Some NCOs stated that punishment for black service members and other races seemed to 

be inconsistent. Black service members felt they were singled out because of their appearance 

(for example, having hairstyles that were within regulations, but not favored by supervisors of a

different race), and this often resulted in what they say as the beginning of a “paperwork trail,” 

which negatively impacted career development opportunities for black service members. They 

also felt service members from other races or ethnic backgrounds were consistently given a 

second chance, while black service members were not. Additionally, NCOs felt the service

hindered black service members’ ability to be rehabilitated after one mistake. 

A large number of NCOs interviewed expressed that in some cases, supervisors of a 

particular race appeared to favor service members who were of the same race and tended to give 

them available developmental opportunities. The NCOs also stated that the favoritism could 

involve any race or gender. Numerous black NCOs brought up that it is typical for them to have 

to “work 2-3 times as hard as any other race (particularly white NCOs) for the same level of 

recognition” within their squadron or higher.

First Sergeants

The majority of First Sergeant interviewees said they had not witnessed any difference in 

the treatment of service members based on race or ethnicity, but also said by the time they saw 

the paperwork based on a negative infraction, most fact-finding had been accomplished. In 

contrast, several First Sergeants noted when a black service member and a white service member

committed the same infraction, either together or separately, the black service member’s 

punishment was typically harsher than the punishment the white member received.

Many First Sergeants agreed that supervisors often do not take the time to get to know 

their subordinates. They also believe many supervisors see black service members as "having an 

attitude or cannot conform." This perception results in a paperwork trail of corrective actions,

which often culminates in discharge. 

When it came to opportunities, the First Sergeants consistently indicated first-line 

supervisors invested in subordinates to whom they could relate. Also, many of the First 

Sergeants said PME needs to teach young supervisors how to better interact in uncomfortable 

situations, address issues with those of other cultures and differing mindsets, and spend more 

time on how to better manage people. They also noted that many junior supervisors are not 

afforded the time to mentor and counsel their Airmen and Space Professionals appropriately. 

Most First Sergeants agreed promotions and recognition were fair and based on 

performance. Many complained, however, about unqualified white service members being 

placed in positions where qualified black service members should have been placed. 

Additionally, they claimed information about opportunities was not equally disseminated to the 

entire organization. Job positions were not advertised, and organizations relied on the “good old 
113

boy” network to make hiring decisions. Some black First Sergeants mentioned that they felt they 

needed to work harder than their peers, not just to get recognized, but to be viewed as equal. 

CGOs and Civilian Equivalents

With regard to military discipline, many CGOs said they had little to no experience with 

disciplinary actions against black service members. CGOs also mentioned that they believed 

everything followed the same process, was fair across the board, took biases into account, and 

was based on facts. Many CGOs said supervisors try to look at the situation for what the 

member had done, not on their physical appearance. 

As for opportunities, many CGOs said they believe service members who worked to 

better themselves, whether by pursuing educational opportunities or by working hard at their 

assigned duties, would tend to have more favorable outcomes in terms of development. Some 

CGOs also said they thought individuals’ race played no part in decisions regarding who was 

nominated for certain opportunities. 

Some rated officers mentioned favoritism or the perception of individuals being 

predetermined for special or advanced opportunities, and members who developed close 

relationships to the senior staff were more likely to be chosen for unique TDY opportunities. 

While this observation was not based on race, one could see where a lack of black mentors in the 

senior ranks could have a greater impact on black officers. Some CGOs also mentioned 

recognition for the same work was different for people of different races. 

Squadron Commanders and Civilian Equivalents

Despite half of the squadron commanders having seen or experienced racial disparity

earlier in their careers, they had not seen anything unfair occurring in their units. Nonetheless, 

they opined that commanders need better training to properly administer the disciplinary actions 

they are empowered to give. Commanders recognized they have different internal and external 

tools, and the discipline process was designed with checks and balances. However, they also 

recognized it was hard to maintain consistency throughout the base and other levels of 

supervision. There were some specific occasions noted where black service members were not 

given the benefit of the doubt when not all of the evidence of an infraction was presented. 

Squadron commanders and civilian equivalents generally believed everyone had a fair 

chance at developmental opportunities. They highlighted they used merit and work-ethic-based 

approach when sending people forward for certain opportunities. Some squadron commanders 

also rely on their first-line supervisors’ inputs when developing people, and it was largely agreed 

that these first-line supervisors had the potential of being personally biased. Squadron 

commanders stated there are times when there was perceived pressure to send up certain 

individuals for specific awards, and they were not necessarily merit-based approaches. 

“Sometimes there are unspoken criteria to pick a certain person (based on race), no matter the 

award.” Some commanders admitted the “good ole boy” club exist, and that it can create a 

perception of favoritism regarding opportunities, although this was not always necessarily 

racially motivated.
114

One black squadron commander commented on opportunity versus outcome and 

mentorship. The only mentorship he received throughout his career was from other black

leaders. “You might get left behind if you don't have someone that looks like you helping to 

propel you. Black service members need to work twice as hard and you can’t mess up.” He 

went on to say that some of his black service members had made one mistake and that their 

military careers were over.

Overall, the team found the installation group session comments had similar themes and 

were consistent with how participants responded to the survey questions discussed earlier. The 

enlisted members generally felt that black service members received harsher punishment than 

white service members for similar offenses and were less likely to receive the benefit of the 

doubt for minor infractions compared to white service members. Officers also raised the issue of 

benefit of the doubt and the difficulty in maintaining consistency for punishment throughout the 

lower levels of supervision. Both enlisted and officers indicated a lack of diversity, favoritism, 

and “good ole boy” networks were likely barriers to career developmental opportunities for black 

service members. 

Wing Command Teams

Most members of wing command teams said they received little to no diversity or bias 

training during their careers. Only a few of the Active Duty senior leaders were aware of either 

AFI 36-7001, Diversity and Inclusion, or its requirements. The Air Force Reserve Command 

(AFRC) members had more annual training and education on diversity and bias. In addition, 

AFRC designated all vice wing commanders as Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) program 

managers for their respective installations. Despite the overall lack of training on bias, nearly all 

respondents understood the concept of bias and provided an accurate definition of bias as well as 

various examples where it could manifest itself. 

As for mentorship, the wing command teams overwhelmingly indicated they had 

mentored every racial, age, gender, and other identifying demographic, but acknowledged the 

mentees may not receive the mentorship the same way depending on trust or demographic 

differences between mentor and mentee. 

With regard to racial bias or racial barriers in DAF processes, few on the command teams 

felt that racial disparities existed in the processes, and were race-neutral as written. However, 

most interviewees admitted that problems could arise when biased or subjective inputs were 

placed into the otherwise objective processes.

Wing command teams also believed there were minority bias trends in certain career 

fields, with many minorities being assigned to support career fields rather than operations career 

fields. The teams felt that under-recruiting and under-promoting minorities led to a small pool of 

members in high-ranking positions (“if I can’t see it, I can’t be it”). One wing command team 

member said, “[f]uture General Officers come only from operational career fields, who are 

primarily (if not exclusively) comprised of Caucasian males.”

When asked about disparities in military justice, nearly all the teams were aware that 

black service members received disciplinary actions on a far more frequent basis than other 
115

demographic groups. The leaders believed the DAF had not done an in-depth look to determine 

the cause of these disparities. The leadership teams believed immediate supervisors were often

rushed in making discipline decisions due to workload. Many said tracking lower-level 

administrative punishments would allow commanders to monitor for disparities. Leadership 

teams also believed first-line supervisors lacked adequate military discipline training, which 

leads to unequal application of disciplinary and rehabilitation standards.

Command teams said they could envision situations where one service member may be 

given a second chance or the benefit of the doubt, while another may be subjected to disciplinary 

paperwork on the first occurrence. This disparity may be especially true at the first-level 

supervisor level, where many supervisors are relatively inexperienced, untrained to recognize 

potential biases, and generally may be unprepared for the complexities of administration and 

mentorship of racially diverse groups.

When asked about racial disparities in promotion and advancement opportunities for 

Airmen, Space Professionals, and civilian employees, most interviewees had little input into 

whether there was a problem or not. All wings had both formal and informal professional 

development courses, but none of those courses covered diversity and inclusion, or bias.

Trends from Interviews / DAF-IG Hotline 

At the end of the survey, Airmen and Space Professionals were directed to call or email 

the DAF IG Hotline if they wanted to provide additional feedback or needed help. As of 1 

September 2020, DAF IG processed 338 hotline calls and emails. 

The Review team assessed racial disparity concerns submitted by Airmen to the DAF IG 

Hotline dedicated to this Review, and we connected with 158 service members who identified 

themselves and provided contact information. Additionally, the Review team conducted targeted 

interviews based on the responses. We captured major trends that supported the findings from 

the survey responses and are worth highlighting. 

• Many first-line supervisors did not have the experience to handle some of the cultural 

differences and racial issues that may arise at the lower levels of the organization. 

According to First Sergeants, first-line supervisors need more experience, better training, 

and more time to be able to learn about their subordinates personally. 

• Black service members believed their leadership did not value their ideas and 

contributions. 

• Black service members feared reprisal or being targeted for bringing up issues, and 

many would not raise issues because they did not believe it was worth the potential 

adverse effects on their careers, 

• The majority of white service members, from enlisted to the General Officer ranks, do 

not believe racial bias and racial issues are a big problem in the Air Force.
116

SUMMARY – VOICE OF THE AIRMEN AND SPACE PROFESSIONALS

The Review team developed the Racial Disparity Review survey to encourage 

respondents to write in their personal experiences. This Review has incorporated their stories, 

thoughts, and recommendations throughout the report. The survey data, interviews, and 

discussion responses show a substantial disconnect between how black and white service 

members perceive DAF discipline and opportunities. The survey responses were consistent with

the empirical data and highlighted that black service members believe the racial problem extends 

beyond data. In particular, the responses revealed a large perspective gap on whether racial bias 

exists in LOCs, LOAs, and LORs. The survey responses also revealed three out of five black 

service members believe they do not receive the same benefit of the doubt as white service 

members for the same infractions. The Likert scale responses revealed 40% of black service 

members do not trust their chain of command to address racism, bias and unequal opportunities, 

while the yes/no responses indicated that 50% of black service members have experienced or 

witnessed racial discrimination. 

The installation group sessions, targeted interviews, and text responses in the surveys 

supported the Likert scale and yes/no survey responses. Specifically, the interviews and 

installation group discussions confirmed that black service members believe they receive harsher 

punishment for similar offenses and do not receive the benefit of the doubt for minor infractions 

compared to their white counterparts. Additionally, officers in the group discussions highlighted

the difficulty in maintaining consistency at lower levels of supervision. As for developmental 

opportunities, enlisted, officers, and civilians indicated lack of diversity and favoritism were 

likely barriers for black service members. 
117

III. HISTORY: WHAT WE’VE KNOWN, WHAT WE’VE DONE, WHAT HAS WORKED, 

WHAT HAS NOT?

This Review analyzed 23 previous reports and studies related to diversity and racial 

disparities in the military services, some dating back to 1973. The Review team’s analysis 

determined the findings of these studies and associated proposed recommendations often 

did not identify root causes, did not compel follow-through, lacked meaningful measures to

allow effectiveness to be assessed over time, and broadly lacked accountability for progress. 

This Review will focus on the most recent and pertinent reports, the 2011 MLDC, the 2014 

MLDC update, and the 2019 GAO report, as well as objectives from the AF Disciplinary 

Action Analysis Team (DAAT). 

CHRONOLOGY 

DATE EVENT

1973 Government Accountability Office (GAO) published the report, Status of Equal 

Opportunity in the Military Departments. (Ex 4)

1980 GAO published the report, Military Discharge Policies And Practices Result In Wide 

Disparities: Congressional Review Is Needed. (Ex 5)

Apr 95 GAO published the report, Equal Opportunity, DoD Studies on Discrimination in the 

Military. (Ex 7)

Mar 11 The Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) published the report, From 

Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military. (Ex 

3)

Mar 14 DoD published the report, Implementation of the Recommendations Made by the 

Military Leadership Diversity Commission, updating the progress of implementing 

the MLDC’s twenty recommendations. (Ex 20)

25 Apr 16 SAF/MR directed “deep dive” by AF/A1 and AFJAG. The working group convened 

and met over the next 90 days. (Ex 28:1)

6 Jun 17 Protect Our Defenders (POD)26 released report, Racial Disparities in Military 

Justice.

26 Sept 17 SAF/MR established the Disciplinary Actions Analysis Team (DAAT). (Ex 26) 

19 Oct 17 DAAT conducted first meeting to address the POD report and upcoming GAO report 

on military justice. (Ex 27)

May 19 The GAO released the report, Military Justice, DOD and the Coast Guard Need to 

Improve Their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender Disparities. (Ex 6)

May 20 POD published the report, Federal Lawsuit Reveals Air Force Cover Up:

Racial Disparities in Military Justice Part II. 

2 Jun 20 The Air Force Inspector General was directed to conduct an independent review of 

racial disparity in the Department of the Air Force. (Ex 1)

 26 Protect Our Defenders is an advocacy group “dedicated to addressing the epidemic of rape and sexual assault in 

the military” and an “impartially administered system of justice.” (Ex 4:3)
118

2011 MLDC REPORT, RECOMMENDATIONS AND DOD PROGRESS UPDATE

In the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2009, Section 596, 

Congress asked the MLDC to “conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies 

that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of the minority members of the 

Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers.” The MLDC’s report 

examines policies affecting the career life cycles of military personnel from the fives Services: 

Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard, as well as the National Guard and 

Reserve. The report outlines a vision, strategy, and action plan for improving the inclusiveness 

of military leadership. (Ex 3:3)

The MLDC determined that its final recommendations should serve three interrelated 

goals:

• Establish the foundation for effective diversity leadership with a definition of 

diversity congruent with DoD’s core values and vision of its future.

• Develop future leaders who represent the face of America and are able to 

effectively lead a diverse workforce to maximize mission effectiveness.

• Implement policies and practices that will make leaders accountable for instilling 

diversity leadership as a core competency of the Armed Forces. (Ex 3:8)

The MLDC proposed 20 recommendations to address the three interrelated goals. 

(Ex 3:125-130) Of the 20 recommendations, the following 12 are considered relevant to this 

Review:

• Recommendation 1 – The Department of Defense (DoD) should adopt a new 

definition of diversity.

• Recommendation 2 – To enhance readiness and mission accomplishment, 

effectively leading diverse groups must become a core competency across the DoD 

and services.

• Recommendation 3 – Leadership of the DoD and services must be personally 

committed to diversity becoming an institutional priority.

• Recommendation 4 – Diversity needs to become an integral part of the DoD 

culture. 

• Recommendation 7 – Improve recruiting from the currently available pool of 

qualified candidates.

• Recommendation 8 – The services should optimize the ability of service members 

to make informed career choices from accession to retirement – with special 

emphasis on mentoring.

• Recommendation 10 – Improve transparency so that service members understand 

performance, expectations, promotion criteria, and processes.
119

• Recommendation 11 – Ensure that promotion board precepts provide guidance on 

how to value service-directed special assignments outside normal career paths or 

fields.

• Recommendation 16 – DoD and services must resource and institute clear, 

consistent, and robust diversity management policies with emphasis on roles, 

responsibilities, authorities, and accountability. 

• Recommendation 18 – The services should conduct annual barrier analyses. 

• Recommendation 19 – Institute mechanisms for accountability and internal and 

external monitoring for both active and reserve components.

• Recommendation 20 – Include an assessment of qualified minority and female 

candidates for top leadership positions in the annual diversity report to Congress. 

2014 MLDC Progress Update

In 2014, DoD reported that 12 of the 20 original MLDC recommendations were fully 

implemented at the time of the update, and no further actions were required on these 

recommendations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the services will continue 

to monitor the recommendations on a recurring basis for sustainment. The remaining eight 

recommendations were partially implemented at the time of this progress update. (Ex 20:2) The 

following is a brief summary of each of the 12 MLDC recommendations considered relevant to 

this Review and the corresponding progress updates from the DoD. 

The first recommendation in the MLDC report was the DoD and services should adopt 

the following definition for diversity, “Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes 

of individuals that are consistent with Department of Defense core values, integral to overall 

readiness and mission accomplishment, and reflective of the Nation we serve.” (Ex 3:34) DoD 

used the MLDC’s recommendation as the foundation of its definition, but revised it slightly to 

include the Total Force. As part of the 2012-2017 Department of Defense Diversity and 

Inclusion Strategic Plan, diversity is defined as, “Diversity is all the different characteristics and 

attributes of the DoD’s Total Force, which are consistent with our core values, integral to overall 

readiness and mission accomplishment, and reflective of the best of the Nation we serve.” 

( Ex 20:6) The Air Force adopted a similar definition as part of AFI 36-7001, Diversity and 

Inclusion, which says, “Air Force broadly defines diversity as a composite of individual 

characteristics, experiences, and abilities consistent with the Air Force Core Values and the Air 

Force Mission.” (Ex 61:3) DoD considered Recommendation 1 of the MLDC report fully 

implemented, and no further action was necessary. 

For recommendation 2, diversity leadership refers to how leaders influence the way in 

which people and groups under their command relate to one another. The commission 

recommended two strategies to inculcate diversity leadership. The first focuses on leadership 

training at all levels to include education in diversity dynamics and training. The second strategy 

involves DoD and services developing a framework for implementation and assessing diversity 

leadership development. (Ex 3:44-45) The 2014 DoD progress update referenced the Air Force 

Doctrine Document 1.1, Leadership and Force Development, designating diversity as an 

institutional sub-competency under the “Leading People” competency. 
120

Additionally, the Air Force Diversity Strategic Roadmap, published in March 2013, lays 

out a game plan to “promote diversity and inclusion through training, leadership development, 

and employee engagement programs.” (Ex 20:34) Finally, AFI 36-7001, Diversity and 

Inclusion, identifies required training courses affiliated with diversity and inclusion education. 

(Ex 62:13) The Air Force Diversity and Inclusion (D&I) Task Force is currently reviewing Air 

Education and Training Command’s (AETC’s) implementation of these requirements (the AFI 

with these new requirements was released in February 19). DoD determined Recommendation 2 

was only partially implemented, but a workable plan was in place or being developed to ensure 

full implementation. 

Regarding Recommendation 3, the commission specifically noted, “It is important to 

remember how critical strong leadership is to service members’ performance and morale. When 

change comes into view, there can be strong resistance. Changes that address people’s 

racial/ethnic, religious, and other differences can prove to be especially challenging because 

these topics can be emotionally charged for many people.” (Ex 3:46) According to the 

commission, it would take top-level leadership involvement to develop, implement, and maintain 

change. DoD’s progress update states, “[s]enior leaders from all Services have demonstrated 

their personal commitment to making diversity an institutional priority.” Specifically, the update 

noted the Secretary of the Air Force, Chief of Staff of the Air Force, and the Chief Master 

Sergeant of the Air Force all signed a Declaration on Diversity, reinforcing their commitment to 

the principles of diversity and inclusion in recruiting, retaining and developing Airmen 

representative of America’s broadest landscape. (Ex 20:8) DoD considered Recommendation 3

of the MLDC report fully implemented, and no further action is necessary. 

Recommendation 4 proposed DoD and the services make respect for diversity a core 

value, identifying and rewarding the skills needed to meet the operational challenges of the 21st

century, and using strategic communications plans to communicate their diversity vision and 

values. (Ex 3:47) DoD concluded this recommendation was fully implemented based on the 

notion that diversity is inherent in leadership and built into the Armed Service’s existing core 

values. Also, the consensus is that service members are better served by integrating diversity 

and inclusion into how people lead, think and act – with dignity, honor, and respect being 

paramount in all they do. According to the update, the Air Force and Air National Guard had 

published a diversity strategic plan or roadmap with a communication plan. (Ex 20:10) DoD 

considered Recommendation 4 of the MLDC report fully implemented, and no further action is 

necessary. 

In Recommendation 7, the MLDC stated DoD and services should engage in activities to 

improve recruiting from the currently available pool of candidates by creating, implementing, 

and evaluating a strategic plan for outreach, and recruiting from untapped locations and 

underrepresented demographic groups. (Ex 3:79) According to the progress update, the Air 

Force Diversity Strategic Roadmap institutes goals, actions and performance measures to both 

attract and recruit “high-quality, talented, diverse individuals to consider service in the United 

States Air Force.” Additionally, the Air Force Recruiting Service (AFRS) had a comprehensive 

strategy geared towards strengthening its position in the minority markets, including strategic 

marketing to targeted audiences and influencers. (Ex 20:17) The DoD considered 

Recommendation 7 of the MLDC report fully implemented, and no further action is necessary. 
121

Recommendation 8 of the MLDC proposed the services ensure their career development 

programs and resources enhance service members’ knowledge of career choices to optimize 

service members’ ability to make informed career choices from accession to retirement. To 

achieve this, the MLDC further recommended mentoring and career counseling should start prior 

to the initial career field decision point and continue throughout the service member’s career. (Ex 

3:91) In response to this recommendation, DoD stated that each service had a strong mentoring 

program currently in place. According to the commission update, the Air Force charges its 

Airmen to actively mentor officer candidates, as well as enlisted and civilian recruits, before 

career field selection and throughout their careers. Air Force Manual 36-2643, Air Force 

Mentoring Program, provides specific guidance on Air Force Mentoring. Additionally, the DAF 

mentoring policy directive and development instruction provide effective mentoring guidelines, 

principles, and strategies to enhance communication between mentor and mentee. (Ex 20:20) 

The DoD considered Recommendation 8 of the MLDC report fully implemented, and no further 

action is necessary. 

In Recommendation 10, the MLDC calls for the DoD, the services, and the National 

Guard Bureau to ensure transparency throughout their promotion systems so service members 

may better understand performance expectations, promotion criteria, and processes. To 

accomplish this, the commission recommended the services specify the knowledge, skills, 

abilities, and potential to be an effective General Officer or senior noncommissioned officer.

(Ex 3:101) In response to this recommendation, DoD stated each of the services should ensure 

transparency throughout their promotion systems through a deliberate, continuous, and 

progressive relationship of education, training, performance, and career counseling. Specifically 

noted, the Air Force provides transparency to its officer promotion system by publishing legally 

required board convening notification prior to every board and by publishing the Air Force 

Pamphlet 36-2506, You and Your Promotions – The Air Force Officer Promotion Program. This 

pamphlet explains how officer promotions are made, how boards are comprised and operated, 

and what officers should do to ensure their records are accurate before meeting a board. 

Additionally, in September 2013, the Air Force introduced the Officer Continuum of Learning. 

The Continuum guides institutional competency development and provides a roadmap for 

development through education, training, and experiential opportunities. (Ex 20:24) DoD 

considered Recommendation 10 of the MLDC report fully implemented, and no further action is 

necessary. 

According to Recommendation 11 of the MLDC report, the services should ensure 

promotion board precepts provide guidance regarding service-related special assignments outside 

normal career paths. Additionally, senior raters’ evaluations shall acknowledge when a service 

member has deviated from their career path at the specific request of his or her leadership. The 

main motivation for this recommendation was to eliminate institutional bias that might contribute 

to the promotion gap between racial/ethnic minority and white officers. (Ex 3:104) DoD stated 

all the services update board precepts annually and include guidance regarding special 

assignments specific to their service’s varying needs. The update noted the Air Force has 

developmental teams that work with senior raters to provide service members vectors on special 

duty or follow on assignments. These developmental teams identify the education, training, and 

experience appropriate for officers, enlisted, and DAF civilians within each functional 

community based on current and future requirements. (Ex 20:28) The DoD considered 

Recommendation 11 of the MLDC report fully implemented, and no further action is necessary. 
122

In Recommendation 16, the MLDC called on DoD and the services to resource and 

institute clear, consistent, and robust diversity management policies, emphasizing roles, 

responsibilities, authorities, and accountability. Specifically, DoD and the services should 

implement strategic diversity plans that address all stages of a service member’s life cycle. 

Another subset of Recommendation 16 is the establishment of a standard set of metrics and 

benchmarks that enable the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) to measure progress. Specifically, 

this requires developing a new set of metrics to capture the inclusion and capability aspects of 

DoD’s broader diversity goals. One metric specifically noted for an inclusive environment is 

provided by discipline data: court-martial cases and non-judicial punishment. (Ex 3:101-104) 

The department developed the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2012-2017 to address both 

military and civilian issues. The plan is supported by five goals and 39 initiatives and provides 

an overarching construct that encourages commitment and creates alignment across the 

department with the latitude for the Services and DoD. (Ex 20:41) DoD determined 

Recommendation 16 only partially implemented, but a workable plan is in place or under 

development to ensure full implementation. 

Recommendation 18 stated the services should conduct annual barrier analyses to review 

demographic diversity patterns across the military life cycle, starting with accessions. 

Additionally, DoD should establish a universal data collection system, and the analyses of the 

data should be based on common definitions of demographic groups, a common methodology, 

and a common reporting structure. The annual analyses should include: 

• Accession demographics

• Retention, command selection, and promotion rates by race/ethnicity and gender

• Analysis of assignment patterns by race/ethnicity and gender

• Analysis of attitudinal survey data by race/ethnicity and gender

• Identification of persistent, group-specific deviations from overall averages and 

plans to investigate underlying causes

• Summaries of progress made on previous actions (Ex 3:131)

In the commission update, DoD states that the current diversity accountability review 

construct process will allow the department to conduct barrier analyses based on data gathered 

for the accountability review. Specifically, analysis of how racial, ethnic, gender minorities are 

progressing along their notional career path. At a minimum, the construct will address, 

recruiting, assignments to key billets, education, retention and promotion. Since each service has 

its own career structures and career progression patterns, which it understands best, there is a 

need to develop service-specific actions to address concerns. The overall objective is to have a 

way ahead, mandating barrier analysis actions that each service must take to address their 

diversity health. Each year the services will reassess their barrier analysis progress and course 

correct as needed. (Ex 20:43) DoD determined Recommendation 18 only partially implemented, 

but a workable plan is in place or being developed to ensure full implementation. 

Recommendation 19 calls for DoD to institute accountability and internal and external 

monitoring mechanisms for both active and reserve components. Accordingly, the services must 

embed diversity leadership in performance assessments throughout careers. Additionally, DoD 
123

should establish diversity leadership as a criterion for nomination and appointment to senior 

enlisted leadership positions and General Officers, including 3- and 4-star positions and service 

chief. (Ex 3:133) In addition to a few initiatives responding to previous MLDC 

recommendations, DoD developed an initial list of focus areas to assess and address 

barriers/gaps in diversity. Potential mechanisms being investigated for embedding diversity 

leadership into the core competencies expected of a service member include the following: 

• Documentation of one’s diversity leadership in a self-statement 

• Incorporating diversity perspectives into leadership assessments 

• 360-degree evaluations 

• Utilizing relevant indicators such as climate survey trends, discipline, and EO data, 

and retention rates

Additionally, the Secretary of Defense (SecDef) directed unit climate assessment results 

be used as a mentoring tool by a commander’s supervisor. To facilitate this directive, the climate

survey results will be sent to the commander and the commander’s supervisor simultaneously. 

This mandate ensures that dialogue will occur between commanders and their supervisors and is 

intended to put accountability into the climate assessment process. The requirement to forward 

the results to the commander’s supervisor only applies to the annual climate survey, not the 120-

day assessment. (Ex 20:44-45) DoD determined Recommendation 19 only partially 

implemented, but a workable plan is in place or being developed to ensure full implementation. 

Finally, in Recommendation 20, the MLDC stated Congress should require SecDef to 

report an assessment of the available pool of qualified racial/ethnic minority and female 

candidates for the 3- and 4-star General Officer positions annually. Additionally, SecDef must 

ensure all qualified candidates have been considered for every 3- and 4-star position nomination. 

If there were no qualified racial/ethnic minority and/or female candidates, a statement of 

explanation should be made in the package submitted to the Senate for the confirmation 

hearings. (Ex 3:137) Regarding this final recommendation, the DoD progress update responded 

that the Department’s senior leadership already considers recommendations for 3- and 4- star 

generals/flag officers from the entire pool of qualified candidates. Including diversity language 

in Title 10 increases the potential for nominations to become a search for quotas and the 

selection process of 3- and 4- star general/flag officers to become stagnated. (Ex 20:46) DoD 

determined Recommendation 20 is only partially implemented, but a workable plan is in place or 

being developed to ensure full implementation. 

In the Strategic Way Ahead of the DoD’s progress update to the MLDC, the report states 

OSD will continue working with key stakeholders to implement the DoD Diversity and Inclusion 

Strategic Plan 2012-2017. Additionally, an oversight framework was established to 

collaboratively review, discuss, guide, recommend, and act on DoD military and civilian 

workforce diversity and inclusion matters as well as an instrument for continued implementation 

of MLDC recommendations. (Ex 20:47) As noted later in this report, accountability for 

implementation and follow on measurements of success have faltered. 
124

2019 GAO REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2019 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released Military Justice: DoD 

and the Coast Guard Need to Improve Their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender 

Disparities in response to a provision in the FY 2018 NDAA that directed a study of the extent 

that disparities may exist in the military justice system. This report assessed the extent to which 

(1) the military services collect and maintain consistent race, ethnicity, and gender information 

for service members investigated and disciplined for UCMJ violations that can be used to assess 

disparities, and (2) there are racial and gender disparities in the military justice system, and 

whether DoD has studied disparities. GAO analyzed data from the investigations, military 

justice, and personnel databases from the military services, including the Coast Guard, from 

fiscal years 2013-2017, and interviewed agency officials.27 (Ex 6:1-2)

The study found racial and gender disparities exist in investigations, disciplinary actions, 

and punishment of service members in the military justice system. GAO’s analysis of available 

data from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, which controlled for attributes such as race, gender, 

rank, education, and years of service, found racial and gender disparities were more likely in 

actions that first brought service members into the military justice system. Specifically, GAO 

found that:

• Black, Hispanic, and male service members were more likely than white and female 

service members to be the subjects of recorded investigations in all of the military 

services, and were more likely to be tried in general and special courts-martial in the 

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

• There were fewer statistically significant racial and gender disparities in most military 

services in general and special courts-martial that were preceded by a recorded 

investigation than in general and special courts-martial overall. The study also found that 

statistically significant racial and gender disparities in general and special courts-martial 

that did not follow a recorded investigation were similar to those identified for general 

and special courts-martial overall.

• Black and male service members were more likely than white and female service 

members to be tried in summary courts-martial and to be subjects of NJP in the Air Force 

and the Marine Corps. The Army and the Navy did not maintain complete data, and the 

Coast Guard had too few summary courts-martial for us to analyze, and did not maintain 

complete NJP data. (Ex 6:38-39)

The report identified fewer statistically significant racial or gender disparities in case 

outcomes—convictions and punishment severity. Specifically:

• Race was not a statistically significant factor in the likelihood of conviction in general 

and special courts-martial in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, 

but gender was a statistically significant factor in the Marine Corps.

 27 In preparation for this report, in 2017, the Air Force assembled a working group called the Disciplinary Actions 

Analysis Team (DAAT) to examine the barriers certain demographic groups face to career success, including 

barriers to training opportunities, promotion, and retention. As of the 2019 GAO report, the working group was in 

the early stages of organizing and had not yet published any findings or recommendations for service leadership. 

(Ex 6:65)
125

• Black service members were less likely to receive a more severe punishment in general 

and special courts-martial compared to white service members in the Navy but there was 

no statistically significant difference for black service members in the Marine Corps, the 

Army, and the Air Force. Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences 

for Hispanic service members in the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Army, or the Air Force; 

and males were more likely than females to receive a more severe punishment in the 

Marine Corps, the Army, and the Air Force. (Ex 6:39)

According to the GAO report, the military services have some initiatives to examine and 

address disparities in military justice. In May 2016, the DAF conducted a service-wide data call 

to solicit information about cases involving challenges to a member of a courts-martial based on 

race or a motion for selective prosecution. A thorough review revealed no evidence of selective 

prosecution in Air Force courts-martial. In addition, the DAF conducted analyses of its military 

justice data. Specifically, the DAF routinely analyzed military justice data using a Rates Per 

Thousand analysis to identify whether certain demographic groups are tried by courts-martial or 

subject to NJP at higher rates than others.28 These Air Force analyses found that black and male 

service members were more likely than white and female service members to be subject to 

courts-martial and NJP from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, which is consistent with what the 

GAO report found. (Ex 6:64-65)

The GAO made eleven recommendations, including three to the Secretary of Homeland 

Security, three to the SecDef, two to the Secretary of the Army, two to the Secretary of the Navy, 

and one to the Secretary of the Air Force. One of the recommendations to the SecDef was that 

the military services conduct an evaluation to identify the causes of any disparities in the military 

justice system, and then take steps to address the causes of these disparities. (Ex 6:70) 

The GAO recommended SecAF develop the capability in the DAF to present service 

members’ race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases using the same 

categories of race and ethnicity established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the 

military justice databases. According to GAO, this could be accomplished by either: (1) 

modifying the Air Force’s investigations and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data 

in accordance with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into 

the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3) implementing another 

method identified by the Air Force. (Ex 6:69) The DAF has met this requirement.

AF DAAT OBJECTIVES

In September 2017, SAF/MR convened a meeting of the Military Justice Executive 

Steering Group to discuss the way forward in preparation for the upcoming GAO Report on 

military justice. The meeting resulted in the formation of the Disciplinary Action Analysis Team 

(DAAT). (Ex 26) The DAAT was charged with reviewing “policies, procedures, practices, and 

conditions regarding administrative and disciplinary actions served to Total Force Airmen across 

all demographics of the workforce with an eye toward identifying any problems, the root 

cause(s) of any problems identified, and, if there are barriers, to devise plans to eliminate them.” 

 28 A Rates Per Thousand analysis computes the number of service members within a demographic group that are 

subject to a particular military justice action, divided by the total number of service members of that demographic 

group, and multiplied by 1,000. (Ex 6:64)
126

(Ex 26:2) The DAAT membership included more than 40 members from a range of different 

offices, including AFJAG, SAF/GC AF/A1, SAF/MR, Medical Groups, AFPC, AFRC, and Total 

Force components, including Active Duty, reserve, guard, and civilian. (Ex 29:1)

The DAAT considered four aspects in approaching reform:

Education: Quality, research-based training can (1) help increase understanding of core 

concepts, (2) increase awareness about one’s own behavior, and (3) contribute to setting or 

changing a tone about the subject. According to the 2019 DAAT Roadmap, the following 

objectives would address the training portion of reform:

• Unconscious bias training: Unconscious bias training is a well-established best practice 

among those addressing racial disparity in the civilian criminal justice system. 

• Cultural competency training: The DAF defines cross-cultural competence as, “[t]he 

ability to quickly and accurately comprehend, then act appropriately and effectively in a 

culturally complex environment to achieve the desired effect – without necessarily 

having prior exposure to a particular group, region, or language.” 

• General leadership training: Leadership training at all levels, for enlisted and officers, 

should highlight the issue of racial disparity in the military justice system and educate 

leaders about their role that may contribute to it and actions to take to reduce it. (Ex 29:6)

Priming: Priming tools are reminders or other means of prompting individuals to apply 

their learning at the appropriate time. The DAF regularly uses priming tools, such as checklists 

and scripts, for everything such as aircraft operations to promotion ceremonies to courts-martial. 

The use of these tools has been institutionalized to ensure Total Force Airmen, once trained, 

complete tasks effectively and efficiently. Similarly, in this case, checklists could be used to 

ensure anyone administering an LOC, LOA, or LOR is prompted to exercise their cultural 

competence or be aware of their potential biases. (Ex 29:7-8)

Structures and Systems: Structures and systems drive individual behavior within a 

culture. The DAF is a highly structured organization designed to drive specific behavior and 

promote certain aspects of culture. For example, throughout of the Air Force’s history, the 

Wingman concept has fostered a culture of support, comradery, and safety. To reinforce the 

concept, the Air Force has endorsed Wingman Day involving team sports and other teambuilding events to promote better relations among its members. The Air Force has extended the 

Wingman concept in its recent efforts to prevent sexual assault. For example, Airmen at Basic 

Military Training (BMT) are required to carry a Wingman card that includes the name of their 

wingman, as well as an emergency phone number. The established practice of participating in 

Wingman Day and developing the new Wingman card requirement help reinforce the Wingman 

concept and overall Air Force culture.

Objectives focused on structures and systems in the 2019 DAAT Roadmap included:

• Develop a tracking system modeled after the Automated Military Justice Analysis and 

Management System (AMJAMS) to track administrative disciplinary action such as 

LOCs, LOAs, and LORs.
127

• Develop a more accurate metric to measure racial disparity; perhaps one that is 

percentage-based rather than Rates Per Thousand.

• Develop a mentoring program (pairings or groups) at each base, where SNCOs are 

proactively matched with black E1-E5s in BMT or in the First Term Airman Center 

(FTAC). Mentors should be trained and equipped to discuss prevention of Article 112a 

and Article 86 offenses.

• Create SNCO-led affinity groups for black E1-E5 at each base.

• Evaluate and strengthen efforts to increase overall racial, ethnic, and gender diversity of 

Air Force members and leadership. Continue to determine and address barriers to 

recruitment, retention, and promotion of diverse Airmen. (Ex 29:8-9)

Accountability and Transparency: The DAF highly values the principle of 

accountability. The DAF charges its leaders to set standards, consistently uphold them, and hold 

the individuals accountable when they are not met. Additionally, transparency is critical, 

particularly given formal and informal oversight from Congress, the media, the Air Force 

community, and the general public. (Ex 29:5-6) 

Objectives for accountability and transparency in the 2019 DAAT Roadmap included:

• In conjunction with developing a tracking mechanism for administrative actions, 

squadrons across the DAF should host regular Status of Discipline briefings for LOCs, 

LOAs, and LORs. The focus should be at the squadron level and attended by the group 

commander, squadron commander, flight commanders, Noncommissioned Officers in 

Charge (NCOICs), and First Sergeants.

• Leadership, from the senior DAF levels to the wing commander level, should issue 

regular communication about this issue to underscore the seriousness of it, lay out how it 

will be address, and celebrate accomplishments. (Ex 29:9)

In April 2020, the DAAT was renamed the Black/African American Team (BAAT) and 

has since been renamed again to the Black/African American Employment Strategy Team 

(BEST). The BEST is tasked to review and analyze guidelines, programs, data and other 

information for barriers to employment, advancement, and retention of black employees, 

applicants, and military members. (Ex 30)

ANALYSIS OF PREVIOUS REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The 2011 MLDC report, From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 

21st Century Military, provided the DoD with a thorough assessment of policies that provide 

opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces. 

This report effectively put DoD and military services on notice that attention was required to 

address a gap in diversity at the leadership level. The three interrelated goals identified by the 

MLDC provided a clear sight picture for DoD to hold its leadership accountable for improving 

diversity and creating a culture where future leaders are able to effectively lead a diverse 

workforce to maximize mission effectiveness. 
128

In 2014, DoD and military services provided an update to the implementation of 

recommendations made by the MLDC. The update provided the actions and plans the DoD and 

military services had taken to comply with all 20 recommendations. Although the progress 

update did provide context to the initiatives and actions the DoD and services proposed, it did 

not provide measurable results from these actions. Given the lack of measurable results, this 

Review could not assess the positive or negative impacts of implementing the MLDC’s 

recommendations. There appeared to be a relaxed standard for what passed for implementation, 

and the accountability and follow up were not robust. As one senior DAF official put it, “[t]he 

assessment of what is considered implemented and closed is overly generous and leaves 

accountability for DoD and Service senior leaders at the cursory level. If these items were 

implemented as stated, you would expect to see different results from what the data collected [in 

this Review] shows. I believe this highlights the lack of senior leader follow up, determination, 

and accountability over time.” Follow-up to the 2014 DoD progress update to the Commission’s 

recommendations may be warranted and may enhance any recommendations made in this DAF 

IG Review.

The 2019 GAO report, Military Justice, DoD and the Coast Guard Need to Improve 

Their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender Disparities, provided the military services with 

an assessment of how they collect and maintain investigative and disciplinary data with regards 

to race, ethnicity, and gender. These data could then be used to assess the associated racial and 

gender disparities in the military justice system, and whether disparities have been studied by 

DoD. Again, this report provided a clear sight picture for the Air Force to acknowledge the 

deficiencies associated with capturing these data and conduct root cause analysis to the reasons 

why disparities exist. 

The DAF’s preemptive plan to address the findings in the 2019 GAO report and address 

issues involving administrative and disciplinary actions involving service members was the 

creation of the DAAT in September of 2017. After several years of attempting to stand-up and 

organize the DAAT, a 2019 DAAT Roadmap was produced to layout the priority objectives the 

team would attempt to implement. According to several past and current members of the DAAT, 

as well as current members of the BEST, the DAAT was ineffective at executing its charter and 

its objectives. When asked if the DAAT determined why there was racial disparity in military 

justice actions, one former member stated, “No...from my understanding we have not 

determined why there’s a disparity. I think we developed some ideas and, like I said, one of 

those ideas is that supervisors may be, I guess having bias against certain members, you know, 

unconsciously and where they may be more patient and understand with people that look like 

them or remind them of themselves.”

As the DAAT transitions to the BEST, the initial charter will focus on the barriers black 

service members face in all aspects of their military and civilian life cycle. This broader scope 

potentially impacts more service members and civilian employees than the previously limited 

focus of the disciplinary system. However, as the scope has increased, so too has team’s 

necessity to have adequate resources and senior-level support to ensure success, something 

lacking in the DAAT. 
129

INTERIM CONCLUSION

Past reports and studies addressing racial disparity in the DoD and military services 

focused on the quantitative data and made recommendations, but the disparities have persisted 

over time. This Review concluded the common theme in past initiatives is the lack of a root 

cause analysis to explain the racial disparities. Although the DAF has actively collected data to 

assess whether racial disparities exist, it has not attempted to answer the question of “why” they 

exist. In order to craft effective devise recommendations to resolve racial disparities, one must 

first identify the root cause of the disparities. A thorough root cause analysis of the disparities is 

necessary for targeted actions to bring about meaningful change.

The DAF attempted to address administrative and disciplinary practices by establishing 

the DAAT, which, although well-intentioned, was ineffectively executed and not adequately 

supported. As pointed out in previous studies and reports, involvement at all levels of leadership 

is critical. The 2011 MLDC report and 2019 GAO report both placed a premium on the 

importance of leadership in the majority of their conclusions and recommendations. 

WHY DO WE CONTINUE TO SEE DISPARITIES?

DAF actions in response to recommendations in previous reports were focused on 

systemic or process-related solutions. After reviewing these reports and conducting interviews 

with people involved in these reports, SMEs, and other DAF members, the Review team 

identified two primary factors contributing to the persistence of these disparities: (1) the DAF did 

not systematically conduct an analysis to determine the cause of the disparities previously 

identified in the reports; and (2) lack of follow-through with measurable outcomes.

MLDC RESPONSE 

The MLDC recommendations focused on the human aspects of the racial disparity such 

as leadership, understanding, and expectations. Yet, the DAF solutions focused on systemic 

fixes with no way to measure the impact on the human aspects and no direct tie to an identified 

racial disparity. For example, Recommendation 3 of the MLDC stated “Leadership of the DoD 

and services must be personally committed to diversity becoming an institutional priority.” In 

the report, the commission linked strong, personal leadership to performance and morale. 

According to the 2014 MLCD Update, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Chief Master 

Sergeant of the Air Force implemented this recommendation by signing a Declaration on 

Diversity, reinforcing their commitment to the principles of diversity and inclusion in recruiting, 

retaining, and developing Airmen representative of America’s broadest landscape. DoD 

subsequently closed out the recommendation as fully implemented. There is no indication, 

however, that the DAF gathered data to determine the extent leadership became personally 

involved in making diversity a priority. The survey, interview, and discussion data gathered 

during this Review indicates increased personal involvement by senior leadership remains 

crucial. 
130

DAAT RECOMMENDATIONS

In 2020, the DAAT team made several recommendations related to the human aspects of 

the racial disparity issue in military discipline. The DAF is assessing actions to implement 

recommendations, but it is not yet clear how many will focus on the human factors. This Review

confirmed that, to be effective, any implemented solutions must involve commanders and be 

measurably linked to the racial disparity gaps. 

The DAAT team’s focus on unconscious bias training illustrates the importance of 

measures of effectiveness. At this point, the DAF has no concrete link between unconscious bias 

and the racial disparity in military discipline, therefore there is no way to measure the 

effectiveness of the proposed training. This Review provides information on personal 

experiences, perceptions, and beliefs that may be a good starting point for measuring training 

effectiveness. Without an effective means to measure success, bias training could easily fall into 

the category of additional training that drives additional duties but does not improve military

capability and ultimately does not have lasting or meaningful impact on the racial disparity gaps. 

Furthermore, studies show poorly organized or inadequately led diversity training may make 

race relations worse. As such, the DAF must define meaningful measures of quality and 

effectiveness prior to implementing any proposed training program.

As articulated above, lack of leadership involvement and high membership turnover 

decreased the effectiveness of the DAAT. Three years after its inception, AF/A1 determined the 

DAAT was ineffective and the implementation of its recommendations was lacking. AF/A1 

acknowledged senior DAF leadership changeover was a factor that contributed to the team’s lack 

of effectiveness. The transition to the Black/African American Employment Strategy Team 

(BEST) with General Officer and SES leadership is likely a step in the right direction. 

INTERIM CONCLUSION

Based on the evidence in this report, this Review concludes, past solutions implemented 

by the DAF were too focused on systems and processes. These solutions were not measurable or

sustainable. Furthermore, these solutions were racially neutral and did not adequately involve

commanders or account for the daily experiences of Airmen and Space Professionals. 

IV. UNDERSTANDING THE MAGNITUDE

The survey data, interviews, and group discussions confirm that racial disparity in DAF 

discipline and developmental opportunities is deeper than the quantitative disparity numbers 

indicate. Analysis of DAF data shows racial disparity exists across the life-cycle of an Airman. 

The Racial Disparity Review survey analysis shows a significant percentage of black service 

members lack confidence in DAF discipline and developmental opportunity systems. In 

contrast, the majority of white service members have confidence in the AF systems. The writein comments to the survey, discussions, and interviews clearly communicate that this disparity is 

significant, consistent, and personal to our Airmen and Space Professionals. The quantitative 

disparity numbers are indicators, symptoms, or cues of how the AF discipline system works and 

how opportunities to succeed are distributed. When combined with personal experiences, that 
131

often begin before members join the AF, these cues act as amplifiers resulting in a significant 

percentage of all DAF service members believing black service members are unfairly treated in 

the military discipline process and not given the same opportunities to succeed as white service 

members.

The magnitude of racial disparity in military discipline and development opportunities is 

substantial. Military justice data concerning Article 15s and courts-martial rates, OSI 

investigations, Security Forces investigations, and administrative discharge data provide 

empirical information showing racial disparity. Similarly, disparities between black and white 

Total Force service members in accessions and recruiting, promotions, leadership assignments, 

and PME selections indicate racial disparities impact a black service member’s opportunity to 

succeed throughout their time in service. The DAF has known and monitored many of these 

indications for years, and previous attempts to close the disparity gap have not been uniformly 

successful. As such, well documented racial disparities persist. Further study must be conducted 

to determine and understand the root causes of these disparities. 

Commanders and leaders at all levels must actively engage with Airmen and Space 

Professionals to foster an environment of inclusivity. They must also take necessary steps to 

build trust and confidence in military justice and developmental systems. In addition, DAF

process owners must conduct further study to determine and understand root causes of each 

racial disparity identified in this report. 

V. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This Independent Review confirmed racial disparity exists for black service members in 

apprehensions, criminal investigations, military justice, administrative separations, placement 

into occupational career fields, certain promotion rates, professional military educational 

development, and leadership opportunities. While the data show race is a correlating factor, it 

does not necessarily indicate causality, and the data do not address why racial disparities exist in 

these areas. 

It is important the reader appreciate the identification of racial disparity does not 

necessarily equate to either racial bias or racism. This report’s primary focus is on identifying 

areas of racial disparity. During the course of this Review the team received a large volume of 

first-hand examples of bias, as well as individual acts of racism. While it is impossible to 

individually validate each example, the themes that emerged from an overwhelming volume of 

feedback make it reasonable to conclude individual acts of racism occur in the DAF and that 

racial bias contributes to the disparities found by the Review team.

Secretary of the Air Force, Barbara Barrett, former Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen David 

Goldfein, current Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen Charles Brown, and Chief of Space Operations, 

Gen John Raymond have repeatedly emphasized the importance of fair and equitable discipline, 

development, and opportunities for all our service members. They are committed to promoting 

an environment free from personal, social, and institutional barriers that might prevent our 

service members from rising to their highest potential. It is clear from the interviews, group 

discussions, and surveys that a substantial number of black service members believe there is 
132

racial bias in military discipline and developmental opportunities. The racial disparities 

identified, combined with the personal experiences of our service members, require attention to 

ensure fair and equitable treatment for all of our Airmen and Space Professionals. Past studies 

and initiatives failed to effectively address the racial disparities, in part, due to lack of followthrough, long-term commitment, accountability, and consistent involvement by leaders.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Systemic, effective, and lasting solutions to the disparities highlighted in this report will 

require relentless follow-through by all stakeholders, dogged emphasis by senior leaders, and 

most importantly, accountability. 

• For each identified disparity or deficiency in this report, DAF IG recommends SecAF 

task the respective DAF stakeholders to, as warranted and appropriate, develop within 60 

days systemic action plans, including plans and milestones to address the identified 

disparities. DAF stakeholders provided initial action plans which are summarized in 

Appendix A and will be further refined and finalized within 60 days. We also recommend 

releasing the details of the specific action plans to all Airmen and Space Professionals. 

• DAF IG will establish a recurring assessment of the recommendations borne of this 

Review. DAF IG will provide a “progress report” six months after this report’s 

publication and a full review and assessment of effectiveness of improvement measures 

annually. The assessments of DAF IG will be publicly released and provided to all 

Airmen and Space Professionals. 

• The Diversity and Inclusion Task-Force should review this report to assess applicability 

to broader D&I initiatives. 

Military Discipline Processes

− The racial disparity in military justice actions, including Article 15s and courts-martial 

(p. 5-10)

− The disparity in marijuana use among our youngest enlisted members as evidenced by 

the random drug testing program (p. 10-15)

− The racial disparity in administrative discipline as evidenced by administrative 

discharges as well as substantive feedback from a large number of Airmen and Space 

Professionals (p. 16-20)

− The racial disparity in Security Forces (SF) apprehensions (p. 27-30)

− The racial disparity in substantiated Military Equality Opportunity (MEO) sexual 

harassment complaints (p. 31-33)

Personnel Development & Career Opportunities

− The disparity in Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs), especially as it relates to 

operational versus support career fields (p. 34-45)

− The disparity in Undergraduate Pilot Training (UPT) accession and graduation rates by 

race, gender, and ethnicity (p. 40)

− The disparity in the officer IDE and SDE process, given that analysis shows black 

officers are being nominated for PME at higher than the overall nomination rate but 

designated to attend at a lower rate (p. 52-57)
133

− The disparity in the civilian Intermediate Developmental Education (IDE) and Senior 

Developmental Education (SDE) selection process given black civilians are identified to 

meet the Civilian Developmental Education Board (CDEB) at a consistently lower rate 

than white civilians (p. 57-59)

− The racial disparities in promotions to E5-E7 and O4-O6 (p. 59-74) 

− The racial disparities in civilian leadership representation from GS-13 to SES (p. 75-78)

− The lack of thorough Barrier Analysis among some Developmental Teams[1] (p. 79, 86)

− The racial disparity in wing command and equivalent positions (p. 84-86)

Other Department-wide Concerns

− The lack of satisfaction service members expressed regarding IG and EO, with special 

emphasis on the process of referring cases back to the chain of command (p. 106-107)

− The lack of trust black DAF members expressed in their chain of command to address 

racism, bias, and unequal opportunities (p. 90-91, 104-105)

− The sentiment expressed by a majority of black DAF members that they are not given 

the benefit of the doubt by their chain of command (p. 99, 104-116)

VI. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Review team would like to recognize all our partners who were invaluable in the 

completion of this Review. The Air Force Survey Office was crucial in helping to craft and 

execute one of the central elements of this effort, the Independent Racial Disparity Review 

survey. The Air Force Office of Studies, Analysis, and Assessments (AF/A9) provided 

exceptional support, guidance, and data analytics capability to assess multiple sources of raw 

data and built the majority of the graphics used in the report. The Office of the Deputy Chief of 

Staff of the Air Force for Manpower, Personnel, and Services (AF/A1) provided subject matter 

experts (SMEs) who contributed keen knowledge and guidance on programs involving Air Force 

Equal Opportunity, Air Force Diversity and Inclusion, Promotions, Evaluation, Fitness, 

Recognition, and Enlisted Force policies. Additionally, the Office of the Judge Advocate 

General of the Air Force (AFJAG), the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Manpower and Reserve Affairs (SAF/MR) and the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC) provided 

critical input. The Review team also relied upon the experience and knowledge of a senior 

leader advisory group made up of more than 20 current and retired black Generals, Admirals, 

SESs, and CMSgts as well as a diverse team of Major Command (MAJCOM) advisors selected 

by their commanders. These two groups provided invaluable insight and perspective throughout 

the Review. Finally, prior to completing the analysis and publishing the report, the Review team 

consulted with experts from the RAND Corporation, who have years of experience working on 

and studying racial relations in the U.S. military.

 [1] AFI 36-205, Affirmative Employment Program (AEP), Special Emphasis Programs (SEPS) and Reasonable 

Accommodation Policy, dated 15 Dec 16, defines barrier analysis as “an investigation of anomalies found in 

workplace policies, procedures, and practices that limit or tend to limit employment opportunities for members of 

any race or national origin, either sex, or based on an individual’s disability status. Barrier analysis identifies the 

root causes of those anomalies, and if necessary, eliminates them.” (Ex 62) A barrier analysis includes the following 

steps: identify triggers (trends, disparities, or anomalies), explore root causes of triggers, develop an action plan, 

implement the action plan, and assess the action plan result. A detailed explanation of the barrier analysis process

may be found in AFI 36-205 and EEOC MD-175. (Ex 62; Ex 63)
134

TABLE OF FIGURES

Fig 1: Enlisted Courts-Martial and Article 15s (FY12-FY16 and FY17-FY19) ........................... 7

Fig 2: Officer Courts-Martial and Article 15s (FY12-16 and FY17-19)....................................... 7

Fig 3: Total Article 15 Specifications (E1-E9) RPT and Disparity Ratio ..................................... 9

Fig 4: Article 15 Rates Per Thousand by Race and Top Offenses................................................. 9

Fig 5: Drug Offenses: Positive Test Rate .................................................................................... 11

Fig 6: Racial Disparity in Positive Random Drug Tests.............................................................. 11

Fig 7: Racial Disparity in Positive Random Drug Tests by Rank ............................................... 12

Fig 8: Drug Offenses: Trends in % of Positive Drug Tests by Drug Class and Race ................ 12

Fig 9: Racial Disparity in Random Drug Test Selection ............................................................. 13

Fig 10: Random Drug Test Selection by Rank ............................................................................ 14

Fig 11: Racial Disparity in Random Drug Testing by Rank........................................................ 14

Fig 12: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Administrative Discharges................................................. 18

Fig 13: Racial Disparity in Administrative Discharges: Misconduct .......................................... 19

Fig 14: Administrative Discharge (E1-E4) for Misconduct ........................................................ 19

Fig 15: OSI Criminal Cases......................................................................................................... 21

Fig 16: OSI Investigations Race Demographics.......................................................................... 21

Fig 17: OSI Investigations: Overall .............................................................................................. 22

Fig 18: OSI Investigations: Offense Type ................................................................................... 22

Fig 19: OSI Drug Investigations.................................................................................................. 23

Fig 20: OSI Reactive versus Proactive Drug Cases..................................................................... 24

Fig 21: OSI Sex Investigations.................................................................................................... 25

Fig 22: OSI Death Investigations................................................................................................. 25

Fig 23: Other OSI Investigations................................................................................................. 26

Fig 24: SF Apprehensions - Officers........................................................................................... 28

Fig 25: SF Apprehensions - Enlisted ........................................................................................... 29

Fig 26: Airman Apprehensions: Rank RPT and Disparity Index ................................................ 29

Fig 27: IG Reprisal and Restriction Investigations...................................................................... 31

Fig 28: IG Investigations: Command Action............................................................................... 31

Fig 29: Sexual Harassment Complaints....................................................................................... 33

Fig 30: Sexual Harassment Substantiations................................................................................. 33

Fig 31: ROTC Accessions by Racial Demographic .................................................................... 36

Fig 32: USAFA Applicant Pool Goals ........................................................................................ 36

Fig 33: USAFA Applicant Pool (Class of 2020-2024)................................................................. 37

Fig 34: USAFA Enrollment (Class of 2020-2024)...................................................................... 37

Fig 35: OTS Demographics (Application and Select Rates) ....................................................... 38

Fig 36: Racial Disparity in Officer Career Fields........................................................................ 39

Fig 37: Enlisted Racial Demographics (Eligible Population and DAF Enlisted Force).............. 42

Fig 38: Mean AFQT Scores by Race........................................................................................... 43

Fig 39: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Career Fields by Rank Groups............................................ 45

Fig 40: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Separations Rates............................................................... 46

Fig 41: Air Force Racial Disparity Enlisted Separations: Relative to years of service ............... 47

Fig 42: Air Force Officer Retention Rate: Relative to Race/Ethnicity........................................ 48

Fig 43: Racial Disparity in DAF Officer Separations: Relative to years of service .................... 49

Fig 44: Racial Disparity in Officer Separations by Career Field................................................. 50
135

Fig 45: Air Force Exit Survey: Programs/Policies that influenced decisions to separate ........... 51

Fig 46: 2015-2020 IDE/SDE Nomination/Designation Rates..................................................... 54

Fig 47: AY20-22 DA Demographics........................................................................................... 55

Fig 48: 2018-2021 Civilian IDE Selection Rates ........................................................................ 58

Fig 49: 2018-2021 Civilian SDE Rates ....................................................................................... 58

Fig 50: Enlisted Rank by Demographic Group............................................................................ 60

Fig 51: AD Officer Demographic by Rank.................................................................................. 60

Fig 52: Civilian Workforce Grade by Demographic Group ........................................................ 61

Fig 53: Enlisted Promotion Rates................................................................................................ 62

Fig 54: Racial Disparity in Enlisted Promotion Rates................................................................. 63

Fig 55: Officer Promotion Rates ................................................................................................. 67

Fig 56: Racial Disparity in Officer Promotion Rates................................................................... 68

Fig 57: O5 and O6 Below the Promotion Zone (BPZ) Selection Rates ...................................... 69

Fig 58: Racial Disparity O5 and O6 Definitely Promote (DP) Recommendation Rates............. 70

Fig 59: O5 and O6 Definitely Promote (DP) Recommendation Rates by AFSC........................ 71

Fig 60: Select Officer AFSCs by Demographic Group ............................................................... 72

Fig 61: Gaps in Definitely Promote (DP) and Promotion Selection for Line Officers................ 73

Fig 62: DAF Permenant Full-Time Civilians by Demographic Group ....................................... 75

Fig 63: Grade Level of Employees at Entry by Demographic Group ......................................... 76

Fig 64: Executive Officer and Aide De Camp Positions by Race ............................................... 80

Fig 65: 2012-2019 Squadron Commander Demographics .......................................................... 81

Fig 66: 2017-2020 CCL Select Rates .......................................................................................... 83

Fig 67: 2012-2019 Group Commander Demographics ............................................................... 84

Fig 68: 2012-2019 Wing Commander Demographics................................................................. 84

Fig 69: Racial Disparity in Wing Commanders........................................................................... 85

Fig 70: Career Field Disparity in Wing Commanders................................................................. 85

Fig 71: 2015-2019 Racial Disparity in Enlisted Leadership Roles.............................................. 87

Fig 72: RDR Survey Question 7 Source: RDR Survey......................................................... 91

Fig 73: RDR Survey Question 8 Source: RDR Survey.......................................................... 92

Fig 74: RDR Survey Question 10a Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 93

Fig 75: RDR Survey Question 10b Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 94

Fig 76: RDR Survey Question 10c Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 95

Fig 77: RDR Survey Question 10d Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 96

Fig 78: RDR Survey Question 10e Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 97

Fig 79: RDR Survey Question 11 Source: RDR Survey........................................................ 98

Fig 80: RDR Survey Question 14 Source: RDR Survey........................................................ 99

Fig 81: RDR Survey Question 17 Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 100

Fig 82: RDR Survey Question 18 Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 101

Fig 83: RDR Survey Question 19 Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 102

Fig 84: RDR Survey Question 20 Source: RDR Survey...................................................... 103
136

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit

Tri-Signature Memo (Racial Disparity Review) .........................................................1

A9 RDR - Appendix Analytical Results v5.................................................................2

MLDC_Final_Report 2011..........................................................................................3

GAO EO Report 1973..................................................................................................4

GAO Military Disparities 1980 ...................................................................................5

GAO Report - May 2019 .............................................................................................6

GAO Report on Equal Opportunity April 1995...........................................................7

DTIC Analysis of Disciplinary Rates DOD 1992 .......................................................8

GAO AF ACADEMY Racial 1993 .............................................................................9

GAO Military Academy Racial Disparity 1994 ........................................................10

GAO Report Equal Opportunity April 1995..............................................................11

GAO Report Military Equal Opportunity Nov 1995.................................................12

GAO Diversity in Federal SES and Selecting Execs 2008........................................13

RAND_MG743 Planning for Diversity 2008............................................................14

RAND WAPS Testing (Schiefer et al, 2008) ............................................................15

RAND_RGSD274 Obstacles to Improving Demographic Representation 2010 .....16

DoD Diversity Strategic Plan final as of 19 Apr 2012 ............................................. 17

AFMS Workforce Diversity Study 2012...................................................................18

RAND_RR333 Implementation of DOD Diversity Plan 2013 .................................19

MLDC Summary Report 2014 ..................................................................................20

RAND_RR495 Improving AF Officer diversity 2014 ..............................................21

RAND_RR1936 Understanding Demographic Differences in UPT Attrition ..........22

CRS Report June 2019...............................................................................................23

Air Force Diversity Education Analysis 2013...........................................................24

GAO Military Justice 2020........................................................................................25

AFBAWG Charter Updated 11 Oct 2017..................................................................26

DAAT Meeting Minutes 19 Oct 17 ...........................................................................27

A1V Talking Paper Race Justice April 2017.............................................................28

DAAT Road Map- Brief- Final 2-2019 .....................................................................29

AF Barrier Analysis Working Group Charter Apr 2020 ...........................................30

RAND_RR2643 Barriers to Advancement & Retention 2020..................................31

Race and the Air Force (Losey, 2016).......................................................................32

Atch 1 AF A1 Memo - UB Mitigation Training Architecture...................................33

Atch 2 AF Unconscious Bias Mitigation Training Architecture Plan.......................34

Atch 3 AF Unconscious Bias Mitigation Training ....................................................35

Why Doesn't Diversity Training Work 2018.............................................................36

2016 USAF D&I Report - Civ Promo .......................................................................37

MD15 FINALDiversity_Inclusion_Memo2..............................................................38

SF Apprehension Demographics v2 .........................................................................39

AFI71-101v1..............................................................................................................40

IG ACTS STATISTICS.............................................................................................41

IG Data Slides - Demographics.................................................................................42

AFI 36-2670 Total Force Development.....................................................................43
137

DE Process Slides......................................................................................................44

Civilian IDE SDE Diversity Slides............................................................................45

PSDM 20-17 CY21 Sq CC Dep Grp CC Sel Process ...............................................46

2020 Colonel Handbook ............................................................................................47

CSB Process Brief .....................................................................................................48

AFIA RDR ROI.........................................................................................................49

Interventions Designed to Reduce Implicit Prejudices (FitzGerald et al) .................50

Profession of Arms Little Blue Book ........................................................................51

AFMAN 44-197, Military Drug Demand Reduction Program, 30 July 2019...........52

AFI 36-2406, Officer and Enlisted Evaluation Systems, 14 Nov 2019.....................53

AFI 36-2907, Adverse Administrative Actions, 22 May 20......................................54

A1 Officer Development Guidance ...........................................................................55

Recruiting Accessions Waivers.................................................................................56

List of Studies............................................................................................................57

RAND Study - AFOQT.............................................................................................58

Air Force Rated Demographics - 31 Jul 20 ...............................................................59

2020 Report on ASVAB............................................................................................60

AFI 36-7001, Diversity and Inclusion, 19 Feb 19 .....................................................61

AFI 36-205, AEP, SEPS, and Reasonable Accom, 15 Dec 16..................................62

EEO MD-715, 28 Oct 20 ...........................................................................................63
A1

APPENDIX A: DAF-DIRECTED ACTION PLANS

Upon initial review of the IG Racial Disparity Review Report, SecAF directed the appropriate agencies to develop action plans to address 

RDR recommendations. These plans include designating Offices of Primary Responsibility (OPR) and Offices of Collateral Responsibility 

(OCR) for each of the main recommendations. In addition, the plans propose specific changes to policy, processes, and procedures, how the 

changes will address the specific racial disparities identified in each recommendation, and timelines for implementation. The action plans are 

summarized below. Separately, the agencies were also provided additional recommended actions included in Appendix B. 

DAF IG will establish a recurring assessment of the recommendations borne of this Review. DAF IG will provide a “progress report” six

months after this report’s publication and a full review and assessment of effectiveness of improvement measures annually.

It is worth noting this Review and resulting actions are a subset of, and will feed into, broader and more comprehensive Department of 

Defense and Department of the Air Force Diversity & Inclusion initiatives directed by the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Air 

Force.

MILITARY DISCIPLINE PROCESSES

IG Finding Primary POC(s) Secondary OCRs Lines Of Effort Related LOEs Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The racial disparity in

military justice actions, 

including Article 15s and 

courts martial (p.6-15)

JA, Chain of Command A1 1. Track adverse

administrative actions 

prior to Art 15 or courtmartial action.

2. Greater officer 

involvement in adverse 

administrative actions.

1. Review AF policy on

moral waivers for 

misconduct.

2. Bias training for legal 

professionals, 

commanders, and front 

line supervisors.

1. Update Automated

Military Justice Analysis 

and Management System 

(AMJAMS) to require 

tracking of prior 

administrative/judicial 

actions for Amn subject to 

Art 15 or court-martial 

action.

2. Update AFI 36-2907, 

Adverse Administrative 

Actions, and AFI 36-3208, 

Administrative Separation 

of Airmen, to require 

officer involvement in 

progressive adverse 

administrative actions, 

before establishing a 

pattern of misconduct.

1. Enhance racial disparity

data we already possess, 

to narrow the focus to at 

risk units, locations, and 

career fields, allowing for 

concentration of effort.

2. Effect of earlier officer 

involvement in adverse 

administrative actions on 

the number of Art 15 and 

court-martial actions 

overall, and by race.

1 Jan 2023 (FY21-FY22

analysis)

1. Average number of

prior administrative 

actions prior to Art 15 or 

court-martial, by race.

2. Rates per thousand 

(RPT), by race, for Art 15s 

and courts-martial, 

compared to historical 

data.
A2

IG Finding Primary POC(s) Secondary OCRs Lines Of Effort Related LOEs Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The racial disparity in 

administrative discipline 

as evidenced by 

administrative discharges 

as well as substantive 

feedback from a large 

number of Airmen and 

Space Professionals (p. 16

- 20)

A1, Chain of Command, JA 1. Track adverse 

administrative actions by 

race/rank.

2. Greater officer 

involvement in adverse 

administrative actions.

1. Review AF policy on 

moral waivers for 

misconduct.

2. Bias training for legal 

professionals, 

commanders, and front 

line supervisors.

1. Create a centralized 

system to track adverse 

administrative actions by 

the race/rank.

2. Update JA's Web-based 

Administrative Separation

Program (WASP) to 

provide RPT (by race, 

gender, and rank) at the 

NAF, MAJCOM, and AF 

levels.

1. Enhance racial disparity 

data we already possess, 

to narrow the focus to at 

risk units, locations, and 

career fields, allowing for 

concentration of effort.

2. Effect of earlier officer 

involvement in adverse 

administrative actions on 

the progressive discipline 

and administrative 

separations.

1 Jan 2023 (FY21-FY22

Analysis)

1. RPT (by race, gender, 

and rank) for 

administrative actions less 

than administrative 

separation, to determine 

racial disparity in adverse 

administrative actions.

2. Average grade of Amn 

giving administrative 

action, for those areas 

where racial disparity is 

identified.

3. Update AFI 36-2907, 

Adverse Administrative 

Actions, and AFI 36-3208, 

Administrative Separation 

of Airmen, to require 

officer involvement in 

progressive adverse 

administrative actions, 

before establishing a 

pattern of misconduct.

3. RPT (by race, gender, 

and rank) for 

administrative 

separations for minor 

disciplinary infractions 

and a pattern of 

misconduct, compared to 

historical data.

IG Finding LOEs OPR / OCRs Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The disparity in marijuana use among our 

youngest enlisted members as evidenced 

by the random drug testing program (p. 

10 - 15)

1. Educate junior Airmen on 

medical/mission consequences of illegal 

drug use.

SG/A1

1 Jan 2023 (FY21-FY22 analysis)

RPT of black Airmen using marijuana, as 

measured by the random urinalysis 

program, compared to historical data.

2. Educate junior Airmen on legal 

consequences of illegal drug use.

SG/JA

3. Review AF policy on moral waivers for 

drug use.

SG/A1, JA

RPT of Airmen using marijuana in states where 

marijuana use legalized vs states where not 

legalized. If correlation exists, assess whether 

focused training helps address the issue.

4. Assess whether correlation exists 

between members with positive drug test 

results and their respective duty locations 

and/or homes of record to determine if 

relationship exists between members 

testing positive and whether marijuana use 

has been legalized where they are 

stationed or in their home state. If 

correlation exists, focus education and 

training accordingly.

SG/A1
A3

IG Finding Primary POC(s) Secondary OCRs Lines Of Effort Related LOEs Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The racial disparity in 

Security Forces (SF) 

apprehensions (p. 27 - 30)

A4S HQ/AFSFC 1) Begin including specific 

disparity topics during SF 

Executive Board session, 

along with SF CC/SFM 

symposiums.

Y - short and long Y - long 1) Dec 20 Determine root cause of 

identified disparities and 

highlight longitudinal 

evaluation of enterprise wide 

apprehensions.

2) Commission and fund 

independent "deep dive"

review and root cause 

analysis of identified 

disparities.

2) Sep 21

IG Finding LOE OPR/OCR Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The racial disparity in 

substantiated Military Equal 

Opportunity (MEO) sexual 

harassment complaints (p. 32 -

34)

Conduct analysis to determine 

and eliminate root causes for 

disparate MEO sexual 

harassment complaints

A1 Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Apr

Reduction over time of disparity 

in MEO sexual harassment 

complaints

Implement training interventions 

to reduce disparity A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-May

Reduction over time of disparity 

in MEO sexual harassment

complaints

PERSONNEL DEVELOPMENT &CAREER OPPORTUNITIES

IG Finding LOE OPR/OCR Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The racial disparities in

promotions to E5-E7 and O-4-O6 (p. 59 - 74)

Review and rework EES to align 

with National Defense Strategy, 

with focus on removing 

disparate testing outcomes A1/CMSAF Y - Short & Mid Y – Long (>2 years) 21-Jun Longitudinal promotion rates by 

REG, grade, and AFSC

Infuse OES with more emphasis 

on what we value (add emphasis 

to measure inclusive leadership)

A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Jun Longitudinal promotion 

demographics

Implement developmental 

categories to allow greater 

development agility and 

evaluation among closer cohorts

A1 Y - complete Y - complete Complete Longitudinal promotion 

demographics

Expand mentorship matches and 

emphasis for minorities (with 

emphasis on key developmental 

experiences that are often 

promotion discriminators)

A1/MAJCOMs Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Mar Longitudinal promotion 

demographics
A4

IG Finding LOE OPR/OCR Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

Implement Bias Training for the 

force, with emphasis on 

supervisors and

commanders

ODI Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Longitudinal promotion 

demographics

**Actions tied to finding 3 are 

also critical to positive outcomes 

on finding 1

AETC/USAFA/A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar

Increased accessions of 

minorities to underrepresented 

AFSCs

The racial disparities in civilian 

leadership representation from 

GS-13 to SES (p. 75-78)

Evaluate barriers to diversity in

selection process A1 Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics of GS13 and above

Consistent with the law and merit 

selection principles, increase 

number of GS-13 and above 

positions filled through 

recruitment (vs processing 

applications)

A1/MAJCOMs Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Jun Longitudinal demographics of GS13 and above

Increase diversity of those 

serving on selection boards for

GS13 +

A1 Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Jun Longitudinal demographics of GS13 and above

Implement Bias Training for the 

force, with emphasis on 

supervisors and

commanders

ODI Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics

The disparity in Air Force 

Specialty Codes (AFSCs), 

especially as it relates to 

operational versus support 

career fields (p. 34 - 45)

Review AFS selection criteria for

minority barriers to entry AETC/A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar

Increased accessions of 

minorities to underrepresented 

AFSCs

Review rated officer selection 

processes and barriers to 

selection

AETC/USAFA/A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Increased accessions of 

minorities to rated AFSCs

The disparity in the civilian 

Intermediate developmental 

Education (IDE) and Senior 

Developmental Education (SDE) 

selection process given black 

civilians are identified to meet 

the Civilian DEDB at a 

consistently lower rate than 

white civilians (p. 57 - 59)

Identify and address impact of 

"what we value" criteria on 

diversity of civilian IDE and SDE 

selections

A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Jun

Longitudinal demographics of 

civilians recommended by DTs to 

meet the board; longitudinal 

Civilian DE demographics
A5

IG Finding LOE OPR/OCR Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

Implement Bias Training for the 

force, with emphasis on 

supervisors and

commanders

ODI Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics

The disparity in the officer IDE 

and SDE process, given that 

analysis shows black officers are 

being nominated for PME at 

higher than the overall 

nomination rate but designated 

to attend at a lower rate (p. 52 -

57)

Expand mentorship programs 

towards minorities (with 

emphasis on key development

milestones)

A1 Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Longitudinal trends of DE 

selection among minorities

Implement "Definitely Attend" 

program targeting IDE A1 Y - Complete Y - Complete Complete

DEDB board reports on D&I

demographics; longitudinal 

selection among minorities

Expand "Definitely Attend" 

program targeting SDE A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Mar

DEDB board reports on D&I 

demographics; longitudinal

selection among minorities

Ensure non-statutory selection 

boards (DTs and DEDBs) have a 

diverse board composition and 

review/scoring process

A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Long (>2 yrs) 21-Jun Longitudinal trends of DE 

selection among minorities

Implement Bias Training for the 

force, with emphasis on 

supervisors and

commanders

ODI Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics

The racial disparity in wing 

command and equivalent 

positions (p. 84 - 86)

Strengthen minority 

representation and visibility 

throughout command selection 

and matching process (i.e. board 

composition, MOI, etc.)

A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Long (>2 yrs) 21-Jun CSB selection demographics

Expand mentorship programs 

towards minorities (with 

emphasis on key development

milestones)

A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Long (>2 yrs) 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics for 

Wing/CCs

Implement Bias Training for the 

force, with emphasis on 

supervisors and

commanders

ODI Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid & Long 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics

The lack of thorough Barrier 

Analysis among some 

Developmental Teams (p. 79 - 86)

Publish DT guidance that 

mandates barrier analysis and 

reporting requirements

A1 Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Mar Longitudinal demographics
A6

IG Finding OPR OCR(s) Lines Of Effort Related 

LOEs

Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery 

Date

Measures of Merit

The disparity in UPT accession and

graduation rates by race, gender,

and ethnicity (p. 40 - 42)

AETC/A3 AFRS/Det 

1,

AFJROTC

LOE 1: Inspire and attract 

talented and diverse youth: 

Increase awareness of rated 

careers with multi- layered 

outreach

LOE 2, 3 • Short term

o Increased aviation early exposure to 

diverse youth

-- Inspire Ops

-- Aim High Virtual Flight Academy

-- Aim High Flight Academy

-- Pathways to Wing events

-- AFJROTC Flight Academy

o Increased Mentorship and guidance for 

accession process

-- AIM HIGH Outreach

• Medium/Long term

o Build upon existing networks and forge 

new relationships with organizations 

serving youth from underrepresented 

groups to promote awareness and interest 

in Air Force rated career fields

o Conduct data analysis to continually 

inform additional initiatives to increase 

minority accession to UPT

Yes. Short term

Increased diversity in

applicant pool at

source of commission

Currently ongoing • Measures of effectiveness

o Demographics of applicant pool 

at accession sources (showing 

increase until matching the 

demographics of the recruitable 

population)

• Measures of performance

o Number of underrepresented 

group youth outreach events

o Demographics of participants in 

early exposure events

o Growth and expansion of 

successful programs that increase 

demographics of applicant pool

General Response: Addressing the 

disparity in UPT accession and graduation 

rates by race, gender, and ethnicity 

requires a comprehensive solution. The 

Draft Rated Diversity Improvement (RDI) 

strategy targets this problem through 

three goals: 1) attract and recruit the best 

talent from diverse backgrounds to 

cultivate a high performing and innovative 

Air Force reflective of the best of our 

nation; 2) develop and retain the Air 

Force’s best rated aircrew by harnessing 

diversity as a force multiplier and 

fostering a culture of inclusion; 3) 

optimize diversity advancement efforts by 

leveraging data driven approaches. UPT 

accession and graduation are one facet of 

overall RDI but are heavily influenced by 

the pre- and post-UPT RDI efforts. Early 

exposure initiatives heavily impact the 

diversity and qualifications of UPT 

candidates. Likewise, developing and 

retaining diverse rated officers and 

fostering a culture

Disparity in UPT 

Accession

Causal Factors:

Lack of early aviation

exposure to generate

interest

Socio-economic 

barriers reduce

competitiveness for

selection

• Barriers within pilot

selection process

• Barriers in accession

sources unique to each 

accession source

USAFA,

AFROTC,

AETC/A3,

AFPC

LOE 2: Recruit and access 

diverse and talented 

candidates: expand to 

include various untapped 

geographic regions, academic 

sources, and increased 

emphasis on minorities and 

females.

LOE 1, 3 • Short term

o Increased recruiting focus in 

underserved areas to increase 

underrepresented groups

-- USAFA First Year Lieutenant (FYL)

program

-- AFROTC Gold Bar Recruiters (GBR)

o Increased aviation early exposure within 

accession sources

-- AFROTC You Can Fly

-- USAFA Airmanship course battery

o Increased Mentorship and guidance for 

UPT selection process

-- Aviation Inspiration Mentorship

(AIM) Team

o Pilot Selection Process Working Group

- 12 comprehensive recommendations to 

identify and remove barriers in pilot 

selection process

-- Reduce impact of flying hours beyond 

where there is no statistical difference in 

the probability of successfully graduating 

pilot training

---reduce socio-economic barriers

-- Increase early exposure

• Short term

o Increased diversity at 

accession sources

o Increased diversity in 

pilot applicant pool at 

sources of commission

o Increased diversity in 

pilot selects

-- ROTC produces the

highest number of 

diverse officers but the 

lowest percentage of 

diverse pilot selects

Currently ongoing • Measures of effectiveness

o Demographics of pilot selects

o Demographics of pilot applicant

pool

o Demographics of cadets at

sources of commission

o Adverse impact of AFOQT and

subgroup differences of TBAS –

measured by comparing the

selection rate and performance of 

underrepresented groups to the 

majority group Measures of

performance

o Number of mentorship

engagements and feedback from

mentees

o PCSM scores by demographics at 

the various accession sources

o Demographics and completion

rates of participants in early

exposure events

o Number of recruiting

engagements at minority serving

institutions
A7

IG Finding OPR OCR(s) Lines Of Effort Related 

LOEs

Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery 

Date

Measures of Merit

19 AF,

HAF/A3TF,

AFPC

LOE 3: Develop Rated Force

(AETC, AFPC, 19 AF)

LOE 1, 2 • Short term

o Identify and eliminate barriers in flying 

training based on race, gender, religion or 

sexual orientation

-- Create and maintain attrition database 

to aid in root cause attrition analysis

-- Cluster students from underrepresented 

groups to increase mutual support

-- Students provide real-time feedback on 

instructors

-- Student advocate embedded into the 

human performance team

-- Created a Profession of Arms class to 

teach diversity and inclusion basics

o Identify and eliminate structural biases 

in 19 AF processes and syllabi

o Foster an environment of dignity, 

respect, and inclusion through improved 

dialogue, training, and professional 

development

o Assess and streamline UFT medical 

requirements and waiver

• Medium term:

Similar levels of 

attrition irrespective of 

race, gender, ethnicity.

Currently ongoing • Measures of effectiveness

o Demographics of pilot graduates 

– should reflect similar 

percentages to demographics of 

entrants

o Attrition rates by race, gender, 

and ethnicity

• Measures of performance

o Demographics, completion rates, 

and performance at UFT crossflow 

boards of Rated Preparation 

Program

o Student feedback during and at 

end of flying training

OTHER DEPARTMENT-WIDE CONCERNS

IG Finding LOE OPR/OCR Actions Visible Impacts Visible Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The lack of satisfaction service 

members expressed regarding 

EO, with special emphasis on the 

process of referring cases back to 

the chain of command (p. 106 -

107)

Review and update EO processes 

for fairness and inclusion A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-May DEOCS trends over time

Monitor customer satisfaction 

with EO A1 Y - Short (0-6 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Mar

Over time, increase Airmen's 

level of reported satisfaction; 

Understand concerns via 

anonymous surveys

Improve ability of Airmen and 

Space Professionals to resolve 

interpersonal conflicts

AETC/A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Jun

Measurable increase in the # of 

complaints resolved; Increased 

use of ADR program

Re concern about referring 

matters about "command" 

back to command: reeducate 

EOs, when get complaint, 

must carefully assess which

must be "upchannelled" to 

the next level versus back to

the same commander

A1 Y - Mid (6-24 months) Y - Mid (6-24 months) 21-Jun

Over time, increase Airmen's 

level of reported satisfaction; 

Understand concerns via 

anonymous surveys
A8

IG Finding LOEs OPR/OCR Expected Delivery Date Measures of Merit

The lack of satisfaction service members 

expressed regarding IG, with special 

emphasis on the process of referring cases 

back to the chain of command (p. 106 -

107)

1. Related to concern regarding referring 

matters about "command" back to 

command: Re-emphasize/Re-educate all 

IGs immediately: chain of command 

complaints must be carefully assessed to 

determine which complaints may be 

"upchannelled" to the next level in the chain 

versus back to the same commander --

complaints against the chain of command 

are never referred to that same level of 

command 

IAW AFI 90-301 Table 3.12, "For all 

complaints, refer the complaint, in writing, 

to the appropriate agency, grievance channel 

or commander (Note 1) at least one level 

above the highest ranking responsible 

management official (RMO), to ensure an 

independent review." For appeals or 

reconsideration requests for referred 

command matters, the office referred should 

be the appropriate office to resolve the 

appeal, as long as no misconduct has been 

alleged against that RMO or Office.

IGQ

15-Nov-20

Collect and Analyze data via Surveys and IG 

AutomatedCase Tracking System(ACTS)// 

Over time, increase Airmen's level of 

reportedsatisfaction;Understandconcerns 

via anonymous surveys // Measurable 

increase in the # of complaints resolved; 

Increased use of Alternate Dispute 

Resolution (ADR) program

2. Related to concern regarding matters 

being taken to the IG and the IG does not 

investigate all of them: Reeducate all IGs 

immediately, during intake, clearly explain 

what IG will do and what will be referred to 

another agency or to command, and why, so 

complainant understands process not 

frustrated or surprised

15-Nov-20

3. Incorporate racial disparity report results 

into IGTC, quarterly telecons and the annual 

worldwide IGQ training 20 Nov 20

4. Robust AFI 90-301 para 1.50.1 – 1.50.2.5

by incorporating into agenda for 90-301 

rewrite 21 Dec 20

5. Wing level IGQs will incorporate concerns 

identified in the racial disparity report to 

update the complaint resolution process 

(CRP) education; SAF/IGQ is preparing a 

standardized PP presentation with talking 

points to more clearly educate all Airmen on 

the USAF CRP -- specifically "IG Matters" vs 

"Command Matters" so all Airmen 

understand when a complaint filed with the 

IG may be referred to Command or the 

appropriate office/agency for resolution.

20 Nov 20
B1

APPENDIX B: FUTURE ANALYSIS

The Department should consider implementing the following to allow for additional 

analysis and further progress in the future:

• Further assess the lack of trust black DAF members expressed in their chain of command 

to address racism, bias, and unequal opportunities (p. 91, 104-116) (IG)

• Further assess the sentiment expressed by a majority of black DAF members that they are 

not given the benefit of the doubt by their chain of command (p. 99, 104-116) (IG)

• Complete a comprehensive analysis on the Drug Demand Reduction Program to: 

determine the factors as to how military members are randomly selected for drug testing; 

examine the effectiveness of the computer program used for random selection; analyze 

how AF Installations execute the program; and explain the disparities identified in Fig 9 

and Fig 10 of this report. (p. 12-15) (SG, JA)

• Start tracking CDIs to assess whether racial disparities exist, and if so, identify whether 

corrective or improvement actions are necessary (p. 34) (IG)

• Assess whether current black officer accession goals, which are based upon the eligible 

population, should be adjusted to a goal closer to that of the representative demographic 

population (p. 34-35) (A1)

• Start collecting data to assess whether the officer PME Definitely Attend (DA) process 

introduces disparities, and if so, identify whether corrective or improvement actions are 

necessary (p. 54-56) (A1)

• Start tracking the demographics of enlisted JPME nominations and selections to 

determine whether there are disparities, and if so, identify whether corrective or 

improvement actions are necessary (p. 56-57) (A1)

• Start collecting data to allow for analysis of civilian leadership position hiring processes 

to determine if there is a disparity in applicants for civilian leadership positions, a 

disparity in applicants' qualifications, and/or disparity in selection rates for those 

positions based on race, ethnicity, or gender, and if so, identify whether corrective or 

improvement actions are necessary (p. 75-78) (A1)

• Conduct a comprehensive review of key developmental positions, to include “executive 

officers,” “aides,” or “special assistants” to allow for analysis of the demographics of 

wing-level and below key positions (p. 80) (A1)

• Start collecting data to allow for analysis of racial disparities in Group Superintendent 

positions, and if they exist, identify whether corrective or improvement actions are 

necessary (p. 86-87) (A1)
B2

• Start collecting data to allow for analysis of Command Selection List (CSL) data to 

assess whether there are racial disparities in command matches at the squadron, group, 

and wing levels and, if they exist, identify whether corrective or improvement actions are 

necessary (p. 82-83) (A1)

• Revisit previous reports covered herein--including primarily the 2011 Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) Report--to assess whether previously closed 

recommendations should be readdressed (p. 118-123, 129) (all appropriate stakeholders)