Executive Summary

From Representation 

to Inclusion:

Diversity Leadership for 

the 21st-Century Military
Executive Summary

From Representation 

to Inclusion:

Diversity Leadership for 

the 21st-Century Military
MILITARY LEADERSHIP DIVERSITY COMMISSION

1851 South Bell Street

Arlington, VA 22202

March 15, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama, President of the United States

The 112th United States Congress

Mr. President and Members of Congress:

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 established 

the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. The Commission was 

asked to conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies 

and practices that shape diversity among military leaders. Sixteen interrelated tasks, given by Congress, informed the Commission’s final report, 

From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century 

Military. As chairman of this Commission, I am proud to present this 

executive summary of our report for your consideration. 

The Commission held itself to high standards of openness and transparency in all deliberations. Moreover, we modeled inclusiveness by inviting those with diverse backgrounds, expertise, and experience to have a 

say in our independent analysis. The Commission sought extensive input 

for our deliberations from the Department of Defense and the Services as 

well as the private sector. We hosted 13 public hearings, meeting in locations across the country where many active-duty servicemembers and veterans reside. We heard public testimony from top military leaders, subject 

matter experts, and diversity officers from leading corporations known 
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

for their diversity practices. In addition, we conducted interviews with 

servicemembers. 

The Commission believes that the diversity of our servicemembers 

is the unique strength of our military. Current and future challenges can 

be better met by broadening our understanding of diversity and by effectively leading our uniformed men and women in ways that fully leverage 

their differences. While we find the promotion policies and practices of 

the Department of Defense and the Services to be fair, we find also that 

there are some barriers to improving demographic representation among 

military leaders. 

Among the 20 recommendations given in the report and presented 

here in this summary is a new definition of diversity for the 21st century. We offer ways to remove barriers that are affecting the demographic 

makeup of military leadership, and we suggest approaches to leadership, 

education, and assessment that can enable the Department of Defense and 

the Services to fully benefit from the increased diversity of military leadership. We are confident that these recommendations will positively shape 

our military leadership in ways that meet the unique challenges of this 

century. However, the Commission recognizes that presidential and congressional guidance and support are necessary if success is to be realized. 

It has been both an honor and privilege for this Commission to support the U.S. military’s continuing journey of becoming a preeminently 

inclusive institution.

Sincerely,

Lester L. Lyles, Chairman

Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission
5

Preface

The U.S. Armed Forces became a deliberately inclusive organization 

in 1948, when President Harry S. Truman issued his historic Executive Order 9981 that called for “equality of treatment and opportunity 

for all persons in the armed services.”1 Since then, the U.S. military 

force has endeavored to become an inclusive organization dedicated 

to the equality of all its members, regardless of their background. Its 

dedication to equal opportunity has resulted in increased representation of racial/ethnic minorities and women among the top military 

leaders in recent decades. Despite undeniable successes, however, 

the Armed Forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing 

stream of leaders who are as diverse as the Nation they serve. Racial/

ethnic minorities and women still lag behind non-Hispanic white men 

in terms of representative percentage of military leadership positions 

held. Marked changes in the demographic makeup of the United States 

will throw existing disparities into sharp relief, creating a recruiting 

pool that looks very different from the pool of 30–40 years ago, from 

which today’s leaders were drawn.

Recognizing existing disparities and seeking to look ahead, Congress, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, 

Section 596, mandated the creation of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The Commission was tasked to “conduct 

a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide 

opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior 

officers.” Its charter required that a final report be delivered directly to 

the President and Congress one year after its first meeting. This document presents the executive summary of that final report.

1	 The White House, Executive Order 9981, Establishing the President’s Committee on 

Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, July 26, 1948.
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

6

An independent deliberative body, the Commission was itself an 

inclusive organization. Military Commissioners were active-duty and 

retired officers and senior enlisted personnel from both the Active and 

Reserve Components of all the Armed Forces, including the Coast 

Guard, as well as civilians. They included those who served in major 

armed conflicts from World War II to Iraq and Afghanistan. Civilian 

Commissioners included senior executives of major corporations, civil 

servants, and a law school chancellor. 

The Commission’s charter listed 16 specific tasks. To address these 

tasks, the Commission was divided into ten subcommittees, each supported by a research team. Each subcommittee produced issue papers 

on specific topics and a decision paper that reports the subcommittee’s 

findings, conclusions, and recommendations.2

The final report, summarized here, is founded on rigorous 

research and enhanced by serious and open deliberation. It presents the 

Commission’s main findings and recommends policies and practices 

to develop future military leaders who represent the face of America.

2	 The Legal Implications Subcommittee did not produce a decision paper because the 

Commission made no recommendations specific to the subcommittee’s findings. Rather, 

those findings served to inform all of the Commission’s recommendations.
7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Th e Commission’s fi nal report, summarized here, presents the fi ndings and recommendations of the MLDC. Under the provisions of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009, Section 596, 

Congress asked the Commission to “conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, 

including minority members who are senior offi cers.” Congress charged 

the Commission to carry out 16 interrelated tasks. Th e nonpartisan, 

deliberative body of military and civilian leaders researched, refl ected 

on, and recommended improvements to existing diversity-related policies and off ered new initiatives designed to be supportive of the missions and goals of the Department of Defense (DoD). 

Th e Commission’s recommendations support two overriding and 

related objectives: (1) that the Armed Forces systematically develop a 

demographically diverse leadership that refl ects the public it serves and 

the forces it leads and (2) that the Services pursue a broader approach 

to diversity that includes the 

range of backgrounds, skill sets, 

and personal attributes that are 

necessary to enhancing military 

performance.

Th e Commission acknowledges that the Services have been 

leaders in providing opportunities for all servicemembers, regardless 

of their racial/ethnic background or gender. Today’s mission- eff ective 

force is a living testament to progress in the areas of military equal 

opportunity policies and related recruiting and management tactics. 

However, more needs to be done to address 21st-century challenges. 

Th e Armed Forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as demographically diverse as the 

Nation they serve. Current projections suggest that the proportion of 

[D]espite our progress today, too many 

people still suff er from what I call the

illusion of inclusion, which is a condition 

you get when you rest on past laurels.

—The Honorable Claiborne Haughton, Jr., 

remarks to the Commission, 2010
From representation to inclusion: Diversity leaDership For the 21st-century military

8

racial/ethnic minority youth will increase in this century, while the 

proportion of non-Hispanic white youth will decline. More importantly, racial/ethnic minorities and women are still underrepresented 

among the Armed Forces’ top leadership, compared with the servicemembers they lead. Th is disparity will become starkly obvious without 

the successful recruitment, promotion, and retention of racial/ethnic 

minorities among the enlisted force. Without sustained attention, this 

problem will only become more acute as the racial/ethnic and cultural 

makeup of the United States continues to change. 

Th e Armed Forces must also acknowledge that diversity encompasses more than demographics, and they must take action to harness 

the range of knowledge, skills, and backgrounds needed to prevail in 

the rapidly changing operational environment. Leaders will need to 

address complex and uncertain emergent threats. For example, U.S. 

military and civilian cyber systems are becoming more complex to 

defend and utilize, and enemy techniques blur the line between combat 

and noncombat situations on the ground. Th e ability to work collaboratively with many stakeholders, including international 

partners, will also be critical in 

meeting such challenges and 

will require greater foreignlanguage, regional, and cultural 

skills. In that vein, expert testimony comes from General James Mattis, then–Commander, U.S. 

Joint Forces Command. Closing out the 2010 Joint Warfi ghting Conference, he stated,

In this age, I don’t care how tactically or operationally brilliant you are, if you cannot create harmony—even vicious 

 harmony—on the battlefi eld based on trust across service lines, 

across coalition and national lines, and across civilian/military 

lines, you really need to go home, because your leadership in 

today’s age is obsolete. We have got to have offi cers who can 

create harmony across all those lines.3

3	 Quoted in J. Boyer, “Mattis Speaks to Close Out 2010 JWC,” May 13, 2010.

And the issue that we’re talking about 

here today—diversity—is a readiness 

issue. Sustaining our all-volunteer force is 

a readiness issue.

—The Honorable Cliff ord Stanley, 

remarks to the Commission, 2010
Executive Summary

9

To address these challenges, the Commission proposes 20 recommendations to

• establish a definition of diversity that addresses the complexity of 

today’s environment

• build a foundation for change by ensuring leadership commitment to diversity

• develop and maintain a qualified and demographically diverse 

military leadership

• ensure continued progress through policy goals and metrics that 

allow DoD to manage and sustain diversity.

Define Diversity for a New Era

Currently, each Service defines diversity differently. Developing a uniform definition of diversity to be used throughout DoD can inspire a 

common vision and elicit the needed changes. The Commission’s recommended definition, presented below, brings together DoD’s core 

values and the core values of each Service, and it addresses today’s 

unique mission and demographic challenges:

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.

The definition acknowledges that individuals come to the military 

not only with different cultural backgrounds but also with different 

skills, experiences, and talents. It also acknowledges that these differences are operationally relevant. With proper leadership, diversity can 

increase military agility and responsiveness. 

The definition is consistent with equal opportunity policies and 

practices. If policies resulting from the new definition are properly 

communicated, implemented, and assessed, the new concept will help 

to further eliminate discrimination and guide DoD along a path of 

inclusion. 
From representation to inclusion: Diversity leaDership For the 21st-century military

10

Build the foundation for Change

Leveraging diversity as a vital strategic military resource will require 

the commitment, vision, and know-how of leaders at every level. Without this commitment to instill respect for diversity as a core value, the 

needed cultural change may not take place.

Ensure Leadership Commitment to Diversity

Diversity leadership must become a core competency at all levels of 

the Armed Forces, and respect for diversity should be made an explicit 

core value of DoD and the Services. An eff ective leader promotes fairness and equity in his or her organization or workgroup and knows 

how to focus a broadly diverse group to use its members’ diff erences in 

ways that benefi t the mission. Getting a diverse group to work together 

in ways that improve mission 

capabilities is a learned skill. 

Th e Services should provide 

diversity leadership education 

and training, distinct from traditional forms of general diversity training, to servicemembers 

at every level. 

Th is requires a fundamental shift in institutional thinking about diversity. One clear 

message comes from both the 

literature on diversity management and the experience of organizations with a strong reputation for 

diversity: Such a shift requires the personal and visible commitment of 

top leaders. Th e Secretary of Defense, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff , Service Secretaries and Chiefs, and senior enlisted leaders will 

be critical to implementing the kind of change needed to inspire and 

manage reform. 

To meet emerging operational challenges, the Services need to 

identify and reward the range of skills required for mission success. To 

endure, the new understanding of diversity as a way to enhance mission eff ectiveness must become inherent in military culture and in the 

military’s way of doing business. 

I’ve always considered myself, in addition 

to being the commander, a safety offi -

cer of every organization I led. That was 

something I couldn’t hand off to anybody 

else. And the second thing that I always 

considered myself as being was the diversity offi cer . . . . Yes, there are other people 

who had staff responsibilities for all of this, 

but ultimately, those two responsibilities 

I saw as my own, because they are consequential of good and strong leadership.

—The Honorable Eric Shinseki, 

remarks to the Commission, 2010
Executive Summary

11

Commitment to change is expressed fully by national leaders 

when new goals and values are made into law. Consistent with this 

insight, the Commission recommends that Congress revise Title 10, 

Section 113, to require the Secretary of Defense to report annually on 

the status and progress of DoD’s diversity efforts. 

Develop Future Leaders 

The Commission found that top military leaders are representative neither of the population they serve nor of the forces they lead. The extent 

to which racial/ethnic minorities and women are underrepresented 

varies across the Services, but the Commission found, on average, low 

racial/ethnic minority and female representation among senior military 

officers.

During the Vietnam War, the lack of diversity in military leadership led to problems that threatened the integrity and performance of 

the Nation’s military.4 This is because servicemembers’ vision of what 

is possible for their career is shaped by whether they see individuals 

with similar backgrounds excelling and being recognized in their Service. The performance of the Nation’s military is tied to the individual’s belief that he or she will be treated fairly regardless of his or her 

background.

The Commission found four explanations for discrepancies in 

representation among senior military leaders: low racial/ethnic minority and female presence among initial officer accessions, lower representation of racial/ethnic minority and female officers in career fields 

associated with advancement to flag/general officer rank, lower retention of midlevel female servicemembers across the enlisted and officer 

spectrum, and lower rates of advancement among racial/ethnic minority and female officers. To address these issues, the Commission recommends the actions summarized below.

4	 J. W. Becton, Jr., et al., amicus curiae brief in support of respondent, Gratz v Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 2411, 539 U.S. 244, June 23, 2003, and Grutter v Bollinger, 123 S. Ct. 

2325, 539 U.S. 306, June 23, 2003.
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

12

Increase the Pool of Eligible Candidates

Recent statistics from the Pentagon show that three out of four young 

people ages 17–24 are not eligible to enlist in the military.5 Many fail 

to meet entry requirements related to education, test scores, citizenship, health status, and past criminal history. Further, racial/ethnic 

minorities are less likely to meet eligibility requirements than are nonHispanic whites, and that gap is widening. This is a national security 

issue requiring the attention and collected effort of top public officials, 

such as the President, members of Congress, and State and local leaders, all of whom can turn the tide by developing and executing strong, 

united, action-oriented programs to improve eligibility among the 

youth population. Together, these officials and other stakeholders, such 

as DoD, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and 

Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security, can and 

should improve educational and physical readiness among American 

youth and foster new interest in military service.

Improve Outreach and Recruiting Strategies

In the military’s closed personnel system, tomorrow’s leaders are developed and selected from today’s recruits. Recognizing this constraint, 

the Services employ a variety of strategies to attract qualified youth to 

enlist or join officer commissioning programs, such as the Service academies, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps, and Officer Candidate 

School/Officer Training School programs. The Commission’s review 

of recent accessions revealed that, in each Service, at least one racial/

ethnic minority group was underrepresented. The review also revealed 

that women were underrepresented across all the Services. The Commission’s recommendations include that DoD and the Services explore 

untapped recruiting markets, require accountability for recruiting from 

underrepresented demographic groups, and develop a common application for Service academies and the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.

5	 C. Gilroy, “Recruiting, Retention, and End Strength Overview: Prepared Statement 

of Dr. Curtis Gilroy, Director for Accessions Policy, Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Before the House Armed Services Subcommittee,” 

March 3, 2009.
Executive Summary

13

Eliminate Barriers to Career Advancement

Increasing the racial/ethnic and gender diversity of senior leadership requires eliminating barriers that disproportionately affect the 

advancement of racial/ethnic minorities and women. This can be done 

on two levels. First, the Services should ensure that all servicemembers are equally well prepared to manage their own career progression. 

Related preparation steps include educating all servicemembers about 

the promotion process early in their careers and mentoring them at all 

stages of the career process. Multiple occasions for preparation can help 

servicemembers recognize career-enhancing opportunities and make 

choices that further their professional and personal goals. 

Second, DoD and the Services must remove institutional barriers in order to open traditionally closed doors, especially those relating to assignments—both the initial career field assignment and subsequent assignments to key positions. An important step in this direction 

is that DoD and the Services eliminate combat exclusion policies for 

women, including removing barriers and inconsistencies, to create a 

level playing field for all servicemembers who meet the qualifications. 

Ensure Continued Progress

The changes recommended by the Commission cannot be managed or 

sustained without developing a stronger organizational structure and a 

system of accountability, monitoring, and enforcement.

Realign the Organizational Structure

Currently, responsibility for DoD diversity management falls under the 

Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. This office is 

understaffed, isolated from top leadership, and unable to set the agenda 

or drive progress. The central feature of the new accountability system 

proposed by the Commission is the Chief Diversity Officer. This new 

position will report directly to the Secretary of Defense to ensure 

that diversity management is embraced as a “line” rather than “staff” 

responsibility. The second key feature of this system is a set of mutually 

reinforcing elements that work together to provide effective, consistent 

implementation and persistent accountability for achieving the goals of 

diversity and inclusion. Supported by the existing Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) Research & Analysis 
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

14

office, which will be enhanced to deal with diversity-related issues, the 

Chief Diversity Officer will monitor and advise on all facets of the 

system for the Secretary of Defense.

Institute a System of Accountability

The Secretary of Defense will oversee the diversity effort of DoD and 

the Services through annual accountability reviews with the Service 

Secretaries, Chiefs, and senior enlisted leaders. In parallel, the Deputy 

Secretary of Defense will convene biannually the Deputy’s Advisory 

Working Group to discuss the status and progress of diversity efforts 

throughout the Armed Forces. Finally, to ensure consistent implementation of the new diversity vision, each of the Service Chiefs will hold 

internal accountability reviews prior to meeting with the Secretary 

of Defense. Reviews will be conversations that focus on progress and 

areas for improvement. They will enable military leadership not only to 

see evidence about demographics but also to take stock of the diversity 

awareness and leadership of those in line to succeed current leaders. 

In particular, the reviews will provide a forum for senior leaders to 

assess whether and how leaders at lower levels are leveraging all types 

of diversity in their units to improve capability.

Ensure the Succession of Leaders Committed to Diversity

To ensure that the diversity effort continues, demonstrated diversity 

leadership must be assessed throughout careers and made, in both 

DoD and the Senate, a criterion for nomination and confirmation to 

the 3- and 4-star ranks. Individuals considered for top leadership positions should be able to demonstrate their experience in providing diversity leadership and their understanding of its connection to readiness 

and mission accomplishment.

Develop and Implement Robust Policies and Strategic Metrics

Successful implementation of diversity initiatives requires a deliberate 

strategy that ties the new diversity vision to desired outcomes via policies and metrics. DoD must revise and reissue existing equal opportunity policies, formalize the new diversity management goals in clear 

and robust policies, and clarify what the Services must do to meet those 

goals. At the same time, appropriate metrics and reporting tools must 
Executive Summary

15

be put in place to ensure that progress is made. With such data and 

tools, military leaders at all levels can be held accountable for their 

performance in diversity management and rewarded for their efforts.

Conclusion

Today’s military operations are executed in complex, uncertain, and 

rapidly changing environments. Men and women representative of 

the U.S. population and with different skills, experiences, and backgrounds are needed to respond to new and emerging threats. To harness these differences in ways that increase operational effectiveness, 

the military must revise and develop policies consistent with the new 

diversity vision. Diversity needs to work—for the good of the Nation 

and of the Armed Forces that serve it.

Joint operations, imposed by Congress on an unwilling military 

25 years ago, have since become a large-scale example of the strength 

that comes with diversity. These operations do not level or eliminate 

each Service’s unique traditions and capabilities: Each Service maintains its culture, heritage, and ways of engaging in battle and peacekeeping missions. Integrating the Services’ differences into a single 

coordinated force is difficult, and the U.S. military has spent considerable time and funding to make joint effort possible. Despite challenges, 

however, joint operations have demonstrated that a seamless integration of differences can be accomplished and can positively influence the 

outcome of the fight.

The ultimate impact of the recommendations presented here and 

in the final report depends on the unwavering commitment of the 

President of the United States, the resolute conviction of the Secretary 

of Defense, and the concerted effort of military leaders at all levels 

to bring about enduring change. The MLDC is the third deliberative 

body established by an external authority to find ways to transform 

the U.S. military to become a more inclusive institution. Its predecessors were the Fahy Committee (1949–1950), created by President 

Harry S. Truman, and the Gesell Committee (1962), appointed by 

President John F. Kennedy. Historians have hailed the Fahy Committee as instrumental in desegregating the Armed Forces and thus paving 

the way for the Nation to move closer to its ideals. On the other hand, 

few even remember that the Gesell Committee existed, despite the 
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

16

fact that it recommended policies that might have enabled the military 

to avoid the harmful racial tensions and conflicts that occurred in the 

Armed Forces during the Vietnam War. The U.S. military is a learning organization capable of adapting to change and the needs of the 

Nation, provided that the Nation’s highest leaders are willing both to 

change and to provide a clear vision of success that is followed by the 

sustained oversight needed to succeed. The Armed Forces have led the 

Nation in the struggle to achieve equality. To maintain this leadership, 

they must evolve once again, renewing their commitment to providing 

equal opportunity for all. The time has come to embrace the broader 

concept of diversity needed to achieve military goals and to move the 

Nation closer to embodying its democratic ideals.
17

Recommendations

Recommendation 1—

DoD shall adopt the following definition: 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.

Recommendation 2—

To enhance readiness and mission accomplishment, effectively leading 

diverse groups must become a core competency across DoD and the 

Services. To implement this recommendation,

• a. Leadership training at all levels shall include education in 

diversity dynamics and training in practices for leading diverse 

groups effectively.

• b. DoD and the Services should determine the framework 

(e.g.,  curriculum, content, methods) for how to inculcate such 

education and training into leader development, including how to 

measure and evaluate its effectiveness.

Recommendation 3—

The leadership of DoD and the Services must personally commit to 

making diversity an institutional priority.

Recommendation 4—

DoD and the Services should inculcate into their organizational cultures a broader understanding of the various types of diversity by

• a. Making respect for diversity a core value.

• b. Identifying and rewarding the skills needed to meet the operational challenges of the 21st century.

• c. Using strategic communications plans to communicate their 

diversity vision and values.
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

18

Recommendation 5—

Congress should revise Title 10, Section 113, to

• a. Require the Office of the Secretary of Defense to develop a 

standard set of strategic metrics and benchmarks to track progress 

toward the goal of having a dynamic and sustainable 20–30-year 

pipeline that yields (1) an officer and enlisted corps that reflects 

the eligible U.S. population across all Service communities and 

ranks and (2) a military force that is able to prevail in its wars, 

prevent and deter conflict, defeat adversaries and succeed in a 

wide range of contingencies, and preserve and enhance the allvolunteer force. 

• b. Add diversity annual reports to the list of topics on which the 

Secretary of Defense reports to Congress and the President. Similar provisions should be added to Title 14 for Coast Guard reporting and to Title 32 for National Guard reporting. 

• c. Require the Secretary of Defense to meet at least annually with 

Service Secretaries, Service Chiefs, and senior enlisted leaders to 

drive progress toward diversity management goals.

Recommendation 6—

The shrinking pool of qualified candidates for service in the Armed 

Forces is a threat to national security. The stakeholders listed below 

should develop and engage in activities that will expand the pool of 

qualified candidates.

• a. The President, Congress, and State and local officials should 

develop, resource, and implement strategies to address current eligibility issues.

• b. DoD and DHS (Coast Guard) should

– Create and leverage formal partnerships with other stakeholders.

– Institutionalize and promote citizenship programs for the 

Services.

– Require the Services to review and validate their eligibility criteria for military service.

• c. DoD and the Services should focus on early engagement. 

They should conduct strategic evaluations of the effectiveness of 

their current K–12 outreach programs and practices and increase 

resources and support for those that are found to be effective.
Recommendations

19

Recommendation 7—

DoD and the Services should engage in activities to improve recruiting 

from the currently available pool of qualified candidates by

• a. Creating, implementing, and evaluating a strategic plan for 

outreach to, and recruiting from, untapped locations and underrepresented demographic groups.

• b. Creating more accountability for recruiting from underrepresented demographic groups.

• c. Developing a common application for Service ROTC and 

academy programs.

• d. Closely examining the preparatory school admissions processes 

and making required changes to ensure that accessions align with 

the needs of the military.

Recommendation 8—

The Services should ensure that their career development programs 

and resources enhance servicemembers’ knowledge of career choices, 

including Reserve Component opportunities, to optimize the ability 

of servicemembers to make informed career choices from accession to 

retirement.

• a. Mentoring and career counseling efforts shall start prior to the 

initial career field decision point and continue throughout the 

servicemember’s career.

• b. Mentoring programs shall follow effective practices and employ 

an active line of communication between protégé and mentor.

Recommendation 9—

DoD and the Services should eliminate the “combat exclusion policies” 

for women, including the removal of barriers and inconsistencies, to 

create a level playing field for all qualified servicemembers. The Commission recommends a time-phased approach:

• a. Women in career fields/specialties currently open to them 

should be immediately able to be assigned to any unit that requires 

that career field/specialty, consistent with the current operational 

environment.
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

20

• b. DoD and the Services should take deliberate steps in a phased 

approach to open additional career fields and units involved in 

“direct ground combat” to qualified women.

• c. DoD and the Services should report to Congress the process 

and timeline for removing barriers that inhibit women from 

achieving senior leadership positions.

Recommendation 10—

DoD, the Services, and Chief, National Guard Bureau, must ensure 

that there is transparency throughout their promotion systems so that 

servicemembers may better understand performance expectations and 

promotion criteria and processes. To do this, they

• a. Must specify the knowledge, skills, abilities, and potential necessary to be an effective flag/general officer or senior noncommissioned officer.

• b. Shall formalize the process and requirements for 3- and 4-star 

officer selection in DoD Instruction 1320.4.

• c. Shall educate and counsel all servicemembers on the importance of, and their responsibility for, a complete promotion board 

packet.

Recommendation 11—

The Services shall ensure that promotion board precepts provide guidance regarding Service-directed special assignments outside normal 

career paths and/or fields. As appropriate, senior raters’ evaluations 

shall acknowledge when a servicemember has deviated from the duecourse path at the specific request of his or her leadership.

Recommendation 12—

Where appropriate, DACOWITS should expand its current focus on 

retention to include an explanation of the gender gap in retention. As 

part of this renewed focus, DACOWITS should examine the effects 

of retention programs, such as the sabbatical programs currently 

offered by the Navy and the Coast Guard as well as any other innovative Service-specific approaches to retention. Findings and recommendations from this research should be presented to the Secretary of 

Defense.
Recommendations

21

Recommendation 13—

DoD and the Services must track regional and cultural expertise and 

relevant Reserve Component civilian expertise and continue to track 

language expertise upon military accession and throughout servicemembers’ careers in order to better manage personnel with missioncritical skill sets.

Recommendation 14—

To promote structural diversity, total force integration, and overall 

retention,

• a. DoD must improve the personnel and finance systems affecting 

transition between Active and Reserve Components and internal 

Reserve Component transition protocols.

• b. The Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs and the 

Service Chiefs must assess how Reserve Component members 

can more effectively both gain operational experience and fulfill 

joint requirements within the constraints of their dual military/

civilian lives and take action as appropriate.

Recommendation 15—

The Office of the Secretary of Defense organizational structure must 

be aligned to ensure a sustained focus on diversity and diversity initiatives and should include establishment of the position of a Chief Diversity Officer who reports directly to the Secretary of Defense. 

• The existing Research & Analysis office should be directed and 

resourced to support the Chief Diversity Officer.

• Chief, National Guard Bureau, must establish and resource organizational structures that support DoD diversity initiatives and 

reinforce ongoing National Guard diversity leadership efforts.

Recommendation 16—

DoD and the Services must resource and institute clear, consistent, and 

robust diversity management policies with emphasis on roles, responsibilities, authorities, and accountability. 

• a. DoD and the Services shall implement diversity strategic plans 

that address all stages of a servicemember’s life cycle. Each strategic plan shall include
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

22

– a diversity mission statement that prioritizes equity and inclusion and provides a purpose that is actionable and measurable

– a concept of operations to advance implementation.

• b. DoD must revise (if appropriate), reissue, and enforce compliance with its existing diversity management and equal opportunity policies to

– Define a standard set of strategic metrics and benchmarks that 

enables the Secretary of Defense to measure progress toward 

the goals identified in the strategic plan, including the creation 

of an inclusive environment.

– Establish standards that allow for the collection of data needed 

to generate these metrics and the analysis needed to inform 

policy action.

– Provide oversight of, and support for, the Services’ respective 

diversity initiatives and metrics to ensure that, at a minimum, 

they align with the end state established by DoD.

Recommendation 17—

DoD must and DHS (Coast Guard) should institute a system of 

“accountability reviews” that is driven by the Secretaries of Defense 

and Homeland Security (Coast Guard).

• a. The Secretary of Defense shall meet at least annually with Service Secretaries, Service Chiefs, senior enlisted leaders, and Chief, 

National Guard Bureau, to drive progress toward the diversity 

management goals identified in the strategic plans. The Coast 

Guard should be subject to a similar review.

• b. The Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security should send an annual report to Congress and the President 

on the progress made toward diversity management goals in the 

Services, including the Reserve Component; the report should 

include the barrier analyses described in Recommendation 18.

• c. The National Guard Bureau should report annually to Congress and DoD on the status of diversity in each State, territory, 

and the District of Columbia for all ranks of the Army and Air 

National Guard. This report shall show how reflective the Army 

and Air National Guard are of the eligible pool in their particular 

State or territory or in the District of Columbia.
Recommendations

23

– Based on the report to Congress, the National Guard Bureau 

shall produce a “dashboard” of diversity metrics to be used 

by the Army and Air National Guard. This dashboard shall 

show comparisons across States, territories, and the District of 

Columbia and highlight best practices.

Recommendation 18—

As part of the accountability reviews, the Services, in conjunction 

with the Chief Diversity Officer (established in Recommendation 15), 

should conduct annual “barrier analyses” to review demographic diversity patterns across the military life cycle, starting with accessions. 

• a. To ensure comparability across Services, DoD shall 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.

• b. 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.

Recommendation 19—

DoD must and DHS (Coast Guard) should institute mechanisms for 

accountability and internal and external monitoring for both the Active 

and Reserve Components.

• a. The Services must embed diversity leadership in performance 

assessments throughout careers.

• b. DoD must and DHS (Coast Guard) should establish diversity 

leadership as a criterion for nomination and appointment to senior 

enlisted leadership positions and flag/general officers, including 

3- and 4-star positions and Service Chief. 

– The Senate Armed Services Committee should include this 

criterion in its confirmation questionnaire.
From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st-Century Military

24

• c. The Secretary of Defense must transfer the functions of the 

former Defense Equal Opportunity Council to a minimum of 

biannual meetings of DoD’s leadership, the existing Deputy’s 

Advisory Working Group.

• d. The Secretary of Defense must expand the DACOWITS charter, where appropriate, to encompass diversity as a whole.

Recommendation 20—

In congruence with Recommendation 5, Congress should revise 

Title  10, Section 113, to require the Secretary of Defense to report 

annually an assessment of the available pool of qualified racial/ethnic 

minority and female candidates for the 3- and 4-star flag/general officer positions. 

• The Secretary of Defense must ensure that all qualified candidates (including racial/ethnic minorities and women) have been 

considered for the nomination of every 3- and 4-star position. If 

there were no qualified racial/ethnic minority and/or female candidates, then a statement of explanation should be made in the 

package submitted to the Senate for the confirmation hearings.