United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on National Security, House

of Representatives

November 1995 MILITARY EQUAL

OPPORTUNITY

Certain Trends in

Racial and Gender

Data May Warrant

Further Analysis

GAO/NSIAD-96-17

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-261469 

November 17, 1995

The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Dellums:

Department of Defense (DOD) policy holds that discrimination that

adversely affects persons based on race, national origin, gender, or other

factors is counterproductive to combat readiness and mission

accomplishment and contrary to good order and discipline. In response to

your request expressing concern that inequality of treatment and

opportunity could be affecting some of the more than 1.5 million

active-duty military servicemembers, we initiated three separate reviews.

In April 1995, we issued a report that identified studies done by DOD during

the past 20 years on discrimination in the military.1

 In another review, we

are examining the services’ systems for handling discrimination

complaints from active-duty servicemembers and will report on this issue

later. For this report, we

• reviewed Military Equal Opportunity Assessments (MEOA) prepared by the

military services and the use of those assessments by the Office of the

Secretary of Defense in monitoring the services’ equal opportunity

programs and

• examined certain active-duty personnel data to determine whether

possible racial2

 or gender disparities in selection rates existed.

The methodology we used is one of several approaches that can be used to

identify possible racial or gender disparities in selection rates to help DOD

identify areas for further analysis. We did not evaluate whether any

disparities identified were evidence that discrimination had occurred.

Discrimination is a legal determination that would involve other

corroborating information along with supporting statistics. Further, we did

not identify the causes of any racial or gender disparities, and the results

of our work alone should not be used to make conclusions about DOD’s

personnel management practices.

1

Equal Opportunity: DOD Studies on Discrimination in the Military (GAO/NSIAD-95-103, Apr. 7, 1995).

2

DOD defines five racial categories as (1) American Indian or Alaskan Native, (2) Asian or Pacific

Islander, (3) black (not of Hispanic origin), (4) Hispanic, and (5) white (not of Hispanic origin). For

purposes of this report, we refer to these groups as American Indian, Asian, black, Hispanic, and

white, respectively.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

Background Active-duty military personnel are not covered by Title VII of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964, as amended, or the implementing governmentwide

equal employment opportunity and affirmative action regulations and

guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However,

the Secretary of Defense has established a separate equal opportunity

program with similar requirements for these personnel.

In 1969, the Secretary of Defense issued a Human Goals Charter that

remains the basis for DOD’s equal opportunity program. It states that DOD is

to strive to provide everyone in the military the opportunity to rise to as

high a level of responsibility as possible based only on individual talent

and diligence. The charter also states that DOD should strive to ensure that

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

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

sex, religion, or national origin.

To help ensure equal opportunity in the services, a 1988 DOD directive and

related instruction require that the services prepare annual MEOAs.3

 In

preparing their MEOAs, the services collect, assess, and report racial and

gender data in 10 categories.4

 The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

for Equal Opportunity (DASD(EO)) is primarily responsible for monitoring

the services’ equal opportunity programs, including preparing written

analyses of the services’ MEOAs and a DOD summary.5

As recently as March 1994, the Secretary of Defense reaffirmed DOD’s equal

opportunity goals, stating that equal opportunity is a military and an

economic necessity. While noting that DOD has been a leader in equal

opportunity, the Secretary stated that it can and should do better. He

initiated several measures, including a major DOD study looking at ways to

improve the flow of minorities and women into the officer ranks from

recruitment through high-level promotions.

3

DOD Directive 1350.2, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program, dated December 23, 1988, and DOD

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

4

The 10 MEOA reporting categories are (1) recruiting/accessions, (2) force composition,

(3) promotions, (4) professional military education, (5) separations, (6) augmentation (reserve officers

transferring to an active-duty component) and retention, (7) assignments (those considered career

enhancing), (8) discrimination or sexual harassment complaints, (9) utilization of skills (skill

categories with high or low concentrations of minorities or women), and (10) discipline.

5

DASD(EO) is within the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy,

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. DASD(EO) was created in 1994.

Previously, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness was tasked with these

responsibilities.

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

Results in Brief MEOAs are not as useful as they could be for monitoring the services’ equal

opportunity programs. Overall, the analytical approach did not

consistently identify and assess the significance of possible racial or

gender disparities, the services reported on most of the MEOA categories

differently, and some data that would be helpful in conducting more

complete analyses was not required to be reported. In addition, DASD(EO)

and his predecessors have not prepared the required annual analyses of

the services’ MEOAs or the DOD summaries.

Using MEOA and other data for fiscal years 1989 through 1993, we analyzed

accessions, assignments considered career enhancing, and promotions to

identify possible racial or gender disparities in selection rates. Our

analysis showed statistically significant disparities in each of the three

categories, although the number of disparities varied by category and

service and by race and gender.6

 It is important to note that the existence

of statistically significant disparities does not necessarily mean they are

the result of unwarranted or prohibited discrimination. Many job-related

or societal factors can contribute to racial or gender disparities. Further

analyses would be required to determine the cause(s) of these disparities.

We are making several recommendations to the Secretary of Defense for

improving the usefulness of the services’ MEOAs.

MEOAs Can Be

Improved

According to DASD(EO)’s Director of Military Equal Opportunity, MEOAs are

the primary source of information for monitoring the services’ equal

opportunity programs. While MEOAs provide some useful information, the

analyses of this information did not consistently identify and assess the

significance of possible racial or gender disparities. In addition, data for 

9 of the 10 MEOA reporting categories was reported inconsistently among

the services. For the promotion and separation categories, some key data

that would be helpful in understanding the progression of minorities and

women through the ranks was not required to be reported.

DOD Is Not Consistently

Identifying the Significance

of Possible Disparities

In analyzing the outcomes of an organization’s personnel actions for

possible racial or gender disparities, Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission guidance recommends using the racial and gender

composition of the eligible pool as a basis for comparison. All other things

being equal, the racial and gender makeup of persons selected for a

6

Throughout this report, we use the term “statistically significant” to denote those instances where the

likelihood of the outcome having occurred randomly is less than 5 percent.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

particular action should—over time—reflect the racial and gender

composition of the eligible pool. In other words, the likelihood or odds of

a particular outcome occurring for a minority group should be about the

same as for the majority or dominant group in the long run.7

 When the

actual odds are less and the difference is statistically significant, and

patterns or trends are identified, further analysis would be necessary to

determine the cause(s) of the disparity.

Seven of the 10 MEOA reporting categories lend themselves to comparing

the odds of a minority group member being selected to the odds of a

dominant group member being selected. However, the DOD directive and

the related instruction do not require such an analysis, and none was done

by the services. The services did make some comparisons to the group

average; that is, they compared a minority group selection rate to the

overall selection rate for all groups (minority and majority). But because

the minority group was usually so small compared to the total group,

disparities in the minority group selection rate compared to the overall

group rate often were not detected or appeared insignificant. Also, this

approach is not helpful in identifying trends or patterns.

Statistical significance testing can provide a basis to determine if a

disparity in the odds of being selected for a minority group compared to

the odds of the majority group is due to random chance. Statistical

significance testing, over time, can also assist in identifying trends or

patterns in equal opportunity data that may warrant further analysis. In the

fiscal year 1993 MEOAs (the latest available), only the Army routinely

reported statistical significance testing results. The Marine Corps and the

Navy reported some statistical significance testing. The Air Force did not

report any statistical significance testing.

While the DOD instruction on preparing MEOAs encourages the use of

statistical significance testing, its use is not required, and instructions on

how to conduct such tests are not provided. All four of the officials

responsible for preparing the MEOAs for their respective service said they

did not have prior experience in analyzing equal opportunity data and that

DOD’s instruction was not particularly helpful.

Services Reported MEOA

Data Differently

In analyzing the services’ 1993 MEOAs, we found that the MEOA reporting

requirements were addressed differently by one or more of the services in

7

The odds of a group member being selected for an outcome is determined by dividing the number of

individuals selected by the number not selected.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

9 of the 10 categories. Only the promotion category appeared to be

consistently reported. In most instances, definitions and interpretations of

what is called for were not consistent among the services. In some cases,

one or more of the services did not comply with the DOD instruction.

Following are examples of some of the inconsistencies we found:

• The Army specifically reported accessions for its professional branches,

such as legal, chaplain, and medical. The other services did not.

• The Air Force, the Army, and the Navy reported on officers who had been

separated involuntarily. But the Army did not separately report officers

who had been separated under other than honorable conditions or for bad

conduct. The Marine Corps did not report any separation data for officers.

• The Air Force, the Army, and the Navy provided enlisted and officer

assignment data by race and gender. The Marine Corps combined into one

figure its data on selections to career-enhancing assignments for its O-2

through O-6 officers for each racial and gender category and did not

provide any information on its enlisted members.

• The Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Navy reported discrimination or

sexual harassment complaints by race and gender. The Army did not

identify complainants by race and gender.

• The Army reported utilization of skills data by each racial category and for

women. The Air Force reported skills data for blacks, Hispanics, and

women. The Marine Corps and the Navy combined the racial categories

into one figure for each skill reported and did not report on women.

• The Air Force and the Army included officers in their reports on discipline.

The Marine Corps and the Navy did not.

Certain Useful Data Is Not

Required for Two MEOA

Categories

Two important factors in analyzing the progression of minorities and

women in the services are how competitive they are for promotions and

whether they are leaving the services at disproportionate rates. These

factors have been of concern in the officer ranks. In March 1994, the

Secretary of Defense directed that a study of the officer “pipeline” be

conducted. This study is still underway but is addressing ways to improve

the flow of minorities and women through the officer ranks. Although

DOD’s MEOA guidance requires reporting on promotions and separations, it

does not require the services to report racial and gender data for all

promotions or voluntary separations.

The guidance requires the services to report racial and gender data in their

MEOAs for promotions that result from a centralized servicewide selection

process. For enlisted members, this includes promotions to E-7, E-8, and

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

E-9; for officers, this includes promotions to O-4, O-5, and O-6. For the

most part, promotions at the lower ranks are not routinely assessed. In

addition, the MEOA data for officers in each of the services and enlisted

members in the Marine Corps is limited to those promotions that occurred

“in the zone.”8

 We noted that about 900, or about 8 percent, of the services’

officer promotions and about 500, or about 19 percent, of Marine Corps

enlisted promotions in fiscal year 1993 were not reported and were from

either below or above the zone. Without routinely assessing promotions in

the lower ranks and in each of the promotion zones for possible racial or

gender disparities, the services’ ability to identify areas warranting further

analysis is limited.

The services are also required to report in their MEOAs racial and gender

data on involuntary separations, such as for reduction in force or medical

reasons, but are not required to report on the great majority of separations

that are for voluntary reasons. In fiscal year 1993, about 163,500 enlisted

members and about 16,400 officers voluntarily left the services for reasons

other than retirement. Analyzing this data for racial or gender disparities

could increase the services’ understanding of who is leaving the services

and help focus their efforts in determining why.

DASD(EO) Has Not

Analyzed the MEOAs

DASD(EO) and his predecessors have not provided the services with

analyses of their MEOAs and have prepared a DOD summary only on 1990

data, even though both have been required annually since fiscal year 1988.

Although one Marine Corps official recalled receiving the summary, she

said that it was not helpful or constructive. In addition, some of the service

officials responsible for their service’s MEOAs said the assessments were

done primarily to satisfy the DOD requirement. They noted that, except for

the promotion category, MEOAs generally received little attention outside

the services’ equal opportunity offices.

Although DASD(EO) acknowledges these problems, they continue. The DOD

instruction calls for the services to submit their MEOAs for the prior fiscal

year by February 1 each year and for DASD(EO) to complete its analyses

within 90 days. The 1993 MEOAs were not all received by DASD(EO) until

8

Officer promotion selection boards consider three cohort groups known as “below the zone,” “in the

zone,” and “above the zone.” Most promotions are in the zone, which is considered the normal range or

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

promotions go to officers who have demonstrated outstanding leadership potential and are promoted

ahead of their cohort group, or below the zone. Similarly, a small number of promotions go to officers

who are promoted after their cohort group, or above the zone. A similar system is used for enlisted

promotions in the Marine Corps. The other services have different procedures, but each told us that all

enlisted promotions were reported in MEOA.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

May 1994. As of the end of June 1995, DASD(EO) had not provided its 1993

MEOA analyses to the services, and the 1994 MEOAs have not been

completed by all the services.

Analysis Shows Some

Statistically

Significant Disparities

To identify possible disparities, we analyzed three MEOA

categories—accessions, assignments, and promotions—for fiscal years

1989 through 1993. We compared each minority group—American Indian,

Asian, black, and Hispanic—to the dominant white group and compared

females to males. The analytical approach we used is one of several

methods for analyzing and identifying trends in equal opportunity data. It

compares the odds of selection from a particular racial or gender group to

the odds of selection from the dominant group for a particular outcome.

Used as a managerial tool, this methodology is especially well suited to

analyzing various outcomes for racial and gender groups of very different

sizes and selection rates. Appendix I contains a more detailed explanation

of our methodology, including our rationale for using this approach rather

than alternative approaches.

Our analysis showed some racial or gender disparities, although the

number of disparities varied considerably among the MEOA categories,

across the services, and by race and gender. Appendix II presents our

detailed results.

Conclusions about DOD’s personnel management practices cannot be

based solely on the existence of statistically significant disparities. Further

analysis would be necessary to determine why the disparities occurred.

Certain job criteria or selection procedures may have an adverse impact

on one or more groups, but if the criteria or procedure can be shown to

accurately measure required job skills, the impact could be warranted.

Additionally, a group’s social characteristics may lead to disparities; for

example, a group’s low interest or propensity to serve in the military could

help explain its lower odds of entering the services.

Accessions MEOAs did not report information on the eligible pools for accessions. At

the suggestion of the DOD Office of Accession Policy, we used certain data

from the Defense Manpower Data Center for the eligible pools. For

enlisted accessions, we used the gender and racial makeup of persons who

had taken the Armed Forces Qualification Test. This meant the individual

had expressed interest in the military and had made the time and effort to

take the initial tests for entrance into the services. Because comparable

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

eligible pool data for officers was not available, the DOD Office of

Accession Policy suggested we use civilian labor force data for college

graduates between 21 and 35 years old as the eligible pool. This data

provides a comparison to the overall racial and gender composition of this

portion of the U.S. population but does not account for an individual’s

interest or propensity to serve in the military, which may vary by race and

gender.

Using these eligible pools, we found statistically significant racial and

gender disparities that may warrant further analysis. For example, in all

the services, Asians had statistically significant lower odds of entering as

either an enlisted member or officer in nearly all the years examined; the

odds of blacks and Hispanics entering the Air Force as either an enlisted

member or officer were statistically significantly lower than whites in

most of the years we examined; and in the Army, Hispanics had

statistically significantly lower odds than whites of entering the officer

corps.

Assignments For the eligible pool for career-enhancing assignments, we used the

numbers of enlisted members and officers eligible for such assignments

reported in each of the services’ MEOAs. In the three services we examined,

we found that the odds of enlisted and officer minorities being selected for

these assignments were not statistically significantly different from whites

in most instances.9

 An exception, however, was Asian officers in the Navy.

As a group, they had statistically significant lower odds than whites of

being selected for most assignments. In addition, the odds of Air Force and

Navy women officers being selected for many of the assignments in the

years we examined were statistically significantly lower than the odds of

selection for their male counterparts.

Promotions Like assignments, we used the eligible pool data for promotions reported

in the services’ MEOAs. In about 37 percent of the enlisted (E-7, E-8, and

E-9) and officer (O-4, O-5, and O-6) promotion boards we examined, one or

more minority groups had statistically significant lower odds of being

promoted than whites. We found statistically significant lower odds of

minorities being promoted compared to whites most often (1) for blacks,

(2) at the E-7 and O-4 levels, and (3) in the Air Force. On the other hand,

the odds of females being promoted were not statistically significantly

9

Our analysis was limited to the Air Force, the Army, and the Navy because the Marine Corps did not

provide sufficient data in its MEOA for a meaningful analysis.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

different or were greater than the odds for males in nearly all the enlisted

and officer boards we examined.

Recommendations To help make the services’ MEOAs more useful in monitoring the services’

equal opportunity programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense

direct DASD(EO) to do the following:

• Devise methodologies for analyzing MEOA data that would more readily

identify possible racial and gender disparities than current methods permit

and establish criteria for determining when disparities warrant more

in-depth analyses. The Secretary may wish to consider the methodology

we used in this report, but other methods are available and may suit the

purposes of MEOAs.

• Ensure that the services (1) use comparable definitions and

interpretations in addressing the MEOA categories and (2) provide complete

information for each of the MEOA categories.

• Prepare the analyses of the services’ annual MEOAs and the DOD summary,

as required.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the report and

stated that it has already initiated several efforts to make the

recommended improvements. DOD’s comments are reproduced in

appendix III.

Scope and

Methodology

To evaluate whether MEOAs provided DASD(EO) with sufficient information

to effectively monitor the services’ equal opportunity programs, we

reviewed the services’ MEOAs for fiscal years 1989 through 1993. In

addition, we analyzed the services’ fiscal year 1993 MEOA—the latest

available at the time of our review—for reporting completeness and

consistency. We reviewed the DOD directive and instruction governing the

military’s equal opportunity program. We discussed preparation of MEOAs

with cognizant officials in the services and DASD(EO)’s Office of Military

Equal Opportunity.

To determine whether possible racial or gender disparities in selection

rates existed, we analyzed military accessions, assignments, and

promotions for active-duty enlisted members and officers. We chose to

analyze these categories because relatively large numbers of

servicemembers were involved and, for the most part, the necessary data

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
B-261469 

was readily available. For accessions, we used data from the Defense

Manpower Data Center. For assignments and promotions, we used data

from the services’ MEOAs. We did not independently verify the accuracy of

the data. We performed our review from January 1994 to April 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairmen and Ranking

Minority Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the

Senate and House Committees on Appropriations; the Chairman, House

Committee on National Security; the Secretaries of Defense, the Air Force,

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

will also be made available to others upon request.

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

concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in

appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations and

 Capabilities Issues

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Contents

Letter 1

Appendixes Appendix I: Odds Ratio Methodology 14

Appendix II: Results of Racial and Gender Disparity Analysis 17

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Defense 37

Appendix IV: Major Contributors to This Report 40

Figures Table II.1: Odds Ratios for Enlisted Accessions, Fiscal Years

1989-93

20

Table II.2: Odds Ratios for Officer Accessions, Fiscal Years

1989-93

21

Table II.3: Odds Ratios for Air Force Enlisted and Officer

Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

23

Table II.4: Odds Ratios for Army Enlisted and Officer

Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

25

Table II.5: Odds Ratios for Marine Corps Officer

Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

27

Table II.6: Odds Ratios for Navy Enlisted and Officer

Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

28

Table II.7: Odds Ratios for the Services’ Enlisted Promotion

Boards, Fiscal Years 1989-93

31

Table II.8: Odds Ratios for the Services’ Officer Promotion

Boards, Fiscal Years 1989-93

34

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DASD(EO) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal

Opportunity

MEOA Military Equal Opportunity Assessment

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix I 

Odds Ratio Methodology

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has established policies

and procedures for federal agencies to collect and analyze data on civilian

personnel actions such as hiring, assignments, and promotions to

determine whether selection procedures adversely affect any race, sex, or

ethnic group. Although these policies and procedures do not apply to

active-duty military personnel, the Department of Defense (DOD) directive

and instruction related to its military equal opportunity program set forth

similar requirements.

We chose not to use the “four-fifths” rule described in the Commission’s

guidance for determining whether adverse impact may have occurred.1

 As

pointed out by the Commission, the four-fifths rule is a “rule of thumb”

and has limitations. For example, when the relevant groups are very

large—as in the military—differences in the ratio of the two selection rates

greater than four-fifths may be statistically significant; that is, areas of

possible adverse impact may not be detected if just the four-fifths rule is

used.

Therefore, to determine whether possible racial or gender disparities

existed in the military services’ personnel actions that we examined, we

used an “odds ratio” methodology. This methodology is especially well

suited to analyzing various outcomes for racial and gender groups of very

different sizes and selection rates. Use of this methodology also enabled us

to do analyses that are more sensitive to changes in the relative numbers

of women and minorities than the more traditional method, which

compares selection rates (the number selected divided by the total number

eligible).

The odds of a particular group member being selected for an outcome is

determined by dividing the number of individuals selected by the number

not selected. An “odds ratio” is the odds of one group member being

selected divided by the odds of another group member being selected for

that same outcome. If the odds of being selected for both group members

are equal, the ratio will be one. When the ratio is not equal to one, the

methodology allows us to determine whether the difference is statistically

1

According to the guidance, a selection rate for any group that is less than four-fifths of the rate for the

group with the highest rate will generally be regarded by federal enforcement agencies as evidence of

adverse impact. If a procedure is determined to have adverse impact, agencies must revise the

selection procedure to eliminate the adverse impact or provide evidence that the procedure accurately

measures required job skills. A number of factors, however, must be considered in arriving at a final

determination. For example, affirmative action efforts may occasionally affect other groups’ selection

rates and lead to a preliminary finding that adverse impact occurred. However, instances of adverse

impact related to bona fide affirmative action efforts are permitted under the guidelines.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix I 

Odds Ratio Methodology

significant, that is, whether it is likely due to random chance or not.2 For

purposes of this report, we use the term statistically significant to denote

those instances where the likelihood of the outcome having occurred

randomly is less than 5 percent.

Reducing the Number

of Calculations

The odds ratio methodology is relatively straightforward but can involve a

large number of calculations and comparisons. If we had calculated odds

ratios for each racial and gender group for each personnel action outcome

in the three Military Equal Opportunity Assessment (MEOA) categories we

examined—accessions, career-enhancing assignments, and

promotions—almost 3,000 odds ratios would have been needed. Instead of

performing all these calculations, we used “modeling” techniques to

determine how race and gender affected the reported outcomes for the

three sets of data. Once we understood the effect race and gender had on

the outcomes, we had to calculate and analyze only the odds ratios that

significantly affected the actual outcomes. For each personnel action, we

considered five different models, as follows:

• Model one assumed that race and gender had no effect on the outcome of

accessions, assignments, or promotions.

• Model two assumed that only gender had an effect—that is, all racial

groups would have equal odds of being selected for the outcome, but

males and females would not.

• Model three assumed just the opposite—males and females would have

equal odds of being selected, but the racial groups would not.

• Model four assumed that both race and gender affect the odds of selection

independently of one another. In other words, the odds ratios indicating

the difference between males and females in one racial group would be

the same as the corresponding ratios in the other groups.

• Model five assumed that both race and gender had an effect and that the

two factors operated jointly. That is, the odds ratios describing racial

differences varied by gender, and the odds ratios describing gender

differences varied by racial group.

2

For enlisted accessions and officer and enlisted assignments and promotions, we used the chi-square

distribution to determine the statistical significance of the observed differences between race and

gender categories. Basically, this method tests the hypothesis that the mean (or average) frequencies

of a particular occurrence are distributed in the same proportions from category to category. For

officer accessions, the number of persons in the eligible pool was so large (millions of people) that

small variations in the odds ratios using the chi-square method showed up as significant. To help make

sure the population sizes were not distorting the results, we used the Bayesian approach, which is

considered a better test for statistical significance when large sample sizes are involved.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix I 

Odds Ratio Methodology

Determining which model to use required two steps. First, using statistical

software, we created a hypothetical database for each model essentially

identical to the actual data but modified to reflect the assumptions we

made. For example, the hypothetical database created for the third model

assumed that the odds of males and females being selected would be equal

(that is, the odds ratio would be 1.0). Second, the hypothetical odds ratios

were compared to the actual odds ratios for each of the personnel actions.

If there were significant differences, we rejected the model’s assumptions.3

In virtually all instances, model four was the most appropriate and

preferred way to present the results. Its overall results were not

significantly improved upon by any of the other models. This meant that

for the personnel actions we analyzed, we only needed to calculate the

odds ratios for each racial and gender group compared to whites and

males, respectively (see app. II). We did not have to calculate the odds

ratios for males and females within each racial group because, according

to the model, the gender difference was the same across racial groups.

3

Davis, James A., “Hierarchical Models for Significance Tests in Multivariate Contingency Tables: An

Exegesis of Goodman’s Recent Papers,” from Analyzing Qualitative/Categorical Data: Log-Linear

Models and Latent Structure Analysis, by Leo Goodman, University Press of America, 1978.

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

This appendix presents the odds ratios we calculated for each of the three

MEOA categories we examined—accessions, assignments, and promotions.

Some ratios are much less than 1 (less than three one-thousandths, for

example) or much greater (over 16,000, for example). Such extremes

occurred when the percentage of persons selected from a small-sized

group was proportionately very low or very high compared to the

percentage selected from the dominant group.

Our tests of statistical significance, however, took group size into account.

Therefore, although many odds ratios were less than one (some much

less), the disparity was not necessarily statistically significant. In the

tables in this appendix, we have shaded the odds ratios that indicate

possible adverse impact; that is, the ratios are less than one and

statistically significant. A more in-depth analysis would be warranted to

determine the cause(s) of these disparities.

As discussed in appendix I, we compared the odds for females with those

for males and the odds of minority racial groups with those for whites. To

help the reader remember the relationships in our tables, we have labeled

the top of each column listing odds ratios with the gender or racial group

and symbols of what the proper comparison is. For example, F:M means

the ratio compares the odds of females to males and B:W means the ratio

compares the odds of blacks to whites for the particular outcome being

analyzed.

The odds ratios can also be used to make certain comparisons within and

among the services and identify trends whether they are statistically

significant or not. If the objective, for example, is to increase the

representation of a particular minority group vis-a-vis whites, the odds

ratio should be greater than one. When it is not, it means whites are being

selected in proportionately greater numbers than the minority group.

Accessions Tables II.1 and II.2 present the odds ratios for enlisted and officer

accessions, respectively. We compared gender and racial data for those

entering the military to the gender and racial composition of selected

eligible pools. In determining what to use for the eligible pool, we

conferred with officials in DOD’s Office of Accession Policy.

For the enlisted member eligible pool, we used those men and women who

had taken the Armed Forces Qualification Test and scored in the top three

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

mental categories during the respective fiscal year.1 These were generally

high school graduates who had been initially screened by the recruiter for

certain disqualifying factors such as a criminal record or obvious physical

disabilities. Using test takers as the eligible pool also took into account the

propensity to serve in the military, since the men and women taking the

test had to make the time and effort to do so. Moreover, this data was

readily available from the Defense Manpower Data Center.

For officers, determining a relevant eligible pool was not as precise.

Officers primarily come from Reserve Officers’ Training Corps programs,

officer candidate schools, and the military academies, but no information

was reported on the racial and gender makeup of the programs’ applicants

in the services’ MEOAs, nor was it available from the Defense Manpower

Data Center. At the suggestion of DOD’s Office of Accession Policy, we

used national civilian labor force gender and racial statistics for college

graduates 21 to 35 years old as the eligible pool. This data was readily

available from the Defense Manpower Data Center, and nearly all officers

have college bachelor’s degrees and are in this age group when they enter

the service.

We could not account for an individual’s propensity or desire to serve as a

military officer using civilian labor force data. While our analyses highlight

those racial groups that entered the services’ officer corps at lower rates

or odds compared to whites based on their representation in the civilian

labor force, further analyses would be necessary to determine why this

occurred.

In both tables we present the odds ratios for females compared to males.

In each of the 5 years we reviewed and across the services, the odds of

women entering the services were statistically significantly lower than for

men. This fact is not surprising considering that women’s roles in the

military are limited and they may, as a group, have less interest or

propensity to serve in the military than men. Even in recent years when

the restrictions have been loosened, the services have not reported

accessing more than about 14 percent of women for the enlisted ranks and

about 19 percent for the officer ranks, compared to over 50 percent

representation in the civilian labor force. Nevertheless, we present the

data to illustrate the disparities among the services. For example, in fiscal

year 1993, the odds of women in our eligible pool entering the Marine

Corps as officers were less than one-tenth the odds for men. In contrast,

1

The categories are labeled I, II, and III. Category III is divided between IIIA and IIIB at the

50-percentile level. Around 99 percent of those entering the military services in recent years scored in

test categories IIIB or higher.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

for the same year, the odds of women entering the Air Force as officers

were about one-third the odds for men.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.1: Odds Ratios for Enlisted Accessions, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Air Force

Army

Marines

Navy

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.3246

0.1252

0.3978

0.3809

0.3932 

0.5707

0.4700

0.4907

0.3159

0.4307

0.3072

0.3434

0.4955

0.3155

0.2576

0.4450

0.6494

0.3554

0.7898

0.1778

0.8346

0.2633

2.5904

0.6776

1.2733

1.0259

1.1959

2.0607

0.9978

1.0063

0.8058

1.0491

2.5845

1.3822

 0.9234

0.9612

1.0114

1.7207

1.1508

0.9498

0.7213

0.4215

3.5892

0.7395

0.6830

0.9740

0.7632

3.7695

0.6999

0.8436

0.7965

0.7631

6.2641

0.6776

 0.8480

1.0312

0.8605

10.2167

1.0469

0.8131

0.6309

0.8971

1.1105

0.6523

0.8424

1.7275

1.7077

2.1586

1.6208

1.4202

0.8836

1.1298

1.5317

1.1631

 1.0089

1.5154

1.3716

2.1888

1.4136

1.9378

0.8563

0.6061

1.4828

0.6375

0.9587

1.1106

1.1457

3.0425

0.9522

1.0772

0.6184

0.9094

1.9237

0.8605

 0.9883

1.0672

1.0829

3.0546

1.0625

4.0485

0.4104

0.1634

0.8369

0.4771

0.7079

0.6259

0.6785

1.1023

0.5756

0.8162

0.4782

0.7803

0.4983

0.6593

 1.5887

0.4530

0.4947

0.3597

0.4143

0.2592

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.2: Odds Ratios for Officer Accessions, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Air Force

Army

Marines

Navy

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.2823

0.2748

0.2866

0.2832

0.3455 

0.1899

0.1954

0.2030

0.2136

0.2237

0.0564

0.0352

0.0499

0.0380

0.0754

0.1497

0.1796

0.1842

0.2379

0.2525

0.6201

1.3342

0.5295

0.5176

0.4113

1.6941

2.2505

1.5553

1.4791

1.3078

5.8339

7.3022

13.6992

2.8568

 0.5528

1.2769

3.0018

1.8072

1.8947

0.6328

0.3455

0.2880

0.3328

0.2366

0.2439

0.4732

0.4671

0.4613

0.3894

0.3556

0.3476

0.3259

0.2495

0.2462

 0.2388

0.5957

0.6214

0.6777

0.5218

0.5425

0.7993

1.0554

0.9404

0.8060

0.6528

0.3542

0.3132

0.2905

0.1913

0.1236

0.7582

0.8488

0.6189

0.4456

0.3134

1.7027

1.1267

1.0688

0.7532

 0.5559

1.1940

1.1217

0.9013

0.5763

0.5291

11.3788

10.7842

9.3175

8.7918

10.0553

4.5896

4.5151

6.6045

5.7880

3.6086

1.5552

1.7159

0.6611

1.9926

 2.1194

3.4492

3.4076

3.5504

1.5438

1.3378

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.8149

0.8476

0.7949

0.6004

0.6148

1.7457

1.8388

1.6969

1.3321

0.8872

1.0745

0.8634

0.7487

0.8579

 0.7441

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Assignments Tables II.3 through II.6 present the odds ratios for enlisted and officer

career-enhancing assignments as identified by the services in their

respective MEOAs. For the gender and racial makeup of the eligible pools

and of who was selected, we used data reported in the MEOAs. As

previously noted, the Marine Corps data for officer assignments is an

accumulation of all its officers in the ranks O-2 through O-6. Although we

calculated the odds ratios for this data and they are presented in table II.5,

more detailed analysis by more specific assignments may be appropriate

before any conclusions are drawn. In addition, the Marine Corps did not

report any assignment data for its enlisted personnel.

For several of the assignments, the MEOA data was insufficient for our

analysis; these instances are indicated as “no data.” In others, no minority

candidates were in the eligible pool, and these instances are indicated as

“none” in the appropriate odds ratio column. Finally, in the Navy, combat

exclusion laws prohibit women from serving aboard submarines, and this

is so noted in the chief of the boat assignment for E-9s.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.3: Odds Ratios for Air Force Enlisted and Officer Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Enlisted to air staff/


department agencies,


E-7 - E-9

Enlisted to joint 


organizations, E-7 - E-9

Enlisted to major 


commands, E-7 - E-9

Officers to air staff/


department agencies,


O-3 - O-5

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

3.9097

3.2104

3.2517

2.8859

2.7974 

1.6934

1.5030

1.3086

1.4254

1.4940

1.7872

1.5703

1.6253

1.5181

1.5190

0.7299

1.3109

0.8688

0.9560

0.9406

0.4535

0.0152

0.0146

0.0049

0.0314

0.7205

0.7266

0.8797

0.8530

0.8556

1.2331

0.8979

0.8617

0.8365

 0.7729

1.1338

1.0389

0.7830

0.8219

1.8756

0.9494

1.4502

0.4330

0.0051

0.3453

1.1859

1.0322

1.1248

1.0639

0.9407

0.7858

0.7225

0.9175

0.8134

 1.0390

0.4364

0.4636

0.5521

0.6633

0.7757

0.5992

0.7202

0.9370

1.1521

1.3833

0.9660

0.6044

0.1911

0.3620

0.4885

1.2106

1.2467

1.2604

1.4149

1.2498

1.0575

0.8933

0.7977

0.8188

 1.0464

0.5137

0.5857

0.6396

0.7903

0.8129

1.8791

3.0380

0.9592

1.8166

1.5458

0.8952

1.1134

1.5793

1.4708

1.4879

0.8913

0.4961

1.0164

0.8071

 1.2634

0.3536

0.2844

0.3081

0.5348

0.5367

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

1.4572

1.7440

1.5788

1.4386

1.6643

1.0738

1.1215

1.3232

1.1944

1.2525

0.8391

0.7909

0.7303

0.9205

 0.9516

Officers to joint 


organizations, O-3 - O-5

1989 0.7681 0.9572 0.8263 1.2027 1.1559 0.7872

1.1658

0.7615

0.7556

0.7724

1990

1991

1992

1993

1.0211

0.9127

1.0508

1.1306

1.0783

1.3096

1.1914

1.4616

1.1829

1.2055

1.2559

1.4349

1.1137

1.2746

1.4607

1.4611

0.9566

0.6792

0.4947

0.4401

(Continued on next page.)

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Officers to major


commands, O-3 - O-5

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.7516

1.3258

0.8735

0.8325

0.8290

1.1253

1.2051

1.3235

1.0527

1.3023

1.0037

0.9388

0.8915

0.9509

0.9824

0.8600

1.0397

1.2071

0.8616

0.8931

0.6032

0.8754

0.9112

0.4297

0.4037

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.9782

1.0801

1.1437

1.2072

1.2830

Table II.3

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.4: Odds Ratios for Army Enlisted and Officer Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Command sergeant


major, E-9

Combat arms


command, O-5

Combat support


command, O-5

Combat service


support, O-5

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

1.4288

0.8980

3.2607

1.9787

0.7737

No data

No data

No data

0.0359

0.0351

No data

No data

No data

1.0457

2.3141

No data

No data

1.6086

0.6872

2.0677

0.0297

2.5876

0.0449

2.2346

0.0445

3.2068

0.9864

0.0050

3.2342

3.1606

0.0096

0.0075

None

0.0058

 13.8600

0.0100

0.0594

None

0.0357

0.0067

1.3968

0.6246

1.0839

0.6069

1.4759

1.7103

1.1508

0.9526

1.1761

0.5747

1.2939

1.6849

0.8392

0.0058

 1.1550

1.2166

0.9733

12.8042

1.9086

0.0057

1.1269

1.1637

0.3430

0.6833

1.0682

1.3519

1.2024

1.8148

0.9835

1.2537

0.0174

0.7268

0.0050

0.3598

0.8620

0.8087

0.0075

0.0069

5.5178

 1.1601

3.5686

2.4332

0.8535

0.8040

0.5278

0.6093

1.8141

0.4193

0.7064

1.1726

2.1379

0.9864

0.5129

1.6171

1.3546

0.0096

4.0438

1.1538

1.5508

 1.7325

0.0100

0.9733

0.0130

0.8187

0.0061

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

1.0986

1.2552

0.9639

1.0778

0.8767

1.2216

0.9085

1.3337

1.4098

0.3913

1.7252

1.2637

2.1302

0.7168

 0.3878

Combat arms


command, O-6

1989 No data 0.0089 0.0089 0.6479 2.9965 0.0089

No data

0.0086

0.0135

0.0241

1990

1991

1992

1993

0.0115

0.0086

0.0135

0.0241

2.2041

2.3200

0.0135

0.0241

1.5429

0.5949

2.4627

0.8488

0.0115

0.0086

2.0067

1.0803

0.0115

2.9000

0.0135

None

(Continued on next page.)

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Command support


command, O-6

Combat service


support, O-6

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

No data

No data

0.0083

2.0541

0.0025

No data

No data

6.8930

1.7782

0.8853

None

None

None

None

None

0.0077

0.0058

0.0086

8.8909

0.0062

0.0065

0.0072

0.0083

0.0092

0.0025

0.0077

0.0058

0.0086

None

0.0062

11639.52

0.0072

14921.68

0.0092

0.0025

0.0077

1.5556

0.0086

0.0066

1.6901

0.9639

1.6036

2.3413

1.0270

1.2500

1.5221

1.2963

1.2765

1.3172

0.7570

0.0065

0.0072

0.0083

0.0092

4.5833

0.0077

0.0058

3.8295

0.0066

0.0062

Table II.4

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.5: Odds Ratios for Marine Corps Officer Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Commanding officer or


executive officer (O2-O6)

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.4338

0.7228

0.7516

0.7465

1.0228

0.3769

0.3302

0.3472

1.1010

0.2771

60.1366

3.4699

7.3939

1.5181

1.8118

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.8153

0.7083

0.8536

0.6168

0.5998

0.7810

1.1051

0.7966

0.7218

1.3322

0.6391

0.6731

0.7083

0.3478

0.5869

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.6: Odds Ratios for Navy Enlisted and Officer Career-Enhancing Assignments, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Command master


chief, E-9

Chief of the boat


(submarines), E-9

Commanding officer,


O-4

Executive officer, O-4

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.3979

0.6331

0.8015

1.1465

0.9756

Women


cannot


serve

1.5069

1.8690

1.8194

2.1991

1.7001

0.9689

1.0771

2.5302

1.7734

1.2929

1.4407

1.1227

0.6098

1.2013

1.1792

1.0232

1.2530

1.6503

0.9304

0.9110

0.8681

0.0214

 7.2691

0.7226

1.3684

0.6826

0.0262

0.8190

0.1786

0.3071

0.2193

0.2419

0.3274

0.1599

0.0560

0.1800

0.6848

1.1891

0.9822

1.0531

1.7568

0.6831

0.8245

0.5893

0.7926

0.5887

0.9566

1.1418

1.0360

1.0749

1.1798

0.8571

0.8995

0.7673

0.5555

0.4843

1.8125

1.1059

0.3464

1.5261

1.3578

1.2077

 0.7069

5.5799

0.9847

0.8872

0.5755

0.3167

0.5065

1.2866

0.9025

0.4684

0.2540

Data not reported in MEOA

0.0174

0.0088

0.0209

2.1491

2.0046

1.5146

0.9273

 5.4065

0.4631

0.3692

0.1536

0.2053

3.9746

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.8383

0.9804

0.8693

1.0900

0.9057

1.2106

1.0424

1.1915

1.9174

1.1252

0.9198

0.9130

 1.6729

Commanding officer, 


O-5

1989 0.4746 0.2079 0.1798 0.5085 0.5148 0.2271

0.6209

0.4646

0.4434

1.2240

1990

1991

1992

1993

0.7680

1.0472

2.5849

1.0893

0.1737

0.1173

0.2087

0.3297

0.9928

0.7753

0.7366

1.7229

0.4963

0.4452

0.8388

0.6616

0.3230

0.3900

0.4846

8.6717

0.6191

(Continued on next page.)

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Assignment

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Executive officer,


O-5

Commanding officer,


O-6

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.8934

3.4065

0.7130

0.8343

0.3925

0.5012

0.5017

0.4264

0.4576

0.3804

1.2933

1.5895

0.8605

1.8284

1.4633

1.3922

2.1263

1.6544

5.1950

0.3204

0.7385

0.3714

8.0318

0.0154

0.0064

0.0060

0.0084

16334.0

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.7042

0.5270

1.2418

0.9817

0.2724

1.2947

1.0630

0.6400

0.6745

2.1266

0.7352

0.7388

1.0884

1.4478

0.3057

1.5416

2.2219

1.7305

1.3835

0.7322

0.1911

0.1129

0.2507

0.3510

0.2977

0.1762

0.1999

0.2996

0.1254

0.0104

2.5794 0.3516

Table II.6

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Promotions Tables II.7 and II.8 present the odds ratios for enlisted and officer

promotion boards, respectively, for each of the services. For the gender

and racial makeup of the eligible pools and of who was selected, we used

data reported in the MEOAs. In several instances, no promotion boards

were held, or data was not reported in the service’s MEOA for a particular

rank, service, and year; these are noted as appropriate. In other instances,

no minority group candidates were in the eligible pool for promotion to a

particular rank; we have indicated these as “none” in the appropriate ratio

column.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.7: Odds Ratios for the Services’ Enlisted Promotion Boards, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.8642

0.9437

0.8899

1.0017

0.9832

1.7710

1.6421

0.9978

1.0957

1.1550

0.7633

1.0108

0.8856

1.0836

1.5856

0.8658

0.7742

0.8520

0.8487

0.8676

0.6699

1.2197

0.6544

0.7697

0.7208

0.4462

 0.6587

0.7217

0.7344

0.4837

0.8352

0.8124

0.8238

1.1741

0.7894

1.1222

1.0512

1.0932

1.3420

1.0537

0.6424

1.6624

0.7632

0.7840

0.6035

1.1555

0.8337

0.7573

0.7162

1.0095

0.7680

0.7115

0.7625

0.7376

0.9641

0.8097

0.9805

0.7808

0.8541

0.8800

1.2138

0.9739

1.1599

1.0340

1.1975

0.7984

 0.6039

1.1239

0.9170

0.8630

0.8601

0.9829

0.8884

1.0716

0.8330

1.0908

1.3843

No data in MEOA

1.2278

0.7908

1.0841

0.8881

1.1270

0.9980

1.6178

 1.0090

1.0291

0.7978

0.7159

0.7475

0.7125

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

1.0321

1.2135

0.9048

1.1523

1.1526

0.7121

0.9897

0.7821

0.9461

0.8697

0.7668

0.7893

 0.9217

Air Force 1989 1.5477 0.5953 0.9465 0.7534 0.7895 0.8776

1.5683

1.4257

1.3055

1.1999

1990

1991

1992

1993

1.0852

1.0710

0.8011

0.8999

0.7665

0.6906

0.6271

0.7835

0.8593

0.7572

0.8951

0.9062

0.6202

0.7899

0.8100

0.9680

0.5081

0.9066

1.1561

0.7782

0.6244

Board

E-7

E-8

1.2595

1.4149

1.4728

1.0863

0.3166

0.5656

1.0638 0.9173 1.1085 0.9291

(Continued on next page.)

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Army

Marine Corps

Navy

Air Force

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

1.3833

1.7185

1.5004

1.0334

0.6293

1.0016

1.1225

1.0359

1.0957

0.9126

0.7427

1.5976

1.9347

1.7214

1.8559

0.5741

0.4961

1.4905

1.6122

1.2948

0.8223

0.5285

0.9512

0.7625

0.8720

1.1558

 1.1589

0.6583

0.8879

0.6824

1.1092

1.1659

1.4633

1.4670

1.0069

0.9276

0.5913

1.0964

0.9731

1.4732

1.2961

1.0363

0.8752

0.7354

0.8327

1.2760

1.2153

0.9980

0.7457

0.6520

0.8075

0.8541

0.6365

1.0406

0.9856

1.2639

1.1591

1.0437

1.0168

1.0647

1.0688

0.7668

0.8404

0.9357

1.3599

0.8592

 1.0690

1.0600

0.8624

0.9726

0.8786

1.0919

1.2861

1.3630

1.0453

1.1103

0.9245

1.1296

None

1.3726

0.7927

1.2516

0.6410

0.8631

 0.9559

0.5848

1.3851

0.4758

0.7303

0.9644

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

1.1343

1.0163

0.8824

0.9556

0.9016

0.7555

0.7668

0.8349

1.2433

0.8945

1.0805

1.0122

 0.8876

Army 1989 1.8738 0.0272 0.8856 0.8623 1.1256 0.8269

3.1606

2.0359

2.0317

0.7425

1990

1991

1992

1993

2.0544

0.6353

0.0406

4.7348

1.1533

0.8604

1.0896

0.9633

0.8391

1.0942

1.0016

1.1058

1.2309

1.1674

0.5372

0.9604

0.8547

1.2895

1.1347

1.1615

1.1297

E-9

1.0337

1.1681

1.4591

0.7710

1.5760

1.1911

0.6329 0.6681 0.8334 3.7965

0.9862 178.4597 0.9903 1.0296 1.7330 0.4951

(Continued on next page.)

Board

Table II.7

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Marine Corps

Navy

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

0.8288

0.5393

0.8405

3.1315

2.1657

0.0020

2.7198

1.1518

0.0051

0.7711

0.6946

0.9462

0.0020

0.7555

0.6582

0.9257

2.3081

1.0166

1.0611

0.7025

0.4410

0.5026

0.8359

1.0414

1.0795

0.8096

1.0950

1.2417

1.9570

0.0018

1.1518

0.9257

0.6379

0.6779

1.1298

0.0171

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.6030

0.6285

0.7845

0.8533

0.8929

0.9009

1.1283

1.6107

Board

1.1601

1.6449

0.9486

2.4397

0.7917

1.5559

1.6056 0.6743 0.9989 0.7852

0.9274 1.1748 0.6998 1.1184 1.0870 0.8897

Table II.7

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Table II.8: Odds Ratios for the Services’ Officer Promotion Boards, Fiscal Years 1989-93

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Air Force

Army

Marine Corps

Navy

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

1.0033

1.3517

1.6321

0.3968

0.6641

0.6673

0.7790

3.5902

1.0454

2.1433

0.8960

1.0789

1.1284

0.3111

0.4418

0.3701

25.5473

0.2120

81.7193

1.4942

None

0.5463

 89.2785

1.2963

1.7258

3.1432

0.1632

2.7111

0.7435

1.4698

0.6850

0.8415

1.3148

0.8880

0.4535

0.6973

1.4868

1.4465

0.9908

1.0081

0.8597

0.5214

0.6765

1.1588

0.5930

0.8569

1.1034

0.4888

0.9344

0.9335

0.8304

1.2101

1.0971

1.0209

0.4715

0.0025

0.4214

0.4956

 0.8036

1.2385

0.8355

2.8973

0.9857

1.0083

0.0209

0.7151

0.9967

1.1027

0.7374

0.4822

None

None

None

None

 None

1.7140

1.2830

0.7961

6.4109

0.9799

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

0.3839

0.8926

1.0573

0.6425

0.9904

0.6814

1.3604

0.4754

0.6287

0.3838

 0.3685

Air Force 1989 1.6443 0.9753 0.5172 0.5180 0.3785 1.0997

1.4136

1.1794

0.8979

1.2552

1990

1991

1992

1993

0.3457

2.5937

0.5406

1.9230

1.5455

0.9079

0.4232

0.2612

0.6366

0.7279

0.8461

0.8292

0.9175

1.0733

0.4682

0.7647

2.7648

1.2971

3.2576

0.5498

1.1039

Board

O-4

O-5

1.1662

1.0980

0.7847

1.2245

0.4470

36.1552

1.1978 1.0346 1.0216

0.4185

No promotion boards

No promotion boards

No promotion boards

(Continued on next page.)

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Army

Marine Corps

Navy

Air Force

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

 1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

1.9453

1.0397

1.2825

1.1543

1.2510

1.0837

1.1082

1.0598

0.9598

0.9623

0.4426

0.7588

1.4785

2.1078

1.5160

1.3245

0.9824

1.2526

2.7836

0.1188

120.5696

None

0.1488

2.2596

0.5054

1.9428

 1.7889

2.4784

1.2646

0.3593

0.9352

0.0219

3.0901

1.1269

1.1083

0.7826

1.1306

0.4460

0.2151

0.3983

0.8422

275.2440

0.7610

0.7858

0.6429

0.4131

0.7588

0.6256

0.4687

1.0709

0.8675

0.9484

1.8071

0.6495

1.6824

1.5051

1.2258

1.1744

0.6002

0.4862

0.8605

0.5575

1.1948

2.1358

1.6602

1.0677

 0.7285

0.9011

0.7745

0.9033

2.2518

1.0020

1.1725

1.3200

1.0737

0.7826

0.7116

None

None

None

0.9317

0.6754

1.4351

0.5340

 1.2999

0.0190

0.6324

1.2511

1.4029

1.4279

Shaded areas indicate ratios that are less than one and statistically significant.

1.2320

1.0633

0.9825

0.7776

0.4044

0.4459

1.5673

0.2887

0.8726

0.7340

0.9579

0.8931

 0.9210

Army 1989 2.2178 0.0658 1.5138 1.4468 1.5138 1.5138

0.9768

1.0483

0.6302

0.5484

1990

1991

1992

1993

0.5662

1.0674

601.0864

324.5359

2.5420

0.3274

2.0337

1.6260

1.3181

1.1200

0.8877

1.3008

0.3823

1.3724

0.5454

1.3661

0.5695

1.2742

0.0025

1.3008

0.7933

Board

O-6


0.7015

0.6454

1.0032

1.9970

0.0035

0.0036

0.3118 0.2598 0.6236 None

1.9732 396.4445 396.4445 0.8386 0.8048 None

(Continued on next page.)

Table II.8

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix II 

Results of Racial and Gender Disparity

Analysis

Service

American 


Indians AI:W

Other


O:W

Marine Corps

Navy

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

1989

1990

1991

1992

1993

Hispanics

H:W

Blacks


B:W

Asians


A:W

Females


F:M

Fiscal


year

617.8302

1.2381

0.3437

1.2880

1.4198

None

0.0025

None

0.0026

0.0029

0.4607

0.3809

0 .0025

None

None

634.4615

1.4198

0.2194

1.8924

0.1988

None

0.0025

1.3621

1.2880

0.7099

2.2935

0.8022

0.8144

None

None

None

None

None

0.7613

0.7358

1.9190

617.8302

0.3095

0.8173

1.7173

1.0648

0.9405

573.5065

1.1506

Board

1.3313

1.0611

0.8135

0.9617

None

0.5848

0.4297 4.1425 1.6103 0.7157

0.8362 0.9469 0.7101 0.7015 3.7874 0.0158

Table II.8

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 9.

Now on p. 9.

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 9.

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala, Associate Director

A.H. Huntington, III, Assistant Director

Laura L. Talbott, Evaluator-in-Charge

Frank Bowen, Senior Evaluator

Kerry A. O’Brien, Evaluator

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Douglas M. Sloane, Social Science Analyst

(703054) Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-96-17 Military Equal Opportunity
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100