November 30, 2010

Report of the 

Comprehensive Review 

of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” 
Co-Chairs

The Honorable Jeh Charles Johnson General Carter F. Ham, U.S. Army

Senior Enlisted Advisor

Fleet Master Chief Scott A. Benning, U.S. Navy

Team Leaderhip

The Honorable Daniel B. Ginsberg

Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower & Reserve Affairs

The Honorable Paul L. Oostburg Sanz

General Counsel of the Department of the Navy

Lieutenant General Richard C. Zilmer

Deputy Commandant for Manpower & Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps

Lieutenant General Richard Y. Newton III

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower & Personnel, U.S. Air Force

Vice Admiral Mark E. Ferguson III

Chief of Naval Personnel & Deputy Chief of Naval Operations 

(Manpower, Personnel, Training & Education)

Lieutenant General Thomas P. Bostick

Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 (Manpower & Personnel), U.S. Army

Mr. Karl F. Schneider

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower & Reserve Affairs)

Mr. Joseph M. McDade, Jr.

Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff G-1 (Manpower & Personnel), U.S. Army

Major General Steven J. Lepper

Deputy Judge Advocate General of the Air Force

Chief of Staff

Major General Gregory A. Biscone, U.S. Air Force

Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
November 30, 2010

Report of the 

Comprehensive Review 

of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” 
257
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................1

II. BACKGROUND .............................................................................................19

Law and Regulations...........................................................................19

Separations ..........................................................................................23

Attitudes of the American Public........................................................24

Attitudes of the American Military ....................................................25

Litigation..............................................................................................26

Pending Legislation............................................................................27

III. OUR MISSION ..............................................................................................29

IV. OUR WORKING GROUP ............................................................................31

V. OUR WORK....................................................................................................33

Systematic Engagement of the Force .................................................33

Research ..............................................................................................39

Key Engagements ................................................................................40

Engagement with Foreign Militaries..................................................42

RAND Study Update ...........................................................................43

Legal and Policy Review .....................................................................44

Leadership, Education, and Training.................................................45

Panel Assessment.................................................................................46

Fiscal Assessment................................................................................46

Service Review.....................................................................................47

VI. WHAT WE HEARD........................................................................................49

Views in Support of Current Policy....................................................50

Views in Support of Repeal ................................................................56

VII. THE SURVEY RESULTS .............................................................................63

Impact of Repeal on Cohesion............................................................64

Impact of Repeal on Unit Effectiveness .............................................65

Privacy/Living Arrangements .............................................................66

Impact of Repeal on Unit Readiness ..................................................68

Impact of Repeal on Recruitment ......................................................68

Impact of Repeal on Retention...........................................................69

Impact of Repeal on Morale ...............................................................70
ii

Those Who Have Already Served With 

Someone They Believe is Gay...................................................71

Army, Marine Corps, and Combat Arms ...........................................74

Impact of Repeal on Family Readiness..............................................77

Open-Ended Responses.......................................................................78

VIII. LESSONS FROM HISTORY.......................................................................81

Racial Integration of the U.S. Military...............................................81

Gender Integration of the U.S. Military .............................................85

IX. EXPERIENCE OF OTHER MILITARIES ..................................................89

X. EXPERIENCES OF DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS.............................93

XI. PANEL ASSESSMENT................................................................................97

Approach..............................................................................................97

Factors Considered by the Panel.........................................................101

Areas of Assessment............................................................................102

Summary of Panel Assessment...........................................................116

XII. OUR OVERALL ASSESSMENT ................................................................119

Introduction.........................................................................................119

Survey Results .....................................................................................120

Misperceptions About “Open” Service ...............................................121

Risks of Repeal Within Warfighting Units.........................................125

Change During a Time of War............................................................126

Resistance to Change Generally .........................................................127

Lessons from History..........................................................................128

Experiences of Other Militaries .........................................................128

Domestic Organizations......................................................................129

Panel Assessment.................................................................................129

XIII. OUR RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................131

Leadership, Training, and Education.................................................132

Standards of Conduct .........................................................................133

Moral and Religious Concerns ...........................................................134

Equal Opportunity ..............................................................................136

Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data .......................138

The Uniform Code of Military Justice................................................138

Privacy and Cohabitation....................................................................140

Benefits ................................................................................................142
iii

Duty Assignments................................................................................147

Medical ................................................................................................148

Re-Accession........................................................................................149

Release from Service Commitments ..................................................150

Fiscal Impact.......................................................................................150

Follow-On Review ...............................................................................151

APPENDIX A. MEMORANDUM AND TERMS OF REFERENCE.........153

APPENDIX B. COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW WORKING GROUP........157

APPENDIX C. SURVEY RESPONSES: 2010 DEPARTMENT OF 

 DEFENSE SURVEY OF SERVICE MEMBERS..............159

APPENDIX D. SURVEY RESPONSES: 2010 DEPARTMENT OF 

 DEFENSE SURVEY OF SPOUSES..................................235
iv
1

I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense appointed the two of us to co-chair a 

working group to undertake a comprehensive review of the impacts of repeal, should it 

occur, of Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, commonly known as the “Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell” law. In this effort, we were aided by a highly dedicated team of 49 military 

and 19 civilian personnel from across the Department of Defense and the Military Services. 

Our assignment from the Secretary was two-fold: 1) assess the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, 

and family readiness; and 2) recommend appropriate changes, if necessary, to existing 

regulations, policies, and guidance in the event of repeal. The Secretary directed us to 

deliver our assessment and recommendations to him by December 1, 2010.1 This document 

constitutes our report of that assessment and our recommendations. The Secretary also 

directed us to develop a plan of action to support implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell. That plan accompanies this report.

At the outset, it is important to note the environment in which we conducted our 

work: the Nation’s military has been at war on several fronts for over 9 years. Much is being 

demanded from the force. The men and women in uniform who risk their lives to defend 

our Nation are, along with their families, stretched and stressed, and have faced years of 

multiple and lengthy deployments to Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Some question the 

wisdom of taking on the emotional and difficult issue of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on top of all 

else. For these and other reasons, the Secretary directed that we “thoroughly, objectively 

and methodically examine all aspects of this question,” and include, most importantly, the 

views of our men and women in uniform. Accordingly, over the last nine months we:

  solicited the views of nearly 400,000 active duty and reserve component Service members 

with an extensive and professionally-developed survey, which prompted 115,052 

responses—one of the largest surveys in the history of the U.S. military;

1 During the nine months we conducted our work, the legislative and legal landscape for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell changed 

considerably. In May, efforts in Congress to repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654 gained momentum, and a repeal provision was added 

to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 in both the House and Senate. The amended NDAA 

passed the full House, but, as of this writing, has not been voted upon by the full Senate. Also, a federal district court in 

California declared the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law to be unconstitutional in September, and issued a worldwide injunction 

immediately prohibiting Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell enforcement the following month. The decision and injunction were appealed by 

the Government, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. As of this writing, 

the appeal before the Ninth Circuit is still pending. After careful consideration of these legislative and legal developments, we 

determined they did not alter our assignment in any way.
  solicited the views of over 150,000 spouses of active duty and reserve component Service 

members, because of the influence and importance families play in the lives of Service 

members and their decisions to join, leave, or stay in the military, and received 44,266 

responses;

  created an online inbox for Service members and their families to offer their views, 

through which we received a total of 72,384 entries;

  conducted 95 face-to-face “information exchange forums” at 51 bases and installations 

around the world, where we interacted with over 24,000 Service members—ranging 

from soldiers at Fort Hood, Fort Benning, and Fort Bragg, sailors at Norfolk, San Diego, 

and Pearl Harbor, airmen at Lackland, Langley, and Yokota in Japan, Marines at Camp 

Lejeune, Camp Pendleton, and Parris Island, cadets and midshipmen at our Service 

academies, and Coast Guardsmen on Staten Island, New York;

  conducted 140 smaller focus group sessions with Service members and their families;

  solicited the views of the Service academy superintendents and faculty, Service chiefs of 

chaplains, and Service surgeons general;

  solicited and received the views of various members of Congress;

  engaged RAND to update its 1993 study, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel 

Policy;

  solicited and received the views of foreign allies, veterans groups, and groups both for 

and against repeal of the current law and policy; and

  during a two-week period prior to issuance, solicited and received the comments of the 

Secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, and the Chiefs of each Service, on this 

report in draft form.

Finally, we heard the views and experiences of current and former Service members 

who are gay or lesbian. We knew that their viewpoints would be important, and we made 

affirmative efforts to reach them, though our ability to do so under the current Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell law was limited. The two of us personally interviewed former Service members 

who are gay or lesbian, including those who had been separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

To reach those currently in the military, we hired a private company to administer the survey 

of Service members and an interactive online confidential communications mechanism. 

This company was obligated to protect the identity of Service members and did not reveal 

identifying information to the Working Group. Through the confidential communications 

mechanism, the private company was able to engage a total of 2,691 Service members, 296 

of whom self-identified as gay or lesbian, in interactive online conversations about their 

experiences.

2
Our Working Group also reviewed hundreds of relevant laws, regulations, and 

Department of Defense and Service policies and issuances (directives, instructions, and 

memoranda) and evaluated various policy options. As discussed in detail in section V, the 

breadth and depth of the Working Group’s work was extensive. To our knowledge, our 

nine-month review and engagement of the force was the largest and most comprehensive in 

the history of the U.S. military, on any personnel-related matter.

Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt 

implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption to unit 

cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or long-lasting, 

and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. Longer term, 

with a continued and sustained commitment to core values of leadership, professionalism, 

and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and accommodate this 

change, just as it has others in history.2

Significant to our assessment are the following:

The results of the Service member survey reveal a widespread attitude among a solid 

majority of Service members that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not have a negative 

impact on their ability to conduct their military mission.3 The survey was conducted by 

Westat, a research firm with a long track record of conducting surveys for the U.S. military. 

The survey was one of the largest in the history of the military. We heard from over 115,000 

Service members, or 28% of those solicited. Given the large number of respondents, the 

margin of error for the results was less than ±1%, and the response rate was average for the 

U.S. military.

The results of the survey are best represented by the answers to three questions:

  When asked about how having a Service member in their immediate unit who said he 

or she is gay would affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of 

Service members predicted it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect.4

  When asked “in your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker that you 

believed to be homosexual,” 69% of Service members reported that they had.5

2 Our assessment is based on conditions we observe in today’s U.S. military. It is not meant as commentary on any point prior 

to today, over the past 17 years since the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law was enacted by Congress. Nothing in this report should be 

construed as doubt by us about the wisdom of enacting 10 U.S.C. § 654 in 1993, given circumstances that existed then.

3 See Section VII, “The Survey Results.”

4 See Appendix C, “Survey Responses: 2010 Department of Defense Survey of Service Members,” Question 68a.

5 See Appendix C, Question 36.

3
  When asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with a co-worker who they 

believed was gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very 

good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”6

Consistently, the survey results revealed a large group of around 50–55% of Service 

members who thought that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have mixed or no effect; 

another 15–20% who said repeal would have a positive effect; and about 30% who said it 

would have a negative effect.7 The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses 

were asked about whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for 

their Service member’s future plans to stay in the military, 74% said repeal would have no 

effect, while only 12% said “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”8

To be sure, these survey results reveal a significant minority—around 30% overall 

(and 40–60% in the Marine Corps and in various combat arms specialties)—who predicted 

in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact of a repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Any personnel policy change for which a group that size predicts 

negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a number 

of other factors that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall military 

effectiveness is low.

The reality is that there are gay men and lesbians already serving in today’s U.S. 

military, and most Service members recognize this. As stated before, 69% of the force 

recognizes that they have at some point served in a unit with a co-worker they believed to be 

gay or lesbian.9 Of those who have actually had this experience in their career, 92% stated 

that the unit’s “ability to work together” was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor,” 

while only 8% stated it was “poor” or “very poor.”10 Anecdotally, we also heard a number 

of Service members tell us about a leader, co-worker, or fellow Service member they greatly 

liked, trusted, or admired, who they later learned was gay; and how once that person’s sexual 

orientation was revealed to them, it made little or no difference to the relationship.11 Both 

the survey results and our own engagement of the force convinced us that when Service 

members had the actual experience of serving with someone they believe to be gay, in general 

unit performance was not affected negatively by this added dimension.

Yet, a frequent response among Service members at information exchange forums, 

when asked about the widespread recognition that gay men and lesbians are already in the 

military, were words to the effect of: “yes, but I don’t know they are gay.” Put another way, 

the concern with repeal among many is with “open” service.

6 See Appendix C, Question 47a.

7 See Appendix C, Questions 67-75.

8 See Appendix D, “Survey Responses: 2010 Department of Defense Survey of Spouses,” Question 17.

9 See Appendix C, Question 36.

10 See Appendix C, Question 47a.

11 Service members, CRWG Focus Groups, 2010; Service members, Online Inbox, 2010.

4
In the course of our assessment, it became apparent to us that, aside from the moral 

and religious objections to homosexuality, much of the concern about “open” service is 

driven by misperceptions and stereotypes about what it would mean if gay Service members 

were allowed to be “open” about their sexual orientation. Repeatedly, we heard Service 

members express the view that “open” homosexuality would lead to widespread and overt 

displays of effeminacy among men, homosexual promiscuity, harassment and unwelcome 

advances within units, invasions of personal privacy, and an overall erosion of standards of 

conduct, unit cohesion, and morality. Based on our review, however, we conclude that these 

concerns about gay and lesbian Service members who are permitted to be “open” about 

their sexual orientation are exaggerated, and not consistent with the reported experiences 

of many Service members.

In today’s civilian society, where there is no law that requires gay men and lesbians 

to conceal their sexual orientation in order to keep their job, most gay men and lesbians 

still tend to be discrete about their personal lives, and guarded about the people with whom 

they share information about their sexual orientation. We believe that, in the military 

environment, this would be true even more so. According to a survey conducted by RAND of 

a limited number of individuals who anonymously self-identified as gay and lesbian Service 

members, even if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, only 15% of gay and lesbian Service 

members would like to have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their unit.12 This 

conclusion is also consistent with what we heard from gay Service members in the course 

of this review:

“Personally, I don’t feel that this is something I should have to ‘disclose.’ Straight 

people don’t have to disclose their orientation. I will just be me. I will bring my 

family to family events. I will put family pictures on my desk. I am not going to 

go up to people and say, hi there—I’m gay.”13

“I think a lot of people think there is going to be this big ‘outing’ and people 

flaunting their gayness, but they forget that we’re in the military. That stuff isn’t 

supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you’re gay or straight.”14

If gay and lesbian Service members in today’s U.S. military were permitted to make 

reference to their sexual orientation, while subject to the same standards of conduct as all 

other Service members, we assess that most would continue to be private and discreet about 

their personal lives. This discretion would occur for reasons having nothing to do with law, 

but everything to do with a desire to fit in, co-exist, and succeed in the military environment. 

12 RAND, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy - An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study, Santa Monica, CA: National 

Defense Research Institution, November 2010, 27.

13 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

14 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

5
As one gay Service member stated:

“I don’t think it’s going to be such a big, huge, horrible thing that DoD is telling 

everyone it’s going to be. If it is repealed, everyone will look around their spaces to 

see if anyone speaks up. They’ll hear crickets for a while. A few flamboyant guys 

and tough girls will join to rock the boat and make a scene. Their actions and bad 

choices will probably get them kicked out. After a little time has gone by, then a 

few of us will speak up. And instead of a deluge of panic and violence...there’ll be 

ripple on the water’s surface that dissipates quicker than you can watch.”15

In communications with gay and lesbian current and former Service members, we 

repeatedly heard a patriotic desire to serve and defend the Nation, subject to the same rules as 

everyone else. In the words of one gay Service member, repeal would simply “take a knife out 

of my back....You have no idea what it is like to have to serve in silence.”16 Most said they did not 

desire special treatment, to use the military for social experimentation, or to advance a social 

agenda. Some of those separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would welcome the opportunity to 

rejoin the military if permitted. From them, we heard expressed many of the same values that 

we heard over and over again from Service members at large—love of country, honor, respect, 

integrity, and service over self. We simply cannot square the reality of these people with the 

perceptions about “open” service.

Given that we are in a time of war, the combat arms communities across all Services 

required special focus and analysis. Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority 

of the overall U.S. military who predict mixed, positive or no effect in the event of repeal, these 

percentages are lower, and the percentage of those who predict negative effects are higher, 

in combat arms units. For example, in response to question 68a, while the percentage of the 

overall U.S. military that predicts negative or very negative effects on their unit’s ability to “work 

together to get the job done” is 30%, the percentage is 43% for the Marine Corps, 48% within 

Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.17

However, while a higher percentage of Service members in warfighting units predict

negative effects of repeal, the percentage distinctions between warfighting units and the entire 

military are almost non-existent when asked about the actual experience of serving in a unit with 

someone believed to be gay. For example, when those in the overall military were asked about 

the experience of working with someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, 92% stated that their 

unit’s “ability to work together,” was “very good, “good” or “neither good nor poor.”18 Meanwhile, 

in response to the same question, the percentage is 89% for those in Army combat arms units 

and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high percentages.19 Anecdotally, we 

heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay guy 

[in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he was gay.”20

15 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

16 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

17 Westat, Support to the DoD Comprehensive Review Working Group Analyzing the Impact of Repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” vol. 1, 

Rockville, MD, November 19, 2010, Appendices J and L, Question 68a.

18 See Appendix C, Question 47a.

19 Westat, vol. 1 Appendices J and L, Question 47a.

20 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

6
Thus, the survey results reflecting actual experience, our other engagements, and the 

lessons of history lead us to conclude that the risks of repeal within warfighting units, while 

higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with our 

recommendations for implementation. 

The survey results also reveal, within warfighting units, negative predictions about serving 

alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response to question 71a, for 

example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working alongside a gay man or 

lesbian will have a negative effect on their unit’s effectiveness in completing its mission “in a 

field environment or out at sea.” By contrast, in response to the same question, but during “an 

intense combat situation,” the percentage drops to 48%.21 See section VII. While 48% indicates 

a significant level of concern, the near 20-point difference in these two environments reflects 

that, in a combat situation, the warfighter appreciates that differences with those within his unit 

become less important than defeating the common enemy.

Our assessment also took account of the fact that the Nation is at war on several fronts, 

and, for a period of over nine years, the U.S. military has been fully engaged, and has faced 

the stress and demands of frequent and lengthy deployments. We conclude that repeal can 

be implemented now, provided it is done in manner that minimizes the burden on leaders in 

deployed areas. Our recommended implementation plan does just that, and it is discussed more 

fully in section XIII of this report and in the accompanying support plan for implementation. The 

primary concern is for the added requirement that will be created by the training and education 

associated with repeal. We are cognizant of this concern, but note that during this time of 

war, the Services have undertaken education and training in deployed areas on a number of 

important personnel matters. These education and training initiatives have included increased 

emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response, suicide prevention, and training to detect 

indications of behavioral health problems. The conduct of these programs in deployed areas 

indicates that training and education associated with a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be 

accommodated. We assess this to be the case, in large part because our recommendations in 

this report involve a minimalist approach to changes in policies, and education and training to 

reiterate existing policies in a sexual orientation-neutral manner.

It is also the case that the results of the survey indicate that, in this war-time environment, 

a solid majority of Service members believe that repeal will have positive, mixed, or no effect. 

Most of those surveyed joined our military after September 11, 2001, and have known nothing 

but a military at war.

Our assessment here is also informed by the lessons of history in this country. Though 

there are fundamental differences between matters of race, gender, and sexual orientation, we 

believe the U.S. military’s prior experiences with racial and gender integration are relevant. In 

the late 1940s and early 1950s, our military took on the racial integration of its ranks, before

the country at large had done so. Our military then was many times larger than it is today, 

had just returned from World War II, and was in the midst of Cold War tensions and the 

21 Westat, vol. 1 Appendices J and L, Questions 71a and 71c.

7
Korean War. By our assessment, the resistance to change at that time was far more intense: 

surveys of the military revealed opposition to racial integration of the Services at levels as high 

as 80–90%.22 Some of our best-known and most-revered military leaders from the World War 

II-era voiced opposition to the integration of blacks into the military, making strikingly similar 

predictions of the negative impact on unit cohesion. But by 1953, 95% of all African-American 

soldiers were serving in racially integrated units, while public buses in Montgomery, Alabama 

and other cities were still racially segregated.23 Today, the U.S. military is probably the most 

racially diverse and integrated institution in the country—one in which an African American 

rose through the ranks to become the senior-most military officer in the country 20 years 

before Barack Obama was elected President.

The story is similar when it came to the integration of women into the military. In 

1948, women were limited to 2% of active duty personnel in each Service,24 with significant 

limitations on the roles they could perform. Currently, women make up 14% of the force,25

and are permitted to serve in 92% of the occupational specialties.26 Along the way to gender 

integration, many of our Nation’s military leaders predicted dire consequences for unit cohesion 

and military effectiveness if women were allowed to serve in large numbers. As with racial 

integration, this experience has not always been smooth. But, the consensus is the same: the 

introduction and integration of women into the force has made our military stronger.

The general lesson we take from these transformational experiences in history is that in 

matters of personnel change within the military, predictions and surveys tend to overestimate 

negative consequences, and underestimate the U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate 

within its ranks the diversity that is reflective of American society at large.

Our conclusions are also informed by the experiences of our foreign allies. To be sure, 

there is no perfect comparator to the U.S. military, and the cultures and attitudes toward 

homosexuality vary greatly among nations of the world. However, in recent times a number of 

other countries have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gay men and 

lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy, and Israel. 

Significantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated much 

higher levels of resistance than our own survey results—as high as 65% for some areas27—

but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much more smoothly than 

expected, with little or no disruption.

22 Erin R. Mahan, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Racial and Gender Intergration of the Armed Forces, August 9, 2010, 5–6.

23 Matthew Cashdollar, “Not Yes or No, But What If: Implications of Open Homosexuality in the Military,” in Attitudes Aren’t 

Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the US Armed Forces, ed. James Parco and David Levy (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air 

University Press, 2010), 169.

24 Judith Bellafaire, “America’s Military Women—The Journey Continues,” accessed November 19, 2010, http://www.

womensmemorial.org/Education/WHM982.html.

25 Defense Manpower Data Center, Female Representation in the Active Component - 1980, 1987, & 1990–2009, Excel spreadsheet.

26 OUSD(P&R), e-mail communication to CRWG, November 12, 2010.

27 United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Report of the Homosexuality Policy Assessment Team (United Kingdom: February 1996); 

G2-8 and Franklin C. Pinch, Perspective on Organization Change in Canadian Forces, January 1994, 22.

8
Likewise, the experience of various municipal and federal agencies is somewhat 

relevant. These agencies include the CIA, FBI, USAID, and the State Department, who at 

present have personnel who live and work alongside U.S. military personnel in deployed areas. 

Reportedly, in those agencies the integration of gay and lesbian personnel did not negatively 

affect institutional or individual job performance.

Finally, our overall assessment is itself based on a risk assessment conducted by a 

panel of military and DoD career civilian personnel drawn from across the Services, and 

included those in combat arms specialties. The panel utilized a standard military decision 

support process recommended by the J–8 directorate of the Joint Staff. This same process 

has been used by the Department of Defense to support recent decisions about the new Cyber 

Command location and authority, and the Afghanistan National Security Force size and mix. 

Upon reviewing the survey results and other information gathered by the Working Group, the 

panel members utilized their own professional judgment to assess the risk of a repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell to military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, 

and family readiness. The results of that exercise are detailed in section XI.

Informed by the panel’s determinations, as the co-chairs of the Working Group the 

two of us then assessed the risk of repeal to overall “military effectiveness” as low. Figure 1 

depicts the panel’s ratings, plus our own assessment of risk to overall military effectiveness.

Figure 1. Assessment of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Military Effectiveness 

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Military Readiness

2.5

Unit Effectiveness

2.6

Unit Cohesion

2.6

Personnel

Readiness

Officer

3.8

Garrison

2.8

Deployed

2.5

Task Cohesion

2.2

Social Cohesion

4.6

Recruiting

1.2

Deployability

2.0

Garrison

1.9

Deployed

1.4

Relocation

1.4

Officer

0.6

Enlisted

1.5

Retention

3.3

Enlisted

2.9

Equipment Family

Readiness

1.5

After Mitigation Assessment

FOUO: Pre-decisional // ASSESS

9
In sum, we are convinced the U.S. military can make this change, even during 

this time of war. However, this assessment is accompanied by, and depends upon, the 

recommendations provided in section XIII of this report.

Motivating many of our recommendations is the conclusion, based on our numerous 

engagements with the force, that repeal would work best if it is accompanied by a message and 

policies that promote fair and equal treatment of all Service members, minimize differences 

among Service members based on sexual orientation, and disabuse Service members of any 

notion that, with repeal, gay and lesbian Service members will be afforded some type of 

special treatment. 

Included, also, should be a message to those who are opposed to “open” service on 

well-founded moral or religious grounds, that their views and beliefs are not rejected, and 

that leaders have not turned their backs on them. In the event of repeal, we cannot and 

should not expect individual Service members to change their personal religious or moral 

beliefs about homosexuality, but we do expect every Service member to treat all others 

with dignity and respect, consistent with the core values that already exist in each Service. 

These are not new concepts for the U.S. military, given the wide variety of views, races, and 

religions that already exist within the force.

Our most significant recommendations are as follows:

Leadership, Training, and Education. Successful implementation of repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell will depend upon strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive education. 

Throughout our review, we heard from a number of senior officers and senior enlisted leaders 

in all the Services words to the effect of “If the law changes, we can do this; just give us the 

tools to communicate a clear message.” This will require us to equip commanders in the 

field with the education and training tools to educate the force on what is expected of them 

in a post repeal environment. In our support plan accompanying this report, we set forth 

this key implementation message for repeal:

  Leadership. The clear message from the Working Group’s assessment is “leadership 

matters most.” Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for members 

in the unit and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit effectiveness, 

readiness, and cohesion.

  Professionalism. Leaders must emphasize Service members’ fundamental professional 

obligations and the oath to support and defend the Constitution that is at the core of their 

military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military policy and standards 

of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion.

  Respect. Unit strength depends on the strength of each member. We achieve that strength 

by treating each member with respect.

10
In our view, the starting point for this message should be a written communication 

from the leaders of the Department of Defense, including the Secretary of Defense and 

senior military leaders of each Service, that deliver their expectations in clear and forceful 

terms.

Standards of Conduct. Throughout our engagement with the force, we heard many 

concerns expressed by Service members about possible inappropriate conduct that might 

take place in the event of repeal, including unprofessional relationships between Service 

members; public displays of affection; inappropriate dress and appearance; and acts of 

violence, harassment, and disrespect. Many of these concerns were about conduct that is 

already regulated in the military environment, regardless of the sexual orientation of the 

persons involved, or whether it involves persons of the same sex or the opposite sex. For 

instance, military standards of conduct—as reflected in the Uniform Code for Military Justice, 

Service regulations and policies, and unwritten Service customs and traditions—already 

prohibit fraternization and unprofessional relationships. They also address various forms of 

harassment and unprofessional behavior, prescribe appropriate dress and appearance, and 

provide guidelines on public displays of affection.

We believe that it is not necessary to establish an extensive set of new or revised 

standards of conduct in the event of repeal. Concerns for standards in the event of repeal 

can be adequately addressed through training and education about how already existing 

standards of conduct continue to apply to all Service members, regardless of sexual 

orientation, in a post-repeal environment.

We do recommend, however, that the Department of Defense issue guidance that 

all standards of conduct apply uniformly, without regard to sexual orientation. We also 

recommend that the Department of Defense direct the Services to review their current 

standards to ensure that they are sexual-orientation neutral and that they provide adequate 

guidance to the extent each Service considers appropriate on unprofessional relationships, 

harassment, public displays of affection, and dress and appearance. Part of the education 

process should include a reminder to commanders about the tools they already have in hand 

to punish and remedy inappropriate conduct that may arise in a post-repeal environment.

As a related matter, to address tensions and incidents that may arise between individual 

Service members in a post-repeal environment, including the Service member who simply 

refuses to serve alongside a gay person, commanders should be reminded of the enormous 

latitude and discretion they have, for the sake of unit cohesion, to address any situation 

concerning Service members who are intolerant or intractable in their behavior toward one 

another.

Moral and Religious Concerns. In the course of our review, we heard a large number 

of Service members raise religious and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving 

alongside someone who is gay. Some feared repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell might limit their 

individual freedom of expression and free exercise of religion, or require them to change their 

11
personal beliefs about the morality of homosexuality. The views expressed to us in these 

terms cannot be downplayed or dismissed. Special attention should also be given to address 

the concerns of our community of 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and 

sharpest divergence of views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exists among the chaplain corps. A 

large number of military chaplains (and their followers) believe that homosexuality is a sin 

and an abomination, and that they are required by God to condemn it as such.

However, the reality is that in today’s U.S. military, people of sharply different moral 

values and religious convictions—including those who believe that abortion is murder and 

those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do 

not—and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and 

fight together on a daily basis. The other reality is that policies regarding Service members’ 

individual expression and free exercise of religion already exist, and we believe they are 

adequate. Service members will not be required to change their personal views and religious 

beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect and serve with others who hold different 

views and beliefs.

Within the chaplain community, the solution to this issue can be found in the existing 

guidance developed by and for our chaplains, which we believe should be reiterated as part 

of any education and training concerning repeal. Those regulations strike an appropriate 

balance between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty 

to care for all. Existing regulations state that chaplains “will not be required to perform a 

religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if doing so would 

be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”28 At the same time, regulations 

state that “Chaplains care for all Service members, including those who claim no religious 

faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, provide faith-specific 

ministries, and advise the command.”29

Privacy and Cohabitation. In the course of our review we heard from a very large 

number of Service members about their discomfort with sharing bathroom facilities or 

living quarters with those they know to be gay or lesbian. Some went so far to suggest that 

a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may even require separate bathroom and shower facilities 

for gay men and lesbians. We disagree, and recommend against separate facilities. Though 

many regard the very discussion of this topic as offensive, given the number of Service 

members who raised it, we are obliged to address it.

The creation of a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom facilities and living 

quarters, whether at bases or forward deployed areas, would be a logistical nightmare, 

expensive, and impossible to administer. And, even if it could be achieved and administered, 

separate facilities would, in our view, stigmatize gay and lesbian Service members in a manner 

reminiscent of “separate but equal” facilities for blacks prior to the 1960s. Accordingly, 

28 Department of the Army, AR 165-1, Army Chaplain Corps Activities, December 3, 2009, 12.

29 Department of the Navy, SECNAVINST 1730.7D, Religious Ministry within the Department of the Navy, August 8, 2008, 5.

12
we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit berthing or billeting 

assignments or the designation of bathroom facilities based on sexual orientation. At the 

same time, commanders would retain the authority they currently have to alter berthing or 

billeting assignments or accommodate privacy concerns on an individualized, case-by-case 

basis, in the interests of morale, good order and discipline, and consistent with performance 

of mission.30 It should also be recognized that commanders already have the tools—from 

counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in 

either living quarters or showers, whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay 

or straight.

Most concerns we heard about showers and bathrooms were based on stereotype—

that gay men and lesbians will behave as predators in these situations, or that permitting 

homosexual and heterosexual people of the same sex to shower together is tantamount 

to allowing men and women to shower together. However, common sense tells us that a 

situation in which people of different anatomy shower together is different from a situation 

in which people of the same anatomy but different sexual orientations shower together. 

The former is uncommon and unacceptable to almost everyone in this country; the latter 

is a situation most in the military have already experienced. Indeed, the survey results 

indicate 50% of Service members recognize they have already had the experience of sharing 

bathroom facilities with someone they believed to be gay.31 This is also a situation resembling 

what now exists in hundreds of thousands of college dorms, college and high school gyms, 

professional sports locker rooms, police and fire stations, and athletic clubs around the 

nation. And, as one gay former Service member told us, to fit in, co-exist, and conform to 

social norms, gay men have learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or 

threatened in these situations.32

Equal Opportunity. We recommend that, in a post-repeal environment, gay and lesbian 

Service members be treated under the same general principles of military equal opportunity 

policy that apply to all Service members. Under the Military Equal Opportunity program, it is 

DoD policy to “[p]romote an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers 

that prevent Service members from rising to the highest level or responsibility possible. 

Service members shall be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability.”33 This 

policy goes hand-in-hand with Service-level policies and basic military values that call for 

treating every military member with dignity and respect.

We do not recommend that sexual orientation be placed alongside race, color, religion, 

sex, and national origin, as a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, 

and complaint resolution processes under the Military Equal Opportunity Program. We 

30 Each Service has directives on command authority, for example: Department of the Air Force, AFI 51-604, Assumption of 

Command, April 4, 2006; Department of the Army, AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, April 27, 2010.

31 See Appendix C, Question 87.

32 Retired Service member, communication to CRWG Co-Chair, May 10, 2010.

33 Department of Defense, DoDD 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program, August 18, 1995, 

2–3; Department of Defense, DoDD 1020.2, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity (EO) in the Department of Defense, 

February 5, 2009, 4.

13
believe that doing so could produce a sense, rightly or wrongly, that gay men and lesbians 

are being elevated to a special status as a “protected class” and will receive special treatment. 

In a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about their 

sexual orientation, we believe they will be accepted more readily if the military community 

understands that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else.

In the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the Department of Defense should make 

clear that sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, promotion, 

or other personnel decision-making. Gay and lesbian Service members, like all Service 

members, would be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability. Likewise, 

the Department of Defense should make clear that harassment or abuse based on sexual 

orientation is unacceptable and that all Service members are to treat one another with 

dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation. Complaints regarding discrimination, 

harassment, or abuse based on sexual orientation can be dealt with through existing 

mechanisms—primarily the chain of command—available for complaints not involving 

race, color, sex, religion, or national origin.

Benefits. As part of this review, we considered appropriate changes, in the event of 

repeal, to benefits to be accorded to same-sex partners and families of gay Service members. 

This issue is itself large and complex, and implicates the ongoing national political and legal 

debate regarding same-sex relationships.

Members of the U.S. military are eligible for and receive a wide array of benefits and 

support resources, both for themselves and their families. A reality is that, given current 

law, particularly the Defense of Marriage Act, there are a number of those benefits that 

cannot legally be extended to gay and lesbian Service members and their same-sex partners, 

even if they are lawfully married in a state that permits same-sex marriage. An example of 

this is the Basic Allowance for Housing at the “with-dependent rate.” The “with-dependent” 

rate is limited by statute to Service members with “dependents.”34 The word “dependent” 

is also defined by statute and is limited to the Service member’s “spouse” or dependent 

parents, unmarried children, or certain others under the age of 23 who are placed in the 

legal custody of the Service member.35 And, the Defense of Marriage Act limits the definition 

of the word “spouse” to mean “only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.”36

However, there are some benefits that are now, under current law and regulations, 

fully available to anyone of a Service member’s choosing, including a same-sex partner, 

because they are “member-designated” benefits. Examples here are beneficiaries for 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance and Thrift Savings Plan, missing member notification, 

and hospital visitation access. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, Service members may 

designate a same-sex partner for these benefits without then having to conceal the nature 

of the relationship from the military. In the event of repeal, the Department of Defense and 

34 37 U.S.C. § 401.

35 37 U.S.C. § 401.

36 1 U.S.C. § 7.

14
the Services should inform Service members about these types of benefits so that they can 

take advantage of them for their committed same-sex partners should they desire to do so.

A third category of benefits are those that are not statutorily prohibited, but that 

current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. With regard to this category, the 

Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory flexibility to revise and redefine 

the eligible beneficiaries to include same-sex partners. Here, we recommend that, where 

justified from a policy, fiscal, and feasibility standpoint, the benefit be refashioned to become 

a member-designated one—in other words, to give the Service member, gay or straight, the 

discretion to designate whomever he or she wants as beneficiary. An example of a benefit in 

this category is the provision of free legal services by a military legal assistance office, and 

it may be suitable for this member-designated approach. Military family housing is another 

prominent benefit in this category. However, we do not recommend at this time that military 

family housing be included in the benefits eligible for this member-designated approach. 

Permitting a Service member to qualify for military family housing, simply by designating 

whomever he or she chooses as a “dependent,” is problematic. Military family housing is a 

limited resource and complicated to administer, and a system of member designation would 

create occasions for abuse and unfairness.37

Also, we are not, at this time, recommending that the Department of Defense or the 

Services revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the 

definition of “dependent,” “family members,” or other similar terms in those regulations, for 

purposes of extending benefits eligibility. We are convinced that, to create an environment 

in which gay and lesbian Service members can win quick and easy acceptance within the 

military community, repeal must be understood as an effort to achieve equal treatment 

for all. If, simultaneous with repeal, the Department of Defense creates a new category 

of unmarried dependent or family member reserved only for same-sex relationships, the 

Department of Defense itself would be creating a new inequity—between unmarried, 

committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed opposite-sex couples. This new 

inequity, or the perception of it, runs counter to the military ethic of fair and equal treatment, 

and resentment at perceived inequities runs deep in military families.

We recommend that the particular issue of a “qualifying relationship” status for 

couples not in a Federally-recognized marriage be revisited as part of a follow-on review 

of the implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. This will permit the Department 

of Defense to revisit and reassess the issue as implementation of repeal is underway. It is 

also in recognition that the national debate on same-sex marriage and partner benefits is 

ongoing, and that the judicial and legislative landscape on this issue is in a state of flux.

37 Current Service policies state that non-dependents are not allowed to reside in military family housing. We do not recommend 

any changes to those policies, other than to state that any exception to policy to allow a non-dependent to reside in military 

family housing, be administered without regard to sexual orientation.

15
Re-accession. In the event of repeal, we recommend that Service members who 

have been previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be permitted to apply for reentry 

into the military, pursuant to the same criteria as others who seek reentry. The fact that 

their separation was for homosexual conduct would not be considered as part of the Service 

member’s application for re-accession. For example, a Service member separated under Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell who received an honorable discharge would be evaluated for re-accession 

under the same criteria that other Service members who had received honorable discharges 

would be. Further, consistent with the practice for other Service members who apply for 

re-accession, we recommend that the Service member who applies for re-accession after 

having been separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell not be given any type of credit for the time 

out of service, subject to any actions a board for the correction of military records may, in 

its discretion, take.

UCMJ. We support the pre-existing proposals to repeal Article 125 of the Uniform 

Code of Military Justice and remove private consensual sodomy between adults as a criminal 

offense. This change in law is warranted irrespective of whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is 

repealed, to resolve any constitutional concerns about the provision in light of Lawrence v. 

Texas38 and United States v. Marcum.

39 We also support revising offenses involving sexual 

conduct or inappropriate relationships to ensure sexual orientation neutral application, 

consistent with the recommendations of this report. For example, the offense of adultery 

defined in the Manual for Courts-Martial should be revised to apply equally to heterosexual 

and homosexual sex that is engaged in by or with a married person.

Follow-on Review. Finally, we recommend that one year after any repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell has been in effect, the Department of Defense conduct a follow-on review to 

monitor the implementation of repeal and to determine the adequacy of the recommended 

actions that are adopted. This should include a reassessment of the same-sex partner benefits 

issues referred to earlier.

We are confident in the assessment and recommendations summarized above and 

detailed in the pages that follow. As stated before, this may have been the most comprehensive 

and inclusive personnel-related review in the history of the U.S. military. We both personally 

spent many long hours on this project. Our work was supported by a team of highly-dedicated 

civilian and military personnel, many of whom are experts in the area of military personnel 

matters.

Two final points should be made about our mission. In the course of our review, 

many asked us if the stated positions of the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in support of repeal in some way influenced, prejudiced, 

or constrained our review and assessment. This was not the case. The views expressed by 

38 539 US 558 (2003).

39 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

16
Service members and their families in information exchange forums and other engagements 

were civil and professional, but always frank and diverse and reflected strongly held views 

both for and against changing the law and policy, without regard to the views expressed by 

our national leaders.

Next, our mandate was to assess the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and 

how best to implement repeal should it occur; we were not asked to determine whether the 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy should be repealed. However, our engagement of the 

force was wide-ranging enough that we did answer the question of whether the U.S. military

can implement repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. To be clear, the Service member survey did 

not ask the broad question whether Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. This would, in 

effect, have been a referendum, and it is not the Department of Defense’s practice to make 

military policy decisions by a referendum of Service members. But, among the 103 questions 

in the Service member survey and the 44 questions in the spouse survey were numerous 

opportunities to express, in one way or another, support for or opposition to repeal of the 

current policy. Among the 72,000 online inbox submissions were numerous expressions 

both for and against the current policy. If the impact of repeal was predominately negative, 

that would have revealed itself in the course of our review.

Further, as co-chairs, we believe we are both personally required to report our honest 

and candid assessments to the Secretary—either as the solemn duty of a military officer to 

his civilian leadership, or because of the fiduciary obligation a lawyer owes his client. Thus, 

if our assessment was that the risk to military effectiveness of implementing repeal was 

unacceptable, we both would have been obligated to report that to the Secretary.

We are both convinced that our military can do this, even during this time of war. We 

do not underestimate the challenges in implementing a change in the law, but neither should 

we underestimate the ability of our extraordinarily dedicated Service men and women to 

adapt to such change and continue to provide our Nation with the military capability to 

accomplish any mission. 

Carter F. Ham Jeh Charles Johnson

General, United States Army General Counsel, Department of Defense

17
18
Law and Regulations

Section 654 of Title 10 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell law, was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton 

in 1993, following a protracted and high-profile political debate through much of that year 

concerning homosexuality in the U.S. military.40

The law, formally titled “Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces,” states 

that a member of the armed forces “shall be separated from the armed forces” if it is found 

that he or she:

1. “has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a 

homosexual act or acts,” unless the member demonstrates, among other things, that 

“such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior” 

and “under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur”;

2. “has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect,” 

unless the member demonstrates that “he or she is not a person who engages 

in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in 

homosexual acts”; or

3. “has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological 

sex.”

This law is implemented by the Department of Defense through DoD Instruction 

1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations;

41 DoD Instruction 1332.30, Officer Separations;42

and DoD Instruction 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and 

Induction.

43

40 The historical account in this Law and Regulations subsection is drawn in large part from the 1993 study by RAND and its 2010 

update. (RAND, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment, Santa Monica, CA: National 

Defense Research Institution, 1993; RAND, 2010.)

41 Department of Defense, DoDD 1332.14, Enlisted Administrative Separations, December 21, 1993.

42 Department of Defense, DoDD 1332.30, Separation of Regular Commissioned Officers, December 21, 1993.

43 Department of Defense, DoDD 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction, December 21, 1993.

19

II BACKGROUND
20

 In short, the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy set forth three forms of homosexual 

conduct that require separation of a Service member: acts, statements, or marriage.

The phrase “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” comes from two aspects of the law and policy. First, 

under DoD policy, sexual orientation is considered to be a “a personal and private matter” 

and Service members and military recruits are not asked to reveal their sexual orientation 

(“Don’t Ask”). Second, under both the law and policy, a statement by a Service member that 

he or she is gay is—in addition to homosexual acts and marriage—grounds for separation 

(“Don’t Tell”).

Prior to 1993, there was no Congressional statute that expressly regulated homosexuality 

in the U.S. military; homosexuality in the military was regulated and restricted through a 

combination of sodomy prohibitions in military law and military personnel regulations. 

These restrictions were not formalized until the early 20th century. The first such provision 

was Article 93 of the Articles of War, enacted in 1917, which prohibited sodomy.44 Throughout 

the World War I and II periods, Article 93 was the principal vehicle by which the military 

discharged homosexual men and women from service.

After World War II, in October 1949, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum 

that standardized policy across Services. This policy stated that “homosexual personnel, 

irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to serve in any branch of the Armed Services in 

any capacity, and prompt separation of known homosexuals from the Armed Forces be made 

mandatory.”45 That memorandum was followed in 1953 by Executive Order 10450, which 

declared “sexual perversion” to be cause for dismissal from Federal jobs46 and resulted in a 

significant increase in the annual number of discharges for homosexuality relative to the size 

of the force.47 In 1959, the Department of Defense issued Directive 1332.14, Administrative 

Discharges, that listed homosexual acts and sodomy as “sexual perversion” and, therefore, 

reason for discharge from military service.48 The language of the directive was later altered 

in 1975 to describe “homosexual acts or other aberrant sexual tendencies” as grounds for 

dismissal.49

Inconsistent application of this policy among the Services led, in 1981, to the issuance 

of a new memorandum by Deputy Secretary of Defense W. Graham Claytor, Jr. which made 

discharge mandatory for openly gay or lesbian personnel, and minimizing opportunities 

for retention.50 Among the rationales for the policy of mandatory separation was to provide 

the Department of Defense with the most legal protection against lawsuits filed by Service 

members discharged for homosexuality. Subsequently, the revised directives stated that 

44 RAND, 1993, 4. 

45 RAND, 1993, 6; RAND, 2010, 37–39.

46 RAND, 1993, 6; RAND, 2010, 37–39.

47 RAND, 1993, 6–7; RAND, 2010, 37–39.

48 RAND, 1993, 7; RAND, 2010, 37–39.

49 RAND, 1993, 7; RAND, 2010, 37–39. 

50 Deputy Secretary of Defense, Memorandum regarding homosexuality and military service, January 16, 1981; DoDD 1332.14; 

DoDD 1332.30.
21

homosexuality is “incompatible with military service,” as the presence of homosexual 

personnel would “seriously [impair] the accomplishment of the military mission.”51 This 

marks a shift in the justification used for the discharge of gay and lesbian Service member 

from one based on physical or mental unfitness to serve to one based on negative impacts 

on mission accomplishment.

Under the 1982 directive the following were grounds for separation: 1) a statement 

that one was gay; 2) engaging or attempting to engage in homosexual acts; 3) marriage to 

a person of the same-sex. These are the same three basic elements for separation under 

today’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy.

On January 29, 1993, President Clinton directed Secretary of Defense Les Aspin to 

develop a draft executive order that would end discrimination due to sexual orientation in 

determining who may serve in the U. S. military. On April 5, 1993, Secretary Aspin formed 

a Military Working Group to develop and assess policy options to meet the President’s 

requirement.52 The Military Working Group was composed of a general or flag officer from 

each Service and a support staff of approximately 50 officers, enlisted personnel, and civilian 

employees. The Military Working Group met with Service members as well as with civilian 

experts on the military; it also examined the experiences of foreign militaries, reviewed 

available research reports, and military separations data from the Services.53

The 1993 Military Working Group concluded that homosexuality remained inconsistent 

with military service, and that the presence in the military of individuals identified as 

homosexuals would have a significantly adverse effect on both the readiness of the force and 

unit cohesion.54

In parallel with the Military Working Group’s study, the Department of Defense 

contracted RAND to conduct a separate study on the topic to provide “information and analysis 

required to structure the issues and...[develop] an analytic framework to evaluation a range 

of implementation alternatives.” RAND collected historical information on racial and gender 

integration in the U.S. military, identified and interviewed civilian and military personnel 

from foreign nations that accepted gays and lesbians into military service or anticipated doing 

so, collected information on public safety organizations within the United States regarding 

their acceptance of gays and lesbians into their ranks, examined the academic research from 

social and behavioral science regarding the issue, and analyzed the then-current policy and 

possible alternatives. RAND’s report concluded that sexual orientation, by itself, was “not 

germane” to military service and recommended clear standards of conduct for all military 

personnel, to be equally and strictly enforced, in order to maintain the military discipline 

necessary for effective operations. RAND recommended a military policy that focused on 

51 DoDD 1332.14, 1–9.

52 Department of Defense, Summary Report of the Military Working Group, July 1, 1993, 1.

53 DoD, Summary, 3.

54 DoD, Summary, 11.
22

actual conduct, not behavior presumed because of sexual orientation, and that the military 

hold all Service members to the same standard of conduct.55

Meanwhile, President Clinton’s directive and the studies undertaken by the Military 

Working Group and RAND sparked a political debate and congressional interest in the 

subject of homosexuality in the military. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees 

held hearings on the subject, and called to testify a number of active duty and retired senior 

military officers, academic researchers, and individuals from interested organizations. 

Many of those who testified—most prominent among them General Colin Powell, then 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff—expressed opposition to lifting the ban on gays and 

lesbians in the military.

In the midst of the reviews and the political debate, the Clinton Administration 

announced its position on the issue—referred to as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue.” 

This approach would have ended the practice of directly questioning recruits about their 

sexual orientation (“Don’t Ask”), would have required gay and lesbian personnel to keep 

their sexual orientation private (“Don’t Tell”), and would have, at least in concept, prevented 

investigations from being started on an arbitrary basis (“Don’t Pursue”).

Ultimately, after hearings and extensive debate, Congress enacted into law much of 

the Administration’s proposal, albeit without the “Don’t Pursue” component, as part of the 

1994 National Defense Authorization Act. The new law was codified at Section 654 of Title 

10 of the United States Code.

Central to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law were fifteen policy findings by Congress, 

made after numerous hearings and testimony, and which were similar in large part to the 

findings and recommendations of the 1993 Military Working Group. These findings noted 

the importance of high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion to success 

in combat, the fact that “military life is fundamentally different than civilian life,” and 

that it is often necessary of military members “involuntarily to accept living conditions 

and working conditions that are often Spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced 

intimacy with little or no privacy.” The findings concluded that “[t]he prohibition against 

homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary 

in the unique circumstances of military service” and “[t]he presence in the armed forces of 

persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create 

an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit 

cohesion that are the essence of military capability.”56

The Department of Defense implemented the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law by incorporating 

provisions regarding homosexual conduct into the DoD regulations covering separations 

55 RAND, 1993, xxiv.

56 10 U.S.C. § 654.
23

and accessions.57 Based on these DoD regulations, the military departments each issued 

their own implementing regulations.58

Separations

Since 1980, over 32,000 active duty Service members have been separated on the basis 

of homosexuality or homosexual conduct under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and its predecessor 

policies; of these more than 13,000 occurred since the law was enacted.59

During the early 1980s the number of Service members separated each year for 

homosexuality was approximately 1,700. This number dropped to approximately 900–1,000 

per year between 1987 and 1992. After Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was enacted, an average of 

approximately 700–800 Service members were separated from the military on the basis of 

homosexual conduct. In the years 1997–2001, separations increased to approximately 1,100 

year.60

Figure 2. Number of Annual Separations for Homosexual Conduct per 

100,000 Active Duty Service Members in the U.S. Military Services by Year

100

80

60

40

20

0

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

Year

Separations by 100,000

100

80

60

40

20

0

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Separations for Homosexuality per 100,000 Service Members

Source: OSD(P&R), 2010.

57 DoDD 1332.14; DoDD 1332.30.

58 Department of the Army, AR 635-200, Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations, June 6, 2005, 104; Department of the 

Navy, NAVPERS 15560D, Navy Military Personnel Manual, May 15, 2009, sec. 1910-148; Department of the Air Force, AFI 

36-3208, Administrative Separation of Airmen, July 9, 2004, 86; Department of the Navy, MCO P1900.16F Ch 2, Marine Corps 

Separation and Retirement Manual, June 6, 2007, 1-6.

59 OSD(P&R), Spreadsheet of numbers of annual separations for Homosexual conduct, 2010.

60 OSD(P&R), 2010.
24

Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has been in place, approximately 85% of discharges for 

homosexual conduct have been made on the basis of statements by the Service member, while 

approximately 15% were on the basis of homosexual acts.61 Further, 69% of homosexual 

conduct discharges under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were of male Service members.62 Also, the 

vast majority—nearly 99%—of separations under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell have been of enlisted 

personnel, who make up roughly 84% of the active force.63 Approximately one quarter of 

these discharges have occurred in the first four months of a Service member’s service.64

While the over 13,000 active duty Service members discharged under Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell is itself a substantial number, these discharges constitute a very small portion of 

the overall number of discharges from the military. Since 2005 the number of discharges 

for homosexual conduct is just under 1% of all involuntary discharges, which include, for 

example, discharges for misconduct, medical disqualification, hardship, and indiscipline.65

Overall, homosexual conduct discharges represent approximately one third of one percent 

(0.33%) of all separations, voluntary and involuntary, from the military.66

Attitudes of the American Public

Since Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was enacted in 1993, a number of public opinion polls 

reveal shifting public sentiment toward gay men and lesbians in the U.S. military. These 

polls, and the attitudes they reflect, are of limited relevance for our review but are noted 

here as they reflect the changing views of society at large—which includes both current and 

potential future Service members, military families, and others who may influence Service 

members’ views and attitudes.

In the early 1990s, polls by major national polling and news organizations consistently 

indicated that 50–60% of the American public supported allowing gay men and lesbians to 

serve in the military, and around 40% supported allowing gay men and lesbians to serve 

openly. In the years since, polls indicated that public opinion has shifted toward greater 

support of open military service by gay men and lesbians, as reflected in Figure 3 below. It 

is significant to note the difference in the level of support for allowing gays and lesbians to 

serve versus allowing them to serve “openly.”

61 OSD(P&R), 2010.

62 OSD(P&R), 2010.

63 OSD(P&R), 2010.

64 OSD(P&R), 2010.

65 OSD(P&R), 2010.

66 OSD(P&R), 2010.
25

Figure 3. American Public Support for Allowing Gay Men and 

Lesbians to Serve in the U.S. Military Services

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 

Allowed to Serve 

Openly Serve 

Year

Percentage

Source: Polling data collected by CBS/New York Times (1993, 2010), NBC/Wall 

Street Journal (1993), Newsweek (1994, 1998, 2000), Gallup (1996, 1999, 2001, 

2003, 2004, 2005, 2009), MIT (2001), ABC/Washington Post (2001, 2008, 2010), 

Fox News (2003, 2010), Annenberg (2004), Boston Globe (2005), Pew (2006), 

CNN (2007, 2010), Quinnepac (2009).

Attitudes of the American Military

Authoritative data on Service members’ opinions on whether gays and lesbians should 

be allowed to serve openly in the military is limited. While several organizations have 

polled military personnel, these polls tend to lack the methodological rigor of many of the 

public opinion polls described above. These polls of Service members, limited as they are, 

show the same general trend over time toward greater support for open service by gay men 

and lesbians.67 However, the trend lags behind the acceptance of open service found in the 

public at large.

Because of their various limitations, the Working Group has not relied on these polls; 

nor has the Working Group conducted its own poll of whether Service members think Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell should be repealed. As stated before, it was not our mission to conduct such 

a referendum of Service members.

67 Polls include Annenberg Public Policy Center, National Annenberg Election Survey, Washington, October 2004; Zogby 

International and Sam Rodgers, Opinions of Military Personnel on Gays in the Military, New York, December 2006, 5-7.
26

Litigation

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

However, lower Federal appellate courts have, until recently, consistently upheld the law 

in the face of constitutional challenges. Plaintiffs in these cases have brought a variety of 

constitutional challenges to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, including free speech arguments under the 

First Amendment, and equal protection and substantive due process arguments under the 

Fifth Amendment.

In evaluating these challenges, the courts until recently have by and large reviewed 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell under a “rational basis” legal standard, which is the most deferential 

standard of judicial review. In practice, application of the rational basis standard means 

that a court will almost always find a law to be constitutional. The courts have also 

shown substantial deference to the judgments of Congress and the Executive, which they 

traditionally do in matters involving military affairs. In upholding the constitutionality of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the courts have relied on the findings made by Congress in 1993, which 

came after many hearings and much congressional testimony and were codified in the Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell statute itself.

These early Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell cases were decided against a backdrop of the Supreme 

Court’s 1986 decision in Bowers v. Hardwick.

68 In that case, the Supreme Court found that 

there was no fundamental right to engage in consensual, homosexual sodomy.

Seventeen years later, however, in the case Lawrence v. Texas,

69 the Supreme Court 

overturned Bowers. In Lawrence, the Court found a Texas law that criminalized homosexual 

sodomy to be unconstitutional, and ruled that consenting adults have a protected liberty 

interest to engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy. The Court explicitly rejected 

Bowers, declaring “Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It 

ought not to remain binding precedent. Bowers v. Hardwick should be and now is overruled.”

Lawrence has had an impact on lower court constitutional challenges to Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell. Since Lawrence, two Federal appellate courts—the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit, in the case Witt v. Department of the Air Force,

70 and the U.S. Court of Appeals 

for the First Circuit, in the case Cook v. Gates71—have held that the deferential “rational 

basis” standard of review is no longer appropriate and have required the government to 

defend Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell under a heightened level of constitutional scrutiny. However, 

these two courts came to different conclusions about the constitutionality of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell.

68 478 U.S. 186 (1986).

69 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

70 527 F.3d 806 (9th Cir. 2008).

71 528 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2008).
27

In the First Circuit decision, the government still prevailed: the court held that 

although Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell should be subject to heightened scrutiny, it concluded that 

the law met this standard, by deferring to the findings made by Congress in 1993. In the 

Witt case, however, the Ninth Circuit decided that it must look at the particular facts of 

each individual case to determine if the application of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to that Service 

member was constitutional. The court therefore required the government to demonstrate that 

Major Witt’s discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “significantly further[s]” an “important 

governmental interest,” such as military readiness or unit cohesion, and that her discharge 

was “necessary to further that interest.”72 The court remanded the case to the district court 

to evaluate the specific facts of Major Witt’s separation against this new, higher standard of 

review.

Following a 6-day trial in September 2010, the district court held that the government 

had not met this higher standard and ordered Major Witt to be re-instated in the Air Force, 

subject to meeting applicable re-entry requirements. As of this writing, the government has 

appealed the trial court’s ruling, and the appeal is pending review by the Ninth Circuit.

Earlier that same month, on September 9, 2010, another Federal district court in 

California, following an 8-day bench trial, declared Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to be unconstitutional 

in its entirety, in the case Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates.

73 This case differed in an important 

way from the Witt case in that the court reviewed the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy 

as applied to everyone, not just the particular plaintiff. The district court held that Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell violates Service members’ substantive due process rights under the Fifth 

Amendment, as well their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Applying the Witt 

heightened scrutiny standard, the district court ruled that the government had failed to 

show that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell significantly furthers the government’s interest in military 

readiness or unit cohesion. The district court also ruled that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell places 

restrictions on speech that are broader than are reasonably necessary. Consequently, the 

district court held that the law and policy are unconstitutional.

On October 12, in that same case, the district court issued a worldwide injunction 

that immediately prohibited enforcement of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. The 

decision and injunction were appealed by the government, and on October 20 the Court of 

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction pending the appeal. As of this writing, 

the appeal before the Ninth Circuit is still pending.

Pending Legislation

In his State of the Union address in January of this year, President Obama declared 

that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell “denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love 

72 Id. at 819.

73 Memorandum Opinion, Log Cabin Republicans v. Gates, Case No. CV 04-08425-VAP (C.D. Cal., September 9, 2010).
28

because of who they are,” and he stated his intention to work with the military and Congress 

to repeal the law.74

The following week, on February 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff both testified before the Senate Armed Service Committee in 

support of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.75 At the same time, Secretary Gates announced 

his intent to appoint this Working Group. The Working Group was officially established one 

month later, on March 2, and the Secretary directed that the Working Group submit a report 

of its assessment and recommendations to him by December 1, 2010.76

In May 2010, well before this report was completed, efforts in Congress to repeal 

the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law gained momentum, and a repeal provision was added to the 

National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 in both the House and 

Senate. On May 27, the House agreed to an amendment to the NDAA (H.R. 5136) to repeal 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the NDAA, with the amendment, passed the full House on May 28. 

That same day, the Senate Armed Services Committee added the identical repeal language 

to its version of the NDAA (S. 3454). Efforts on the Senate floor in September 2010 to pass 

the NDAA did not yield a vote, and as of this writing, the full Senate has not passed the 

NDAA for FY 2011.

The repeal provision contained within both the House of Representatives and Senate 

Armed Services Committee versions of the NDAA would work as follows: once the law is 

enacted, repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 would be effective only after the President, the Secretary 

of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs deliver to Congress a certification that: 1) 

they have considered this report and recommendations; 2) the Department of Defense has 

prepared the necessary post-repeal policies and regulations; and 3) the implementation of 

those policies and regulations is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military 

effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces. Once the 

certification is delivered, repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 becomes effective 60 days later.77

Again, as of this writing, the full Senate has not passed S. 3454, and the FY2011 

NDAA containing the repeal provision has not become law.

74 Office of the Press Secretary, The White House, Remarks by the President in the State of the Union Address, January 27, 2010, 

accessed November 20, 2010, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address.

75 Senate Committee on Armed Services, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011, and to 

Receive Testimony Relating to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy, 111th Cong. 2d Sess., 2010.

76 See Appendix A, “Memorandum and Terms of Reference.”

77 House, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong., 2d Sess., H.R. 5136; Senate, National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011, 111th Cong. 2d Sess., S. 3454.
On February 2, 2010, in testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, 

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced his intent to appoint this Comprehensive 

Review Working Group from within the Department of Defense to, as he put it, undertake 

a “review of the issues associated with properly implementing a repeal of the ‘Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell’ policy.”78 Our mandate from the Secretary was to “thoroughly, objectively and 

methodically examine all aspects of this question.”79

The Working Group was established on March 2, 2010. The Terms of Reference issued 

to us by the Secretary were to:

1. Determine any impacts on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, 

recruiting, retention, and family readiness and recommend any actions that should 

be taken in light of such impacts.

2. Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new 

policies.

3. Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but 

not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, 

facilities, investigations, and benefits.

4. Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

5. Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to repeal 10 U.S.C. § 654 and 

proposals that may be introduced in the Congress during the period of this review.

6. Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness 

that support successful follow-through on implementation.

7. Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving 10 U.S.C. § 654.

The Secretary directed that we deliver the report with our assessment and 

recommendations, as well as a plan of action to support implementation of repeal, by 

December 1, 2010.

78 Senate Committee on Armed Services, Department of Defense Authorization for Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2011, and to 

Receive Testimony Relating to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Policy, 111th Cong. 2d Sess., 2010, 56.

79 See Appendix A.

29

III OUR MISSION
30

Underlying our nine-month assignment were two guiding principles. First, our 

review was to be wide-ranging and comprehensive, and include “active outreach” across the 

force. We were directed to “systematically engage” the force at all levels, which necessarily 

encompassed the large surveys of Service members and spouses, the numerous large-group 

information exchange forums, the smaller focus group sessions, the online inbox, and the 

confidential communication mechanism.

In addition, we were directed to solicit the views of military families as part of the 

review, because of the influence families play on a Service member’s decision to join, stay in, 

or leave the force.

Second, both the Secretary and we were mindful that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is, to 

many, an emotional, divisive, and political issue, and he directed us to conduct our review 

in a “professional, thorough and dispassionate manner,” and to “minimize disruption and 

polarization within the ranks.” In accordance with that, at the outset of our review, we 

directed Working Group members to leave their personal views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

at the door, and we abided by the same principle ourselves. In the course of our work, we 

studiously avoided soliciting Working Group members’ personal views about the issue.

30
The Working Group was composed of military and civilian personnel from across the 

Department of Defense and the Military Services. Of the 68 individuals associated with the 

Working Group, 49 were military, both officer and enlisted, and 19 were civilian personnel.80

Air Force Major General Gregory Biscone served as the Working Group’s chief of staff 

and coordinated its efforts. 

In addition, because an overwhelming majority of separations under Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell occurred among the enlisted force, we ensured that the Working Group consisted of a 

number of enlisted personnel, with Navy Fleet Master Chief Scott Benning serving as the 

senior enlisted advisor to the Working Group.

A majority of the Working Group’s members were assigned to four teams, each led 

jointly by a senior DoD civilian and a two- or three-star general or flag officer.

Survey Team. Led by Lieutenant General Richard Newton, Air Force Deputy Chief 

of Staff for Manpower and Personnel, and Mr. Karl Schneider, Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of the Army for Manpower & Reserve Affairs, this team oversaw the Working 

Group’s engagement of the force, including surveys of Service members and military 

spouses, the online inbox, and the confidential communication mechanism, and served as 

our primary interface with RAND.

Legislative, Regulatory, and Legal Team. Led by Mr. Paul Oostburg Sanz, General 

Counsel of the Navy and Major General Steve Lepper, Deputy Judge Advocate General of 

the Air Force, this team provided analysis of the various laws, policies, and regulations 

addressing homosexual conduct and status in the military and civilian life, and provided 

recommendations for changes to Federal law, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 

certain regulations should Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be repealed. This team also monitored and 

evaluated the legislation pending in Congress to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the ongoing 

litigation involving the issue.

Policy Team. Led by Mr. Daniel B. Ginsberg, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for 

Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Vice Admiral Mark Ferguson, Chief of Naval Personnel, and 

Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick, Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, this team produced 

recommended changes to policies that would be affected by a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

80 See Appendix B, “Comprehensive Review Working Group.”

31

IV OUR WORKING GROUP
32

Education and Training Team. Led by Lieutenant General Richard Zilmer, Deputy 

Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs of the Marine Corps and Mr. Joseph McDade, 

Jr., Army Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, this team provided recommendations 

for an education and training plan in the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

In the course of our review, the Working Group also provided regular reports to and 

was advised by an “Executive Committee” consisting of the Under Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness; the Under Secretaries and Vice Chiefs of the Army, Navy, and Air 

Force; the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Vice Commandant of the Coast 

Guard; the senior enlisted leader of each Service; and the Chief and senior enlisted advisor 

of the National Guard Bureau. 

Support for our work was provided by a number of DoD and Service agencies, including 

the Defense Manpower Data Center; the U.S. Army Research Institute for Behavioral and 

Social Sciences; the Navy Personnel Research Science and Technology Laboratory; the 

Army Personnel Survey Office; the Air Force Personnel Survey Office; the Defense Equal 

Opportunity Management Institute; CNA; the Office of the Department of Defense Historian; 

the Historians of the Army, Navy, and Air Force; the FBI Historian; the Armed Services 

Chaplains Board; the U.S. Military Academy (West Point); the U.S. Naval Academy; the U.S. 

Air Force Academy; the U.S. Coast Guard Academy; and the Surgeons General of the Army, 

Navy, and Air Force.

32
Systematic Engagement of the Force

The Secretary of Defense directed our Working Group to engage in a far-reaching 

effort unlike any other, to “systematically engage the force” about a repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell. In his initial written direction, the Secretary stated:

“To effectively accomplish this assessment, I believe it essential that the working 

group systematically engage the force. The participation of a range of age, 

rank and warfare communities in this study including families, in addition to 

active outreach across the force is a critical aspect that will undoubtedly lead to 

insights and recommendations essential to the Department’s implementation 

of any change.”81

To accomplish this goal, the Working Group solicited the views of Service members and 

their families through a variety of means:

Information Exchange Forums. The Working Group conducted 95 “information 

exchange forums” (IEFs) at 51 separate installations with a total of about 24,000 active duty, 

guard and reserve Service members. These IEFs typically ranged in size from 150–300 

military personnel who, in almost all cases, were assigned to attend by the base or installation 

leadership. Smaller IEFs were conducted with military spouses at most installations visited. 

We attended many of the IEFs personally and led the discussions, others were led by other 

members of the Working Group leadership, generally two team leads and one senior enlisted 

leader. With very few exceptions, we found the discussion at IEFs to be lively, frank, candid, 

and at times emotional, but always civil. IEFs were not open to the general public or 

media, but participants were advised at the outset of each IEF that information expressed 

at the sessions was not confidential. The following table lists the installations at where we 

conducted IEFs, in addition to an initial session we conducted at the Pentagon:

81 See Appendix A.

33

V OUR WORK
34

Table 1. Locations of Information Exchange Forums

Army Marine Corps Navy

For t Benning, GA

For t Hood, T X

For t Sam Houston, T X

For t Bragg, NC

For t Eustis, VA

For t Carson, CO

Schofield Barracks, HI

For t Shafter, HI

Baumholder, Germany

Stuttgar t, Germany

Camp Lejeune, NC

Parris Island, SC

MC Air Station Miramar, CA

MC Recruit Depot San Diego, 

 CA

Camp Pendleton, CA

MCBH Kaneohe Bay, HI

MCB Okinawa, Japan

NAB Little Creek, VA

Nor folk Naval Station, VA

Naval Station San Diego, CA

Por t Hueneme, CA

NAS Nor th Island, CA

Naval Station Pearl Harbor, HI

Naples, Italy

Yokosuka NB, Japan

Air Force Coast Guard Reserve Components

Lackland AFB, T X

Randolph AFB, T X

Langley AFB, VA

Buckley AFB, CO

U.S. Air Force Academy, CO

Peterson AFB, CO

Hickam AFB, HI

Ramstein AB, Germany

Yokota AB, Japan

Sand Island, HI

Staten Island, NY

Coast Guard Headquar ters, 

 DC

Arlington Hall Readiness 

 Center, VA

Nor folk Reser ve Center, VA

March AFB, CA

Andrews AFB, MD

Little Rock, AR

MC Reser ve Training Center 

 Chicago, IL

MC Reser ve Training Center 

 Madison, WI

Hickam Reser ve Center, HI

Naval Operations Suppor t 

 Center Great Lakes, IL

U.S. Army Reser ve Center 

 Honolulu, HI

Air Force Reser ve Center, HI

Air National Guard Center, HI

Army National Guard Center, HI

Note: Locations of IEFs are listed according to the Service that had responsibity for the visit; however, most 

IEFs were attended by personnel from various Services and components.

At the Secretary’s direction, IEFs were not conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan to avoid 

interference with the missions there. However, at installations such as Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, 

Fort Benning, Camp Lejeune, and elsewhere, we encountered large numbers of Service members 

who had deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan one or more times, or were preparing to deploy. These 

Service members shared their perspectives concerning the impact of repeal in combat situations 

and deployed environments.

Focus Groups. Typically, as a follow-on to each IEF, the Working Group held focus groups 

in smaller sessions of 9–12 Service members each (and sometimes family members)—140 in 

all—intended to understand the views of the military community in a more intimate and relaxed 
35

setting. Trained discussion facilitators from Westat led the focus group sessions. All focus 

group attendees were told their participation was voluntary and they could leave at any time. 

Focus group attendees were also asked to honor a request for non-attribution of all comments 

made during the discussions, but attendees were also told that the confidentiality of comments 

made in focus groups could not be guaranteed. Similarly, at many installations, we and other 

senior members of the Working Group conducted small and informal leadership discussion 

groups with general and flag officers and senior enlisted Service members.

Online Inbox. The Working Group established this mechanism to allow all Service 

members and their families to anonymously express their views to the Working Group through a 

website accessible with a Common Access Card (CAC). Access to the online inbox was restricted 

to CAC holders to help ensure that comments were entered only by Service members. The 

Working Group also encouraged Service members to input comments provided by their family. 

To ensure the comments we received did not include identifying information (other than rank 

and Service), the Working Group contracted with the Data Recognition Corporation to redact 

names, units, and other similar information prior to providing the comments to the Working 

Group. In all, the Working Group received 72,384 total comments about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

via the online inbox, with 98% (70,732) of these comments from Service members. Among 

Service member comments, 70% were from the enlisted ranks. Of those Service members who 

contributed to the online inbox, the breakdown among the Services and grade is given in the 

figure below:

Figure 4. Distribution of Service Member 

Comments to Online Inbox by Service and Grade

Online Inbox Contribution By Service

Warrant Officer

Officer

Mid/Senior Enlisted (E4 TO E9)

Jr. Enlisted (E1 to E3)

Online Inbox Contribution By Grade

Online Inbox Contribution By Service

28% 

36% 

13% 

63% 

2% 

7% 

Coast Guard 

Marine Corps

Air Force

Navy

Army

29% 

4% 

18% 

Online Inbox Contribution By Grade

Warrant Officer

Officer

Mid/Senior Enlisted (E4 TO E9)

Jr. Enlisted (E1 to E3)

Online Inbox Contribution By Grade

Online Inbox Contribution By Service

28% 

36% 

13% 

63% 

2% 

7% 

Coast Guard 

Marine Corps

Air Force

Navy

Army

29% 

4% 

18% 
36

Service Members’ Survey. To conduct a large-scale survey of Service members, we 

retained the Westat Corporation. Westat has regularly provided research services to agencies 

of the U.S. Government, as well as businesses, foundations, and state and local governments 

since 1963. Westat has a long track record of studies that support the military’s human 

resource needs—particularly in the areas of personnel recruitment and retention, quality of 

life, and programs for military members and their families. The results of these studies are 

used to shape many of the human resources policies and practices of the Military Services.

The Service member survey was developed by representatives from the Working 

Group, Westat, the Defense Manpower Data Center, and the Services’ survey offices. The 

survey questions were devised to address each area of the Terms of Reference, as well as 

additional topics of concern (e.g., privacy) that were identified through our IEFs and other 

engagements with the forces.

Once drafted, questions were subjected to multiple rounds of review and scrutiny 

beginning with survey experts from the Military Services, the Defense Manpower Data 

Center, and the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. Prior 

to release, the Army, Navy, and Air Force Chiefs of Staff, the Commandants of the Marine 

Corps and Coast Guard all had an opportunity to review and comment upon the survey 

questions.

Initially, the Working Group intended to solicit 200,000 active duty and reserve 

component Service members to participate in the survey. At the direction of the Secretary 

of Defense in May, the Working Group doubled the intended number of recipients to 400,000. 

Service members solicited to complete the survey were selected at random according to 

standard practice used by the Defense Manpower Data Center to sample the population. 

Service members were sampled according to military Service, active/reserve components, 

pay grade, military occupation, deployment status, location, gender, and family status. The 

sampling plan also called for an oversampling of certain sub-groups (e.g., enlisted Service 

members at the grade of E1–E3) who in recent DoD surveys tended to have lower response 

rates than the overall military population. This combination of stratification and selected 

oversampling was intended to ensure that survey responses were as representative of the 

force as possible.

The 103-question web-based survey was designed to take approximately 30 minutes to 

complete. The survey was released on July 7, 2010, and was available online through August 

15, 2010. Service members chosen for the survey received a letter explaining the purpose of 

the survey, along with a unique PIN for accessing the survey. Survey invitations were sent 

to Service members via e-mail, and the participants responded to the survey online. Westat 

sent five reminder notices to Service members; two of the notices were sent by both e-mail 

and U.S. mail, and the other three reminders were sent by e-mail only.
37

In all, we received 115,052 responses (28% of those solicited)—making this one of the 

largest surveys ever within the U.S. military. The percent of Service members who received 

the survey and responded82 by Service were:

  Army – 19% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded, 22% for the 

Army National Guard, and 25% for U.S. Army Reserve

  Marine Corps – 29% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 20% 

for the Marine Corps Reserve

  Navy – 28% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 33% for the 

U.S. Navy Reserve

  Air Force – 39% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded, 38% for Air 

Force National Guard, and 39% for the Air Force Reserve

  Coast Guard – 54% of active duty personnel who received the survey responded and 39% 

for Coast Guard Reserve.

The response rate for this survey, as a whole and by Service, was in-line with typical 

response rates for surveys within the Department of Defense. Since 2008, DMDC’s Status 

of Forces Survey (SOFS) program, which features the most comparable methodology to the 

Service member and spouse surveys (web administration with postal and e-mail notifications 

and reminders), has seen response rates of 29–32% for Active Duty Service members, and 

25–29% for Reservists.83

To offer perspective on the scope and representative accuracy of the survey results, 

we note that recent Gallup polls of national opinion have surveyed 1,021 respondents to 

achieve a ±4% margin of error;84 and 2,240, to achieve a ±2% margin of error,85 with 95% 

confidence that the results represent the views of the targeted U.S. adult population of more 

than 227 million.86 In comparison, the Service member survey received responses from 

a significantly larger number of respondents (more than 115,000), representing a much 

smaller target active duty and reserve (including Coast Guard) population of around 2.2 

million.87 The number of responses to the Service member survey reduced the margin of 

82 These are weighted response rates to reflect the intentional oversampling of certain low-response categories of Service 

members, such as junior enlisted, as described above. 29% is the overall unweighted response rate.

83 Defense Manpower Data Center, “DADT Response Rate Q&A” information paper, November 19, 2010, 1.

84 Gallup News Service, Gallup Poll Social Series: Health and Healthcare, November 17, 2010, accessed November 20, 2010, http://

www.gallup.com/poll/File/144779/Most_Urgent_Health_Prob_Nov_17_2010.pdf; Gallup News Service, Gallup Poll Social 

Series: Health and Healthcare, November 11, 2010, accessed November 20, 2010, http://www.gallup.com/poll/File/144425/

Congress_Approval_Nov_11_2010.pdf.

85 Gallup News Service, 2010 Final Mid-Term Election Poll, November 3, 2010, accessed November 20, 2010, http://www.gallup.com/

poll/File/144167/Priorities_for_Congress_Nov_3_2010.pdf; Gallup News Service, 2010 Final Mid-Term Election Poll, November 

1, 2010, accessed November 20, 2010, http://www.gallup.com/poll/File/144131/Final_Midterm_Election_Estimate%20_

Nov_1_2010.pdf.

86 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey: 3-Year Estimates: S0101 Age and Sex, accessed November 20, 2010.

87 Westat, vol. 1, 18, A1, A6.
38

error to less than ±1%, with a similar 95% level of confidence in the representative accuracy 

of the results. The spouse survey was similar.

Spouse Survey. We also surveyed the spouses of active duty and reserve component 

Service members. The spouse survey was, like the Service member survey, created through 

a joint effort between the Department of Defense and Westat. Questions for the survey were 

mainly taken from the Service member survey and existing DoD family readiness surveys. 

Other questions were developed based on issues raised by family members in IEFs and 

family focus groups. Through an iterative process between Westat and the Working Group, 

questions were edited, cut, and added in order to effectively assess spouses’ attitudes about 

the potential impact of repeal on recruiting, retention, and family readiness. Further drafts 

were reviewed by senior Service representatives and representatives from the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. The final draft was approved by 

the Working Group and Westat, after taking into account comments from the Services and 

Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

The final spouse survey included 43 questions and was expected to take 15–20 minutes 

to complete. In all, 150,186 spouses of Service members were solicited to respond to the 

survey, randomly selected from a DoD database and chosen for the purposes of obtaining a 

statistically representative sample.

The spouse survey was sent out via postal mail on August 13, 2010, and responses 

were accepted until September 26, 2010. Westat sent two reminder notices to spouse 

non-respondents, followed by a second survey and a final reminder. In addition, the U.S. 

Coast Guard sent a separate communication encouraging participation in the spouse survey. 

In all, we received 44,266 responses to the spouse survey, or 30% of those solicited.

Confidential Communication Mechanism. At the outset of this review, we recognized 

that some Service members, particularly those who are gay or lesbian, would want a means 

of communicating their thoughts and concerns about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the Working 

Group in an anonymous and confidential manner. We also recognized that the viewpoints 

of current Service members who are gay or lesbian would be important to obtain as part 

of this review, but that the Working Group’s ability to do so was constrained by current 

law and policy. To meet this need, the Working Group directed the Westat Corporation to 

design, implement, and manage a confidential communication mechanism to engage Service 

members, including gay and lesbian Service members, in a live interactive online exchange.

These confidential dialogues offered the opportunity for Service members to engage 

in confidential online discussions with Westat moderators. Service members were provided 

a PIN to allow them to use the confidential communication mechanism on a non-government 

computer and in a place of their choosing. Like the Service member survey, the confidential 

communication mechanism was open from July 7, 2010, through August 15, 2010. The 

Working Group ensured that the online confidential communication mechanism was 

accessible from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Eastern time, seven days a week, to enable Service 
39

members around the world to utilize it. After conducting an online dialogue, Westat analysts 

removed information that could be used to personally identify the Service member.

In all, 2,691 Service members and family members made use of the confidential 

communication mechanism to communicate with Westat, including 296 who self-identified 

as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

Confidentiality. In order to protect the confidentiality of individuals who utilized the 

confidential communication mechanism, Westat obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality 

from the Department of Health and Human Services. This Certificate also covered other 

aspects of Westat’s work including the Service member and spouse surveys, and family 

focus groups. With the Certificate, issued in accordance with section 201(d) of the Public 

Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 241(d), Westat cannot be compelled to release the identities 

or identifying characteristics of participants in the surveys, confidential communication 

mechanism, or family focus groups to Federal, state, or local authorities. Users of the 

confidential communication mechanism were informed of the Certification of Confidentiality 

and were told that Westat would not disclose their identity unless a participant provided 

consent for release of that information or Westat discovered that a participant planned harm 

against him or herself or another. We are confident that these confidentiality protections 

helped ensure that gay and lesbian Service members were able to discuss the issues related 

to their service in the military fully and candidly, without fear that the information they 

revealed might generate an investigation or discharge under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Research

The Working Group also turned to a number of academic and research sources, both 

inside and outside the Department of Defense, to obtain insight in the issues associated with 

a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

The Working Group actively engaged with scholars from each of the Service academies. 

Faculty and researchers at the academies drafted white papers that included useful research 

and guidance on issues related to repeal. The West Point paper addressed the issue of repeal 

from a variety of disciplines, including philosophy and ethics, organizational behavior, 

psychology, sociology, and management. The Air Force Academy paper built on the solid 

base provided by the West Point paper and extended the discussion into implications for 

implementation. The Naval Academy paper discussed diversity implications for repeal and 

provided suggestions for potential implementation. An important contribution of the Coast 

Guard Academy white paper was a thoughtful discussion of the religious and moral issues 

related to Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law.

The Working Group consulted historians from the Department of Defense and the 

Services, who provided historical insights on topics such as the past usage of surveys in 
40

military personnel studies and the experience of the U.S. military with racial and gender 

integration.

The Working Group hosted meetings with faculty, scholars, and researchers from the 

academies, war colleges, research laboratories, and civilian academia with expertise related 

to military personnel matters, organizational change management, and other relevant issues.

Key Engagements

Consistent with our Terms of Reference, the Working Group engaged a large number 

of interested and relevant organizations for their advice and viewpoints, including those who 

are prominent advocates for and against the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. These meetings 

spanned nearly the entire period of our review, beginning with an initial round of meetings, 

at our invitation, not long after the Working Group was first stood up. The advocacy groups 

and organizations with which we met included:

  Alliance Defense Fund

  Center for American Progress

  Center for Military Readiness

  Center for Security Policy

  Family Research Council

  Focus on the Family

  Heritage Foundation

  Human Rights Campaign

  Liberty Counsel

  OutServe

  Palm Center for the Study of Sexuality in the Military

  Service Members Legal Defense Network

  SLDN Military Outreach Committee

  Service Members United

  USMA Knights Out

We attended most of these meetings personally. We learned much from these 

organizations, and appreciated the many diverse views provided. These views did much 

to inform the assessments and recommendations in this report. (These meetings with 

the Working Group, however, should in no way be interpreted as participation by these 
41

organizations in the Working Group, or endorsement by them of the Working Group or our 

assessments and recommendations.)

On September 16, 2010, the Working Group met with 15 same-sex partners of gay and 

lesbian current Service members to hear their viewpoints and experiences.

The Working Group consulted current and former military chaplains in groups 

and individually, on several occasions. We also personally met with the four heads of the 

Services’ chaplains corps to solicit their views on the impact of repeal. These chaplains were 

drawn from the full spectrum of religious affiliations, all Military Services, and included 

junior, mid-level, and senior chaplains. In addition, the Working Group consulted the 

chaplains’ endorsing organizations. At present, there are 202 religious organizations that 

serve as endorsing agencies for chaplains in the U.S. military. Through the auspices of the 

Armed Forces Chaplain’s Board, the Working Group requested input from all 202 of these 

endorsing agencies concerning the effect repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may have on the 

ministry of the chaplains they endorse. The Working Group received replies from 77 of these 

endorsing organizations. Several other religious organizations, including, for example, the 

Catholic League and the North Carolina Conference of Methodist Church Youth, submitted 

unsolicited input, opinion, and documents for the Working Group’s consideration.

We personally met with the Service Surgeons General and discussed medical issues 

associated with repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, such as safety concerns about the blood 

supply. Additionally, the Working Group reached out to the:

  American Medical Association

  American Psychological Association

  Gay and Lesbian Medical Association

We solicited input from veteran and Military Service organizations. These 

organizations included:

  Air Force Association

  American Legion

  AMVETS

  Association of the U.S. Army

  Association of the U.S. Navy

  Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America

  Marine Corps League

  Military Families United
42

  Military Officers Association of America

  National Association for Uniformed Services

  National Guard Association of the United States

  National Military Family Association

  Non Commissioned Officers Association

  Reserve Officers Association

  Service Women’s Action Network

  Student Veterans of America

  Veterans of Foreign Wars

  Veterans and Military Families for Progress

  Vietnam Veterans of America

  VoteVets

We met with representatives from these veteran and Military Service organizations 

during March, April, and May. These groups also provided information and other written 

materials to the Working Group, including surveys, public statements, policy analysis, and 

testimony. (As above, these meetings did not constitute formal participation in or endorsement 

of the Working Group process.) Additionally, we met personally with a number of gay and 

lesbian veterans arranged by the Human Rights Campaign, Servicemembers’ Legal Defense 

Network’s Military Outreach Committee and by Servicemembers United.

Finally, we personally visited with and solicited the views of several members of 

Congress and their staffs.

Overall, the Working Group accepted information from these organizations and any 

others who offered input.

Engagement with Foreign Militaries

In order to understand the experiences of foreign militaries with the integration of gay 

and lesbian personnel, the Working Group contacted representatives of all nations who are 

members of NATO and those nations that contribute to the International Security Assistance 

Force - Afghanistan, to obtain information on those nations’ policies regarding gay and 

lesbian Service members. General Ham had a number of conversations with counterparts 

in the European and Israeli militaries. At a conference with his counterparts from the 

United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Australia, Denmark, and the Netherlands, Mr. Johnson 

solicited their views and experiences. On May 19, 2010, members of the Working Group 

attended a conference held at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C. and hosted by 

the Century Defense Initiative at Brookings and the Palm Center. Senior military officers 
43

and experts from Australia, Britain, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, and Sweden discussed 

their experiences with implementing policy changes related to the open service of gay and 

lesbian Service members in their countries.

The Working Group sought additional, detailed information from the United Kingdom, 

Canada, and Australia in particular, regarding their transition experiences, implementation 

plans, and lessons learned.

RAND Study Update

As directed by Secretary Gates in the Terms of Reference, the Working Group 

engaged RAND to update its 1993 study, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel 

Policy. RAND’s update provided us with an additional source of input for our assessment 

and recommendations. For its updated study, RAND’s research centered on the following 

nine areas:

Foreign Militaries. RAND examined the experiences of selected foreign governments 

that have changed or are considering changing their policies to allow openly gay and lesbian 

personnel to serve in their militaries. The RAND analysis focused on the following seven 

countries: Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, and Australia.

Police and Fire Departments and Other Government Organizations. RAND visited 

domestic police and fire departments and other domestic governmental organizations that 

have dealt with the issue of integrating gay men and lesbians into their workforces. RAND 

collected information from 10 police and fire departments, as well as the FBI, CIA, U.S. 

Agency for International Development, and State Department.

Recruiting and Retention. RAND researched recruiting and retention since its 1993 

study and assessed the factors associated with attitudes towards gay men and lesbians in 

the general population. First, they reviewed recent major studies of the determinants of 

enlistments and reenlistments and drew from that literature and other available data to 

describe important trends in these determinants since 1993. Second, they assessed the 

possible effects of repeal on recruiting and retention by looking at youth survey data and the 

relevant results from the Working Group’s Service member survey.

Military Focus Groups. RAND conducted 22 focus groups with Service members at 

10 military bases across the country.

Survey of Serving Gay Men and Lesbians. RAND conducted a limited survey designed 

to gather information on how gay men and lesbians manage their identity in military units 

and how that might change if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. RAND adopted a “peer-topeer recruitment” approach to conduct its survey. This approach is based on the assumption 

that there are existing networks of gay and lesbian Service members who are known to 
44

each other. RAND fielded the survey through the Internet, and using this approach, RAND 

reached 208 self-identified gay and lesbian current Service members.

Unit Cohesion and Performance. RAND updated its 1993 report with new research 

on unit cohesion and performance conducted since 1993.

Homosexual Identity and Behavior. RAND updated its 1993 report with new data 

on the prevalence of homosexuality in the general population and the military. RAND 

also provided updated research on sexual orientation, sexual behavior, and gay and lesbian 

individual behavior with regard to disclosing their sexual identity. In addition, RAND 

updated its research on the epidemiology of HIV and other health issues within the gay and 

lesbian population.

Developments in Policy and Public Opinion Since Passage of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell. RAND examined significant events and developments in U.S. military personnel 

policy regarding sexual orientation since 1993. In addition, RAND overviewed changes in 

public opinion regarding the ability of gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military.

Implementation. RAND conducted a literature review and engaged in focused field 

observations on how organizations have changed policies concerning sexual orientation in 

the workplace and in other relevant contexts, such as college housing.

RAND’s updated report served as an additional independent input to our assessment 

and recommendations, and not as a stand-alone assessment. In many areas, RAND’s 

work overlapped with the Working Group review, while in some areas, they provided new 

information for our consideration.

Legal and Policy Review

The Working Group identified a number of issues areas that merited a review of 

existing policies and consideration of possible policy modifications in the event of repeal. 

These issue areas were identified in large part from what the Working Group learned in 

our engagements with the force, in addition to those areas specifically listed in the Terms of 

Reference. Among the issue areas considered by the Working Group were equal opportunity 

policy; collection and maintenance of data based on sexual orientation; standards of conduct; 

changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Manual for Courts-Martial; privacy 

and cohabitation; benefits; duty assignments; medical policies; re-accession of prior Service 

members; moral and religious concerns; and release from service commitments.

For each of these issue areas, and others, the Working Group reviewed the relevant 

laws, regulations, and Department of Defense and Service policies and issuances (directives, 

instructions, and memoranda) and evaluated various policy options. The Working Group’s 

work, in doing so, was extensive. For instance, the Working Group issued a data call to the 
45

Services, in response to which the Services submitted 1,007 documents. These documents 

were integrated in the Working Group’s policy analysis. To understand issues related to 

stationing gay and lesbian Service members and their families overseas, the Working Group 

compiled and analyzed over 320 Status of Forces Agreements and their amendments, 

researched the laws and policies regarding homosexuality of 194 countries, and interviewed 

21 legal scholars from foreign nations. The Working Group examined data from the Centers 

for Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services, solicited input 

from medical personnel across the Services, to include the Services Surgeons General, 

and consulted with medical experts from the American Psychological Association and the 

American Medical Association. When delving into the benefits issue, the Working Group 

examined the applicability of 126 military and veterans benefits to same-sex partners and 

their children that are codified in several hundred enumerated statutes within Titles 10, 37, 

and 38 of the United States Code. The Working Group conducted a comparative analysis 

of the laws and policies of all 50 states to understand family law issues, litigation trends 

under state constitutional rights regarding employment and housing discrimination, and 

the interrelation and impact of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Working Group reviewed 

and considered the scores of reports, articles, and research studies received from external 

advocacy groups and organizations.

Based on this extensive research and policy analysis, input from our engagements 

with the force, and consultation with policy subject matter experts, the Working Group 

developed a range of potential courses of action for each issue area. The Working Group 

then provided these policy options and recommended approach to the Executive Committee 

for their thoughts and insights into how the Department of Defense should proceed in these 

areas in the event of repeal. Comments from the Executive Committee informed our ultimate 

recommendations on these issues, which are summarized in section XIII of this report.

Leadership, Education, and Training

The Working Group worked with the Services’ training experts, Service academy 

staff, and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute to define education and 

training requirements in the event of repeal and to develop leadership, education, and 

training guidance and tools. The following principles guided the Working Group’s approach: 

1) education and training requirements should provide the Services discretion in how they 

will implement repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell consistent with their unique service cultures, 

2) education and training products should be simple and should target education and 

communication efforts that will assist leaders in successful implementation with minimal 

impact on the force, and 3) education and training implementation should leverage existing 

programs rather than creating new, stand-alone requirements.

Beginning in May 2010, the Working Group met with Service Headquarters Education 

and Training Directorates to gain Service perspectives about education and training guidance 

and products. The Working Group later undertook leadership engagement visits to the Service 

Training and Education Commands. Between May and October, the Working Group also 
46

conducted a series of monthly conferences with the Service Training Commands, Service 

academies, Professional Military Schools, and the Defense Equal Opportunity Management 

Institute to identify suggested communication, education, and training requirements and 

content. These meetings utilized the expertise of all the Services in the development of 

recommended education and training products. Each of these conferences had specific 

themes which corresponded with the progression of policy issues and with the development 

of various leadership, education, and training products. Many of these products are included 

in the support plan for implementation, published as a companion document to this report.

Panel Assessment

To assist us in our overall assessment, we convened a panel to assess impact of repeal 

on the areas specified in the Terms of Reference. This panel was made up of subject matter 

experts and Service members representing a range of Service, rank, and warfare communities. 

The panel reviewed all of the material relevant to each assessment area: military readiness, 

unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. Information 

and data for this assessment was derived from the Working Group’s systematic engagement 

of the force and their families, input from interested and relevant organizations, scholarly 

work of civilian and military researchers, experiences of foreign militaries and domestic 

organizations with similarities to the military, and the historic record of racial and gender 

integration in the U.S. military. The assessment panel was aided by staff from the Joint 

Staff, J-8, and used a standard decision support process recommended by them. After 

coming to a numeric assessment of risk within each area, the panel considered the various 

policy, legal, and training and education recommendations that were intended to mitigate 

impacts within each assessment area and then developed a final assessment of risk. A more 

detailed discussion of the assessment approach and the results of the panel’s assessment can 

be found in section XI of this report.

Fiscal Assessment

The Working Group identified areas for which a repeal would likely result in 

implementation costs, based on the assessment and implementation of recommendations 

contained in this report. These net costs were estimated with a rough order of 

magnitude. The costs included the extension of certain benefits and support resources to 

a “member-designated” status, minor privacy-related modifications to a limited number of 

existing facilities, execution and administration of education and training programs for the 

force, and potential impacts on recruiting and retention. The Working Group also identified 

areas of cost avoidance stemming from the fact that, in the event of repeal, Service members 

would no longer be discharged on the basis of homosexual conduct. Savings would be 

derived by avoiding the need to recruit and to train Service members to replace those 

separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
47

Service Review

After completion of the policy review and development of policy recommendations, 

the Working Group also visited the Service war colleges and non-commissioned officer 

academies to hold discussion panels with selected students. These institutions included the 

National Defense University, Army War College, Naval War College, Air War College, and 

U.S. Marine Corps War College, as well as U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, Air Force 

Senior Noncommissioned Officer Academy, and U.S. Navy Senior Enlisted Academy. At these 

panels, Working Group members discussed preliminary findings and recommendations to 

obtain feedback and insight from these current and future leaders.

In addition, as directed, we provided the Military Department Secretaries and Service 

Chiefs with a near-final version of our report for review and comment. The Secretaries and 

Chiefs provided us with extensive and insightful comments, as well as their perspectives 

on Service-level impacts, which helped inform our assessment and recommendations and 

contoured the final version of this report.
48
The Secretary of Defense directed a far-reaching effort to “systematically engage 

the force” about a potential repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As described in section V, the 

Working Group received survey responses from 115,052 Service members and 44,266 

military spouses. Ninety-five information exchange forums were conducted with over 24,000 

Service members, 140 smaller focus group sessions with a total of about 14,000 Service 

members, and received 72,384 online inbox entries. Westat engaged in interactive online 

confidential communications with 2,691 Service members, including 296 who self-identified 

as gay or lesbian. The Working Group also engaged in discussions with a variety of different 

foreign governments, interested groups, historians, academics, doctors, chaplains, lawyers, 

veterans, communities within the military, and members of Congress on this topic. We 

heard frank, strong, and sharply divergent views on this topic, but we were heartened that 

the conversation was civil and respectful.

For this section of the report, there is an important caveat. If the Working Group 

were to attempt to numerically divide the sentiments we heard expressed in IEFs, online 

inbox entries, focus groups, and confidential online communications between those who 

were for or against repeal of the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, our sense is that the 

majority of views expressed were against repeal of the current policy. However, any such 

effort to divide the sentiments into one camp or another would not have any quantitative 

value, and would be highly misleading and flawed. As we discovered from the survey results, 

the views voiced both for and against repeal in IEFs, online inbox entries, focus groups, and 

confidential communications were not representative of the force as a whole. The Service 

members we heard from through these mechanisms were those individuals who felt strongly 

enough and motivated enough to give voice to their views. Further, the Service members 

and spouses participating in IEFs, focus groups, the online inbox, and online confidential 

communication mechanism were not selected through a formal sampling process to ensure 

representativeness of the force. Many volunteered to participate, while others were asked 

by their local commands to participate. It is also true that Service members could make 

multiple inputs to the online inbox and online confidential communication mechanism.

The survey results, by contrast, were intended to and did capture the views of the 

force as a whole in an analytically sound and objective manner, and were representative 

across every component of the force.88

88 Westat, vol. 1, A1–A9.

49

VI WHAT WE HEARD
50

But, through the large numbers of Service members we heard from in IEFs, focus 

groups, online inbox entries, and confidential communications, a consistent list of concerns, 

observations, and arguments for and against the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy emerged. 

This list informs both our assessment and our set of recommendations in this report. In 

other words, the information obtained through these mechanisms is of qualitative, but not 

quantitative, value. The surveys are the instruments designed to provide data of quantitative 

value.

What follows is selection of unvarnished comments89 representative of themes that 

we commonly and consistently heard from the force in IEFs, focus groups, online inbox 

comments, and online confidential communication mechanism. Although the Working 

Group did not ask Service members whether the law should be repealed, the vast majority 

of Service members offered views on just that. As such, we divide the list into two basic 

categories: views in support of and against the current policy. Again, this list informs our 

assessment and the set of recommendations that follow in this report.

Views in Support of Current Policy

Privacy; Unwanted Advances. This concern was typically on the top of the list, the 

most prevalent in our discussions. In sum, Service members acknowledge the likelihood 

that they have already had the experience of being in close proximity to someone else in 

the military who is gay, but they were concerned about sharing bathroom facilities, living 

quarters, or berthing arrangements with someone they “know” to be gay. Many Service 

members raised the possibility that a third and possibly fourth category of bathroom 

facilities for gay and lesbian Service members would be necessary if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell 

were repealed.

“I live in the barracks and I don’t think that it would go over well in that kind of 

environment. I’m concerned about how people would treat that individual.”90

“In the privacy side of the thing, they’ll have to make some changes to the 

current infrastructure, [for example] privacy stalls in the bathrooms.”91

“I do not have to shower or sleep in a room with men so I do not want to 

shower or sleep in the same room as a woman who is homosexual. I would feel 

uncomfortable changing and sleeping as I would if it was a man in the room. 

I should not have to accept this.”92

89 Some quotes in this report have been corrected for typographical errors and minor misspellings. In no case has the substance 

or content of the quote been altered.

90 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

91 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

92 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
51

“Tell him if he hits on me I will kick his - - -!”93

Overall Effects on Unit Cohesion. Many Service members expressed concern that 

repeal would hurt unit cohesion. Specific concerns included erosion of trust and caring 

between unit members, a decrease in socializing both on- and off-duty, and discomfort with 

working and fighting alongside someone who may be sexually attracted to them.

“I cannot rely on someone who I don’t feel comfortable with, nor can they trust 

me. A lack of trust turns into a lack of cohesion which eventually leads to 

mission failure.”94

“I think removing the ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy will cause a negative effect. 

I believe it will cause more tension and isolation in workcenters. Causing 

workflow to decrease and attitudes of tension and conflict to arise.”95

“It will be difficult to relate to new members. You just can’t show them around. 

Can’t take them out to a bar. It is tough to relate on a one on one basis.”96

“It will be detrimental to unit cohesion. They (the gay people) will be separated 

and will feel left out. Those who are openly gay will be excluded from social 

functions, such as barbeques. This, in turn, will result in people feeling bad, 

left-out or upset.”97

Religious and Moral Issues. Many Service members expressed strong religious and 

moral objections to homosexuality. These Service members worried that repeal would mean 

the end of their personal religious freedoms or a censorship of their religious views. Others 

questioned how religious beliefs would impact retention and whether military members 

would leave the military as a result of repeal.

“For me personally, it’s morally wrong and socially unacceptable.”98

“People might separate voluntarily. That’s going to be detrimental to the 

government. I do my job, I know they’re here, but some people like myself have 

a problem if they come out. You can’t question my morals, you can’t make me 

stay.”99

93 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

94 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

95 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

96 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

97 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

98 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

99 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
52

“The problem is dealing with people’s background or moral teachings and 

there are a percentage of Marines who have a religious basis for being against 

homosexuality, and you cannot ask or force people to go against something 

that have been taught.”100

“...homosexuality is morally offensive. Like adultery, and drug use, I can not 

tolerate homosexuality. I will not work side by side with someone that is an 

adulterer, a drug addict, or a homosexual.”101

“What would they [the DoD] do? Come out with a memo saying that the Bible, 

Koran, etc are wrong and that it is ok to be gay?”102

“If the state favors the demands of the homosexual activists over the First 

Amendment, it is only a matter of time before the military censors the religious 

expression of its chaplains and marginalizes denominations that teach what 

the Bible says about homosexual behavior.”103

“The law works; why change it?” Many Service members expressed this view about 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Others emphasized that their current units are effective and questioned 

how repeal would improve that performance. We also heard from those who believed the 

law actually protects gay men and lesbians from harassment or violence and keeps sexual 

orientation a personal and private matter.

“You don’t ask you don’t tell, you come to work and do your job. It is not broke 

so don’t fix it.”104

“Doesn’t DADT work, doesn’t it make sense? They can serve; just keep it to 

yourself.”105

“It is easier to live with speculation than confirmation.”106

“If you know for sure, it would freak people out more. There are rumors, but 

you never know. If it is out of sight it is out of mind, but once you know for sure 

that’s when people are freaked out.”107

100 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

101 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

102 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

103 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

104 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

105 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

106 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

107 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
53

“I strongly disagree with the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. I believe 

it will cause more conflict and more hazing among the military. It seems to be 

working perfectly as is.”108

“Why now? We are at war.” Service members also voiced concern about taking this 

issue up now. There was a worry that Service members already have a very full plate (or 

overflowing rucksack) and that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was just too much while 

fighting two wars.

“I believe this is not the time for us to make huge changes in the military. We 

are at war and our men and women overseas do not need any more distractions. 

This issue should be addressed at the appropriate time. That time is not now.”109

“I think there are times and places for everything. This is not that time when 

we are in two wars and money is an issue.”110

“The bottom line is the timing is wrong. We’re getting ready for another surge 

in Afghanistan, and it’s not the right time.”111

A number of Service members also believe repeal is politically motivated, driven by 

special interests. For example, a Service member told us that repeal was being driven by 

a “handful” of people who want to “push their agenda of trying to change society’s moral 

standards.”112 Another stated, “this isn’t about the military, this is politics.”113

Standards of Conduct. At almost every engagement, issues regarding standards of 

conduct were raised. Specific concerns were voiced about the possibility of unwanted sexual 

advances, violence erupting in reaction to repeal, and harassment. Some attendees said that 

they would find it difficult to witness public displays of affection between gay and lesbian 

Service members. Some Service members were troubled by the potential for flamboyant 

behavior and questioned whether “pink boas” would be authorized with uniforms.114

“A small part of the military will come out and affect the entire military. Good 

order and discipline will be affected by this.”115

“Some will be flamboyant; they might get a beating.”116

108 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

109 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

110 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

111 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

112 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

113 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

114 Service member, CRWG Information Exchange Forum, 2010.

115 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

116 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
54

“There needs to be protection on both sides. People get drunk and it’s a whole 

other thing. There’s the possibility of beating up gays, but there’s also the 

possibility of a gay guy making advances.”117

“They should just sustain the standard. I don’t like flamboyant queers.”118

“Flamboyant behavior by any members should not be allowed or tolerated.”119

Health Issues. Some Service members expressed concern that repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell would lead to increased risk of contracting HIV or other sexually transmitted 

diseases. Others had more general concerns about medical readiness and medical treatment 

of homosexuals or worries about battlefield transfusions.

“I think homosexual sex leads to diseases. There’s always a chance to getting 

what someone has.”120

“I think of the medical issues. The AIDS rate is running rampant in the gay 

community. When they go to medical will they be looked at different than 

a straight man? When you start looking at the statistics, they have more 

chance of getting an STD as well as other things. Doctors need to look at them 

differently from when I get checked. Another issue, when you fill out your form 

at the doctors they will need to ask ‘are you homosexual’ so they can look for 

different things.”121

“If you are in an infantry company in a fire fight, and you have an open 

homosexual who gets wounded, who is going to want to treat him for the fear 

of HIV and other stuff?”122

“Blood transfusions in battle zones, when lives are on the line can become a 

stress point.”123

Same-sex Partner Benefits. Service members and their families asked many 

questions about extending benefits to same-sex partners. Many cautioned that it would 

be unfair to treat same-sex partners differently than committed boyfriends or girlfriends 

of straight Service members. Others worried about the availability of resources to pay for 

benefits.

117 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

118 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

119 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

120 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

121 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

122 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

123 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.
55

“...I would have a problem giving their partners benefits. That would not be 

fair to heterosexuals who have live-in boyfriends and don’t get benefits.”124

“Allocation of resources is an issue. It’s a natural progression that benefits will 

be given to partners. It’s a financial stress on the system.”125

Creation of a New Protected Class. Service members questioned whether repeal would 

mean the creation of a new protected class like race or gender. Some were apprehensive that 

they could be forced to celebrate “gay pride week” or punished if they refused to socialize 

with gay and lesbian Service members.

“How far are we going to go with this whole gay thing? Am I supposed to 

celebrate gayness—do they get to wear a rainbow flag on their uniform? If that 

is the case, this uniform isn’t worth wearing.”126

“How will it fair for me to potentially decline social events with my gay boss 

or subordinates because of my religious beliefs? How do I host events without 

EO/IG complaints because I would not invite gay couples? My moral values 

cannot be compromised to support what I consider immoral behavior.”127

Erosion of Overall Standards Within the Military Community; Family Values.

Many expressed the view that the military is “the last moral institution in American,” that 

repeal of the policy will destroy that, and that the military should not be used for “social 

experimentation.”

“I believe that the impact would be devastating to me, my family, my unit, the 

military, our country and the world!”128

“People view the military as the last bastion of morals and what is good. If we 

break that down here, what does it boil down to? What’s left?”129

“The military shouldn’t be a testing ground for social experiments.”130

Participants frequently expressed concerns about living next door to a gay couple. 

Many were worried about how repeal would clash with the kinds of values they are trying 

to teach their children. In particular, they spoke about “exposing” their children to the “gay 

lifestyle.” They often voiced concerns about how that living situation would impact their 

124 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

125 Service member, CRWG Information Exchange Forum, 2010.

126 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

127 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

128 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

129 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

130 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
56

children. Others expressed a fondness for the military community because of the similarity 

in values and emphasis on family, and a fear that it will come to an end. Many of these 

concerns mirror concerns expressed in civilian society.

“I’m raising my family and was brought up a devout Catholic. Now all of a 

sudden Adam and Steve move in next door. I have to deal with that earlier, now 

with my kid.”131

“I won’t raise my kids in a neighborhood with a gay family.”132

One Service member thought some parents might not want their children socializing 

with children from gay families.133 Others focused more generally on not wanting to deal 

with having to explain homosexuality to their children if they saw a gay or lesbian couple.

“How can you attend a family meeting and have two guys holding hands there? 

What do you tell your kids?”134

“One of my main concerns should the law pass is preparing myself as a parent 

to explain the dynamics of a same sex couple/family. My son is far too young 

for me to explain this topic and would create confusion and pose questions that 

would place me and my spouse in a difficult spot.”135

“If repealed I would have to deal with it and so would my family but I would not 

attend (unless ordered to) any function where that particular lifestyle would be 

exhibited.”136

Views in Support of Repeal

“There are already gays and lesbians in the military.” Typically, between 60% and 

80% of Service members we talked to at information exchanges forums and small focus 

group discussions believed they had served alongside a gay or lesbian Service member. Many 

shared their belief that today the military performs its mission with gay men and lesbians 

and repeal would have no affect on performance—either personally or as a unit.

“We’ve all worked with homosexuals; what’s changed? The standards are the 

same.”137

131 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

132 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

133 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

134 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

135 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

136 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

137 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
57

“Everyone kind of knows if someone is gay. There is no impact on effectiveness.”138

“I have served with gays in the military and have found them to be of high 

caliber and encompassing all the Army values and performance standards. 

Performance has NEVER been an issue.”139

“There are already gay men and women serving with me...and it does not have 

an impact on how I do my job.”140

“In the unit that I am in now there are individuals that are homosexual. Of 

course they aren’t able to come out and say it but we know. I really don’t see an 

impact in my unit. We haven’t had any issues thus far and these soldiers have 

been deployed numerous times with the same people.”141

“I don’t care, as long as he can fight.” Other Service members stated they didn’t care 

about the whole debate over repeal; they only cared if their fellow unit members could work 

together to “get the job done.” What mattered to these Service members was a cohesive team 

that focused on the mission and a common enemy.

“All I care about is can you carry a gun, can you walk the post, as far as people 

in my unit.”142

“As a team or a corps, I am only as good as the rest of my team. Cohesion is 

the heart of the matter. Given a task, a homosexual and a heterosexual can 

probably accomplish it the same way, so it should not have too much of an 

effect on getting the task done.”143

“As Battalion Commander for a unit that recently completed 12-month 

combat deployment to Iraq, I can say unequivocally that gay/lesbian Soldiers 

are integrated across our force, at the lowest tactical levels, with no negative 

operational impacts. In fact, my unit was far better, particularly technically and 

from a leadership perspective, with these Soldiers in positions of operational 

and organizational significance.”144

“I think it’s morally wrong but as long as the mission gets done and done right, 

I wouldn’t have a problem with it.”145

138 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

139 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

140 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

141 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

142 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

143 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

144 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

145 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
58

“What does it matter if they can do the job if you are gay or straight?”146

“This is America.” Some Service members expressed a view that repeal is not only 

the “right thing” to do, but is one of the freedoms for which they fight and die. Others 

believed all Americans should have the right to serve their country, including gay men and 

lesbians:

“I believe that this policy/law change will only enhance who we are as a great 

nation. We claim to be free when other nations have already accepted this 

factor into their environment. This is only something that will help us promote 

peace and implement non-prejudicial acts rather than hatred.”147

“Gays and lesbians have been serving in the Armed Forces since the inception 

of our country. They love this country just as much as heterosexuals. They 

have been ‘outed’ while serving, humiliated in front of their peers, beaten up 

and given dishonorable discharges in the past (and even present day). This 

must end. This is NOT what our country is about.”148

“I love America for its tolerance. I am willing to be a KIA [Killed In Action] 

because I think America values equality and civil liberties. It would be great if 

the institution I served in mirrored exactly these ideals.”149

“We need everyone willing and able to serve.” Other Service members spoke of 

repeal in pragmatic terms and stated the military simply needs everyone who is willing 

and able to serve. Others expressed concern that we had degraded readiness by kicking out 

qualified and experienced warriors out of the military.

“Please repeal the act. We need all available men and women who are willing 

to serve their country, no matter what their sexual orientation is.”150

“As it is, there aren’t enough good people in the military, and we shouldn’t turn 

people away because of things they do in their private life.”151

“We have lost immeasurable talent and dedication with those discharged or 

never allowed to enter military service.”152

146 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

147 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

148 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

149 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

150 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

151 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

152 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.
59

“Times are changing.” Some Service members viewed the issue of repeal as a 

“generational” one with the younger generation being more accepting of open homosexuality. 

Cadets and midshipmen in particular told us that serving with a gay man or lesbian is “no 

big deal.”

“Kids growing up now, it is not a big deal. In this room the average age is 30. 

The values most of us were raised with are different. You look at younger guys 

born in the 80s, some of these guys their tolerance level is different than mine 

is.”153

“With the younger generation it may not be as big of a deal. The percentage is 

a lot higher with acceptance instead of 45 and older. The military population 

is conservative.”154

“Younger generations are more open. It’s more of the younger generation’s 

decision.”155

“There are kids in society who accept this type of thing now. It is not like when 

we were kids. They don’t have a problem with them [gay people].”156

“It won’t be such a big deal.” Some Service members expressed a view that repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would be a “non-event.” These members saw no realistic concerns 

over privacy. Some gay and lesbian Service members predicted repeal would have minimal 

impact because Service members may be reluctant to serve openly.

“There is no need for separate showers. People will get over it when people 

realize that they are not being hit on or approached in the shower.”157

“About separate facilities: we all went to college and stayed in dorms, we are 

all adult now and we have accepted it.”158

“I think if it is lifted not a lot of members will come out. They are your coworkers 

and things will stay where they are. If we didn’t know you were gay by now, it 

is unlikely that you will tell us.”159

 “We’ve done it before; we can do it again.” Some Service members pointed out that 

lessons learned from the racial and gender integration of the U.S. military apply to repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

153 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

154 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

155 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

156 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

157 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

158 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

159 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.
60

“This is not the first time we have had to tackle this issue. It was done before 

with two other groups of people; there were issues and problems that had to be 

overcome. This has happened before and will likely happen again. We have a 

blueprint on how to handle it—we handled it before, we’ll handle it again.”160

“It’s going to take time to get used to it. It took time to get used to women, 

African Americans. Any time there is a prejudice it takes generations to 

disappear. Some people will have issues, but as long as they are professional 

then it doesn’t matter.”161

“This is an equality issue, and who doesn’t deserve equal rights? We’ve done it 

before with African Americans, and we have done it before with females. We 

can do it again. As brothers and sisters in arms, we stand and fight not only for 

our country, but for one another.”162

“I recommend repeal of DADT and believe Service members will make it work, 

just as they made it work when laws were changed to allow non-whites and 

females to serve their nation honorably and with pride.”163

“Take a knife out of my back.” Gay and lesbian Service members shared with us 

through online inbox entries and confidential online communications how Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell places a heavy burden on their shoulders. They explained how repeal would mean 

the end of living a lie for them and their families. Gay and lesbian Service members also 

expressed how repeal would increase their personal effectiveness and promote unit cohesion, 

because they can now be honest with their fellow unit members.

“I doubt I would run down the street yelling ‘I’m out’; but it would take a knife 

out of my back I have had for a long time. You have no idea what it is like to 

have to serve in silence...”164

“It is hard to explain to a child why their parents can’t hold hands or attend 

school or unit functions together the way other families do. It also places a 

strain on my relationship when I am deployed since I am afraid that someone 

will find the picture I carry in my shirt pocket or find a letter from my family. 

It also makes it very difficult and uncomfortable to explain to someone why I 

wear a wedding ring since I am not married.”165

160 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

161 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

162 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

163 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

164 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

165 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.
61

“I deploy twice per year and sacrifice a lot of time away from my very legitimate 

family to serve this country. I have less than a handful of military friends 

because of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. If I invite someone to my home for a 

barbeque or any other activity that straight families take for granted, it makes 

my sexual orientation too obvious.”166

By and large, gay and lesbian Service members expressed the view that they would be 

relieved to no longer have to hide the existence of their partners and looked forward to the 

opportunity to share their work lives with their families.

“Every time there is a family event, there are people left out, because of who 

they are with; they are not allowed to bring their family with them. The fact 

that they are same sex does not negate the fact that they love and are proud of 

the support that their partner has given them, the same support that a wife or 

husband would give their spouse in the military. The conventional family is 

recognized and able to be thanked for their support, as every military member 

knows, we could not do what we do and go where we go without the support of 

our spouse or partner.”167

“We can do this; just provide clear guidance and strong leadership.” Many 

commanders and senior enlisted personnel simply expressed a desire in the case of repeal to 

receive clear guidance and leadership from the chain of command.

“I can’t pick and choose what I enforce; I have strong religious beliefs but I 

have to leave them behind and do my job; if I can’t do that, I’ve got to leave the 

Army.”168

“It is important to lead by example. Even if we disagree we have to follow 

rules.”169

“We must ensure we are ready for this change with the necessary policies 

and practices to provide a safe, tolerant, supportive environment for all who 

serve.”170

“In the military, you are given orders and you drive on. This policy needs to 

come from the top, with specific guidelines. Soldiers will then adapt, as they 

always do.”171

166 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

167 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

168 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

169 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

170 Service member, Online Inbox, 2010.

171 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.
62
In the previous section, we provided a sense of what we heard through our qualitative 

engagements with the force. In this section, we provide a summary of Service members’ 

responses to the quantitative tools used by the Working Group: the pair of surveys conducted 

by Westat. The Service members’ survey was one of the largest surveys in the history of the 

military, with 115,052 responses. In addition, we received 44,266 responses to the spouse 

survey. The results of these surveys constitute a significant component of our assessment.

We highlight here the responses to particular questions that we believe are 

representative of the overall picture. Appendix C of the report contains results for all of the 

questions on the Service member survey, with results broken down by Service; Appendix D 

of the report contains results for the spouse survey.172 There, we let the survey results speak 

for themselves. Before reviewing the survey highlights, we make several points:

First, we did not “poll” the military or conduct a referendum on the overall question of 

whether to repeal the current Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. That was not our mission, 

nor are military policy decisions made by referendum of Service members. Our primary 

mission was to assess the impact of a repeal, should it occur to military readiness, military 

effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. To accomplish that 

task we focused the survey on those topics.

Second, many of the survey questions were devised in response to concerns raised 

frequently by Service members in information exchange forums and focus group sessions. 

For example, the questions about privacy and living arrangements were asked in response to 

the concerns expressed by a large number of Service members in our discussions.

Third, as described in section V, the survey sample of Service members was designed 

to ensure adequate representation in terms of Service, active/reserve component, rank, and 

gender, among other factors. The overall sample was almost 400,000 Service members (split 

evenly among active duty and reserve component forces). The response rate for this survey 

(28% overall), as a whole and by Service, was typical for surveys within the Department of 

Defense.173 The survey sample of military spouses was similarly designed to ensure adequate 

representation in terms of Service and active/reserve component. The overall sample was 

just over 150,000 spouses (70,000 active duty and 80,000 reserve component). The response 

rate for the spouse survey (29% overall) was also typical for this type of survey within the 

military community.174 The results of each survey were “weighted,” consistent with industry 

172 The entirety of the survey results broken down by all subpopulations is contained in Volume 1 of the Westat Survey Report, 

published in conjunction with this report.

173 Defense Manpower Data Center, “DADT,” 1.

174 Defense Manpower Data Center, “DADT,” 1.

63

VII THE SURVEY RESULTS
64

standard practices, to more accurately reflect the make-up of the force by accounting for the 

intentional oversampling of certain low-response groups (e.g., junior enlisted). The 115,052 

responses to the Service member resulted in a margin of error of less than ±1%. The spouse 

survey margin of error was similar.

We highlight the following:

Impact of Repeal on Cohesion

The Service member survey asked a number of questions on Service members’ views 

about the effect of repeal on unit cohesion, including task and social cohesion. Task cohesion 

is a unit’s ability to work together effectively, whereas social cohesion is a unit’s ability to get 

along and trust one another. Overall, 70–76% of Service members said repeal would have 

a positive, a mixed, or no effect on aspects of task cohesion. Similarly, 67–78% of Service 

members said repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on aspects of social cohesion. 

Table 2 summarizes Service members’ responses to questions on aspects of task cohesion; 

Table 3 does so for questions on aspects of social cohesion.

Table 2. Service Members’ Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Task Cohesion

Question 68 & 69. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service 

member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect...

Task Cohesion

Positively / 

Very 

Positively

Equally 

Positively & 

Negatively

No Effect

Negatively 

/ Very 

Negatively

Question 68a. How Service 

members in your immediate 

unit work together to get the 

job done?

18.4 % 32.1% 19.9 % 29.6 %

Question 68b. How Service 

members in your immediate 

unit pull together to per form 

as a team?

19.4 % 31.8 % 19.3 % 29.5 %

Question 69c . The extent 

to which leaders in your 

immediate unit have the 

skills and abilities to lean 

unit members into combat?

19.4 % 32.7% 24.1% 23.9 %
65

Table 3. Service Members’ Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Social Cohesion

Question 68 & 69. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service 

member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect...

Social Cohesion

Positively / 

Very 

Positively

Equally 

Positively & 

Negatively

No Effect

Negatively 

/ Very 

Negatively

Question 68c . How Service 

members in your immediate 

unit trust each other?

18.1% 31.2 % 17.6 % 33.1%

Question 68d. How much 

Service members in your 

immediate unit really care 

about each other?

18.1% 33.6 % 18.4 % 30.0 %

Question 69a. The extent to 

which Service members in 

your immediate unit can get 

help from their leaders on 

personal problems

20.0 % 33.5 % 21.9 % 24.7%

Question 69b. The extent 

to which leaders in your 

immediate unit trust their 

unit members?

19.2 % 33.8 % 21.7% 25.4 %

Question 69d. The extent 

to which leaders in your 

immediate unit care about 

their unit members?

20.3 % 34.6 % 22.7% 22.4 %

Impact of Repeal on Unit Effectiveness

The survey also asked a number of questions in a variety of different ways to solicit 

views about the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on unit effectiveness and the overall 

ability to get the job done. Because not all Service members have the same experience with 

deployed or combat situations, the survey asked questions about unit effectiveness based on 

the experience each Service member said they had in different environments.

Service members without combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001, 

were asked how, if at all, repeal would affect their unit’s effectiveness at completing its 

mission “on a day-to-day” basis.” Almost 80% said repeal would have a positive, a mixed, or 

no effect.175 Service members with combat experience during this period were asked slightly 

different questions. When asked how, if at all, repeal would affect their unit’s effectiveness 

“in a field environment or out at sea,” 56% said it would have a positive, mixed, or no effect, 

and 44% said it would have a negative effect. However, when specifically asked about the 

175 Calculated as the sum of the responses “very positive,” “positive,” “no effect,” and “equally positive and negative effect.”
66

effect “in intense combat situations” or “when a crisis or negative event happens that affects 

your unit” the levels of those that predicted a negative effect went down—approximately 

30% said that repeal would have a negative effect, and approximately 70% said it would have 

a positive, mixed, or no effect on their unit’s effectiveness. Table 4 below summarizes these 

responses.

Table 4. Service Members’ Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Unit Effectiveness

Question 70 & 71. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service 

member in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it 

affect your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission...

Very Positive 

/ Positive

Equally 

Positive and 

Negative

No Effect

Very 

Negative / 

Negative

Question 70. Respondents without combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001

On a day-to-day basis 17.4 % 32.6 % 29.3 % 20.8 %

When a crisis or negative 

event happens that affects

your immediate unit

17.2 % 32.8 % 29.9 % 20.0 %

Question 71. Respondents with combat deployment experience since September 11, 2001

In a field environment or 

out at sea 11.4 % 25.8 % 18.6 % 44.3 %

When a crisis or negative 

event happens that af fects 

your immediate unit

12.5 % 33.3 % 24.7% 29.4 %

In an intense combat 

situation 12.4 % 31.4 % 25.6 % 30.6 %

Note: Question 70 was asked only of Service members who have never been deployed or who have not been 

deployed into a combat environment since September 11, 2001. Question 71 was asked only of Service 

members who have been deployed into a combat environment since September 11, 2001.

Privacy/Living Arrangements

Given the large number of Service members who raised privacy issues in large group 

and focus group sessions, the survey devoted a number of questions in the survey to privacy 

concerns—in particular, bathroom facilities and living and berthing arrangements—to 

gauge how Service members thought they would handle these issues if repeal occurred. 

These questions were also asked in order to understand more fully potential impacts on 

social cohesion within a unit.
67

In general, when it came to bathrooms with open bay showers, almost a third (29%) 

of Service members said they would do nothing different in the event of repeal; 11% said 

they would address the matter directly with the gay or lesbian Service member; and 26% 

said they would take a shower at a different time. Meanwhile, 19% said they would seek 

guidance from a chaplain, mentor, or leader, and 7% said they would do “something else.” 

(See Table 5.) Service members responded similarly when asked about living and berthing 

arrangements. (See Table 6.) Service members that answered that they would do “something 

else” to either question were given the opportunity to describe in their own words what they 

would do; less than 0.1% of all Service members indicated that violence of any kind might 

occur.176

Table 5. Service Members’ Likely Actions if Assigned to Share Open Bay Shower 

Facilities With a Gay or Lesbian Service Member

Question 90. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities 

with an open bay shower that someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member also 

used, which are you most likely to do?

Overall

Take no action 29.4 %

Use the shower at a dif ferent time than the Service member I thought to be 

gay or lesbian 25.8 %

Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves 11.0 %

Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation 1.3 %

Talk to a leader to see if I had other options 17.7%

Something Else 7.0 %

Don’ t Know 7.9 %

Table 6. Service Members’ Likely Actions if Assigned to Share Living Quarters With 

a Gay or Lesbian Service Member

Question 88. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to share a room, berth, 

or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you 

most likely to do?

Overall

Take no action 26.7%

Discuss how we expect each other to behave and conduct ourselves which 

sharing a room, ber th, or field tent 24.2 %

Talk to a chaplain, mentor, or leader about how to handle the situation 2.4 %

Talk to leader to see if I have other options 28.1%

Something Else 8.7%

Don’ t Know 9.9 %

176 CRWG, “Summary of Open Ended Responses From the Service Member Survey,” white paper, September 30, 2010.
68

Impact of Repeal on Unit Readiness

Service members were asked to assess their current readiness, as well as how repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their personal readiness and their unit’s readiness. 

With regard to personal readiness, 67% of Service members said that repeal would have a 

positive or no effect; 22% said the effect would be equally positive as negative, and 12% said 

repeal would have a negative effect. In addition, 58% said repeal would have a positive or no 

effect on their ability to train well; 21% said the effect would be equally positive as negative; 

and 21% said repeal would have a negative effect. The responses about effects at the unit 

level, as opposed to at the personal level, were somewhat more negative. For example, with 

regard to their unit’s ability to train well together, 31% said that repeal would have a negative 

impact. (See Table 7.)

Table 7. Service Member Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Military Readiness

Question 75. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in 

your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect...

Positively / 

Very 

Positively

No Effect

Equally 

Positive as 

Negative

Negatively / 

Very 

Negatively

Personal Readiness

Your personal 

readiness 7.1% 60.0 % 21.5 % 11.5 %

Your ability to train 

well 7.3 % 51.1% 20.8 % 20.8 %

Unit Readiness

Your immediate 

unit ’s readiness 6.8 % 46.1% 25.8 % 21.2 %

Your unit ’s ability to 

train well together 7.0 % 37.1% 24.5 % 31.3 %

Impact of Repeal on Recruitment

The Services rely on referrals—from family, friends, and current or former Service 

members—for about a third of new recruits. Overall, nearly one-half (47%) of Service 

members said that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have no effect on their willingness 

to recommend military service to a family member or close friend; 6% said that it would 

have positive effect; 10% said it would have a mixed effect; and 27% said it would have a 

negative effect.
69

Table 8. Service Member Willingness to Recommend Military Service to a Family 

Member or Close Friend if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is Repealed

Question 80. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to 

recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military?

Overall

Positively 6.3 %

Equally as positively as negatively 9.9 %

No ef fect 46.5 %

Negatively 27.3 %

Don’ t know 10.0 %

Impact of Repeal on Retention

Overall, more than 60% of Service members told us that their career plans would 

not change as a result of repeal; 13% said that they would definitely leave sooner than they 

had otherwise planned; and 11% said they would think about leaving sooner than they had 

planned. (See Table 9.)

Table 9. Service Member Intentions to Remain in the Military if 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is Repealed

Question 81. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will your military career plans be 

affected?

Overall

My military career plans would not change 62 .3 %

I will stay longer than I had planned 1.7%

I will think about staying longer than I had planned 1. 8 %

I will think about leaving sooner than I had planned 11.1%

I will leave sooner than I had planned 12 .6 %

Don’ t know 10. 5 %

Service members were asked to rate the three factors they consider most important 

when deciding whether to remain in the military.177 “Job satisfaction,” “Retirement benefits,” 

“Current economic situation and civilian job availability,” “Pay and allowances/Bonuses,” 

and “To serve and defend my country” were each listed by over one-quarter of respondents. 

Of these, all were consistently rated as more important than repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 

177 See Appendix C, Question 33.
70

deciding whether to remain in the military.178 Overall, 48% of Service members told us that 

all the factors they listed are more important to their decision to stay or leave the military 

than repeal, while only 8% said repeal was more important than anything else. (See Table 

10.)

Table 10. Service Members’ Assessment of the Relative Importance of Repeal in 

Their Decision of Whether to Stay in the Military

Question 82. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would your top three decision factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the 

military?

Overall

All Factors More Impor tant than Repeal 48.0 %

All Factors Equally Impor tant as Repeal 16.0 %

All Factors Less Impor tant than Repeal 7.6 %

Some more, Some less Impor tant as Repeal 28.5 %

Impact of Repeal on Morale

In addition, the survey also asked questions about morale. In question 73, Service 

members were asked how their level of morale would be affected if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were 

repealed. Consistent with responses to similar questions about effects on unit effectiveness, 

cohesion, and readiness, 62% of Service members responded that repeal would have a 

positive, mixed, or no effect on their morale, while 28% said it would have a negative impact 

on their morale.

Table 11. Service Member Perception of Impact of Repeal on Morale

Question 73. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in 

your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of 

morale be affected?

Overall

Positively / Very Positively 4.8 %

Equally as positively as negatively 13.2 %

No ef fect 43.6 %

Negatively / Very Negatively 27.9 %

Don’ t know 10.5 %

178 See Appendix C, Questions 82a, 82d, 82f, 82m, and 82n.
71

Those Who Have Already Served With Someone They Believe is Gay

Service members were asked on the survey whether they had ever worked with a 

leader, co-worker, or subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian in their career. 75% of 

Service members answered “yes” to at least one of these questions.179 For example, 69% of 

Service members said that they had worked with a co-worker that they believed to be gay or 

lesbian. (See Table 12.) When asked if they were currently serving with someone they 

believed to be gay or lesbian, more than a third (36%) answered yes. (See Table 13.)

Table 12. Service Members Who Have Served With Leaders They Believe to be Gay 

or Lesbian

Question 36. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a co-worker you believed to be 

homosexual?

Overall

Yes 69.3 %

No 30.7%

Table 13. Percentage of Service Members Currently Serving With Someone They 

Believe to be Gay or Lesbian

Question 34. Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be 

homosexual?

Overall

Yes 36.0 %

No 64.0 %

Thus, a large number of Service members report that they have already had the 

experience of serving in a unit with a person they believed to be gay or lesbian. This is 

consistent with what we heard in large group information exchange forums. In response to 

the question, “How many of you have already had the experience of serving in a unit with a 

person you believed to be gay or lesbian?”, in a group of 150–300 Service members, typically 

80% or more of those present raised their hands.180

Those Service members who reported that they are currently serving with someone 

they believe to be gay or lesbian were more likely to answer that repeal would have a positive, 

mixed, or no effect on unit cohesion, unit effectiveness, unit readiness, recruiting, retention, 

and family readiness. For example, when asked how repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would 

affect their immediate unit’s effectiveness in an intense combat situation, 74% of those 

179 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Service Members, 2010.

180 CRWG analysis of information exchange forum notes, 2010.
72

currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian reported the impact would 

be positive, equally positive and negative, or have no effect, while 26% reported that it would 

have a negative effect.181 Those not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or 

lesbian were more negative in their predictions: 33% of these Service members predicted that 

repeal would have a negative impact on unit effectiveness in an intense combat situation.182

Among Service members who said that they are currently serving with someone they 

believe to be gay or lesbian, the portion who said repeal would have positive, mixed, or no 

effect on aspects of unit cohesion was 3–8% percentage points higher than those who are 

not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian. With regard to privacy 

and living arrangements, Service members currently serving with someone they believe to 

be gay or lesbian were more likely to say they would take no action or handle the situation 

on their own.

Overall, among those Service members who report that they are currently serving 

with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, the portion answering that the effects of 

repeal would be negative was generally around 6% percentage points lower than for those 

who report that they are not currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or 

lesbian. Table 14 compares these responses across a selection of questions related to unit 

effectiveness, unit cohesion, and unit readiness.

181 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Service Members, 2010.

182 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Service Members, 2010.
73

Table 14. Perceptions of Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Unit 

Effectiveness, Unit Cohesion, and Unit Readiness by Whether Currently Serving 

With Someone They Believe to be Gay or Lesbian

If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in your 

immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would it affect...

Currently 

Serve w/ 

Gay or 

Lesbian

Positively 

/ Very 

Positively

Equally 

Positively & 

Negatively

No Effect

Negatively 

/ Very 

Negatively

Unit Effectiveness

Question 71a. Your 

immediate unit ’s 

ef fec tiveness at 

completing its 

mission in a field 

environment or out 

at sea

Yes 15.1% 25.9 % 21.6 % 37.5 %

No 9.3 % 25.7% 17.0 % 48.1%

Question 71c . Your 

immediate unit ’s 

ef fec tiveness at 

completing its 

mission in an intense 

combat situation

Yes 16.0 % 30.1% 27.8 % 26.0 %

No 10.3 % 32.2 % 24.4 % 33.2 %

Unit Cohesion

Question 68a. How 

Service members in 

your immediate unit 

work together to get 

the job done?

Yes 22.4 % 30.5 % 22.6 % 24.5 %

No 16.1% 32.9 % 18.5 % 32.4 %

Question 68c . How 

Service members in 

your immediate unit 

trust each other?

Yes 22.8 % 29.3 % 19.6 % 28.4 %

No 15.5 % 32.2 % 16.4 % 35.8 %

Unit Readiness

Question 75b. Your 

immediate unit ’s 

readiness

Yes 9.3 % 24 % 48.4 % 18.3 %

No 5.4 % 26.9 % 44.8 % 22.9 %

Question 75f. Your 

unit ’s abilit y to train 

well together

Yes 10.0 % 23.0 % 40.4 % 26.5 %

No 5.4 % 25.4 % 35.2 % 34.1%

Note: “Currently Serve w/ Gay or Lesbian” reflects Service members’ responses to question 34: “Do you 

currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be homosexual?”
74

Army, Marine Corps, and Combat Arms

Among the Services, the Marines were consistently more negative in their responses 

about the effect of repeal. The combat arms communities in both the Army and the Marine 

Corps were also more negative about the effect of repeal than others in their Services.183

For example, as discussed earlier, approximately 44% of all Service members said 

that their unit’s effectiveness “in a field environment or out at sea” would be negatively 

impacted by repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Nearly 60% of respondents in the Marine Corps 

and in Army combat arms said they believed there would be a negative impact on their unit’s 

effectiveness in this context; among Marine combat arms the number was 67%. (See Table 

15.)

Likewise, when asked how repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would impact the readiness of 

their immediate unit, 21% of Service members overall said that it would have a negative 

impact. Among Marine Corps respondents this number was 32%; among Army combat 

arms it was 35%; and among Marine combat arms 43%. (See Table 15.)

Table 15. Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Perceptions of 

Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Unit Readiness

Question 75b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

your immediate unit’s readiness?

Overall Army Marine

Corps

Army 

Combat

Arms

Marine 

Combat

Arms

Positively / 

Very positively 6.8 % 7.4 % 5.3 % 5.2 % 3.5 %

Equally as 

positively as 

negatively

25.8 % 25.8 % 27.4 % 23.9 % 24.5 %

Negatively /

Very Negatively 21.2 % 23.8 % 31.8 % 35.1% 43.5 %

No ef fect 46.1% 42.9 % 35.5 % 35.8 % 28.5 %

The responses of Marines and of Army and Marine combat arms were similarly more 

negative than the force overall in response to questions about unit cohesion. For example, 

question 68a asked Service members about the impact of repeal on their unit’s ability to 

“work together”—an aspect of task cohesion. While slightly under 30% of Service members 

as a whole predicted repeal would have a negative impact, that number was 43% among the 

Marine Corps, 48% among Army combat arms, and 58% among Marine combat arms. (See 

Table 16.)

183 The Working Group invited the Services to further analyze Service-specific data from the Service member survey data. We 

understand, based on this Service analysis, that this finding generally applies to combat warfare communities in all Services.
75

Table 16. Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Perceptions of 

Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Task Cohesion

Question 68a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect...

How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?

Overall Army Marine

Corps

Army 

Combat

Arms

Marine 

Combat

Arms

Positively / 

Very positively 18.4 % 18.9 % 12.7% 13.2 % 8.7%

Equally as 

positively as 

negatively

32.1% 31.5 % 31.1% 26.1% 24.4 %

Negatively / 

Very negatively 29.6 % 31.9 % 42.8 % 47.5 % 57.5 %

No Ef fect 19.9 % 17.8 % 13.4 % 13.3 % 9.4 %

Question 68c asked Service members about the impact of repeal on the trust between 

unit members—a part of social cohesion. Overall, 33% of Service members predicted a 

negative impact on trust between unit members; this number was 47% for the Marine Corps, 

49% for Army combat arms, and 60% for Marine combat arms. (See Table 17.)

Table 17. Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms Perceptions of 

Impact of a Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on Social Cohesion (Trust)

Question 68c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect...

How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other?

Overall Army Marine

Corps

Army 

Combat

Arms

Marine 

Combat

Arms

Positively / 

Very Positively 18.1% 18.6 % 11.8 % 13.6 % 8.3 %

Equally as 

positively as 

negatively

31.2 % 30.3 % 29.5 % 26.1% 24.7%

Negatively / 

Very Negatively 33.1% 35.5 % 47.3 % 48.9 % 59.7%

No Ef fect 17.6 % 15.6 % 11.4 % 11.3 % 7.4 %

The Marine Corps, Army combat arms, and Marine combat arms also differed 

significantly from the force overall in the portion that reported that they are currently 

serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, and that reported that they are 
76

serving in gender-integrated units. While more than a third of the force as a whole said they 

are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or lesbian, around one-quarter of 

Army combat arms and Marines believe they are doing so. (See Table 18.) Fewer still 

Marine combat arms personnel report that they are serving with someone they believe to be 

gay or lesbian.

Table 18. Percentage of Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms 

Service Members Currently Serving With Someone They Believe to be Gay or 

Lesbian

Question 34. Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be 

homosexual?

Overall Army Marine

Corps

Army 

Combat

Arms

Marine 

Combat

Arms

Yes 36.0 % 37.6 % 24.9 % 26.7% 20.0 %

No 64.0 % 62.4 % 75.1% 73.3 % 80.0 %

In addition, while 80% of the overall force indicated that it serves in units with both 

men and women, 63% of Marines report that they serve in mixed gender units. Additionally, 

only 43% of Army combat arms personnel and 30% of Marine combat arms personnel 

indicate that they serve in units that include both men and women. In general, men who 

are currently serving in gender-integrated units are less likely to predict a negative impact 

of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: 28% compared to 39% among men who are serving in 

male-only units.184

Table 19. Percentage of Army, Marine Corps, and Army and Marine Combat Arms 

Service Members Currently Serving in Units With Both Men and Women

Question 4. Does your immediate unit include both men and women?

Overall Army Marine

Corps

Army 

Combat

Arms

Marine 

Combat

Arms

Yes 80.0 % 77.3 % 62.7% 42.5 % 29.7%

No 20.0 % 23.7% 37.3 % 57.5 % 70.3 %

184 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Service Members, 2010.
77

Impact of Repeal on Family Readiness

To further assess some of the concerns expressed in the information exchange forums 

and focus groups, the Working Group included questions in the Service member survey 

and spouse survey about the presence of same-sex couples in on-base military housing and 

about the involvement of same-sex partners in family readiness activities. When asked about 

military housing, 44% of Service members answered that if a same-sex couple lived on-base 

they would “get to know them like any other neighbors”; 17% answered that they would be 

uncomfortable but would not move; and 18% answered that they “would probably move 

off base.” Many Service members reported that they simply didn’t know how they might 

respond. (See Table 20.)

Table 20. Service Member Reported Courses of Action if a Gay or Lesbian Couple 

Moved Into On-base Housing

Question 96. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you had on-base housing and a gay or 

lesbian Service member was living with a same-sex partner on-base, what would you most 

likely do?

Overall

I would get to know them like any other neighbors. 42.2 %

I would make a special ef for t to get to know them. 1.9 %

I would be uncomfor table, but access to the exchange, commissary, and MWR 

facilities is more impor tant to me than who my neighbors are when deciding 

where to live.

5.1%

I would be uncomfor table, but the quality of on-base housing is more 

impor tant to me than who my neighbors are when deciding where to live. 5.2 %

I would be uncomfor table, but the cost of moving makes it unlikely I would 

leave on-base housing. 6.3 %

I would probably move of f-base. 17.6 %

Something else 5.5 %

Don’ t Know 16.3 %
78

With regard to participation in deployment support activities, 76% of spouses 

responded that the presence of a same-sex partner of a gay or lesbian Service member would 

have no effect on their own participation; 14% responded that they would attend less often. 

(See Table 21.)

Table 21. Military Spouses’ Perceptions of Impact of Repeal on DeploymentSupport Activities

Question 29. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and your spouse is deployed. Would 

the presence of a partner of a gay or lesbian Service member affect how often you attend 

deployment-support activities?

Overall

Yes, I would at tend deployment-suppor t activities more of ten 1.3 %

No, it would have no ef fect on my at tendance at deployment-suppor t activities 76.2 %

Yes, I would at tend deployment-suppor t activities less of ten 13.4 %

I don’ t know 9.1%

The spouse survey also asked spouses to rate the impact of repeal on their own 

family readiness. Over three-quarters (77%) of military spouses also said that repeal 

would have no effect on their family readiness; 8% said that it would reduce their family 

readiness.

Table 22. Military Spouses’ Perceptions of the Impact of Repeal on Family 

Readiness

Question 32. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. Would repeal affect your family 

readiness?

Overall

Yes, it would improve my family readiness 1.0 %

No, it would have no ef fect on my family readiness 77.2 %

Yes, it would reduce my family readiness 8.2 %

I don’ t know 13.5 %

Open-Ended Responses

Finally, Service members were given the opportunity, in question 103 of the survey, to 

provide a response in their own words about “the impacts to you, your family, your immediate 

unit, or your Service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed.” Comments were provided by 

47,318 Service members. The Working Group reviewed all of these responses and found that 
79

they expressed many of the same sentiments—on all sides of the issue—raised by Service 

members in the Working Group’s other engagements with the force.

In addition, with the assistance of the Defense Manpower Data Center, the Working 

Group compared the open-ended comments provided by Service members with their 

responses to other survey questions regarding impact of repeal. This analysis revealed that 

Service members’ open-ended comments were by and large consistent with their responses 

to the other questions in the survey. For example, Service members whose responses to 

questions about impact of repeal were predominately negative tended to provide open-ended 

comments that were negative. These Service members’ open-ended comments most often 

expressed concerns about flamboyant gay men in the Service, repeal tarnishing the image 

of the military, and privacy in living facilities and showers. Similarly, Service members 

whose responses to questions about impact of repeal were predominately positive tended to 

provided open-ended comments that were also positive. These Service members’ open-ended 

comments most often expressed that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a Service member’s 

ability to do the job, that gay and lesbian Service members have a right to serve openly, that 

they have a right to serve without fear of being separated, and the like.

Meanwhile, those Service members who indicated on the survey that repeal would 

have no effect provided open-ended comments similar to those who indicated a positive 

effect. The most prevalent comments were that sexual orientation is irrelevant to a Service 

member’s ability to do the job, that gay and lesbian Service members have a right to serve 

openly, and that repeal is acceptable so long as good order and discipline is maintained.

Those Service members who indicated that repeal would have equally mixed positive 

and negative effects provided open-ended comments along the same lines, mixed positive 

and negative. The most prevalent comments included: that sexual orientation is irrelevant 

to a Service member’s ability to do the job, concerns about privacy in living facilities and 

showers, that Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is working and does not need to be changed, that repeal 

is acceptable so long as good order and discipline is maintained, and the like.

I.	

II.	

III.	

IV.	

V.	

VI.	
80

VII.	

VIII.	

IX.	

X.	

XI.	

XII.	
Although there are fundamental differences between matters of race, gender and 

sexual orientation, we believe the racial integration of the U.S. military in the 1940s and 

1950s, and the gender integration of the military that began in earnest in the 1970s, present 

some useful historical lessons. We discuss these lessons here.

Racial Integration of the U.S. Military

As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that, contrary to popular belief, President 

Harry S. Truman did not simply and abruptly order the Military Services to end racial 

segregation in 1948. Calls to study the issue began around 1945; Truman’s 1948 Executive 

Order declared that “equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed 

services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin” was “the policy of the 

President,” and established a Committee which then took two years to study the issue.185 The 

Services adopted integration plans in 1949 and 1950. However, it was not until 1953 that 

95% of African-American soldiers were serving in integrated units and not until the 1970s 

that Navy ships were fully integrated.186

During World War II and in the immediate post-War era, some of America’s most 

admired public figures and war heroes of that period expressed concern for permitting 

Service members of different races to serve together. Like the discussion today, the concerns 

then centered on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and morale. In 

1941, Admiral Chester Nimitz stated:

“One does not install a part in a machine, no matter how excellent that part may 

be in itself, unless it will fit and work smoothly with other parts. That, frankly, 

covers the Navy Department’s attitude on this question. Negro officers aboard 

ship would form a small unassimilable minority which, despite anything we 

could do, would inevitably form a source of discord that would be harmful to 

the service.”187

185 “Records of the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services (Record Group 220),” 

Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, accessed November 19, 2010, http://www.trumanlibrary.org/hstpaper/fahy.htm.

186 Matthew Cashdollar, “Not Yes or No, But What If: Implications of Open Homosexuality in the Military,” in Attitudes Aren’t 

Free: Thinking Deeply About Diversity in the US Armed Forces, eds. Jim Parco and David Levy, (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air 

University Press, 2010), 169.

187 Erin R. Mahan, “Racial Integration of the Armed Forces: Information Paper for Considering Open Sevice Policy,” August 9, 2010, 7.

81

VIII LESSONS FROM HISTORY
82

Likewise, Admiral Nimitz stated “The policy [of limiting black Sailors to the messman’s 

branch] was instituted in the interest of harmony and efficiency aboard ship after many 

years of experience.”188

In 1941, Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall contended that racial segregation 

was working and should be continued, and warned that “experiments within the Army in the 

solution of social problems are fraught with danger to efficiency, discipline, or morale,”189 and 

General Henry “Hap” Arnold, commander of the Army Air Corps, wrote in a 1940 internal 

Army memo, “Negro pilots cannot be used in our present Air Force since this would result 

in having Negro officers serving over white enlisted men. This would create an impossible 

social problem.”190

Much of the opposition to racial integration of the Military Services stemmed from 

what we now know to be blatant stereotype. In 1946, the Army’s Assistant Chief of Staff 

for Organization and Training, Major General Idwal Edwards, warned that the Army 

must recognize the “ineptitude and limited capacity of the Negro soldier.”191 Others even 

suggested that segregation actually benefited the black soldier. Most notably, in 1948 then 

Army Chief of Staff General Dwight D. Eisenhower testified before a Senate hearing that 

segregation protected blacks because “In general, the Negro is less educated...and if you 

make a complete amalgamation, what you are going to have in every company the Negro is 

going to be relegated to the minor jobs, and he is never going to get his promotion.”192

Meanwhile, opinion polls and surveys of the military then, though not as extensively 

used in the 1940s as today, showed solid opposition to the idea of racial integration of the 

military. In a 1946 survey of 2,376 Army and Army Air Forces white enlisted men, over 

80% responded that “white and Negro soldiers should not work, train, and live [eat or sleep] 

together.”193 Similarly, 80% of white officers at that time reported that they would not like 

being assigned to an integrated unit (shared working, training, and living conditions), 9% 

were in favor of such an assignment, and 10% were undecided.194

Within a few years during and after World War II, as African Americans had an 

opportunity to prove themselves alongside their white counterparts in integrated situations, 

attitudes began to change. During World War II, the number of African Americans in the 

Army increased dramatically, from 4,435 in 1940 to over 700,000 by September 1945.195

Integration of the other Military Services occurred on a limited and experimental basis 

188 Mahan, “Racial,” 7.

189 Mahan, “Racial,” 6.

190 Commander of Army Air Corps, Memo, “Employment of Negro Personnel in Air Corps Units,” May 31, 1940.

191 Mahan, “Racial,” 6.

192 Mahan, “Racial,” 7.

193 Army-Air Force TI&E Division, Special Memorandum No. 40-309C, “Supplemental report on attitudes of white enlisted men 

toward serving with Negro enlisted men, based on a study made in November 1946,” 1949.

194 Troop Information & Education Division, Troop Attitude Research Branch, “Attitudes of Officers and Enlisted Men Toward 

Certain Minority Groups,” July 14, 1947, 5, in RG 330, ASD (Manpower, Personnel & Reserve) Research Division, Surveys on 

Troop Attitudes, 1942, June 1955, Report No 1005.

195 Mahan, “Racial,” 6.
83

toward the end of World War II and in the post-war period. Both the Navy and the Army Air 

Force experimented with integrated units because of morale and undermanning problems. 

In 1943, the Navy’s Special Programs Unit proposed a plan to assign black crew members to 

predominantly white crews aboard ships. The experiment began in 1944 and was successful 

to the point that racial restrictions were lifted in Navy general-service positions. Thus, the 

Navy was partially integrated three years before President Truman’s executive order.196 The 

post-war Air Force went through a similar process due to practical problems of obtaining 

enough qualified pilots for the all-black 332nd Fighter Wing, the famed Tuskegee Airmen. 

Initially, the idea met resistance but moved forward after Truman’s 1948 executive order.197

The Army and Marine Corps moved more slowly toward racial integration. However, 

when the personnel shortages of the Korean War necessitated integrated units, Army field 

officers placed white and black soldiers side by side.198

By the end of World War II, opposition to racial integration began to erode. In 1944, 

the commandant of the Marines Corps, Lieutenant General Alexander Vandegrift declared, 

“The Negro Marines are no longer on trial. They are Marines. Period.”199 By 1949, attitudes 

toward integrated units were improving, but opposition to integration still existed. In a 

1949 survey of 1151 white enlisted men, 61% opposed full integration (work, train, and live 

together), compared to 80% in 1946; 32% opposed partial integration (working and training 

together but separate living and eating facilities) compared to over 70% in 1946. This survey 

also revealed that white soldiers who had worked with black soldiers were less opposed to 

integration than white soldiers who had only served in segregated units.200

Likewise, following the 1948 Executive Order, many in military leadership accepted 

the new policy and emphasized the importance of leadership in successful implementation of 

integration efforts. Army Major General Idwal Edwards, who two years earlier warned of the 

Negro’s “ineptitude and limited capacity,” stated in 1948 that any problems implementing the 

Commander-in-Chief’s direction will be “minimized if commanders give the implementation 

of this policy their personal attention and exercise positive control.”201

By the time of the Korean War in 1951, Army studies proclaimed integration to be an 

unqualified success and stated that “integration enhances the effectiveness of the Army.”202

To be sure, racial integration of the U.S. military did not proceed smoothly, and 

following President Truman’s Executive Order racial discrimination, tension, and stereotypes 

196 Morris J. MacGregor Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1985), 77–86.

197 Mahan, “Racial,” 9.

198 MacGregor, 428–434.

199 Mahan, “Racial,” 8.

200 Armed Forces I&E Division, Report No. 101-239, Morale Attitudes of Enlisted Men, May – June 1949, Attitudes Towards 

Integration of Negro Soldiers in the Army (Washington, DC, September 1949).

201 Mahan, “Racial,” 9.

202 Raymond B. Ansel, From Segregation to Desegregation: Blacks in the U.S. Army, 1703–1954 (Carlysle Barracks, PA: Army War 

College, 1990), 35–37.
84

did not magically evaporate within the ranks. Numerous individual incidents of racial 

hostility occurred, and racial tensions persisted for years in the military. During the civil 

rights and Vietnam eras in the 1960s and 1970s, there were outbreaks of racial violence 

within the military, reflecting the unrest in society at large. One such incident in July 1969, 

at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, led to the death of a Marine. In 1971, a race riot at Travis 

Air Force Base, California, involved hundreds of military members and spanned four days.

Despite those incidents, the U.S. military is today widely regarded as one of the most 

integrated and diverse institutions in America; it is, for example, the community in America 

in which interracial marriage is most prevalent.203 In 1989, General Colin Powell, an African 

American, rose to become the most senior officer in the U.S. military, twenty years before 

Barack Obama became the first African-American President of the United States.

In drawing parallels to racial integration in the 1940s and 1950s, there are similarities 

and differences between that experience and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today that we 

must acknowledge.

First, skin color and sexual orientation are fundamentally different. That said, 

the concerns expressed in the 1940s about the effects of integration on unit cohesion and 

effectiveness sound much the same as those voiced in this debate.

Second, there is a religious component to the issue of homosexuality that generally 

does not exist on matters of race. Many hold a sincere religious and moral belief that 

homosexuality is a sin. Many military chaplains today express opposition in religious terms 

to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve openly in the military. By contrast, there was no 

significant opposition to racial integration among military chaplains. In fact, the historical 

record of the period indicates that the military chaplain community, for the most part, 

encouraged followers along the path of racial integration.

Third, the military began racial integration in the late 1940s and 1950s, in advance

of American civilian society. In 1954, 95% of the Army was integrated, while buses and 

other public accommodations in cities such as Montgomery, Alabama, were not. As such, 

the military did serve as a social experiment in this regard for the rest of American society. 

By contrast, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would mean treating gay men and lesbians in 

the military in a manner similar to what already exists in civilian workplaces, where there 

is no law that requires gay men and lesbians to hide their sexual orientation to keep their 

jobs. In that respect, repeal would not mean that the military is being used as a social 

experiment—the military would be following the rest of American society.

203 A study conducted by Jacobson analyzed the 1990 census (PUMS) and the Current Population Survey (CPS) from 1976 to 1998 

and found that while interracial marriage is still rare in U.S. society, it is significantly more prevalent in the U.S. military 

than in civilian society. (Cardell K. Jacobson and Tim B. Heaton, “Inter-group marriage and United States military service,” 

Journal of Political and Military Sociology, 33, 2003, 1–22.)
85

Fourth, the historical record strongly suggests that the opposition to racial integration 

at the outset was much wider and deeper than the present-day opposition to repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell. As previously noted, opposition to integration among white enlisted soldiers 

in 1946 was as high as 80% of those surveyed. In 1949, one year after President Truman’s 

Executive Order, opposition to integrated living and working space among white enlisted 

soldiers was still over 60%.

Fifth, many note the military is today being asked to consider repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell during a time of war. The fact is that the U.S. military took on racial integration 

in the midst of World War II, during the Korean War, and the beginning of the Cold War era; 

there is no reason to believe that today’s force could not successfully accomplish a similar 

change.

Sixth, in terms of numbers, the size of the change brought about by racial integration 

of the U.S. military in the 1940s and 1950s was many times larger than any change that would 

that would result from a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In 1945, there were 700,000 African 

Americans in the Army, out of a total force of over 8 million, or 9% of the force.204 Today, 

the active duty force is approximately 1.4 million Service members, and by all estimates the 

portion of gay and lesbian Service members is significantly smaller.205 Further, race is an 

obvious identifier; sexual orientation is not. Even if the law is repealed, it is likely that gay 

men and lesbians will continue to be discreet and private about their sexual orientation, as 

in civilian society.

These similarities and differences aside, we believe the military’s successful experience 

in racial integration is a relevant chapter in American history for this basic reason: prior 

to integration, many of the most admired and respected military leaders predicted negative 

consequences for unit cohesion and morale that are very similar to the concerns we have 

heard in our engagements on Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Those public fears of racial integration 

were based in large part on lack of experience and stereotype; likewise, surveys of the 

force at the time indicated widespread opposition. But, with strong leadership and a clear 

message, change occurred in large part without negative consequences for unit cohesion 

and effectiveness, and the military is a better institution for it today.

Gender Integration of the U.S. Military

Gender integration of the military has occurred at a slower pace than racial integration. 

The passage of the Armed Services Integration Act, which made women an official part of 

the military, occurred in 1948206—the same year as President Truman’s Executive Order on 

204 At its peak in 1945, the Army had approximately 8.2 million soldiers. (Kent Roberts Greenfield, Robert R. Palmer, & Bell 

I. Wiley, “The Organization of Ground Combat Troops,” in US Army in World War II (Washington, DC: Center of Military 

History, 1992).)

205 RAND, 2010, 98–102.

206 Judith Bellafaire, “America’s Military Women—The Journey Continues,” Women in Military Service for America Memorial 

Foundation, accessed November 19, 2010, http://www.womensmemorial.org/Education/WHM982.html.
86

racial desegregation. But it took many years to expand the military occupational specialties 

open to women, and even today, certain specialties are restricted to men only.

In 1948, women were limited to 2% of active duty personnel in each of the Services,207

and there were significant limitations on the positions they could fill. It was not until the 

late-1970s that the number and the roles of women in the military increased. This coincided 

with the introduction of the all-volunteer force, the end of the Vietnam War, projected 

shortages of military personnel, and the national debate over the Equal Rights Amendment 

and women’s rights generally. In 1976, women entered the Service academies for the first 

time and flight training was opened to women. In 1977, the Coast Guard assigned the first 

woman to sea duty, and in 1978, women were allowed to serve on noncombatant ships in the 

Navy. In 1978, the Women’s Army Corps was disbanded and women were integrated into 

the regular Army.

These events did not happen without resistance or controversy. As with racial 

integration, the initial concerns most frequently raised were predictions about negative 

impacts to unit cohesion and military effectiveness. Many leaders expressed concerns about 

women breaking from what they perceived to be traditional roles in society and questioned 

the physical capabilities of female Service members, especially in combat settings. For 

example, in an October 1943 memo, the Marine Corps’ director of Plans and Policies, 

Brigadier General C. Thomas stated, “The American Tradition is that a woman’s place is in 

the home,”208 and “Women do not take kindly to regimentation.”209 Similarly, three decades 

later in 1976, General William C. Westmoreland, who had retired four years earlier as Army 

Chief of Staff stated, “The purpose of West Point is to train combat officers, and women are 

not physically able to lead in combat. Maybe you could find one woman in 10,000 who could 

lead in combat, but she would be a freak, and we’re not running the Military Academy for 

freaks.”210

Surveys of Service members showed similar opposition. In 1977, over 80% of upperclass 

midshipmen preferred that the U.S. Naval Academy remained an all-male institution.211

In 1981 and 1982 U.S. Navy surveys of ships’ crews receiving women indicated concerns 

about discipline and cohesion. In these surveys, lower ranking enlisted personnel generally 

were more open to gender integrated crews, while the chief petty officers and commissioned 

officers generally opposed gender integration.212

207 John Whiteclay Chambers II, ed, The Oxford Companion to American Military History (New York: Oxford, 2000).

208 Erin R. Mahan et al., OSD Historians Office, meeting and spreadsheet, July 23, 2010.

209 Erin R. Mahan et al., OSD Historians Office, meeting and spreadsheet, July 23, 2010.

210 Erin R. Mahan et al., OSD Historians Office, meeting and spreadsheet, July 23, 2010.

211 Kathleen P. Durning, Women at the Naval Academy: The First Year of Integration (San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and 

Development Center, February 1978), 23.

212 Patricia Thomas, Women in the Military: Gender Integration at Sea (San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development 

Center, May 1981); Carol S. Greebler, Patricia J. Thomas, and Judy D. Kuczynski, Men and Women in Ships: Preconceptions of 

the Crews (San Diego: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, August 1982).
87

Today women make up about 14% of the force and can serve in over 92% of the 

occupational specialties in the military.213 As time has gone by, many barriers have gone 

down. Women have been a part of combat flying units since the early 1990s, and this 

summer women were allowed to attend submarine school for the first time. Though all 

the Military Services (with the exception of the Coast Guard) retain some restrictions on 

assignments, women are, in fact, routinely exposed to the dangers of combat operations. 

This is exemplified by the fact that combat casualty rates for women in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom are higher than in any combat operation in our nation’s history, and in 2005 the 

first Silver Star was awarded to a woman for combat action.214

As with racial integration, the expansion of women’s roles in the military have not 

brought a degradation in military readiness, military effectiveness, or unit cohesion. At 

the same time, similar to racial integration, the integration of women has not been without 

incident, sometimes with national attention. In September 1991, the nation learned of the 

sexual misconduct of scores of Naval Officers at the annual Tailhook Convention in Las 

Vegas. In 1996, the Army brought charges against 12 commissioned and non-commissioned 

male officers for sexual assault of female trainees at the Aberdeen Proving Ground. More 

recently, the United States Air Force Academy faced national scrutiny when multiple cases 

of sexual assault and rape were reported by female cadets in 2003. These incidents have 

highlighted the need for military leaders to remain focused on integration implementation, 

including leadership, standards of conduct, and sexual assault and harassment prevention.

Despite these ongoing concerns related to harassment and assault, it is clear that the 

introduction and integration of women into the force has made our military stronger.

We note some differences and similarities between the advances in equality for women 

over the past six decades and repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

First, gender, as with race, is an obvious identifying characteristic, whereas, sexual 

orientation is not.

Second, the religious and moral objections to women serving in the military, while 

stronger than religious objections to racial integration, do not rise to the same level as 

religious and moral objections concerning service by gay or lesbian individuals. While some 

may hold more traditional views on the roles of women based on religious or moral grounds, 

for the most part, women are welcome and successful at all levels of the chain of command.

Third, although the integration of women has involved restrictions on military 

occupational specialties, including exclusion from ground combat units, we do not recommend 

213 Defense Manpower Data Center, “Female Representation in the Active Component—1980, 1987, & 1990-2009,” Excel 

spreadsheet; OSD(P&R), e-mail communication to CRWG, November 12, 2010.

214 Silver Star awarded to Army Sgt. Lee Ann Hester June, 2005 for valorous action in combat, defeating an enemy ambush on 

their convoy. There were four previous women who received the Silver Star in World War II for evacuating 42 patients from a 

field hospital under fire.
88

similar limitations for sexual orientation upon repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Gay men and 

lesbians are currently serving across the Services in combat and combat support roles, and 

we would expect them to continue to do so after repeal.

Fourth, issues of proper relationships, public displays of affection, and harassment 

that arose after integrating women will certainly surface after repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. 

Just as military leaders continue to be vigilant in addressing incidents of sexual harassment 

and assault, we must remain committed over the long term to leadership, professionalism, 

and respect, regardless of sexual orientation.

88
Comparison between our military and those of other nations is far from perfect, but 

here too we find some information relevant to our assessment.

The Working Group researched the policies regarding military service by gays and 

lesbians in the 43 NATO and ISAF partner nations.215 Of these, the Working Group identified 

35 that permit gays and lesbians to serve openly in their military. The Working Group 

confirmed that six nations—the United States, Bulgaria, Jordan, Poland, Turkey, and the 

United Arab Emirates—exclude gay men and lesbians from serving or serving openly in 

the military by policy. For the remaining two nations, the Working Group was unable to 

determine their policies regarding service by gays and lesbians. In some nations, actual 

practice toward gays and lesbians in the military may differ from official policy.

Table 24. Personnel Policies Regarding Military Service by Gay Men and Lesbians 

in NATO and ISAF Partner Nations

Permit Gay/Lesbian Open Service, 

or No Ban on Homosexual Conduct

Exclude Gays and

Lesbians, or Open 

Service

Undetermined

Albania

Australia

Austria

Azerbaijan

Belgium

Bosnia & 

 Herzegovina

Canada

Croatia

Czech Republic

Denmark

E stonia

Finland

France

Georgia

Germany

Greece

Hungar y

Iceland

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

Lithuania

Luxembourg

Netherlands

New Zealand

Nor way

Portugal

Republic of 

 Korea

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden

Ukraine

United Kingdom

Bulgaria

Jordan

Poland

Turkey

United Arab 

 Emirates

United States

Republic of 

 Macedonia

Singapore

Nations in Bold: Official Government Information, Nations in Italics: Secondary Source Data

215 The Working Group undertook to research the policies of all nations around the world, by contacting embassies and researching 

foreign laws and policies. This research proved inconclusive in many instances. For many countries, the Working Group was 

unable to obtain definitive information on their policies. This exercise was further complicated by the fact that many countries 

may not have a formal military policy banning gays and lesbians or open service, but the countries’ civilian laws criminalize 

homosexuality or homosexual conduct as a general matter.

89

IX EXPERIENCE OF OTHER MILITARIES
90

A number of nations have, over the past 20 years, transitioned to policies permitting 

open service by gays and lesbians. These countries include the United Kingdom (policy 

changed in 2000), Canada (1992), Australia (1992), Germany (2000), and Israel (1993). Some 

of these nations changed their policies in light of court decisions or other legal challenges. 

For instance, the United Kingdom and Canada lost court cases that then required them to 

rapid implement a change in their policies.216 In Germany217 and Australia, national defense 

leaders changed their policies to head off adverse outcome in pending court challenges.

Working Group members interacted with senior military and civilian officials from 

the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to study conditions prior to policy change, how 

they handled the transition, and what impacts, if any, they observed. The Working Group 

focused on these three countries because they are in many ways culturally similar to the 

United States, and their militaries are, like the U.S. military, all-volunteer forces and of 

similar size proportionate to their national populations. These nations also work closely 

with U.S. forces in international operations. 

Researchers from RAND also spent time interviewing military officials from Canada, 

the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Israel, and Australia.

Prior to policy change in these countries, the rank and file military was generally 

opposed to allowing gay men and lesbians to serve. Notably, both Canada and the United 

Kingdom conducted surveys of their military personnel, and both convened small study 

groups to examine the potential implications of change. The surveys conducted in Canada 

and the United Kingdom revealed that 60–65% of military personnel were opposed to 

bathing or sharing living quarters with gay men or lesbians,218 and 35–45% were opposed to 

working with gay men or lesbians.219 The most common arguments against policy change 

involved degradation of unit cohesion, concerns about personal privacy in bathing facilities 

and housing, moral opposition, and medical concerns related to HIV and AIDS—many of 

the same concerns expressed by U.S. Service members in the Working Group’s engagements 

with the force.220

The approach taken to the change in policy varied by country, but by and large 

they undertook what is best described as a minimalist approach. The usual pattern for 

implementing policy change started with an announcement of the policy change, sometimes 

accompanied by a statement from senior defense leaders, and followed by an information 

packet for the chain of command to explain how the policy worked and how it was to be 

enforced. In Israel and Germany, the announcement was simply a notice of the change 

embedded within a list of other policy changes. In RAND’s interviews, German officials 

216 Gregory M. Hereck, Jared B. Jobe, and Ralph M. Carney, Out in Force: Sexual Orientation and the Military (Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press, 1996), 117.

217 German Defense Official, interview with the CRWG, June 18, 2010.

218 UK Ministry of Defence, 1996.

219 UK Ministry of Defence, 1996.

220 Wilbur J. Scott and Sandra Carson Stanley, Gays and Lesbians in the Military: Issues, Concerns, and Contrasts (New York: 

Aldine de Gruyter, 1994).
91

noted that in many cases, military leaders were unaware of the impending change until 

after it had already occurred.221

These countries, by and large, describe their current policies regarding gay men and 

lesbians in military service as, in essence, a “non-policy.”222 By this, they mean that gay men 

and lesbians may serve openly not because they have a policy expressly permitting it, but 

because they have no specific policy on military service by gay men and lesbians at all. When 

the bans and restrictions were lifted in these countries (in the case of the United Kingdom, 

it was a ban on homosexuality in the military; in Australia, a prohibition on homosexual 

conduct; and in Canada, from 1988, restrictions on gays and lesbians serving in certain 

sensitive and leadership positions), they were most often replaced with general policies 

of non-discrimination or codes of conduct that addressed all military personnel without 

regard to their sexual orientation. The United Kingdom, for instance, issued a formal Code 

of Social Conduct that applies to all its military personnel, but does not specifically address 

homosexuality or sexual orientation.223 Israel’s military personnel policy is silent on the 

issue of homosexuality.224

Only a few of these nations assessed the impact of their policy changes in the years 

after the bans were lifted. In discussions with the Working Group and with RAND, many 

foreign military officials have referred to the change as a “non-issue.” Within the United 

Kingdom, Canada, and Australia militaries, there was a general expectation that noticeable 

numbers of gay men and lesbians would reveal their sexual orientation to fellow military 

personnel after the policy change, but in fact very few did so. As a result, commanders and 

senior officials have generally concluded that the policy change has had little impact on their 

forces.225

Officials in Canada and the United Kingdom also indicated that their recruiting goals 

were still met in the years immediately following the policy change, and that their retention 

did not suffer as a result of the policy change.226

The United Kingdom undertook a review six months after the policy change as well 

as a more formal review two years afterwards. British officials told RAND that they knew 

of three military members who had resigned from service as a result of the policy change, 

out of a total force of 250,000 personnel.227 In their two year review, the United Kingdom 

did not notice any recruitment challenges. Indeed, British officials observed that their new 

recruits were largely “indifferent” to the presence of gay men and lesbians in the ranks.228

221 RAND Foreign Military Researcher, phone interview with the CRWG, August 19, 2010.

222 United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Defense Officials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010.

223 RAND, 2010, 313.

224 RAND, 2010, 293.

225 RAND, 2010, 231, 315–316.

226 Canadian officials noted a drop in retention rates did occur during this period but explained that this drop was consistent with 

their expectations due to force reductions taking place at the same time unrelated to the policy change.

227 RAND, 2010, 309.

228 United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service Review of the Armed Forces Policy on Homosexuality and Code of Social 

Conduct (United Kingdom: December 2002).
92

Similarly, Australian defense officials reported no noticeable problems with recruiting 

or retention following the change.229

Thus, in the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia, no problems with recruiting 

and retention following the change in policy to permit gay men and lesbians to serve were 

reported, except for isolated reports of small increases in the loss of senior non-commissioned 

officers that may have resulted in part from the policy change.

None of these nations directly assessed the effects of the policy change on unit cohesion 

or combat effectiveness. However, most of these nations have been engaged in combat 

operations in the years since changing their policy. Uniformly, these nations reported that they 

were aware of no units that had a degradation of cohesion or combat effectiveness, and that 

the presence of gay men and lesbians in combat units had not been raised as an issue by any 

of their units deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. The United Kingdom’s review two years after 

its policy change found very few problems in units, primarily because only a small number 

of military members opted to disclose their sexual orientation. Those few incidents that did 

occur were handled at the unit level, and were comparable in scope to incidents reported as 

“personality clashes.”230 Since the time of that review, British forces have deployed to Iraq 

and Afghanistan; senior officials interviewed indicated that no incidents had occurred during 

these deployments and that leaders and military personnel had fully adapted to the policy.231

None of the nations contacted by the Working Group or RAND indicated that there 

was a rise in the number of harassment incidents as a result of the policy change.232 Germany 

maintains a somewhat unique reporting mechanism for formal complaints of all kinds, which 

operates outside the Ministry of Defence and reports directly to the Parliament. In the five 

years since the policy change, 50 of the 60,000 complaints filed involved a gay man or lesbian. 

Of those 50, fewer than 10 involved harassment of some kind.233 In the United Kingdom, 

there was no increase in the rate of same-sex harassment. In the two years that followed the 

policy change, there had been one incident of an unwanted sexual advance by a gay man, 

which was dealt with effectively at the unit command level.234 Canada observed no change in 

the rate of same-sex harassment in the years after policy change.235 In Australia there were 

12 complaints filed involving gay men or lesbians in the 2 years post policy change, of which 

fewer than 5 involved harassment of any kind.236 In their report to the Working Group, RAND 

notes that in the course of their review of foreign militaries, several countries have commented 

that harassment due to gender integration was far more pronounced than harassment due to 

sexual orientation.237

229 “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution 

Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.

230 United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service.

231 United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand Defense Officials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010; RAND, 2010, 

256–263.

232 RAND, 2010, 315.

233 RAND, 2010, 290.

234 United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service.

235 United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand Defense Officials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010.

236 “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution 

Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.

237 RAND, 2010, 287, 295, 307, 314.
93

X EXPERIENCES OF DOMESTIC ORGANIZATIONS

We also looked to the experiences of various municipal and federal agencies in the 

United States in integrating gay and lesbian personnel. As with foreign militaries, there 

are limits to making comparisons to these domestic organizations, but there are some 

important insights to be drawn. In particular, a number of the federal agencies currently 

have personnel who live and work alongside U.S. military personnel in deployed areas. For 

this task, we relied in large part on RAND’s update to its 1993 report.238

In 1993, RAND studied sexual orientation at local police and fire departments. These 

institutions were chosen based on certain similarities to the military: they are all-volunteer 

forces of U.S. citizens, they are hierarchical in nature, and they rely heavily on cohesion and 

readiness to perform effectively. In many of the organizations, men far outnumber women.

In its 2010 update, RAND again surveying municipal public safety agencies, this time 

in Houston, San Diego, Chicago, Charlotte, Oklahoma City, Orange County, and Philadelphia. 

RAND also studied several Federal agencies, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

the Central Intelligence Agency, the State Department, and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development.

In 1993, none of the organizations surveyed by RAND had formal bans on gay employees 

or limits on the positions they could hold, but they did report very few openly gay personnel. 

Since then, many of the localities in question adopted policies of non-discrimination based on 

sexual orientation, which in turn apply to these public safety agencies. For example, Chicago, 

Houston, San Diego, and Orange County all now have ordinances against discrimination 

based on sexual orientation.239

Some Federal agencies have instituted policies to the same effect. For example, 

then-Secretary Warren Christopher issued a memo in 1994 outlining the Department of 

State’s commitment to non-discrimination:

“The Department of State is committed to equal opportunity and fair and 

equitable treatment for all. The Department shall not discriminate among its 

employees or candidates for employment on the basis of race, color, national 

origin, sex, religion, disability, or sexual orientation.”240

238 RAND, 2010.

239 RAND, 2010, 331.

240 RAND, 2010, 331.
94

Later, in 1998, President Clinton issued an Executive Order prohibiting discrimination 

based on sexual orientation for civilian employees in all Federal agencies.241 Twenty-four 

states have enacted similar prohibitions applicable to state organizations.242

Employees of these institutions reported that having gay and lesbian personnel among 

their ranks has had no effect on their organization’s institutional performance. Rather, it 

appears that a common focus on the job brought co-workers together despite personal beliefs. 

Anecdotally, one Philadelphia police officer said: “[Other police officers] can hate your guts 

but they will still back you up,”243 noting instances of racist white police officers supporting 

fellow officers who were black. Likewise, a captain of a firefighting squad opined that sexual 

orientation “has nothing to do with fighting fires.”244 Several interviewees actually reported 

that integration of gay and lesbian personnel resulted in improved performance, in that the 

organizations were better equipped to respond to concerns of gay and lesbian constituents 

in their communities.245

Gay and lesbian employees of the agencies surveyed were evaluated by the same 

criteria as all other employees and accordingly, were represented in institutional leadership. 

The FBI reported that it had gay employees working successfully in positions that required 

close collaboration with the military, both domestically and internationally.246 Some stated 

that a work environment permitting gay and lesbian employees to acknowledge their sexual 

orientation improved individual job performance as the individuals did not have to expend 

effort concealing part of their lives and could focus fully on their work.247

Recruiting has also not suffered, with police and fire departments generally 

reporting “an abundance” of recruits for their agencies.248 Some agencies (e.g., Chicago 

Police Department, Philadelphia Police Department) have gone so far as to conduct specific 

outreach efforts to their local gay and lesbian communities.

Overall, retention was generally reported to be very high at the agencies surveyed, and 

it is rare for an employee to leave for reasons related to sexual orientation.249

The fire departments RAND studied presented a somewhat comparable environment 

to the military with regard to living and working conditions and associated privacy 

concerns. While on shift, firefighters share living, bathing, and eating facilities. Also like 

the military, fire departments had to adapt when women were integrated into their ranks. 

Those adaptations were often temporary at first (e.g., curtains dividing living spaces) with 

241 RAND, 2010, 326.

242 RAND, 2010, 330.

243 RAND, 2010, 345.

244 RAND, 2010, 345.

245 RAND, 2010, 345.

246 RAND, 2010, 346.

247 RAND, 2010, 346.

248 RAND, 2010, 347.

249 RAND, 2010, 348.
95

more permanent accommodations following over time. Nonetheless, firefighters share 

intimate quarters when on duty, regardless of permanent, separate facilities. None of the 

departments interviewed saw the need for additional privacy accommodations for gay fire 

fighters, and some individuals said that, when compared to integrating women, integrating 

gay and lesbian personnel was trivial. Very few privacy problems have been reported on the 

basis of sexual orientation.250

Among Federal agencies, the FBI’s training facility at Quantico, Virginia is one 

example of an environment where Federal employees share living space. During interviews 

there, RAND did not find any incidents or complaints based on sexual orientation.251 Foreign 

service officers from the State Department may be assigned to shared living spaces in certain 

countries; according to a foreign service officer interviewed by RAND, this has “absolutely 

been a non-issue.”252

Furthermore, some Federal agencies send their personnel to deployed environments, 

where they may work alongside U.S. military personnel and live in military housing 

facilities. In the case of the FBI, according to RAND, no agent has asked to be sent home 

from a deployment with military personnel because of harassment directed against gays 

and lesbians.253

The locales surveyed represent a range of anti-discrimination regimes. In cases 

where there is no official policy forbidding discrimination based on sexual orientation, 

existing standards provide similar protections. For example, Oklahoma City policy states 

that “employment decisions shall be made on the basis of skill, ability, qualifications, and 

job performance.”254 All agencies have some form of formal complaint process outside the 

chain of command to resolve complaints with a supervisor; typically an Office of Internal 

Affairs, human resources, or Equal Employment Opportunity office. Federal employees 

interviewed by RAND cited a 1992 change in policy allowing gay individuals to obtain 

security clearances and Executive Order 13087 in 1998 as important to extending workplace 

protections to employees.255

In the 1990s, more open forms of harassment such as graffiti on lockers were a concern 

in many agencies. Today, however, these forms of harassment are far less frequent. Slurs 

and derogatory name-calling based on sexual orientation still happen, but at much lower 

rates than for race or gender. These concerns are typically handled successfully at low levels 

in the organizational hierarchy.256

250 RAND, 2010, 337.

251 RAND, 2010, 337.

252 RAND, 2010, 337.

253 RAND, 2010, 337.

254 RAND, 2010, 331.

255 RAND, 2010, 332–333.

256 RAND, 2010, 342–343.
96

In general, reports of gay men or lesbians harassing others individuals are rare. In 

Oklahoma City, interviewees claimed that gay officers tended to keep their off-duty life 

private. One interviewee stated, “I know in this part of the country it’s not easy for people 

[to accept homosexuality]. I was raised to believe [homosexuality] is wrong, but at work, it’s 

about treating all fairly.”257

RAND found no case of standards of conduct being lowered due to the presence of 

gay or lesbian employees, and some interviewees stated they thought having openly gay 

co-workers benefitted the unit.258 For the most part, gay men and lesbians either kept their 

sexual orientation private, or revealed it to select co-workers on a case-by-case basis.259

Interviewees typically had trouble estimating the number of gay or lesbian members of 

their organization because only a small number were open about their sexuality to the 

entire department. When gay employees have decided to “come out,” it has typically been a 

discreet event to a few people. One human resources representative stated, “If you can’t be 

successful out, then you won’t come out.”260

There were also very few reports of “flamboyant” or inappropriate behavior by gay 

and lesbian personnel. One official observed that if a police officer carried a purse while on 

duty, he would be disciplined for a uniform policy violation. Broadly there was a sense that 

gay personnel know what behavior is acceptable in a business environment.261

In general, cohesion and effectiveness have not seemed to have been affected by 

breaches of standards of conduct. An Oklahoma City Police officer said, “We really just 

think of ourselves as gray shirts.”262 A fire captain said that sexual orientation does not 

advantage or disadvantage a firefighter.263 What mattered most to people interviewed was 

not a person’s background or orientation, but whether they could do the job.

In sum, as with racial and gender integration of the military, the process of integrating 

gay men and lesbians into these municipal and Federal organizations ultimately laid many 

fears to rest. The experience of municipal law enforcement agencies and Federal agencies 

has been that the integration of gay and lesbian personnel has not negatively affected 

institutional or individual job performance.

257 RAND, 2010, 344.

258 RAND, 2010, 344–346.

259 RAND, 2010, 339.

260 RAND, 2010, 341.

261 RAND, 2010, 340–342.

262 RAND, 2010, 345.

263 RAND, 2010, 345.

96
To assist us in our assessment, the Working Group established a panel to consolidate 

and review the full breadth and depth of data collected by the Working Group and to conduct 

a staff assessment. A summary of the assessment panel’s approach, make-up, and findings 

are contained in this section; our overall assessment, which considers the findings of the 

staff assessment along with other factors, is in the following section.

Approach

To address the Terms of Reference, the Working Group needed to understand how 

the six areas assigned by the Terms of Reference—military readiness, military effectiveness, 

unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness—relate to one another. Figure 5 

depicts the model constructed by the Working Group to depict these relationships. Areas in 

blue are those assigned expressly by the Terms of Reference: military readiness, military 

effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. The overarching 

area to be assessed was military effectiveness. Military readiness and unit cohesion are 

primary components of military effectiveness. In addition, “unit effectiveness,” which 

is similar to but somewhat different from unit cohesion, was considered an additional 

component of military effectiveness that should be evaluated. Within military readiness, 

components are defined by statute, and include personnel readiness. As such, recruiting and 

retention were considered to be subcomponents of military readiness. Taken together, the 

panel’s assessment of these major assessment areas and their subcomponents provided the 

information for the co-chairs to make an overall risk assessment to military effectiveness.

Figure 5. Working Group Military Effectiveness Assessment Model

97

XI PANEL ASSESSMENT

Military Effectiveness 

Military 

Readiness

Unit 

Effectiveness

Unit 

Cohesion

Personnel

Readiness

Officer

Deployed Garrison Task Cohesion Social Cohesion

Garrison Deployability Recruiting

Deployed

Relocation

Officer

Enlisted

Retention

Enlisted

Equipment Family

Readiness
98

In order to understand and evaluate each assessment area, the Working Group broke 

down each area into component parts. For unit cohesion, academic and military research 

indicates that it is made up of both task cohesion and social cohesion.264 Therefore, though 

they were not specifically assigned by the Terms of Reference, the panel assessed these 

subcomponents too. Unit effectiveness was assessed both while in garrison and deployed. 

Recruitment and retention focused on enlisted and commissioned officer personnel. 

Additionally, as part of the Department of Defense’s responsibility to report readiness to 

Congress,265 the deployability of the force is considered part of military readiness; and it was 

also evaluated by the panel. Finally, family readiness was evaluated based on three distinct 

time periods for a military family: in garrison, during deployment, and while relocating.

The panel was selected to represent all the Services and a wide range of ages, grades, 

warfare specialties, and experiences. The assessment panel included military officers, 

three senior non-commissioned officers, and several DoD career civilians. The panel 

consisted of combat arms personnel, aviators, surface combat personnel, an intelligence 

officer, a personnel specialist, family readiness specialists, a recruiter, a judge advocate, 

an aeromedical officer, and a military researcher. Eight of the panel members were part 

of the Working Group, including three Working Group members who were brought into 

the Working Group specifically because of their recent operational experience. For most 

of the review, the panel consisted of 11 members; for the family readiness review, the panel 

was increased to 15 members. In performing their assessment, each of the panel members 

applied their own individual, professional judgment. Through inclusion of panel members 

representing the operational communities in each service, the concerns and views of those 

communities were both heard and incorporated into the panel deliberations. Specifically 

included were representatives from the Army and Marine Corps combat arms communities.

To conduct its staff assessment, the panel used a standard military decision support 

process recommended by the Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment Directorate of the 

Joint Staff (J-8). The same process has also been used by the Department of Defense in a 

variety of complex military decisions and risk assessments. The process is also widely used 

and accepted in academia and industry as well.266

The first step of the decision support process required the assessment panel to 

determine the importance of each of the sub-areas to the various assessment areas. For 

example, the panel had to determine whether task cohesion or social cohesion had greater 

influence to overall unit cohesion and to what degree—or whether the two sub-areas had 

equal importance. The panel reviewed an extensive body of research, including materials 

submitted by outside organizations about the relative importance of task and social cohesion. 

This particular topic is itself subject to ongoing debate among academics and researchers. 

When discussing the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, some researchers have minimized the 

264 “Task cohesion” refers to the ability to work together effectively in order to accomplish a mission. “Social cohesion” refers to 

the emotional bonds and trust among unit members.

265 10 U.S.C. § 117.

266 Other users of the process include National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Johnson & Johnson, and Amtrak.
99

importance of social cohesion and explained that it is only task cohesion that is critical to 

performance.267 Others tout the importance of social cohesion in military units as the driving 

force behind unit performance.268 The consensus among the panel was that both contribute 

to unit cohesion, but that task cohesion is the more important of the two. Indeed, research 

and analysis of the Service member survey data shows that task cohesion has a stronger 

relationship with unit performance than social cohesion.269 Thus, the panel weighed task 

cohesion significantly higher (0.84) than social cohesion (0.16) in relative importance for 

overall unit cohesion.

In a similar manner, the panel assigned numerical weights to each assessed area as 

reflected in Figure 6.

Figure 6. The Weighting of the Assessment Areas and Supporting Sub-Areas

Military Effectiveness 

Military 

Readiness

Unit 

Effectiveness

Unit 

Cohesion

Personnel

Readiness

Officer

0.46

Garrison

0.15

Deployed

0.85

Task Cohesion

0.84

Social Cohesion

0.16

Recruiting

0.12

Deployability

0.39

Garrison

0.16

Deployed

0.66

Relocation

1.39

Officer

0.30

Enlisted

0.70

Retention

0.49

Enlisted

0.54

Equipment Family

Readiness

In order to conduct its risk assessment, the panel reviewed relevant material and heard 

presentations from six different subject matter experts on the topics of unit effectiveness, 

267 Bonnie Moradi and Laura Miller, “Attitudes of Iraq and Afghanistan War Veterans Toward Gay and Lesbian Service Members,” 

Armed Forces & Society, 36(3), October 29, 2009, 397–419; Danny Kaplan and Amir Rosenmann, Presence of Openly Gay 

Soldiers in IDF Does Not Undermine Unit Social Cohesion, Research Report submitted to the Michael D. Palm Center, June 

2010.

268 Gary Schaub, Jr., “Unit Cohesion and the Impact of DADT,” Strategic Studies Quarterly, 4(3), Fall 2010, 85-101; Leonard Wong 

and Thomas A. Kolditz, Raymond A. Millen, and Terrence M. Potter, Why They Fight: Combat Motivation in the Iraqi War

(Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, July 2003).

269 Guy L. Siebold, “Military Group Cohesion,” Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat, vol. 1, ed. Thomas W. 

Britt, Carl Andrew Castro, and Amy B. Adler (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006), 185–201; CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD 

Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.
100

unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, deployability, and family readiness. Each subject matter 

expert described the area to be assessed, provided relevant information gathered by the 

Working Group, and answered questions. The information provided included qualitative 

information from the Working Group’s systematic engagement of the force and their 

families (i.e., information exchange forums, focus groups, online inbox, and confidential 

communication mechanism), quantitative data from surveys, other data from the Services, 

scholarly work from civilian and military researchers, materials submitted by outside 

organizations, experiences of foreign militaries and domestic organizations, historical 

accounts of racial and gender integration in the U.S. military, and the relevant sections of 

RAND’s update to its 1993 report.

After hearing each presentation and reviewing the data, panel members assigned a 

numeric rating for the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to each sub-area of military 

readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. 

A rating of less than 3 was “LOW RISK”; a rating of 4 and above, but less than 6, was 

“MODERATE RISK,” and 7 and above was “HIGH RISK.” A rating between 3 and 4 was 

“LOW-MODERATE” and between 6 and 7 was “MODERATE-HIGH.”

Figure 7. Assessment Rating Scale

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

The assessments of each individual panel member were then averaged to determine a 

single risk assessment for each area. Risk assessments for subcomponents were aggregated, 

in accordance with the weights assigned, to form a numeric risk rating for the overall area 

assessment.

The panel applied its numeric ratings twice: once before and once after the 

consideration of risk mitigation factors, including the various policy, legal, training and 

education, and leadership recommendations of the Working Group. The panelists assumed 

that the Department of Defense had adequate time to fully implement these recommendations.

Concurrently, a “red team” observed the assessment process from a separate room. 

The purpose of the red team was to critically evaluate the application of the methodology 

by the assessment panel, to ensure that the methodology was applied fairly and objectively, 

and that the assessment was based on relevant data and subject matter expertise. The 

red team was composed of seven individuals, co-led by a general officer and a career SES 

civilian, with personnel from each Service, as well as civilian analysts that specialized in 
101

red teaming. The red team was provided with the same information as the panel members 

and was able to hear and see everything during the assessment. The red team provided a 

summary report noting areas of concern with regard to methodology, discussion of ratings, 

group dynamics, and weaknesses in logic and analysis. The red team noted that, in general, 

the assessment panel’s conclusions and assessments were somewhat more conservative 

(i.e., presuming greater risk) than warranted given the data and information considered. 

Additionally, although the panel members did not always agree on their assessment of risk, 

panel deliberations were noted to be thoughtful, dispassionate, and without undue influence 

by any one panel member.

Factors Considered by the Panel

In evaluating the information gathered by the Working Group and presented by 

the subject matter experts, the panel considered a number of contextual factors, the most 

important of which are discussed below. Through the survey process and other engagements 

with the force, the Working Group heard views, concerns, and attitudes about a repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Utilizing this information—in conjunction with historical lessons, the 

experiences of foreign militaries and domestic organizations, and organizational research 

on the topic within the U.S. military—the panel made its assessments of the impact of repeal. 

In order to best interpret this information, the panel also considered several contextual 

factors including: the relationship between attitudes and behaviors, research on when and 

if gays and lesbians are likely to disclose their sexual orientation in a military environment, 

and understanding what “open” service is and is not.

Attitude vs. Behavior. First, the assessment panel discussed research indicating 

that attitudes—including those expressed in surveys—are not a good predictor of actual 

future behavior. This is demonstrated in social psychology data.270 Attitudes tend to be 

fairly general and emotionally laden. Behaviors reflect attitudes to a limited extent, and are 

also strongly affected by rules, social norms, and other constraints of specific situations. 

Thus, this is one of the reasons the Working Group’s survey focused in large part on Service 

members’ actual, past experiences with gay men and lesbians in their unit, and less on the 

predictions of how Service members might respond to future situations.

Disclosure of Sexual Orientation. Second, the panel considered the extent to 

which gay and lesbian Service members will disclose their sexual orientation upon repeal. 

Research reviewed by the panel indicated that gay and lesbian Service members make-up 

approximately 3–4% of the total force.271 Based upon academic literature, RAND’s survey 

of gay and lesbian Service members, and the experiences of other nations after policies 

were changed to allow gay men and lesbians to serve openly, the panel expected gay Service 

270 C.J. Armitage and M. Conner, “Efficacy of the theory of planned behavior: a meta-analytic review,” British Journal of Social 

Psychology, 40, 2001, 471–499.

271 RAND, 2010, 101; Estimate is based on FY2008 Adolescent Health survey data. This survey is administered by the National 

Institutes of Health and incorporates information on a variety of work and health related topics. It includes information on 

self-reported sexual orientation and military service.
102

members to continue to be discreet about their personal lives and careful to whom they 

share their sexual orientation.

Understanding What “Open” Service Means. Third, the panel considered the apparent 

disconnect between Service members’ reports of having served successfully with others they 

believe to be gay or lesbian and predictions of negative impacts if gays and lesbians are 

allowed to serve “openly.” When Service members speak about gays and lesbians with whom 

they actually served, such co-workers are described based on their professional attributes, 

technical proficiency, and what they brought to the unit. In contrast, when expressing 

generalized concerns about repeal, Service members often focused on stereotypes: that 

gay men in particular would act in an effeminate manner inconsistent with the common 

image of a warfighter, would make unwanted sexual advances toward heterosexual Service 

members, or would engage in inappropriate public displays of affection.272 These generalized 

perceptions of gay Service members led to a fear that unit cohesion, morale, and good order 

and discipline will erode. Additionally, the panel considered the fact that Service members 

were not aware of the Working Group’s recommendations for how to implement a repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. As such, the consensus was that Service members, fairly, were likely to 

consider a “worst case” scenario when predicting likely impact of repeal.

Areas of Assessment

With regard to each of the assessment areas the panel made the following findings:

Unit Cohesion. As discussed previously, unit cohesion has two primary parts, task 

cohesion and social cohesion. “Task cohesion” refers to the ability to work together effectively 

in order to accomplish a mission. “Social cohesion” refers to the emotional bonds and trust 

among unit members.

Based on research and comments from currently serving gays and lesbians, the panel 

expected that the number of gay and lesbian Service members would remain small following 

a repeal, and that most gay and lesbian Service members would likely only disclose their 

sexual orientation in a limited manner.273

Service members reported high levels of task cohesion in their current units—including 

those who believed they were currently serving with gay men and lesbians. Overall, 72% of 

Service members, and 77% of Service members currently serving with someone they believe 

to be gay or lesbian, indicated that repeal would have a positive, mixed, or no effect on task 

cohesion.274 Analysis of the survey data revealed that the largest driver of task cohesion was 

not the presence of gay men or lesbians in a unit, but the presence of good leadership by 

272 Service members, CRWG Information Exchange Forums and Focus Groups, 2010.

273 CRWG, “The Process of Disclosure of Sexual Orientation in the Workplace,” white paper, 2010.

274 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.
103

officers and non-commissioned officers.275 Additionally, research indicates that leadership, 

shared mission success, and a common out-group or enemy all enable high unit cohesion.276

Another key factor in the panel’s assessment was research indicating that cohesion in 

military units is not likely to be adversely impacted by group diversity, especially with the 

presence of an effective leader.277 A number of Service members indicated in focus groups 

and in comments on the survey that what was important was whether or not someone 

could do their job, not their sexual orientation.278 The panel noted that Service members 

within combat arms were somewhat more negative about impact of repeal on task cohesion; 

however, combat arms personnel also believed, on the whole, that they were better led and 

reported higher overall cohesion in their current units.279

On the other hand, a significant reason for the panel’s relatively high risk assessments 

for social cohesion was the potential impact of repeal on trust within a unit that might result 

from any violations of personal privacy. Though the possibility of violent episodes based 

on violations of personal privacy exists, the panel assessed that instances of violence are 

likely to be extremely rare and isolated. In addition, the panel found—and survey results 

supported—that while some units or individuals may reduce their off-duty socializing 

post-repeal, this has little impact on social cohesion, especially when compared to the large 

impact of leadership.

The combined assessments of the panel members yielded an initial risk rating of 

LOW–MODERATE for task cohesion, and of MODERATE–HIGH for social cohesion 

before mitigation measures were considered. Given the relative greater importance of 

task cohesion to social cohesion, the panel rated the overall initial risk to unit cohesion as 

LOW–MODERATE.

Figure 8. Unit Cohesion Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Task Cohesion

(3.3)

Social Cohesion

(6.3)

Unit Cohesion

(3.8)

275 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.

276 CRWG, “Military Cohesion: Summary of Key Research Findings,” white paper, 2010.

277 CRWG, “Diversity and Cohesion,” white paper, 2010.

278 Service member, CRWG Focus Groups, 2010.

279 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.
104

The panel determined the impact of repeal on personal privacy, trust, and overall social 

cohesion can be significantly mitigated by the Working Group’s policy recommendations, 

emphasis on existing standards of conduct, support to leaders to handle situations dealing 

with personal privacy, and education of the force that will help break down stereotypes. 

The panel recognized that mitigation measures for social cohesion will, in large part, rely 

on unit leaders to manage the expectations and behavior of their unit members. With these 

types of mitigation measures in place, the panel’s risk assessments went down considerably. 

Consistent, sexual-orientation neutral standards of conduct, as well as a policy of not 

collecting or tracking information on a Service member’s sexual orientation, served to 

mitigate task cohesion risk. Altogether, the panel found the risk to task cohesion as LOW, 

the risk to social cohesion as MODERATE, and the overall risk to unit cohesion to be LOW.

Figure 9. Unit Cohesion Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Task Cohesion

(2.2)

Social Cohesion

(4.6)

Unit Cohesion

(2.6)

Unit Effectiveness. Unit effectiveness refers to a unit’s ability to accomplish assigned 

tasks or missions and is the product of a complex interplay of numerous factors, both internal 

and external to the unit. Internal factors include leadership, individual knowledge and skills, 

training, equipment, logistical support, and unit cohesion, while external factors include 

weather, terrain, and enemy characteristics. Many of these factors would not be impacted 

by repeal; however, social factors such as cohesion, leadership, and social interactions, could 

be impacted. As such, the research and analysis for unit cohesion was a component of the 

assessment of the impact of repeal on unit effectiveness.

The panel assessed the risk to unit effectiveness in the two environments within which 

the majority of military units operate: “in garrison” (e.g., at home, on base, or in port) and 

deployed. Prior to mitigation measures, the panel rated the impact of repeal as MODERATE 

risk in garrison and as LOW–MODERATE in a deployed environment.

The survey results revealed that Service members were more negative about the 

impact of repeal on unit effectiveness while deployed to a field environment or out at sea, 

with 44% of respondents reporting that unit effectiveness would be affected negatively in 
105

that situation.280 On the other hand, the numbers of those predicting negative effects fell to 

29% when asked about unit effectiveness in a crisis situation and 31% in an intense combat 

situation.281 These results suggest a large number of respondents are concerned about privacy 

and non-work-related distractions in the field or at sea. However, these concerns diminish 

when a strong focus on mission accomplishment is required. These findings are consistent 

with research showing that a mutual threat and high levels of interdependence among 

unit members, commonly found in combat situations, enhances cohesion by activating an 

in-group identity and a shared goal that supersedes individual differences.282 Within garrison 

or during down time on deployment, the external threat is greatly reduced or non-existent, 

and those environments allow for numerous distractions, which can exacerbate tensions 

between Service members and detract from mission focus.

Further, the survey results revealed unit effectiveness was reported to be good 

among those Service member who are currently serving with someone believed to be gay 

or lesbian.283 While these ratings are slightly less positive than those for units in which the 

Service member is not serving with someone believed to be gay or lesbian, when quality 

of leadership is accounted for, this difference becomes virtually non-existent.284 It is only 

in units with poor quality leadership—which in the survey accounted for less that 3% of 

responses—that this difference is noticeable. As with unit cohesion, the differences in unit 

effectiveness due to quality of leadership are five to ten times larger than those due to the 

presence of someone believed to be gay or lesbian.

The panel also found relevant the historical record of the U.S. military’s experience 

with racial and gender integration, as well as experiences of foreign militaries and analogous 

domestic organizations. Not long after surveys of U.S. forces indicated that 65–80% of white 

Service members predicted significant disruption and negative impact to unit effectiveness if 

blacks were integrated into their units, Army research from the period 1951–1953, conducted 

during the Korean War, found that racially integrated units performed in combat equally 

as well as all-white units.285 Likewise, Army research from the 1970s revealed no decline in 

unit effectiveness as a result of gender integration.286

Finally, RAND’s updated report notes that domestic police and fire departments 

concluded that the presence of gay men and lesbians did not undermine unit effectiveness. 

The RAND report also describes the experiences of several foreign militaries that lifted 

bans on the military service of gay men and lesbians.287 These nations have participated in 

280 See Appendix C, Question 71a.

281 See Appendix C, Questions 71b–c.

282 Guy L. Siebold, “Military Group Cohesion,” Military Life: The Psychology of Serving in Peace and Combat, vol. 1, ed. Thomas W. 

Britt, Carl Andrew Castro, and Amy B. Adler (Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers, 2006), 185–201.

283 See Appendix C, Questions 39c, 47c, and 55c.

284 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.

285 Alfred H. Haurath, “Utilization of Negro Manpower in the Army”, Journal of the Operations Research Society of America, 2, no. 

1 (February 1954).

286 Leora N. Rosen et al., “Cohesion and Readiness in Gender-Integrated Combat Service Support Units: The Impact of Acceptance 

of Women and Gender Ratio,” Armed Forces & Society, 22, 1996, 537–553.

287 RAND, 2010, 275–316.
106

combat operations, often in cooperation with U.S. forces, since they lifted their bans, and 

none observed a decline in unit effectiveness.

Figure 10. Unit Effectiveness Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deployed

(3.7)

Garrison

(4.7)

Unit Effectiveness

(3.8)

The primary focus of mitigation measures were good leadership, clear standards 

of conduct applicable to all Service members, and well-designed education and training 

programs. The panel discussed the importance of leaders fully and consistently enforcing 

the standards of conduct in garrison or in port, as well as when deployed in the field or at 

sea. When the recommended mitigation measures were considered, the panel rated the risk 

of repeal to unit effectiveness in both garrison and deployed settings as LOW. With those 

two environments combined, the panel rated the risk of repeal to overall unit effectiveness 

as LOW.

Figure 11. Unit Effectiveness Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deployed

(2.5)

Garrison

(2.8)

Unit Effectiveness

(2.6)
107

Military Readiness. Military readiness is defined as the ability of forces to fight and 

meet the requirements of the National Military Strategy.288 Within military readiness, the 

panel considered recruiting, retention, and deployability issues as separate sub-areas for 

assessment. The panel rated retention as the most important of the three based on the time 

and resources invested in developing each Service member through their career, followed 

by non-deployability issues based on its impact on the ability to send forces abroad, and 

recruitment. The panel’s assessment of each is described separately below. Based on the 

assessments of recruiting, retention, and deployability factors, the panel assessed the overall 

risk of repeal to military readiness as MODERATE, before taking account of any mitigation 

measures and LOW, after taking account of these measures.

Recruiting. The panel concluded, from data supplied by the Services, there would be 

little impact from a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on recruiting for the officer and enlisted 

ranks. Service Academies and ROTC programs remain highly competitive and Services are 

meeting their officer accession objectives.

A military recruiting survey asked potential recruits whether a repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell would impact their likelihood to enlist. RAND analyzed this data and concluded 

that the effect on enlisted recruitments could decline by up to 7%, or the equivalent effect 

of a 1% decline in the national unemployment rate. The overall decline of 7% came from 

RAND’s analysis of a survey conducted by Joint Advertising Marketing Research and Studies 

in the April-June timeframe.289 (A subsequent analysis of a survey in the July to September 

timeframe, which used slightly different wording, showed an increase in overall recruiting of 

4%; however, this information was not available to the panel at the time of its assessment.)290

The consensus among panel members, however, was that overall risk to recruitment 

was LOW for a number of reasons.

First, research and survey data show that enlisted recruits are driven primarily by 

economic and financial reasons. Research also shows that there is a weak link between 

attitudes and behavior, especially when individuals are asked to predict behavior in situations 

with which they are not familiar. As such, the panel was skeptical that enlisted recruits’ 

prediction about the impact of repeal on their likelihood of enlisting would reliably predict 

their actual behavior. Thus, the consensus of the panel was that a 7% decline would not 

actually come to fruition.

Second, military recruitment systems are structured such that they are resilient to 

fluctuations in the availability of potential recruits and the demand for new recruits on 

an annual basis. Each Service has been able to meet recruiting goals in recent years in 

substantially more difficult conditions than exist currently.291

288 Department of Defense, Joint Publication 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, September 30, 2010, 387.

289 RAND, 2010, 178, 187.

290 RAND, 2010, 178, 187.

291 CRWG Assessment Team, “Recruiting Analysis Paper,” white paper, 2010.
108

Third, Service member survey data indicated that 63% of respondents would still 

recommend military service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed.292

Finally, based on the experience of other nations, the panel believed that any recruiting 

challenges resulting from a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will be minimal.

Accordingly, the panel assessed that, without mitigation measures in place, the risk of 

repeal to both officer and enlisted recruitment is LOW.293

Figure 12. Recruiting Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Officer

(1.2)

Enlisted

(2.4)

Recruiting

(2.0)

In terms of mitigation measures, of particular importance to the panel’s assessment 

was the recommendation not to collect data on applicants’ sexual orientation and to continue 

existing policy of not asking recruits to reveal their sexual orientation. Also of importance 

was education and training for recruiters. This would enable them to clearly, succinctly, 

and accurately explain to potential recruits what repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell means for 

individual recruits, thereby reducing uncertainty about the change in policy.

After such mitigation measures were taken into account, the risk of repeal to both 

officer and enlisted recruitment was assessed as LOW.

292 See Appendix C, Question 80.

293 In reaching this conclusion, the panel did not place any weight on arguments offered that repeal would increase the number of 

ROTC candidates available, or recruiters’ access to college campuses. Although repeal may mean that ROTC programs will be 

generally more accepted on college campuses, the panel did not find any persuasive evidence that supports the view that repeal 

will have a positive effect on officer recruitment. There may be minimal gain, but more likely a net zero impact, of access to 

schools and institutions that currently prohibit military accessions programs.
109

Figure 13. Recruiting Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Officer

(0.6)

Enlisted

(1.5)

Recruiting

(1.2)

Retention. Just as the Military Services place great emphasis on recruiting in order 

to sustain personnel readiness, they also emphasize retention of those already serving. 

Retaining those the Services have already invested time and resources training and 

developing to be productive members of the force is critical to the sustainment of readiness. 

This is particularly true of those junior leaders who represent an investment of 7–10 years of 

training and development, and who make up the pool of the future leaders of the force. As 

with recruitment, the panel assessed retention of enlisted and officer personnel separately.

Prior to mitigation measures being taken, the panel concluded that the risk of repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to the retention of enlisted and officer personnel is MODERATE.

Figure 14. Retention Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Officer

(5.3)

Enlisted

(5.3)

Retention

(5.3)
110

Here, key to the panel’s considerations were these factors:

First, the survey results revealed that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, 62% of 

Service members across all pay grades reported that their career plans would not change; 

13% reported that they will leave sooner than planned, and 11% indicated that they will 

consider leaving sooner than planned.294 Additionally, 19% of Service members who reported 

they intend to remain beyond their current obligation or until retirement, indicated they 

would leave sooner if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed.

Second, the panel concluded, based on the survey results and other factors, that 

enlisted personnel retention is most heavily influenced by financial benefits and economic 

conditions outside the military. The Service member survey asked respondents to identify 

the top three factors in considering whether to stay or depart from military service. Among 

the enlisted ranks, the state of the economy was consistently ranked first or second—except 

for among the senior enlisted grades for whom retirement benefits and years to retirement 

became more important. The survey results indicate that officer retention is impacted 

primarily by personal job satisfaction and the satisfaction of their families with the military. 

Additionally, when Service members compared these particular factors to repeal, only 8% of 

Service members viewed repeal to be more important than other retention factors.295 RAND’s 

analysis of this data estimates the number of Service members, depending on Service and 

warfare community, who may leave the military sooner as a result of repeal at 3–6%.296

Third, the majority of enlisted personnel have long-term service obligations that will 

prevent large numbers from leaving immediately if repeal were to occur. Initial obligations 

are between three to six years; with a second contract term, this often adds up to nine to ten 

years’ service. The 10-year mark is halfway to retirement benefits. Over the years of fulfilling 

their service obligations, enlisted personnel will likely adjust to and better understand the 

changes brought about by repeal. Officers do not sign enlistment contracts. They incur 

service obligations in various other ways (e.g., professional education), but these obligations 

do not extend as far through an officer’s career as typical service obligations do for enlisted 

personnel. Officers have more flexibility in extending their obligations and decide to leave or 

stay for a larger variety of reasons. Thus, though survey results indicated fewer officers than 

enlisted personnel would change their career plans if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, 

the panel assigned a greater risk of repeal to officer retention than enlisted retention. This 

was because officers have greater flexibility in their own retention decisions, there are fewer 

financial incentive programs available to the Services that may significantly affect officer 

retention, and the primary burden of managing the process of repeal will fall to leaders of 

small units.

294 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.

295 See Appendix C, Question 33.

296 RAND, 2010, 188.
111

Fourth, neither Canada nor the United Kingdom observed retention problems as 

a consequence of their lifting of the respective bans on military service by gay men and 

lesbians.297

The panel concluded that, after mitigation measures, the risk of repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell to the retention of enlisted personnel is LOW, and the risk to retention of 

officers is higher, in the range of LOW–MODERATE. The overall risk rating for retention is 

LOW–MODERATE.

Figure 15. Retention Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Enlisted

(2.9)

Officer

(3.8)

Retention

(3.3)

In terms of mitigation factors, key to the panel’s risk assessment on retention was the 

recommendation not to introduce new mechanisms for Service members to terminate their 

military service prior to the conclusion of their present service obligation. Education and 

training considered was also considered important, to enable commanders to effectively 

communicate the actual and expected consequences of repeal for everyday life in the military, 

for use in retention counseling.

Other Readiness Factors. Personnel readiness is a key facet of military readiness 

and refers to the preparedness of Service members, individually and collectively, to perform 

their responsibilities in support of the missions assigned. Within personnel readiness, 

commanders track unit personnel who are non-deployable. Many reasons exist as to why a 

member may be non-deployable, including lack of a security clearance, pending disciplinary 

action, inadequate training, or the Service member being within 180 days of separation.

297 Canadian Defense Officials, interview with the CRWG, May 2010; United Kingdom Ministry of Defence, Tri-Service.
112

The panel identified four key reasons for non-deployability that may be impacted by 

a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell—training, medical, legal, and family care. The panel found 

the impact of repeal on deployability to be LOW, even before mitigation measures were 

considered.

Figure 16. Deployability Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deployability

(2.9)

Throughout the Working Group’s engagements with the force, Service members 

brought up various medical concerns. This included increased risk of contracting HIV or 

other sexually transmitted diseases. In 1993, the DoD Military Working Group concluded 

that HIV-related concerns were a significant risk to the military if gays and lesbians were 

allowed to serve openly. However, since then the medical community has made significant 

advances in its understanding, treatment, and prevention of HIV. The panel noted that every 

Service member is tested for HIV at least every two years, and all Service members are tested 

prior to and following deployment, on the advice of a doctor, or upon request. A positive HIV 

test immediately classifies a Service member as non-deployable. All new recruits are tested, 

and a positive HIV test result precludes entry into military service.

In addition, the Services Surgeons General have issued a joint letter to the Working 

Group stating that the medical community procedures to prevent the spread of HIV and to 

secure the blood supply of the Military Services are sufficient, such that a repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell will have no adverse impact to deployability of personnel.298 Thus, the panel 

concluded that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would result in no significant change in overall 

HIV prevalence in the military.

Next, the panel considered survey results in which 46% of Service members predicted 

that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would have a negative effect on their unit’s ability to train 

well together.299 The panel reviewed research and discussions related to social cohesion and 

298 Surgeons General of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, Memorandum to the CRWG Co-Chairs, “Medical Impact of the Repeal of 

10 U.S.C. § 654 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy),” August 12, 2010.

299 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.
113

privacy and concluded that any impacts to training would not jeopardize the deployability 

or readiness of troops.

The panel also considered whether repeal would result in an increase in violence or 

harassment such that Service members would be unable to deploy due to pending disciplinary 

action. Foreign militaries indicated very few incidents of violence and harassment following 

repeal.300 The panel reviewed data from the Services on typical non-deployability due to 

“legal reasons,” reviewed qualitative data from the Working Group’s engagements with the 

force, and assessed comments regarding violence from the write-in portions of the survey. 

Based on this, the panel concluded that existing standards and good leadership would 

maintain discipline within the force and not impact deployability.

Finally, the panel considered whether repeal would impact family care plan issues. 

Within the military a family care plan is required for children of dual military spouses or 

children of a single military parent. Service members must have concrete plans in place 

for who will take care of their children in the event of deployment and must ensure that 

required legal documentation—such as a medical power of attorney—is complete. Current 

data shows that the numbers of those who are non-deployable for lack of family care plans is 

very small, and the panel concluded that repeal would not add significantly to that number.

Mitigation measures discussed by the panel included: sexual orientation neutral 

policies, maintaining current high standards of conducts, and providing education and 

training to leaders and the force at large. These measures were determined to be effective in 

reducing overall risk of deployability. The panel rated the potential impact to deployability 

as LOW.

Figure 17. Deployability Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Deployability

(2.0)

300 “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution 

Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.
114

 Family Readiness. Family readiness is the military family’s ability to successfully 

meet the challenges of daily living in the unique context of military life, including deployments 

and frequent relocation. Programs and benefits provided by the Services play a key role in 

helping Service members and their families through deployment-related stresses.

Based on several factors, the assessment panel concluded that the overall risk of repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to family readiness, before considering mitigating factors, was LOW. 

The area of largest concern was family readiness in garrison.

Figure 18. Family Readiness Risk Assessment Before Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Relocation

(1.7)

Garrison

(3.0)

Deployed

(1.9)

Family Readiness

(2.0)

First, a majority of spouses (61%) rated their family as ready or very ready, with only 

6% rating their family as unready or very unready.301 Moreover, 78% of spouses said that 

repeal would have no effect on or would improve their family readiness, while only 8% said 

it would reduce their family readiness.302

Second, spouses reported that repeal would have no effect on their involvement in 

family support activities, programs, and events. More than 70% of spouses who said they 

attended most support activities and that these activities were important or very important 

indicated that repeal would have no effect on their participation.303 However, 24% of those 

spouses who attend most deployment support events, and 15% of those who attend most 

family support events, report they would attend less often. Although some spouses had 

expressed concerns about a negative impact on participation in these programs, many 

recognized that same-sex partners cope with the same experiences and stresses while their 

Service members were deployed. Many (72%) of the spouses also said that repeal would 

either have no effect on their attendance at military social events or that they would attend 

more often.304

301 See Appendix D, Question 31.

302 See Appendix D, Question 32.

303 CRWG analysis of 2010 DoD Comprehensive Review Survey of Active Duty and Reserve Members, 2010.

304 See Appendix D, Question 27.
115

Third, while many spouses and Service members expressed concerns about same-sex 

couples moving into on-base housing, a majority of spouses who currently live in on-base 

housing said that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed they would stay in on-base housing. 

Far fewer, less than 20%, said they would seek to move if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed.305

Fourth, while the assessment panel recognized the potential for some minor negative 

impacts to family readiness for many families, they also concluded that there would likely 

be a substantial positive effect on family readiness for gay or lesbian Service members and 

their families.

The key mitigating factors considered by the assessment panel were effective 

education, strong leadership, and clear policies. Although many spouses indicated that 

they would prefer to have information about a new policy distributed on military web sites 

(34%) or printed information (37%), many also said that no special communication would 

be necessary (43%).306

After considering the impact of repeal after mitigation measures are in place, the 

panel rated the overall impact on family readiness as LOW, including in garrison.

Figure 19. Family Readiness Risk Assessment After Mitigation

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Relocation

(1.4)

Garrison

(1.9)

Deployed

(1.4)

Family Readiness

(1.5)

305 See Appendix D, Question 21.

306 See Appendix D, Question 11.
116

Summary of Panel Assessment

The panel provided the Co-Chairs with their staff assessment of overall risk in the 

areas of military readiness, unit effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family 

readiness. Figure 20 depicts the panel’s numeric risk ratings prior to the consideration 

of mitigating factors; Figure 21 depicts the numeric risk ratings after consideration of 

mitigation factors.

Figure 20. Preliminary Assessment of Risk Before Mitigation Factors Considered

Military Effectiveness 

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Military Readiness

3.9

Personnel

Readiness

Officer

5.3

Garrison

4.7

Recruiting

2.0

Deployed

1.9

Relocation

1.7

Officer

1.2

Enlisted

2.4

Retention

5.3

Enlisted

5.3

Equipment Family

Readiness

2.0

Before Mitigation Assessment

FOUO: Pre-decisional // ASSESS

Unit Effectiveness

3.8

Unit Cohesion

3.8

Garrison

3.1

Deployability

2.9

Deployed

3.7

Social Cohesion

6.3

Task Cohesion

3.3
117

Figure 21. Assessment of Risk After Mitigation Factors Considered

Military Effectiveness 

Low

Risk

High

Risk 

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Military Readiness

2.5

Unit Effectiveness

2.6

Unit Cohesion

2.6

Personnel

Readiness

Officer

3.8

Garrison

2.8

Deployed

2.5

Task Cohesion

2.2

Social Cohesion

4.6

Recruiting

1.2

Deployability

2.0

Garrison

1.9

Deployed

1.4

Relocation

1.4

Officer

0.6

Enlisted

1.5

Retention

3.3

Enlisted

2.9

Equipment Family

Readiness

1.5

After Mitigation Assessment

FOUO: Pre-decisional // ASSESS
118
Introduction

Based on all we saw and heard, our assessment is that, when coupled with the prompt 

implementation of the recommendations we offer below, the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, 

Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness is low. We conclude that, while a repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell will likely, in the short term, bring about some limited and isolated disruption 

to unit cohesion and retention, we do not believe this disruption will be widespread or 

long-lasting, and can be adequately addressed by the recommendations we offer below. 

Longer term, with a continued and sustained commitment to our core values of leadership, 

professionalism, and respect for all, we are convinced that the U.S. military can adjust and 

accommodate this change, just as it has others in history.

The survey results reveal that approximately 70% of the force predict that repeal 

will have mixed, positive or no effects on their unit’s ability to “work together to get the 

job done.” We are mindful that, during this time of war, these same survey results reveal 

a significant minority—around 30%, and in some cases as high as 40–60% in warfighting 

units—that predict negative effects. However, for the reasons stated below, we are confident 

that the risks of repeal to military effectiveness in these units, while somewhat higher than 

the overall force, remain within acceptable levels when coupled with the recommendations 

for implementation in this report.

For our assessment we considered a number of things large and small, complex and 

simple. Those most important are described below.

We begin with an e-mail received in the course of our review from a military spouse 

from Virginia who is also an active volunteer in support of military families. This one 

e-mail captures much of what underlies our assessment.

“As a wife of a Marine (an officer who entered as an enlisted), I’ve served 

as a volunteer, been appointed as a Family Readiness Assistant and worked 

professionally as a Readiness and Deployment Support Trainer and a Family 

Readiness Trainer for Marine Corps Family Team Building, I’ve had the 

opportunity to come in contact with and discuss this matter with a number of 

Marines and family members of varying ages and ranks....

119

XII OUR OVERALL ASSESSMENT
120

“I do believe that repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ is an inevitable and important 

step for modernizing our current military force, and is fundamentally necessary 

for a country built on the ideals of equality for all citizens.

“I firmly believe that, in time, our future generations will look back on our 

current debate as antiquated and nonsensical, failing to comprehend how we 

could possibly oppose opening our military to any citizen wanting to serve the 

nation. I believe this debate is largely motivated by a general misunderstanding 

and a reactionary fear, similar to the motives of our previous generations who 

opposed or questioned the idea of integrating our armed forces or permitting 

women to serve in the diverse roles they currently occupy across our branches 

of the service.

“With that said, I have no illusions that this process will be an easy or a quick 

one. The military is a community steeped in tradition and order. We take great 

pride in our history and culture, and at times this pride often impedes the 

speed of progress or willingness to embrace change. In the Marines Corps, 

particularly, the opposition to this process will likely be immense, specially 

surrounding living quarters and barracks structure for junior enlisted Marines. 

I believe that this issue can be addressed and mitigated by the leadership (both 

officers and NCOs) starting with every Marine’s first day of training at boot 

camp/officer candidate school...

“I think it’s important we emphasize both to our leaders and junior military 

members that this policy is intended to build morale among the branches 

and equalize our military, not to alter its culture. It’s important to remember 

that the military culture is an impartial one that does not offer any special 

treatment, advancement or encouragement of any lifestyle choices, and simply 

welcomes those who want to serve their nation—without discrimination—but 

equally without any endorsement of any personal qualities, traits or choices 

made by its members.

“I believe that in the next few decades, as the armed forces adjust to this change 

and become more comfortable with its impact, the resistance will recede and 

the military will actually be stronger for making this policy change.”307

Survey Results

The results of the Service member survey, described in section VII, reveal that in 

today’s U.S. military, a solid majority believe that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will have 

a positive, mixed, or no effect on military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, 

307 Spouse, e-mail message to CRWG, 2010.
121

recruiting, retention, and family readiness.308 Asked specifically in question 68a of the 

Service member survey about how an openly gay or lesbian individual in their unit would 

affect the unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,” 70% of Service members 

said the effect would be equally mixed, positive, or non-existent; only 30% said it would be 

negative or very negative.309 Asked in question 81 about how repeal will affect their own 

military career plans, 62% responded that their plans would not change, while an additional 

11% did not know.310

Overall, in response to a variety of questions, 50–55% of the force indicated that 

repeal will have a mixed or no effect; about 15–20% believe that repeal will have a positive 

effect, while another 30% believe it will have a negative effect.311

The results of the spouse survey are consistent. When spouses were asked whether 

repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect their preference for their Service member’s 

future plans to stay in the military, 74% of respondents said repeal would have no effect on 

their preference; 12% answered “I would want my spouse to leave earlier.”312 When asked 

what they would do if a gay or lesbian Service member and same-sex partner lived on-base 

in their neighborhood, 63% of respondents answered “I would get to know them like any 

other neighbor,” 13% answered “I would do nothing,” and 13% answered “I would generally 

avoid them when I could.”313 Finally, 76% of spouses answered the presence of a gay or 

lesbian partner of a Service member “would not affect my attendance at deployment-support 

activities.”314

To be sure, these survey results reveal a significant minority—about 30%—who 

expressed in some form and to some degree negative views or concerns about the impact 

of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.315 Any personnel policy change for which a group that 

size predicts negative consequences must be approached with caution. However, there are a 

number of other considerations that still lead us to conclude that the risk of repeal to overall 

military effectiveness is low.

Misperceptions About “Open” Service

The reality is that gay men and lesbians are already serving in today’s military. The 

other reality, revealed in the course of this review, is that much of the force recognizes 

this. As the survey indicates, 36% believe they are currently serving in a unit with a gay or 

lesbian Service member; 69% believe that, at some point in their career, they have served in 

308 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75.

309 See Appendix C, Question 68a.

310 See Appendix C, Question 81.

311 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75.

312 See Appendix D, Question 17.

313 See Appendix D, Question 25.

314 See Appendix D, Question 29.

315 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75.
122

a unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian.316 But, a frequent response among 

Service members at information forums, when asked about the widespread recognition that 

gay men and lesbians are already in the military, is “yes, but I don’t know they are gay.” Put 

another way, the concern with repeal among many is with “open” service.

In listening to Service members we found a perceptions gap—between the perception 

of the gay Service member that people know and work with, and the perception of the 

stereotypical gay individual that people do not know and have never worked with. When 

Service members talk about a unit member they believe to be gay or lesbian, their assessment 

of that individual was based on a complete picture and actual experience, including the 

Service member’s technical and tactical capabilities and other characteristics that contribute 

to his or her overall effectiveness as a member of the military and as a colleague.

By contrast, when asked about serving with the imagined gay Service member who is 

“open” about his or her sexual orientation, that feature becomes the predominant if not sole 

characteristic of the individual, and stereotypes fill in the rest of the picture. Stereotypes 

motivated many of the comments we heard. The most prevalent concern expressed is that 

gay men will behave in a stereotypically effeminate manner, while lesbian women are 

stereotypically painted in “masculine” terms. We heard widespread perceptions that, if 

permitted to be open and honest about their sexual orientation, gay Service members would 

behave as sexual predators and make unwelcome sexual advances on heterosexuals, gay 

men would adopt feminine behavior and dress, there would be open and notorious displays 

of affection in the military environment between same-sex couples, and that repeal would 

lead to an overall erosion of unit cohesion, morale, and good order and discipline. Based 

on our review, however, we conclude that these concerns are exaggerated and not consistent 

with the reported experiences of many Service members.

The perceptions gap we note here is also reflected in the survey data. The data reveals 

that Service members who are currently serving with someone they believe to be gay or 

lesbian are less likely to perceive a negative impact of repeal on the key elements of unit 

task and social cohesion, and unit effectiveness. Conversely, those who have believe they 

have never served with someone who is gay or lesbian are more likely to perceive a negative 

impact. Likewise, of Service members who believe they have in their career served in a unit 

with a co-worker who is gay or lesbian, 92% stated that the unit’s “ability to work together” 

was “very good,” “good,” or “neither good nor poor.”317

Thus, our view is that the negative perceptions and predictions of serving alongside 

a gay Service member are refuted by the considerable track record of actual experiences 

where Service members did exactly that.

316 See Appendix C, Question 34.

317 See Appendix C, Question 47a.
123

In addition, we conclude that if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, there will not be a 

mass “coming out” of gay Service members, as some predict. We assess that, for the most 

part and at least in the short term, gay Service members would continue to be selective 

and discreet about whom they share information about their sexual orientation with, for 

reasons having nothing to do with the law and everything to do with a sheer desire to fit in, 

co-exist, and succeed in the military environment. This conclusion is also consistent with 

the environment in civilian society, where no law requires gay men and lesbians to conceal 

their sexual orientation to keep their jobs. In civilian society, gay men and lesbians are 

legally permitted to be “open” about their sexual orientation, but research indicates that they 

tend to be open about their sexual orientation only with someone they know and trust (e.g., 

friends) rather than with someone they don’t know as well (e.g., neighbors). (See Figure 22.)

Figure 22. Disclosure of Sexual Orientation by Gay Men Ages 24–34 

0

20%

40%

60%

80%

100% Not Open

Somewhat Open

Very Open

To Friends To Neighbors

72%

22%

5%

34%

39%

26%

Source: RAND, 2010, 11

We believe this selectivity would exist even more so in the military environment, apart 

from what the law may prohibit or permit. RAND conducted a limited survey that included 

208 individuals who anonymously self-identified as gay or lesbian Service members and 

asked them how their behavior would change if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed. Only 

15% indicated they would like to have their sexual orientation known to everyone in their 

unit if the law is repealed, and 59% would selectively disclose it to others. (See Figure 23.)
124

Figure 23. Disclosure of Sexual Orientation Under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and Repeal 

0

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70% If Policy is Changed

Under Current Policy

Open with

Others in Unit

Sometimes open,

sometimes not

Pretend to be

Heterosexual

3%

22%

4%

29%

59%

15%

Source: RAND, 2010, 27.

Our conclusion that gay and lesbian Service members would, for the most part, 

continue to be discreet about their orientation is consistent with what we heard directly 

from those Service members, on an anonymous basis:

“Personally, I don’t feel that this is something I should have to ‘disclose.’ Straight 

people don’t have to disclose their orientation. I will just be me. I will bring 

my family to family events. I will put my family pictures on my desk. I am not 

going to go up to people and say, hi there—I’m gay.”318

“I think a lot of people think there is going to be this big ‘outing’ and people 

flaunting their gayness, but they forget that we’re in the military. That stuff 

isn’t supposed to be done during duty hours regardless if you’re gay/straight.”319

“If I am asked the question, then I will answer honestly, but I will not go to 

work the next day after DADT is repealed and just announce to everyone that 

I am Gay. I try my best not to make the people around me uncomfortable; I 

already know how that feeling can be.”320

318 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

319 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.

320 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.
125

Risks of Repeal Within Warfighting Units

Though the survey results demonstrate a solid majority of Service members—around 

70%—who predict mixed, positive, or no effects in the event of repeal,321 this percentage is 

not uniform among all subgroups in the U.S. military. The percentages of those who predict 

negative effects are higher in warfighting units.322 In response to question 68a, for example, 

while only 30% the U.S. military as a whole predict negative or very negative effects on their 

unit’s ability to “work together to get the job done,”323 the percentage is 43% for the Marines 

Corps, 48% within Army combat arms units, and 58% within Marine combat arms units.324

Particularly in this time of war, we made sure that warfighters in all Services were part of 

our risk assessment process. 

The percentages above reflect attitudes. Social science research tells us that attitudes, 

which are often laden with emotion and misperception, are less valuable as predictors of 

future behavior than actual experiences.325 Thus, in designing the survey we recognized that 

an important component in assessing the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was to 

also focus on Service members’ actual past and present experiences in a unit with someone 

they believed to be gay.

In response to question 34 of the survey, while 36% of the overall force stated they 

are currently serving in a unit with someone they believe to be gay,326 only 20% of those in 

Marine combat arms units and 27% of those in Army combat arms units answered that they 

were serving with someone they believe to be gay.327 A similar distinction exists in response 

to question 36, when it came to those who have ever at any point in their career served in a 

unit with a co-worker they believed to be gay or lesbian. Thus, fewer Service members in 

warfighting units have served with someone they believe to be gay, and more are left to only 

imagine what service with an openly gay person would be like—the circumstance in which 

misperceptions and stereotypes fill the void, for lack of actual experience.

However, when Service members in warfighting units who had served with someone 

they believed to be gay or lesbian were asked to assess their actual experiences, the 

distinctions in survey results between those in combat arms and the overall military are 

almost non-existent. For example, for those who have had the experience of working with 

someone they believed to be gay or lesbian, when asked to rate that unit’s “ability to work 

together,” 92% of the overall military said the answer was “very good,” “good,” or “neither 

good nor poor.”328 In response to that same question, the percentage is 89% for those in 

321 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75.

322 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75.

323 See Appendix C, Questions 67–75.

324 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 68a.

325 Allan W. Wicker, “An Examination of the ‘Other Variables’ Explanation of Attitude-Behavior Inconsistency,” Journal of 

Personality and Social Psychology, 19, no. 1, July 1971, 18–30.

326 See Appendix D, Question 34.

327 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 34.

328 See Appendix C, Question 47a.
126

Army combat arms units and 84% for those in Marine combat arms units—all very high 

percentages.329

These survey results reveal to us a misperception that a gay man does not “fit” the 

image of a good warfighter—a misperception that is almost completely erased when a gay 

Service member is allowed to prove himself alongside fellow warfighters. Anecdotally, we 

heard much the same. As one special operations force warfighter told us, “We have a gay 

guy [in the unit]. He’s big, he’s mean, and he kills lots of bad guys. No one cared that he 

was gay.”330

The survey results also reveal that, within warfighting units, negative predictions 

about serving alongside gays decrease when in “intense combat situations.” In response 

to question 71a, for example, 67% of those in Marine combat arms units predict working 

alongside a gay man or lesbian will have a negative or very negative effect on their unit’s 

effectiveness in completing its mission “in a field environment or out at sea.”331 By contrast, 

in response to the same question, but during “an intense combat situation,” the percentage 

drops to 48%.332

Our judgment is that the levels of reluctance of gays to “out themselves” described in 

the previous section, even if permitted by law, would be even higher in warfighting units. 

This, coupled with the low number of gay men estimated to be in the military (relative 

to their representation in civilian population),333 leads us to conclude that, if the law were 

repealed, the change in culture and environment in warfighting units will be minimal.

For these reasons, we conclude that the risks of repeal within warfighting units of all 

Services, while somewhat higher than the force generally, remain within acceptable levels 

when coupled with our recommendations for implementation.

Change During a Time of War

Our assessment also took account of the fact that the Nation is at war on several 

fronts, and for a period of over nine years, the U.S. military has been fully engaged, and 

has faced the stress and demands of frequent and lengthy deployments. When it comes to a 

repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, many ask: why now?

The question “why now?” is not for us, but for the President, the Secretary of Defense, 

and Congress, informed by the military advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The question 

we answer here is “can we now?” We considered the question carefully and conclude that 

329 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 47a.

330 Service member, CRWG Focus Group, 2010.

331 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 71a.

332 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices J and L, Question 71c. 

333 RAND, 2010, 98–102.
127

repeal can be implemented now, provided it is done in a manner that minimizes the burden 

on leaders in deployed areas. Our recommended implementation plan does just that, and it 

is discussed more fully in the accompanying support plan for implementation.

The primary concern is for the added requirement that will be created by the training 

and education associated with repeal. We are cognizant of these concerns, but note that 

during this period, the Services have undertaken education and training in deployed areas 

on a number of important personnel matters. These education and training initiatives 

have included increased emphasis on sexual assault prevention and response, suicide 

prevention, and training to detect indications of behavioral health problems. The conduct 

of these programs in deployed areas indicates that training and education associated with 

a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell can be accommodated. We assess this to be the case, in 

large part because our recommendations in this report involve a minimalist approach to 

changes in policies, plus education and training that reiterates existing policies in a sexual 

orientation-neutral manner.

It is also the case that the results of the survey indicate, though this is a time of war, 

a solid majority of Service members believe that repeal will have positive, mixed, or no 

effect. Most of those surveyed joined our military after September 11, 2001, and have known 

nothing but a military at war.

We are also informed by past experience. In the late 1940s and early 1950s, in the 

period immediately following World War II, during the Korean War and the beginning of 

the Cold War, our military took on the task of racial integration, in advance of the rest of 

society. And, at the time, the change implicated far larger numbers of Service members: 

African Americans in the Army then numbered 700,000 of a total force of over 8 million, and 

the opposition to racial integration was far greater than today’s resistance to repeal of Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell. The process of racial integration was slow and presented many challenges, 

but history shows that there were no differences in combat effectiveness in the Korean War 

between integrated and all-white segregated units.

Resistance to Change Generally

We recognize that some number of individuals within any group or organization are 

initially resistant to significant change, no matter the specific circumstances.334 Research 

shows that factors such as self-interest, misunderstandings about the underlying situation, 

and differing assessments all play a role in creating initial resistance among a significant 

minority of those who will be affected by change.335 Such resistance can also occur based 

on the potential insecurity and instability that change can bring.336 Such baseline resistance 

334 Eric B. Dent and Susan G. Goldberg, “Challenging ‘resistance to change’”, The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35, no. 1, 

March 1999, 25–41; Paul Thornton, Management Principles and Practice. (Livermore: Wingspan Press), 2006. 153.

335 John P. Kotter and Leonard A. Schlesinger, “Choosing Strategies for Change,” Harvard Business Review (Boston: July 1, 2008), 

130–139. 

336 Kotter, 130–139.
128

to any major organizational change is estimated by some experts at a consistent 20–30% 

(with 5–10% expressing strong resistance) and is to be expected.337 

Lessons from History

Though there are fundamental differences among matters of race, gender, and sexual 

orientation, we believe the racial integration of the U.S. military in the 1940s and 1950s 

and the gender integration of the military that took place largely in the 1970s present some 

useful historical lessons and provide basic support for our assessment.

With the benefit of many years of hindsight, we believe the lesson to be drawn from 

these transformational experiences described in section VII above is that, in matters of 

personnel change within the military, predictions and surveys tend to overestimate the 

negative consequences for unit cohesion and military effectiveness, and underestimate the 

U.S. military’s ability to adapt and incorporate within its ranks the diversity that is reflective 

of American society at large. These experiences also highlight the importance of effective 

leadership in the process of implementing change.

Experiences of Other Militaries

Our assessment is also informed by the experiences of foreign allies. To be sure, 

there is no perfect comparator to the U.S. military. In recent times, however, a number of 

other nations have transitioned to policies that permit open military service by gays and 

lesbians. These include the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, Germany, Italy and Israel. 

Significantly, prior to change, surveys of the militaries in Canada and the U.K. indicated 

much higher levels of resistance than the Working Group’s survey results—as high as 65% 

for some areas—but the actual implementation of change in those countries went much 

more smoothly than expected, with little or no disruption.338

We also know from the experience of other nations that very few gay men and lesbians 

“came out” after the lifting of the ban on military service. We have heard from military 

officials from the United Kingdom and Canada that few military members revealed their 

sexual orientation after the policy changed.339

337 Paul Thornton, Management Principles and Practice. (Livermore: Wingspan Press), 2006. 153.

338 “Lessons Learned from the Service of Gays and Lesbians in Allied Militaries,” presentation, The Brookings Institution 

Conference, Washington, DC, May 19, 2010.

339 Defense Officials from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, interviews with CRWG, Norfolk, VA, May 

2010.
129

Domestic Organizations

Our assessment is also informed by the experiences of non-military organizations 

in our country. As with the other comparators above, we recognize that no domestic 

organization is wholly analogous to the U.S. military. That said, we think the fact that 

municipal law enforcement agencies (local police and fire departments) and Federal agencies 

(including the FBI and CIA) have had no negative major disruptions in integrating gay and 

lesbian personnel is notable.

The experience of these agencies shows that the integration of gay and lesbian personnel 

has not negatively affected institutional job performance or individual job performance. 

Rather, it appears that in these organizations sexual orientation has had little or nothing to 

do with success in the workplace.340 Further, some gay and lesbian personnel were able to do 

their jobs even better in environments accepting of their sexual orientation.341 Integrating 

gay and lesbian employees also did nothing to negatively impact recruiting and retention 

at the agencies surveyed.342 Further, in situations in which gay and lesbian personnel in 

these Federal agencies have lived and worked alongside U.S. military personnel in deployed 

environments, we are aware of no reports of conduct detrimental to accomplishing the 

mission.343

Panel Assessment

Finally, our overall assessment is itself based on the staff assessment conducted by 

a panel of military officers, senior non-commissioned officers, and DoD career civilians 

chosen to represent all the Services, and a wide range of ages, grades, warfare specialties, 

and experiences. To conduct its assessment, the panel used a standard military decision 

support process recommended by the J-8, Directorate of the Joint Staff. This staff risk 

assessment was typical in the military context, and it is one the military utilizes for a variety 

of important decisions.

To inform our assessment of the overall risk to military effectiveness, the panel 

assessed the impact of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell on military readiness, unit effectiveness, 

unit cohesion, recruiting, retention, and family readiness. After consideration of various 

mitigation measures, including policies, leadership, education, and training, the panel 

assessed all areas and subcomponents of those areas as in the LOW or MODERATE risk 

ranges. In the key areas of military readiness, unit effectiveness, and unit cohesion the risks 

were all deemed to be LOW. Having considered the panel’s assessments, as well as other 

information gathered by the Working Group and implementation of our recommendations 

that follow, we assess the risk of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell to overall military effectiveness 

is LOW.

340 RAND, 2010, 344–346.

341 RAND, 2010, 346.

342 RAND, 2010, 347–348.

343 RAND, 2010, 346.
130
We now turn to our recommendations. Our Terms of Reference call for us to 

recommend appropriate changes to policies and regulations and to develop leadership 

guidance and training for the force in the event of repeal.

These recommendations were developed in conjunction with our assessment, based 

on all that we heard. Many of the recommendations that follow come, in particular, from 

listening to Service members during our engagement of the force. In some instances, 

we recommend revisions to existing regulations; in other areas we recommend that the 

Department of Defense and/or the Services simply reiterate existing guidance; in still other 

places we recommend no change at all, but reviewed the issue because a number of Service 

members raised it. As indicated in the prior section, our assessment presumes successful 

implementation of these recommendations.

Motivating many of our recommendations is the conclusion, based on our numerous 

engagements with the force, that repeal would work best if it is accompanied by a message 

and policies that promote fair and equal treatment of all Service members, minimize 

differences among Service members based on sexual orientation, and disabuse Service 

members of any notion that, with repeal, gay and lesbian Service members will be afforded 

some type of special treatment. Within the military culture, such a message maximizes the 

opportunities for quick and smooth acceptance of gay and lesbian Service members within 

the force. It is also consistent with all we heard from gay and lesbian Service members 

themselves, who told us that they simply want a repeal of the law so that they can be treated 

the same as everyone else, and serve the Nation without fear of separation if their sexual 

orientation becomes known.

As a related matter, we believe it critical that it be made clear to those who are 

opposed to repeal, particularly on moral and religious grounds, that their concerns are not 

being rejected and that leaders have not turned their backs on them. In the event of repeal, 

individual Service members are not expected to change their personal religious or moral 

beliefs about homosexuality; however, they are expected to treat all others with dignity and 

respect, consistent with the core values that already exist within each Service. For the U.S. 

military, these are not new concepts, given the wide variety of views, races, and religions 

that already exist within the force.

131

XIII OUR RECOMMENDATIONS
132

Leadership, Training, and Education

First and foremost, successful implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t 

Tell requires strong leadership, a clear message, and proactive training and education. 

Throughout our engagements with the force, we heard from general and flag officers and 

senior enlisted leaders in all the Services, including those strongly opposed to changing the 

law and policy, words to the effect of “If the law changes, we can do this; just give us the tools 

to communicate a clear message.” Further, leaders must demonstrate to Service members 

that they are committed to implementing this change, and that the leaders expect Service 

members to adapt as well. Messages like the one from the Commandant of the Marine 

Corps, that if repeal comes the Marines will “get in step and do it smartly,”344 must continue. 

Accordingly, the Working Group has developed training and education guidance in the event 

of repeal. This includes specific recommendations for training in the deployed environment. 

This training and education guidance is contained in the Support Plan for Implementation, 

provided as a companion document to our report.

In the Support Plan, we set forth what we believe is the key implementation message 

for repeal:

  Leadership. The clear message from the Working Group’s assessment is “leadership 

matters most.” Leaders at all levels of the chain of command set the example for members 

in the unit and must be fully committed to DoD policy to sustain unit effectiveness, 

readiness, and cohesion.

  Professionalism. Leaders must emphasize Service members’ fundamental professional 

obligations and the oath to support and defend the Constitution that is at the core of their 

military service. In the profession of arms, adherence to military policy and standards 

of conduct is essential to unit effectiveness, readiness, and cohesion.

  Respect. Unit strength depends on the strength of each member. We achieve that strength 

by treating each member with respect.

In our view, the starting point for this message should be a written communication 

from the leaders of the Department of Defense, to include the Secretary of Defense and the 

senior military leaders of each Service, that deliver their expectations in clear and forceful 

terms.

344 General James F. Amos, Commandant, United States Marine Corps, Senate Armed Services Committee Confirmation Hearing, 

September 21, 2010, transcript, 13. 
133

Standards of Conduct

Throughout our engagement of the force we heard Service members express concerns, 

in the event of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, about standards of conduct. Most often, those 

concerns centered on a potential for unprofessional relationships between Service members, 

public displays of affection, dress and appearance, and acts of violence, harassment, or 

disrespect between homosexual and heterosexual Service members.

In light of these concerns, we considered whether the Department of Defense should 

issue revised or additional standards of conduct in the event of repeal.

The military is a highly regulated environment. Service core values, customs, 

courtesies, and traditions define acceptable behavior. Overall, the purposes of standards 

of conduct are to promote good order and discipline, prohibit behavior that would bring 

discredit on the Military Services, and promote the customs, traditions, and decorum of 

the military and of individual Services. Among many other things, military standards 

of conduct prescribe appropriate attire and personal appearance, prohibit unprofessional 

relationships, address various forms of harassment and related unprofessional behavior, and 

provide guidelines on public displays of affection. These standards of conduct regulate many 

aspects of Service members’ personal lives considered off-limits in civilian society. These 

regulations, policies, and orders are generally issued at the Service level, or by commanders.

For example, the Air Force regulates dating, courtship, and close friendships 

between men and women, noting that personal relationships “become matters of official 

concern when they adversely affect or have the reasonable potential to adversely affect the 

Air Force by eroding morale, discipline, respect for authority, unit cohesion, or mission 

accomplishment.”345 The formation of such relationships between superiors and subordinates 

within the same chain of command or supervision is prohibited.346

Depending on the severity or impact to others, violations of standards of conduct 

may be addressed through administrative action (e.g., counseling or formal reprimand) 

or discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Criminal acts—for 

example, assault, cruelty and maltreatment, or disrespect to a superior commissioned or 

non-commissioned officer—may be addressed through non-judicial punishment or trial by 

court-martial.347

Rules concerning public displays of affection and proper dress and appearance, 

meanwhile, are largely unwritten and vary by Service and across commands within 

Services. For example, at present, other than in the Marine Corps there are no Service-level 

regulations or written policies prohibiting public displays of affection. However, public 

345 Department of the Air Force, AFI 36-2909, Professional and Unprofessional Relationships, August 13, 2004, 2, para. 1.

346 AFI 36-2909, 3, para. 3.3.

347 10 U.S.C. § 815.
134

displays of affection—especially while in uniform—are informally discouraged in all the 

Services as a matter of individual Service culture, traditions, and decorum.

We believe it is not necessary to set forth an extensive set of new or revised standards 

of conduct in the event of repeal. Concerns for standards in the event of repeal can be 

adequately addressed through training and education about how already existing standards 

of conduct continue to apply to all Service members, regardless of sexual orientation, in a 

post-repeal environment.

We do recommend, however, that the Department of Defense issue generalized 

guidance to the Services that all standards of personal and professional conduct must apply 

uniformly without regard to sexual orientation. We also recommend that the Department of 

Defense instruct the Services to review their current standards of personal and professional 

conduct to ensure that they are neutral in terms of sexual orientation and provide adequate 

guidance to the extent each Service considers appropriate on unprofessional relationships, 

harassment, public displays of affection, and dress and appearance. Part of the education 

process should include a reminder to commanders about the tools they already have in hand 

to remedy and punish inappropriate conduct that may arise in a post-repeal environment.

Moral and Religious Concerns

In the course of our review, we heard a large number of Service members raise religious 

and moral objections to homosexuality or to serving alongside someone who is gay. Some 

feared repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell might limit their individual freedom of expression and 

free exercise of religion, or require them to change their personal beliefs about the morality 

of homosexuality. Without doubt, the views along these lines were sharply divided and 

deeply held, and they cannot be discounted or dismissed.

Special attention should also be given to address the concerns of our community of 

approximately 3,000 military chaplains. Some of the most intense and sharpest divergence 

of views about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell exists among the chaplains. During the course of the 

Working Group’s engagements with the force, a number of currently-serving chaplains 

voiced concern that a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would constrain their ability to provide 

religious ministry consistent with their beliefs and customs; some chaplains also asked 

whether they would still be able to express opposition to homosexuality and worried that they 

might receive negative performance reports or adverse personnel actions for expressing such 

opinions. In the course of our review, we heard some chaplains condemn in the strongest 

possible terms homosexuality as a sin and an abomination, and inform us that they would 

refuse to in any way support, comfort, or assist someone they knew to be homosexual. In 

equally strong terms, other chaplains, including those who also believe homosexuality is 

a sin, informed us that “we are all sinners,” and that it is a chaplain’s duty to care for all 

Service members.
135

To ensure that we understood these issues, our Working Group included two military 

chaplains among its membership. In addition, we conducted discussion groups with 

chaplains, and personally consulted with the senior chaplains of each Service, as well as a 

number of more junior chaplains across the force.

To serve as a military chaplain, an individual must receive an endorsement from a 

qualified religious organization; if the organization withdraws its endorsement, the individual 

can no longer serve as a chaplain. The Working Group also contacted the approximately 200 

ecclesiastical endorsing agencies that endorse military chaplains, to gauge the likelihood of 

continued endorsement in the event of repeal. Of the approximately 200 endorsing agencies 

to which the Working Group wrote, 77 responded, which, in total, represented almost 70% 

of active duty military chaplains. Of the 77 that responded, most expressed opposition to a 

repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, based primarily on theological objections to homosexuality. 

However, none stated that it would withdraw its endorsements for military chaplains if the 

law were repealed. A significant portion of the respondents did suggest that a change in 

policies resulting in chaplains’ free exercise of religion or free speech rights being curtailed 

would lead them to withdraw their endorsement.

In the discussion groups with chaplains, while many expressed opposition to a change 

in policy, nearly all indicated that they were willing to continue their ministry in the military. 

Only three out of approximately 145 chaplains who participated indicated they would seek to 

separate or retire should the law be changed.

In general, we conclude three things:

First, the reality is that in today’s U.S. military, Service members of sharply religious 

convictions and moral values—including those who believe that abortion is murder and 

those who do not, and those who believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and those who do 

not—and those who have no religious convictions at all, already co-exist, work, live, and fight 

together on a daily basis. This is a reflection of the pluralistic American society at large.

Second, with regard to Service members concerned about their own individual 

expression and free exercise of religion, we conclude that no modified or revised policy 

is required, particularly in light of the training and education we are recommending in 

the event of repeal. In our view, existing policies regarding individual expression and free 

exercise of religion by Service members are adequate. Service members will not be required 

to change their personal views and religious beliefs; they must, however, continue to respect 

and co-exist with others who may hold different views and beliefs.

Third, existing DoD and Service policies and guidance pertaining to chaplains is 

adequate to accommodate a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. In our view, existing policies 

on chaplains’ protections and obligations are adequate and strike an appropriate balance 

between protecting a chaplain’s First Amendment freedoms and a chaplain’s duty to care 
136

for all. Existing Army and Air Force regulations state that chaplains “will not be required 

to perform a religious role...in worship services, command ceremonies, or other events, if 

doing so would be in variance with the tenets or practices of their faith.”348 At the same time, 

according to Navy regulations, “chaplains care for all Service members, including those 

who claim no religious faith, facilitate the religious requirements of personnel of all faiths, 

provide faith-specific ministries, and advise the command.”349 Overall, it is DoD policy that 

chaplains “serve a religiously diverse population,”350 and, to be considered for appointment 

as a chaplain, an individual must be “willing to support directly and indirectly the free 

exercise of religion by all members of the Military Services, their family members, and other 

persons authorized to be served by the military chaplaincies.”351

However, in recognition of the concerns expressed by chaplains and their endorsing 

agencies, the Department of Defense should, in the event of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, 

direct the Services to reiterate the principle that chaplains, in the context of their religious 

ministry, are not required to take actions inconsistent with their religious beliefs, but must 

still care for all Service members. Evaluation, promotion, and assignment of chaplains 

must continue to be consistent with these long-standing Service policies.

Equal Opportunity

We recommend that, in a post-repeal environment, gay and lesbian Service members 

be treated under the same general principles of military equal opportunity policy that 

applies to all Service members. Under the Military Equal Opportunity program, it is DoD 

policy to, “promote an environment free from personal, social, or institutional barriers that 

prevent Service members from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible. Service 

members shall be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability.”352

Hand-in-hand with military equal opportunity are Service-level policies on diversity, 

inclusion, and respect. These are consistent with and support basic military values of treating 

every military member with dignity and respect. For instance, among the facets of the Air 

Force Diversity Policy is to “educate and train all personnel on the importance of diversity, 

including mutual respect, thus promoting an Air Force culture that values inclusion of all 

personnel in the Total Force....”353 The DoD Human Goals Charter, last issued in 1998, states 

that the Department of Defense strives “to create an environment that values diversity and 

fosters mutual respect and cooperation among all persons.”354 That same year, the Secretary 

of Defense William Cohen issued a memorandum in which he stated: “I will not tolerate 

illegal discrimination against or harassment of any DoD personnel. I expect all commanders, 

348 AR 165-1, 12, para. 3-2.b(6); Department of the Air Force, AFI 52-101, Planning and Organizing, May 10, 2005, updated March 

14, 2008, 2, para 2.1.

349 SECNAVINST 1730.7D, 5, para. 5.e.(3).

350 Department of Defense, DoDD 1304.19, Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, June 11, 2004, 2, para. 4.2.

351 Department of Defense, DoDD 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the Military Departments, June 11, 2004, 

3, para. 6.1.2.

352 DoDD 1350.2, 2, para. 4.2; DoDD 1020.2, 4, paras. 3.d., 4.e.(1).

353 Department of the Air Force, AFPD 36-70, Diversity, October 13, 2010, 2, para. 2.2.2.

354 “Text of the DoD Human Goals Charter,” U.S. Department of Defense, accessed November 21, 2010, http://www.defense.gov/

news/newsarticle.aspx?id=43191.
137

executives, managers, and supervisors to work continuously toward establishing a climate of 

respect and fairness for all DoD personnel.”355

Under the Military Equal Opportunity program, there is also a reference to “unlawful 

discrimination,” which is defined with reference to five specified classes: race, color, religion, 

sex, and national origin. The DoD Military Equal Opportunity directive states, “Unlawful 

discrimination against persons or groups based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin 

is contrary to good order and discipline and is counterproductive to combat readiness and 

mission accomplishment. Unlawful discrimination shall not be condoned.”356 Complaints 

of unlawful discrimination on these bases, as well as of sexual harassment, may be handled 

through the resources of the Military Equal Opportunity program, or through the chain of 

command. These five identified classes—race, color, religion, sex, and national origin—are 

also the focus of diversity programs and initiatives and are tracked as an identifier in Service 

personnel systems based on initial and periodic inquiries of Service members.

Meanwhile, there are other prohibited practices contrary to Military Equal Opportunity 

policy that do not involve “unlawful discrimination” against one of the five groups identified 

above, or sexual harassment; those prohibited practices are addressed principally through 

the chain of command, and not through the resources of the Military Equal Opportunity 

Program.

As stated before, we believe that, to maximize the opportunities for a smooth and 

successful repeal, perceived “equal treatment” of all Service members is key. Throughout 

the force, rightly or wrongly, we heard both subtle and overt resentment toward “protected 

groups” of people and the possibility that gay men and lesbians could, with repeal, suddenly 

be elevated to a special status. For example, a common question was whether, if the law were 

repealed, there would be affirmative action to recruit gay men and lesbians? While much 

of this sentiment is based on misperceptions about equal opportunity policy, we believe 

that, in a new environment in which gay and lesbian Service members can be open about 

their orientation, they will be accepted more readily if the military community understands 

that they are simply being permitted equal footing with everyone else, pursuant to general 

principles of military equal opportunity applicable to all Service members. This is consistent 

with the views and aspirations we heard from current and former gay and lesbian Service 

members: that they are not seeking special treatment,just asking the Department of Defense 

to “take [the] knife out of my back,” as one gay Service member put it.357

Therefore, in the event of repeal, we do not recommend that the Department of 

Defense place sexual orientation alongside race, color, religion, sex, and national origin as 

a class eligible for various diversity programs, tracking initiatives, and the Military Equal 

Opportunity program complaint resolution processes. Instead, the Department of Defense 

355 Secretary of Defense, Memorandum, “Equal Opportunity for Military and Civilian Personnel of the Department of Defense,” 

October 14, 1998.

356 DoDD 1350.2, 2, para. 4.2.

357 Service member, Confidential Communication Mechanism, 2010.
138

should make clear that sexual orientation may not, in and of itself, be a factor in accession, 

promotion, or other personnel decision-making. Gay and lesbian Service members, like 

all Service members, would be evaluated only on individual merit, fitness, and capability. 

Likewise, the Department of Defense should make clear that harassment or abuse based on 

sexual orientation is unacceptable and that all Service members are to treat one another with 

dignity and respect regardless of sexual orientation. Complaints regarding discrimination, 

harassment, or abuse based on sexual orientation would be dealt with through existing 

mechanisms available for complaints not involving race, color, sex, religion, or national 

origin—namely, the chain of command, the Inspector General, and other means as may be 

determined by the Services.

Collection and Retention of Sexual Orientation Data

As a related matter, we considered whether the Department of Defense should 

proactively collect and maintain data on Service members’ sexual orientation. Under 

current policy, Service members are not asked to reveal their sexual orientation, and data 

regarding Service members’ sexual orientation are not tracked (though discharge documents 

for Service members separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell may indicate that the basis was 

homosexual conduct).

We recommend against creating a data category for Service member sexual orientation; 

in the event Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, we recommend that the Department of Defense 

continue the practice of not asking Service members or recruits to identify their sexual 

orientation. This recommendation is consistent with the policy of other Federal agencies, 

and with the DoD’s own policy for civilian employees. We would not, however, preclude the 

Department of Defense or the Services from continuing current policy, to collect and maintain 

other information that incidentally implicates sexual orientation, for example, where a gay 

or lesbian Service member lists a same-sex partner as a beneficiary for certain benefits, 

or as a person to be notified upon injury or death. (The issue of benefits is discussed in 

greater detail later in this section.) In the event such information is collected, it is protected 

from routine disclosure by Federal law and implementing DoD policy.358 Also, we would not 

preclude voluntary, anonymous, and confidential surveys, such as for purposes of legitimate 

data analysis or as a follow-up to this assessment.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice

Next, we recommend modification to the prohibition on sodomy in Article 125 of the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ),359 and a corresponding change to the Manual for 

Courts-Martial (which implements the UCMJ and provides rules, policies, and, procedures 

for UCMJ prosecutions).

358 5 U.S.C. § 552a; Department of Defense, DoDD 5400.11, Department of Defense Privacy Program, May 8, 2007, 3, para. 4.6.

359 10 U.S.C. § 925.
139

Article 125 of the UCMJ treats all acts of sodomy, heterosexual, homosexual, consensual, 

or otherwise, as punishable conduct. In Lawrence v. Texas,

360 the Supreme Court held that 

private consensual sodomy between adults cannot be considered a crime. The U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Armed Forces reached a similar conclusion in the military context in 

the case United States v. Marcum.

361 In light of these decisions, we recommend that Article 

125 be repealed or amended to the extent it prohibits consensual sodomy between adults, 

regardless of sexual orientation. The other prohibitions considered punishable under Article 

125, including forcible sodomy, sodomy with minors and sodomy that is demonstrated to be 

“service discrediting” (e.g., in public or between a superior and subordinate), should remain 

on the books.

The DoD Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, which consists of military 

lawyers from each Service, is responsible for conducting an annual review of the Manual 

for Courts-Martial and recommends changes to both the UCMJ and the Manual. The Joint 

Services Committee has already developed a legislative proposal along the lines outlined 

above, in light of Lawrence and Marcum, and we endorse that proposal.

In essence, the Joint Service Committee has proposed the following action by Congress: 

repeal of Article 125 in its entirety, and amend Article 120 of the UCMJ362 to include forcible 

sodomy and sodomy offenses against children. The Joint Service Committee also proposes 

to rewrite the Manual for Courts-Martial so as to make clear that all other aspects of the 

repealed Article 125 not barred by Lawrence and Marcum may be prosecuted under Article 

134 of the UCMJ,363 which generally prohibits all misconduct that is prejudicial to good 

order and discipline or is Service discrediting.

In addition and in general, we recommend that the Joint Service Committee review 

all other UCMJ offenses involving sexual conduct or inappropriate relationships to ensure 

sexual orientation-neutral application of the UCMJ in a post-repeal environment, consistent 

with the recommendations of this report. For example, as applied in courts-martial, the 

definition of “sexual intercourse” means only intercourse between a man and a woman.364

Several offenses specified in the Manual for Courts-Martial under Article 134 of the UCMJ—

namely Adultery, Prostitution, and Patronizing a Prostitute—all have “sexual intercourse” as 

a required element of the offense.365 As a result, homosexual sex is not covered under these 

offenses, such that if a married woman had sex with a man who was not her husband, it 

could qualify as adultery under military law, but if she had sex with a woman, it would not. 

We recommend that the Joint Service Committee determine how to revise these offenses to 

apply to both homosexual and heterosexual sex.

360 539 U.S. 558 (2003).

361 60 M.J. 198 (C.A.A.F. 2004).

362 10 U.S.C. § 920.

363 10 U.S.C. § 934.

364 Department of the Army, Pamphlet 27-9, Military Judges’ Benchbook, January 1, 2010, 691.

365 Joint Service Committee of Military Justice, Manual for Courts-Martial United States, 2008, IV-114, para. 62, IV-134, para. 97.
140

Privacy and Cohabitation

Throughout our engagements with the force, we heard a number of Service members 

express discomfort about sharing bathroom facilities or living quarters with someone 

they know to be gay or lesbian. In connection with this issue, we note that 38% of survey 

respondents state that they have already shared a room, berth, or field tent with another 

Service member they believe to be homosexual;366 50% believe they have already shared 

bathrooms with open bay showers that were also used by a Service member they believe to 

be homosexual.367

Housing policy for the U.S. military is established through a combination of DoD and 

Service-level regulations; in general the Department of Defense requires Service members 

without dependents, in pay grades E-6 and below, to live in barracks or dormitories. These 

Service members, with command approval, may live off-base. Overall, approximately 24% 

of the active duty force resides in barracks, dorms or onboard ship.368 This percentage varies 

from Service to Service: in the Air Force, the percentage is only 17%, while in the Marine 

Corps it is 39%.369

In general, DoD regulations also provide that Service members in barracks or dorms 

have a private bedroom and a bathroom shared by no more than one other person.370

However, there are variances to this standard, most notably the Marine Corps, the Navy, 

at Service academies, and in training environments. For instance, in the Marine Corps 

personnel E-3 and below share a bedroom in the interest of unit cohesion.371 Navy shipboard 

requirements provide that both officers and enlisted personnel occupy shared staterooms or 

berthing areas divided by pay grade and gender.372 The Services require gender segregation 

in housing and berthing.373

We do not recommend segregated housing for gay or lesbian Service members. 

We believe this would do more harm than good for unit cohesion, create a climate of 

stigmatization and isolation, and be impossible to enforce or administer unless Service 

members are required to disclose their sexual orientation. On the other hand, we are 

sensitive to concerns expressed to us by commanders that disputes may arise between gay 

and straight Service members assigned to live together involving, at least to some extent, 

sexual orientation. Commanders should have the flexibility, on a case-by-case basis, to 

addresses those concerns in the interests of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline.

366 See Appendix C, Question 86.

367 See Appendix C, Question 87.

368 Westat, vol. 1, Appendix F, Question 11.

369 Westat, vol. 1, Appendices S and T, Question 11.

370 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TI 800-01, Design Criteria, July 20, 1998, Table B-2.

371 Defense Manpower Data Center, April 2007 Status of Forces Survey of Active Duty Members: Housing Briefing, December 2007.

372 Department of the Navy, Shipboard Habitability Design Criteria Manual, December 1, 1955, 11, para. 3.2.3.3., 13, para. 3.2.7.2.

373 DoN, Shipboard, 11, para. 3.2.3.3., 13, para. 3.2.7.2.
141

Accordingly, we recommend that the Department of Defense expressly prohibit 

berthing or billeting assignments based on sexual orientation, except that commanders 

should retain the authority to alter berthing or billeting assignments on an individualized, 

case-by-case basis, in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and discipline, and 

consistent with performance of mission.

Next, a frequent concern expressed by some Service members was personal privacy 

in settings where they may be partially or fully unclothed in the presence of another Service 

member they know to be gay or lesbian—for instance, shared showering facilities or locker 

rooms. Likewise, military mission or training requirements may require that Service 

members live and work under conditions that offer limited personal privacy. Many ask 

whether repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will require a third and possibly a fourth set of 

separate bathroom facilities. Meanwhile, others regard the very suggestion as offensive. 

Service members consistently raised this general topic, so we are obliged to address it.

Personal privacy in shared bathing situations exists to varying degrees throughout 

the U.S. military. The basic design standard for DoD facilities requires separate male and 

female showers directly adjacent to the corresponding gender’s dressing and toilet areas, 

and include private shower/drying stalls. In other places, such as recruit training, there are 

shared facilities containing open bay berthing and group showers. Navy shipboard design 

criteria require individual stall showers,374 while Army regulations only require separate 

toilet facilities for men and women, but do not establish personal privacy standards.375

Here again, we are convinced that separate bathroom facilities would do more harm 

than good to unit cohesion and would be impracticable to administer and enforce. Concerns 

about showers and bathrooms are based on a stereotype—that gay men and lesbians will 

behave in an inappropriate or predatory manner in these situations. As one gay former 

Service member told us, to fit in, co-exist, and conform to social norms, gay men have 

learned to avoid making heterosexuals feel uncomfortable or threatened in situation such 

as this. The reality is that people of different sexual orientation use shower and bathroom 

facilities together every day in hundreds of thousands of college dorms, college and high 

school gyms, professional sports locker rooms, police and fire stations, and athletic clubs.

Accordingly, we recommend the Department of Defense expressly prohibit the 

designation of separate facilities based on sexual orientation, except that commanders 

retain the authority to adjudicate requests for accommodation of privacy concerns on an 

individualized, case-by-case basis in the interest of maintaining morale, good order, and 

discipline, and consistent with performance of mission. It should also be recognized that 

commanders already have the tools—from counseling, to non-judicial punishment, to 

UCMJ prosecution—to deal with misbehavior in both living quarters and bathing situations, 

whether the person who engages in the misconduct is gay or straight.

374 DoN, Shipboard, 18, para. 3.4.3.4.

375 TI 800-01, 15-2, para. 2.c.
142

Benefits

Next, our Terms of Reference required that we consider the issue of benefits for 

same-sex partners and the families of gay and lesbian Service members, in the event of 

repeal. This issue is itself large and complex, and is part of the ongoing national, political, 

and legal debate concerning same-sex relationships and gay marriage. We studied the issue 

carefully, and no other policy recommendation came close to consuming as much time and 

effort.

As a preliminary matter, it is important to note that, given current law, particularly 

the Defense of Marriage Act,376 there are a number of benefits that cannot legally be extended 

today to gay and lesbian Service members and their same-sex partners, even those who 

were lawfully married in states that permit same-sex marriage. Therefore, on the issue of 

benefits, our recommendations are these, in the event of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:

1. That the Department of Defense and the Services inform Service members about 

those benefits that are now, under current law and regulations, already available 

to any person of a Service member’s choosing, which would include a same-sex 

partner.

2. That the Department of Defense and the Services review those benefits that may, 

where justified from a policy, fiscal, and feasibility standpoint, be revised by a 

change in regulation to become a “member-designated” one—in other words, to 

give the Service member the discretion to designate whomever he or she wants as 

a beneficiary, which would include a same-sex partner.

3. That the Department of Defense and the Services not, at this time, revise their 

regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the definition 

of “dependent,” “family members,” or other similar term in those regulations, for 

purposes of extending benefits eligibility, but that this particular issue be revisited 

as part of a follow-on review of the implementation of a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Members of the U.S. military are eligible for and receive a wide array of benefits 

and support resources, both for themselves and for certain members of their families. 

These benefits include health care, on-base housing, housing allowances, family separation 

allowances, family support programs, and commissary and base exchange shopping 

privileges. Many of these benefits are governed and limited in some manner by statute and/

or regulation, be it the amount of the benefit, who is eligible for it, or both. In the event 

of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the basic question becomes whether and to what extent 

benefits and support resources currently available only to spouses of Service members can 

and should also be extended to same-sex partners of Service members.

376 1 U.S.C. § 7.
143

For our analysis of the benefits issue, we divided benefits broadly into three categories:

First, there are certain benefits that, given current law, cannot legally be extended to 

same-sex partners. Legal limitations include, for example, the small number of jurisdictions 

in the United States in which gay men and lesbians are legally permitted to marry or obtain 

legal recognition of their relationship, the statutory definition of “dependent” in Titles 10 

and 37 of the U.S. Code, and, on top of all that, the Defense of Marriage Act, which for 

Federal purposes defines “marriage” to mean “only a legal union between one man and one 

woman as husband and wife” and “spouse” to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who 

is a husband or a wife.”377 Thus, under current law, full benefit parity between spouses of 

heterosexual Service members and same-sex partners of gay and lesbian Service members 

in committed relationships is legally impossible.

More specifically, many of the most significant benefits for those who are married, 

including eligibility for the Basic Allowance for Housing at the “with-dependent rate,” are 

statutorily defined in a way that does not allow extension to any same-sex relationship. 

Criteria for the Basic Allowance for Housing—money a Service member living off-base 

receives to pay for housing—are set forth in 37 U.S.C. § 403. As Section 403 contemplates, 

the amount of the Basic Allowance for Housing is significantly higher if the Service member 

has “dependents.” However, “dependent” is also defined by law, in 37 U.S.C. § 401, and 

is limited to the Service member’s “spouse” or dependent parents, unmarried children, 

or certain others under the age of 23 who are placed in the legal custody of the Service 

member. And, as described above, the Defense of Marriage Act limits the definition of the 

word “spouse” to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.”378

Thus, the higher “with-dependent” Basic Allowance for Housing cannot be made available 

to the gay or lesbian Service member under current Federal law, even if he or she is lawfully 

married, on the sole basis of a same-sex relationship.

Likewise, military health care benefits for same-sex partners are legally limited in the 

same way, because coverage is for “dependents” and that term is defined by law, in 10 U.S.C. 

§ 1072, with reference to “spouse.”

Thus, for benefits in this first category, we simply cannot recommend that the 

Department of Defense extend them to same-sex couples, because it would be legally 

impermissible to do so. We did not, therefore, assess the fiscal implications of extending 

these types of benefits. We note, however, the evolving legal landscape. On July 8, 2010, a 

Federal district court in Boston declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional,379

and the case is now on appeal.

377 1 U.S.C. § 7.

378 1 U.S.C. § 7.

379 Memorandum Opinion, Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, Case No. 09-10309-JLT (D. Mass., July 8, 2010); Memorandum 

Opinion, Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, Case No. 1:09-11156-JLT (D. Mass., July 8, 2010).
144

The second category of benefits we studied are those that are now, under current law and 

regulations, fully available to anyone of a Service member’s choosing, including a same-sex partner, 

because they are “member-designated” benefits. In other words, benefits like Servicemembers’ 

Group Life Insurance and Thrift Savings Plan beneficiaries, missing member notification, and 

hospital visitation access, are currently available to same-sex partners because the Service 

member has discretion to designate the beneficiary. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, Service 

members may so designate a same-sex partner without then having to conceal the nature of the 

relationship from the military. In the event of repeal, we recommend the Department of Defense 

and the Services inform Service members about these types of benefits, so that they can take 

advantage of them for their committed same-sex partners and children, should they desire to 

do so.

The third category of benefits is more complicated, and our recommendation is 

consequently more complicated. In this category are benefits that are not statutorily prohibited, 

because Congress has not explicitly limited the benefit in a manner that precludes same-sex 

partners, but that current regulations do not extend to same-sex partners. For these, the 

Department of Defense and the Services have the regulatory flexibility to define the eligible 

beneficiaries in way that includes same-sex partners.

An example of a benefit in this category is the provision of free legal services by a military 

legal assistance office. At present, those legal services may be extended to “dependents,” and in 

this context Congress has left it to Service secretaries to determine who is a “dependent.”380

Military family housing is another prominent benefit in this category. The Services, 

through regulation, make military family housing available to Service members who also 

qualify for the Basic Allowance for Housing at the “with-dependent” rate. Linking military 

family housing to the legal criteria for the “with-dependent” Basic Allowance for Housing is not 

legally required, but it has been long-standing regulatory practice.381

For benefits such as these, the Department of Defense could legally direct the Services to 

revise their regulations to extend coverage to Service members’ same-sex partners. This could 

be accomplished in two ways: leave to the Service member the freedom to designate his or 

her “dependents,” “family members,” or similar term; or, revise these definitions to specifically 

mention a committed, same-sex relationship, and require some type of proof of that committed 

relationship. The latter is similar to the approach now being taken in Federal agencies for civilian 

employees.382

380 10 U.S.C. § 1044(e).

381 Department of Defense, DoD Manual 4165.63-M, DoD Housing Management, October 28, 2010.

382 In June 2010, the President issued a memorandum, followed by implementing guidance from the Office of Personnel 

Management, directing Federal civilian agencies to create a new status of “domestic partner” applicable to same-sex 

relationships of Federal civilian employees, and to extend to domestic partners those benefits that can be extended under 

existing law. The criteria for what constitutes a “domestic partnership” for Federal benefits purposes, and how a partnership 

is established or dissolved, are set forth by OPM and include that the two individuals are at least 18 years of age, maintain 

a common residence (or would but for an assignment abroad or other relevant obstacle), and share responsibility for a 

significant measure of each other’s financial obligations. Federal agencies can, if they choose to do so, require employees to 

provide documentation, such as a sworn affidavit, attesting that their relationship meets these criteria. (Executive Office of the 

President, Presidential Memorandum - Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal Employees, June 2, 2010.)
145

Our recommendation is that the Department of Defense and the Services review 

benefits in this category and assess whether they can be extended to same-sex partners 

in accordance with the former approach—that is, to refashion the benefit to become a 

“member-designated” one. Where it is legally permissible to do so under current statutory 

definitions, and where justified by policy, fiscal, and feasibility considerations, DoD should 

redefine the eligibility criteria for benefits in this category to allow Service members—gay 

or straight—to designate a beneficiary of their choosing, which could be a same-sex partner.

There is an element of fairness and equality to this approach, and it provides Service 

members with greater discretion to decide who in their life has access to benefits and support 

services. Both homosexual and heterosexual Service members could avail themselves of this 

type of expanded member-designated eligibility, and the Department of Defense would be 

enhancing the vital role of a Service member’s “supporters”—people in a Service member’s life 

who may not be his or her spouse, but may be a long-time partner, boyfriend, girlfriend, parent, 

or friend. Obviously, this approach requires some limit on the number of people the member 

could designate, and it should be constrained by other policy, fiscal, and practical considerations.

Access to legal services is a benefit that may be suitable for this member-designated 

approach, provided there is some type of limit to the number of people the member may 

designate. Other benefits and support services that may be suitable are, for example, 

programs and services provided by the Department of Defense family centers, which include 

mobility and deployment assistance, relocation assistance, and crisis assistance. Expanding 

the eligibility for these benefits and programs could be achieved by modifying the definition 

of “family member” in DoD policy and regulations to permit Service member designation.

We do not, however, recommend that military family housing be included in the benefits 

eligible for this member-designated approach. Permitting a Service member to qualify for 

military family housing, simply by designating whomever he chooses as a “dependent,” is 

problematic. Military family housing is a limited resource and complicated to administer, 

and such a system would create occasions for abuse and unfairness.383

Also, we do not, at this time, recommend that the Department of Defense and the 

Services revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to the 

definition of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar term, for purposes of extending 

benefits eligibility. We realize this is different from the direction the Federal government 

is taking for civilian employees to address the disparity in benefits available to married 

opposite-sex relationships and committed same-sex relationships. However, we believe that, 

in the short-term, immediately following a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, our recommended 

approach is justified in the military context, for several reasons.

383 Current Service policies state that non-dependents are not allowed to reside in military family housing. We do not recommend 

any changes to those policies, other than to state that any exception to policy to allow a non-dependent to reside in military 

family housing be administered without regard to sexual orientation.
146

First, as stated before, we believe that to create an environment in which gay and lesbian 

Service members can win quick and easy acceptance within the military community, repeal 

must be explained as an effort to achieve equal treatment for all. If, simultaneous with repeal, 

the Department of Defense creates a new category of unmarried dependent or family member 

reserved only for same-sex relationships, the Department of Defense itself would be creating a 

new inequity—between unmarried, committed same-sex couples and unmarried, committed 

opposite-sex couples. This new inequity, or the perception of it, would run counter to the military 

ethic of fair and equal treatment.

In addition, benefits play a much larger role in day-to-day military life, than in Federal 

civilian agencies. For the military, “benefits” cover many aspects of day-to-day life, including 

on-base housing, housing allowances, family support programs, and commissary and base 

exchange shopping privileges, and provide other valuable forms of assistance, like family 

separations allowances, space-available travel, and relocation assistance. We know from our 

numerous engagements of the force that resentment at perceived inequities runs deep in military 

families.

Finally, there is the complexity of the administration of a new system in which the personnel 

or another office on a military base would have to determine whether a same-sex couple qualifies 

as a “committed” relationship. Other Federal agencies are managing this by establishing a 

domestic partner status for same-sex partners, through an affidavit or other evidence of the 

relationship.384 Within the military community, where benefits are much more prominent and 

visible than in civilian life, administering such a system distracts from the military’s core mission 

and runs counter to the Secretary of Defense’s basic direction that implementation of a repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be done in a way that minimizes disruption to the force.

For these reasons, we recommend, for the time being, that the Department of Defense and 

the Services not revise their regulations to specifically add same-sex committed relationships to 

the definition of “dependent,” “family member,” or other similar term, for purposes of benefits 

eligibility.

However, we also recommend that the Department of Defense revisit this issue after 

repeal, as part of the post-repeal follow-on review we recommend below. This will permit 

the Department of Defense to revisit and reassess the issue as implementation of repeal 

is underway. It is also in recognition that the national debate on same-sex marriage and 

partner benefits is ongoing, and that the judicial and legislative landscape is in a state of 

flux. During the post-repeal assessment, the Department of Defense may then reconsider 

creating a “qualifying relationship” status for same-sex relationships, or for both committed 

same-sex and committed unmarried opposite-sex relationships, if the implementation of 

repeal to that point indicates that the extension of benefits in this manner is feasible and 

desirable.385

384 Executive Office of the President, Presidential Memorandum - Extension of Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Federal 

Employees, June 2, 2010.

385 A number of benefits and support programs for current and former Service members and their families are administered 

through the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. As such, we recommend that DoD work with the Department of Veterans Affairs 

on this and future action pertaining to same-sex partner benefits.
147

Duty Assignments

The Working Group considered the extent to which U.S. and foreign laws and policies 

and international agreements may impact duty assignments for gay and lesbian personnel, 

and, in particular, Service members with committed same-sex partners.

First, the Working Group considered overseas assignments of Service members to 

countries that criminalize homosexual conduct, or homosexuality in general. Gay and 

lesbian Service members assigned to serve in such countries may be subjected to greater 

legal risk than their heterosexual counterparts. To address this, we recommend that the 

Services ensure that information on host-country laws and related military policies regarding 

homosexuality and homosexual conduct are included in their standard briefings to all 

Service members being deployed overseas. We do not recommend imposing restrictions on 

overseas assignments of gay and lesbian personnel.

Second, the Working Group considered issues related to duty assignments for Service 

members with committed same-sex partners. With regard to overseas assignments, current 

law limits the ability of the Department of Defense to fund and support accompanying travel 

for the Service member’s partner, based on the eligibility definitions for “dependents” in 37 

U.S.C. § 403.386 Furthermore, even if a same-sex partner wishes to accompany a Service 

member to an overseas assignment at his or her own expense, in many instances the 

partner would not be eligible for the special host-nation legal protections that a “command 

sponsored” individual may receive. The United States has negotiated Status of Forces 

Agreements with various countries, which, among other things, set forth legal protections 

under the host country’s law for civilians who accompany a Service member to that country. 

In many instances, the terms of the agreements—which vary by country—have been written 

in such a way that they would not cover same-sex partners among those who receive those 

protections.

The Department of Defense and the Services also have policies that allow for 

“dual-career military married couples” to apply to be assigned to the same geographic area.387

DoD instructions define these “Joint Spouse Assignments” as “[a]ssignments made expressly 

for allowing military members to establish a joint household with their spouses who are 

also military members.”388 Because the term “spouse” here can only refer to opposite-sex 

married couples under the Defense of Marriage Act, if the Department of Defense and the 

Services were to extend the co-located assignment policy to Service members in a committed 

same-sex relationship with another Service member, it would need to rewrite the relevant 

regulations to refer to same-sex partners (or some other term), instead of only “spouses.” 

Without such a revision, two Service members in a committed same-sex relationship would 

386 37 U.S.C. § 403; Department of Defense, DoDI 1315.18, Procedures for Military Personnel Assignments, January 12, 2005, 44.

387 DoDI 1315.18, 7, para. 6.2.3.2.

388 DoDI 1315.18, 22, para. E.2.1.29.
148

not be able to apply for a co-located assignment and would be more likely to be assigned to 

different geographic locations than an opposite-sex married military couple would be.

As it relates to the treatment of Service members with committed same-sex partners, 

the topic of duty assignments—both for overseas assignments and for co-location of dual 

military couples—presents many of the same issues discussed in the previous section on 

benefits. As such, our recommendation and the reasons for it are similar. In short, we 

recommend that the Department of Defense and the Services not, at this time, rewrite their 

regulations to specifically accommodate same-sex committed relationships for purposes of 

duty assignments. However, gay and lesbian Service members in committed relationships—

with either a civilian or a military partner—should be able to make an individualized, 

hardship-based request for accommodation in assignment. Additionally, to account for the 

differences in the treatment of same-sex partnerships and family relationships in various 

U.S. jurisdictions and foreign countries, the Services should make available voluntary 

counseling to gay and lesbian Service members on these issues.

Medical

During our engagement of the force, we heard from a number of Service members 

concerns about the prevalence of HIV in the military, the safety of the blood supply, and 

other medical issues. Thus, we considered whether the Department of Defense should issue 

any additional or modified medical guidance or policies in these areas.

The 1993 Summary Report of the Military Working Group cited medical concerns as 

one of the reasons against lifting the ban on homosexual conduct in the military. Specifically, 

the report stated that “due to their sexual practices, active male homosexuals in the military 

could be expected to bring an increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases,”389 of 

which HIV was the primary concern.

An assessment of the impact of repeal on individual medical readiness is addressed 

in section XI of this report. In short, in the event of repeal, there will be no change in the 

safety of the blood supply and no significant change in overall HIV prevalence. There is a 

possibility that repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell could lead to an increase in the number of 

Service members who fall into the category of “men who have sex with men,” and this is the 

group at highest risk for HIV infection in the civilian population. However, our view is that 

such an increase is likely to be minimal and is not expected to impact military readiness or 

effectiveness.

The Surgeons General of each of the military departments have drafted and signed a 

joint letter to the Working Group stating that:

389 Department of Defense, Summary Report of the Military Working Group, July 1, 1993, 6-7.
149

“The repeal of 10 U.S.C. § 654 will not affect the medical readiness of the Armed 

Forces. Further, repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell will not require a change to any 

medical policies. The Department of Defense has policies and procedures to 

protect the health of the force to include the prevention of diseases such as 

human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) transmission.”390

We concur with the Surgeons General and recommend no new policies or modifications 

to existing medical policies. We do recommend minor changes to existing education and 

training programs to address misinformation and misperceptions about HIV and the safety 

of the blood supply.

Re-Accession

Under current law and policy, Service members who have been involuntarily 

discharged under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell are not eligible for reenlistment or reappointment.391

Each Service maintains procedures for reenlistment or reappointment. Generally, the fact 

that a Service member was separated on the basis of homosexual conduct is indicated by 

separation and re-entry codes provided on the Service member’s record of discharge (DD 

Form 214).

In the event of repeal, we recommend that the Department of Defense issue guidance 

to the Services permitting Service members previously separated on the basis of homosexual 

conduct to be considered for re-entry, assuming they qualify in all other respects. Requests 

for re-entry by those previously separated on the basis of homosexual conduct should be 

evaluated according to the same criteria as other former Service members seeking re-entry, 

and the fact that the basis of the separation was homosexual conduct should not be considered 

to the detriment of the applicant. For example, those whose DD Form 214 show an honorable 

discharge (or an uncharacterized discharge for those separated during initial training) 

and a separation code reflecting homosexual conduct shall be considered for re-entry. The 

Services should not establish any special procedures or preferential treatment for those 

Service members. The needs of the Service will continue to determine re-entry criteria.

We also considered whether the Department of Defense or the Services should adopt 

a policy to provide monetary compensation and/or other non-monetary redress to Service 

members previously separated under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. We recommend no change 

in policy. In general, the Department of Defense does not provide retroactive monetary 

compensation unless specifically authorized by legislation; nor does the Department of 

Defense provide non-monetary redress such as promotion in grade following then-validly 

executed separation actions.

390 Surgeons General of the Military Departments, Memorandum to the CRWG Co-Chairs, “Medical Impact of the Repeal of 10 

U.S.C. § 654 (Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy).”

391 10 U.S.C. § 654(c)(1).
150

This recommendation would not preclude a Service member previously separated 

under Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell or for any other reason from petitioning for redress through 

the Service Boards for the Correction of Military Records or Service Discharge Review 

Boards under the procedures and standards set forth by statute.392 The types of redress 

available at these boards can be either monetary (e.g., retroactive payments for periods of 

broken service, retroactive payment of full separation pay) or non-monetary (e.g., change in 

categorization of discharge, credit for periods of broken service).

Release from Service Commitments

Some Service members told us they would seek to be released from their service 

commitments if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell were repealed, based on their opposition to gay men 

and lesbians in the military or to homosexuality in general. We recommend against a policy 

allowing release from service commitments and voluntary discharge of Service members 

based on opposition to living or serving with gay or lesbian Service members after a repeal 

of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. The U.S. military is an all-volunteer force, but once Service members 

join the Military Services, they are not guaranteed a certain legal or policy landscape for 

the duration of their commitment.393 At present, Service members serve alongside others of 

different backgrounds, beliefs, races, and religions, reflective of American society as a whole. 

This already includes gay men and lesbians, and most Service members recognize that. It 

would be inappropriate, unworkable, and unfair to others to adopt a policy that permits 

release based on an assertion of incompatibility with or intolerance for gay men and lesbians. 

Under existing regulations, Service members may request to be voluntarily discharged under 

a military department secretary’s plenary authority. The military department Secretary 

has the discretion whether to grant such requests, and only after determining the early 

separation to be in the best interest of the Service. Such discretionary discharges should 

only be permitted when they meet the standard of being in the best interest of the Service.

Fiscal Impact

The Working Group undertook a rough order of magnitude net annual cost estimate for 

repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell that factored in the implementation of our recommendations. 

This estimate includes costs related to the expansion of benefits eligibility, minor privacy 

accommodations (e.g., shower curtains), and execution and administration of education 

and training programs for the force. It also considers savings if there is no longer a need to 

recruit and train replacements for some number of Service members separated under Don’t 

Ask, Don’t Tell each year.

The estimated cost depends to a significant degree on which benefits and support 

resources are refashioned to have a “member-designated” eligibility, consistent with our 

392 10 U.S.C. § 1552; 10 U.S.C. § 1553.

393 Service members sign a DD Form 4/1 upon entry acknowledging that laws and regulations governing military personnel may 

change without notice.
151

recommendation above. The decision of which benefits to extend would be made at later time 

by the Department of Defense and the Services, and a more complete cost estimate is not 

possible until such decisions are made. To obtain a preliminary cost estimate, the Working 

Group assumed a set of readiness-enhancing support resources that would be extended in 

this fashion. Based on this assumption, the Working Group estimated the annual cost of 

changing these benefits to a member-designated system for all Service members, regardless 

of sexual orientation, to be $40-$50 million. These benefits costs constituted approximately 

80% of the total estimated annual cost of $50-$60 million. The Working Group estimated 

approximately $20 million in cost savings, for a total net annual cost estimate of $30–$40 

million.

We also recognize that, should future decisions provide the partners of gay and lesbian 

Service members with benefits more consistent with those received by spouses of married 

Service members, personnel costs would rise. They would also rise if recruitment and 

retention issues become evident; however, at this time, the Working Group expects recruiting 

and retention expenses related to repeal to be negligible. Because of the uncertain nature 

of these future decisions and certain external conditions, this area will require further 

analysis by the Services in the event of repeal and should be included in the follow-on review 

recommended below.

Follow-On Review

Finally, we recommend that one year after any repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell takes effect, 

the Department of Defense conduct a follow-on review to monitor and assess effectiveness of 

implementation of repeal and to determine the adequacy of the recommended actions that 

are adopted.
152
153

A MEMORANDUM AND TERMS OF REFERENCE

APPENDIX
154
155
156
157

B COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW WORKING GROUP

APPENDIX

Co-Chairs

Hon. Jeh Charles Johnson

GEN Carter F. Ham, USA

Senior Enlisted Advisor

FLTCM Scott A. Benning, USN

Chief of Staff

Maj Gen Gregory A. Biscone, USAF

Staff

CAPT Anne G. Hammond, USN

Mr. Doug McCoy

Col Gary A. Packard Jr., PhD, USAF

CDR Kenneth L. Smith, Jr., USN

LTC Jenny Caruso, USA

Lt Col Sandra Edens, USAF

LtCol Christopher Gros, USMC

Lt Col Rick Helmer, USAF

CDR Patrick Knowles, USCG

Maj Linell A. Letendre, USAF

LT Richlyn C. Neal, USN

SFC Mark Lane, USA

YN3 Kimberly Bender, USCG

Mr. James A. Cadogan

Mr. Jason Forrester

Dr. Gerald F. Goodwin

Mr. Jonathan L. Lee

Ms. Alice Paxton

Mr. Gautam Raghavan

Ms. Lindsay Reiner

Ms. Cynthia Smith

Dr. Robert P. Trost

Policy Team

Hon. Daniel B. Ginsberg

VADM Mark E. Ferguson, III, USN

LTG Thomas P. Bostick, USA

COL John RisCassi, USA

Col Scott Walker, USMC

CAPT Richard Giroux, USN

Col Gary Linsky, USAF

LTC Tom Donegan, ARNG

Lt Col Tom Posch, USAF

LCDR Sara Tetreault, USN

LT Tatana Olson, PhD, USN

YN2 Jessenia Dawson, USN

Mr. Mike Johnson

Mr. Lach Litwer

Legislative, Regulatory,

and Legal Team

Hon. Paul L. Oostburg Sanz

Maj Gen Steven J. Lepper, USAF

Col James Clapsaddle, USAF

COL Sarah Green, USA

LCDR Christine Luster, USN

GySgt Edward Luna, USMC

Mr. Thomas Miller

Education and Training Team

LtGen Richard C. Zilmer, USMC

Mr. Joseph M. McDade, Jr.

Col John Burt, USMC

CAPT Doyle Dunn, USN

LTC Morant Pittman, USA

Capt Doug Hickey, USAF

SGM Victor Angry, ARNG

SCPO Crystal Sparks, USCG

CMSgt Michelle Blackston, USAF

Mr. Michael Swords

Survey Team

Lt Gen Richard Y. Newton III, USAF

Mr. Karl F. Schneider

RDML Herman A. Shelanski, USN

Col Jean McMerty, USAF

COL Donna Alberto, USA

COL Luis Umana-Williams, ARNG

CAPT Scott Seeberger, USN

Lt Col Kathy Pallozzi, USAF

Maj Jason Freeby, USMC

SGM Jeffrey Seidel, USA

SMSgt Greg Renz, USAF

TSgt Shakoda Gilliam, USAF

Mr. Justin Rubin
158
159

C SURVEY RESPONSES: 2010 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

SURVEY OF SERVICE MEMBERS

APPENDIX

159

Table 26. Question Index by Terms of Reference Topics

Topic Questions

Ef fectiveness 8a–c , 16a–b, 17a–c , 39c , 44, 45, 47c , 52 , 53 , 55c , 60, 61, 64, 

65, 66, 70a–b, 71a–c , 74, 83 , 84, 85

Combat Ef fectiveness 8c , 17c , 64, 65, 66, 71c , 83 , 84, 85

Cohesion 14a–d, 15a–d, 39a, 40, 41, 47a, 48 , 49, 55a, 56, 57, 68a–d, 

69a–d

Readiness 18a–c , 19, 23 , 24, 75a–f

Recruiting 30, 31, 80

Retention 26, 27, 28 , 29, 32 , 33 , 76, 77, 78 , 79, 81, 82

Family Readiness 94, 95, 96

Other:

Morale 21, 22 , 39b, 42 , 43 , 47b, 50, 51, 55b, 58 , 59, 73

Privacy 86, 87, 88 , 89, 90, 91

Social Activity 20, 25, 72 , 92 , 93

Unit Leadership 12 , 13 , 67a–e

Background Information 1, 2 , 3 , 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 , 46, 54, 62 , 63 , 

97, 98 . 99, 10 0, 101, 102
All respondents were asked the following question, but given Service specific 

options for the answer:

Question 1. Which one of the following best describes your current 

military occupational specialties?

Army N Army

Combat Arms ( CA /MFE ) 7,411 25.8 %

Combat Suppor t ( CS/OS ) 8,783 31.4 %

Combat Service Suppor t ( CSS/FS , IS ) 6,510 17.9 %

Medical, JAG , Chaplains, Acquisition 4,201 11.7%

Other 3,420 13.2 %

Marine Corps N Marine Corps

Combat Arms ( CA) 5,391 28.3 %

Combat Suppor t ( CS ) 5,478 35.6 %

Combat Service Suppor t ( CSS ) 5,624 36.1%

Navy N Navy

Sur face 6,849 35.8 %

Aviation 5,378 26.7%

Submarine 1,029 5.2 %

Medical 2,613 12.9 %

Other 5,583 19.4 %

Air Force N Air Force

Operations 13,702 31.2 %

Logistics 4,982 13.8 %

Suppor t 11,441 31.1%

Medical 3,832 8.8 %

Other 5,007 15.1%

Coast Guard N Coast Guard

Afloat 1,430 21.4 %

Ashore 4,927 64.7%

Aviation 676 9.1%

Medical 146 1.9 %

Other 223 2.8 %

160
The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 2. About how many people serve in your immediate unit?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

1–10 30,233 27.1% 26.4 % 26.3 % 27.8 % 28.6 % 26.3 %

11–20 38,064 33.3 % 31.0 % 36.0 % 37.9 % 33.6 % 32.0 %

21–30 12,826 10.9 % 9.6 % 12.3 % 13.0 % 11.2 % 13.8 %

31– 40 7,191 6.2 % 6.2 % 6.5 % 6.0 % 6.2 % 6.7%

41–50 7,270 6.2 % 6.5 % 6.7% 5.0 % 6.2 % 6.8 %

Larger 

than 50 17,311 16.2 % 20.3 % 12.2 % 10.3 % 14.2 % 14.3 %

Question 3. About how long have you worked in your immediate unit?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

0 –3 

months 12,114 10.7% 10.5 % 13.7% 9.8 % 9.9 % 17.7%

4– 6 

months 10,729 11.5 % 11.3 % 15.1% 12.6 % 10.0 % 5.9 %

7–12 

months 20,400 19.0 % 19.7% 19.3 % 19.8 % 16.8 % 17.3 %

13–18 

months 16,574 14.9 % 14.8 % 15.0 % 17.2 % 12.9 % 18.6 %

19 –24 

months 12,632 11.0 % 11.3 % 10.7% 12.3 % 9.9 % 10.0 %

More than 

2 years 42,313 32.8 % 32.4 % 26.2 % 28.3 % 40.6 % 30.4 %

Question 4. Does your immediate unit include both men and women?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 97,661 80.0 % 77.3 % 62.7% 85.9 % 89.4 % 84.5 %

No 16,996 20.0 % 22.7% 37.3 % 14.1% 10.6 % 15.5 %

161
162

Question 5. Does your immediate unit include individuals of different races or ethnicities?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 109,405 96.4 % 96.6 % 97.8 % 97.4 % 94.9 % 94.0 %

No 5,033 3.6 % 3.4 % 2.2 % 2.6 % 5.1% 6.0 %

Question 6. Have you ever been deployed for 30 days or more?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes, 

and I am 

currently 

deployed

10,114 10.9 % 14.2 % 6.7% 12.1% 4.9 % 11.6 %

Yes, but 

I am not 

currently 

deployed

75,383 58.9 % 56.7% 59.8 % 62.9 % 60.2 % 56.1%

No 29,292 30.2 % 29.1% 33.4 % 25.0 % 34.9 % 32.3 %

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they were 

currently deployed or previously had been deployed:

Question 7. Since September 11, 2001, have you been deployed to a combat zone or an area 

where you received imminent danger pay or hostile fire pay?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 66,053 83.2 % 89.6 % 87.4 % 74.0 % 79.8 % 24.4 %

No 19,390 16.8 % 10.4 % 12.6 % 26.0 % 20.2 % 75.6 %
163

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they were not 

currently deployed but had been deployed since September 11:

Question 8a. Thinking back to the unit with which you most recently deployed, how effective 

was that unit in completing its mission... In a field environment or out to sea?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 34,176 56.3 % 52.6 % 61.3 % 60.8 % 58.8 % 55.1%

Ef fective 18,847 34.1% 37.5 % 31.8 % 32.5 % 28.6 % 35.7%

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

2,217 5.0 % 6.3 % 4.1% 4.4 % 2.8 % 6.5 %

Inef fective 341 0.8 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 1.1%

Very 

inef fective 349 0.7% 0.8 % 0.6 % 0.8 % 0.5 % 0.6 %

Does not 

apply 2,120 3.2 % 1.8 % 1.7% 1.0 % 9.0 % 1.1%

Question 8b. Thinking back to the unit with which you most recently deployed, how effective 

was that unit in completing its mission... When a crisis or negative event happened that 

affected your unit?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 27,376 44.8 % 41.2 % 51.1% 46.7% 48.3 % 40.4 %

Ef fective 22,534 38.8 % 40.9 % 36.2 % 37.9 % 35.8 % 42.7%

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

4,264 9.3 % 11.6 % 6.9 % 8.5 % 5.8 % 10.3 %

Inef fective 954 2.1% 2.8 % 1.7% 1.7% 1.1% 1.2 %

Very 

inef fective 564 1.3 % 1.7% 0.7% 1.1% 0.8 % 1.2 %

Does not 

apply 2,271 3.7% 1.8 % 3.4 % 4.1% 8.1% 4.1%
164

Question 8c. Thinking back to the unit with which you most recently deployed, how effective 

was that unit in completing its mission... In an intense combat situation?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 21,702 38.7% 40.9 % 46.1% 33.3 % 34.2 % 19.2 %

Ef fective 14,521 27.2 % 31.7% 25.5 % 23.0 % 21.0 % 16.9 %

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

2,673 6.1% 8.0 % 4.8 % 5.4 % 3.0 % 6.3 %

Inef fective 404 1.0 % 1.4 % 0.5 % 0.7% 0.4 % 0.9 %

Very 

inef fective 314 0.7% 0.9 % 0.4 % 0.7% 0.4 % 1.1%

Does not 

apply 18,291 26.4 % 17.1% 22.7% 36.9 % 41.0 % 55.6 %

The following question was asked of all respondents:

Question 9. What is your current marital status?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Now married 75,444 55.9 % 56.3 % 48.5 % 55.4 % 59.1% 55.5 %

Legally 

separated 

or filing for 

divorce

2,909 2.9 % 2.9 % 3.3 % 3.6 % 2.1% 2.4 %

Divorced 9,392 7.7% 8.3 % 4.4 % 7.0 % 8.5 % 6.3 %

Widowed 275 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.1%

Never 

married 26,802 33.3 % 32.3 % 43.9 % 33.7% 30.1% 35.7%

The following question was only asked to respondents that said they were 

divorced, widowed or never married:

Question 10. Are you currently in a committed relationship?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 16,501 43.8 % 44.8 % 42.9 % 44.3 % 41.4 % 45.5 %

No 19,834 56.2 % 55.2 % 57.1% 55.7% 58.6 % 54.5 %
165

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 11. During the last 24 months, where have you lived the most?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

In a temporary 

facility 

while on 

deployment 

(e.g. , tent , 

trailer)

5,852 7.2 % 12.2 % 5.7% 2.0 % 1.7% 0.5 %

Onboard 

a ship or 

submarine

1,444 1.5 % 0.1% 0.7% 7.3 % 0.0 % 5.4 %

Barracks or 

dormitory 

at a military 

facility

8,781 15.4 % 13.7% 33.7% 14.6 % 12.1% 5.9 %

Military family 

housing 10,632 10.3 % 8.9 % 11.6 % 11.1% 12.0 % 9.3 %

Rented or 

owned civilian 

housing

85,137 62.7% 61.6 % 45.3 % 62.8 % 71.9 % 76.4 %

Other 3,026 2.9 % 3.5 % 3.0 % 2.2 % 2.2 % 2.5 %

Question 12. How many of the NCOs/Pos in your immediate unit are good leaders?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

All 15,237 14.1% 14.6 % 14.5 % 11.7% 14.9 % 11.8 %

Most 53,888 43.0 % 44.6 % 43.3 % 37.7% 42.9 % 45.9 %

Some 25,259 23.0 % 22.5 % 22.9 % 24.6 % 22.8 % 24.2 %

A few 14,155 16.1% 15.3 % 15.9 % 20.6 % 14.8 % 13.9 %

None 1,263 1.4 % 1.4 % 1.3 % 1.7% 1.3 % 1.2 %

Do not have 

any NCOs /

POs in my 

immediate 

unit

4,951 2.3 % 1.5 % 2.0 % 3.6 % 3.3 % 2.9 %
166

Question 13. How many of the officers over your immediate unit are good leaders?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

All 22,940 20.1% 18.9 % 25.1% 19.6 % 21.0 % 18.8 %

Most 50,457 38.6 % 39.3 % 37.4 % 36.9 % 39.1% 37.5 %

Some 20,656 18.8 % 19.8 % 16.8 % 19.3 % 17.1% 17.5 %

A few 12,699 14.0 % 14.9 % 12.2 % 15.3 % 12.1% 10.7%

None 2,424 3.0 % 3.1% 2.8 % 3.3 % 2.6 % 2.1%

Do not have 

any of ficers 

over my 

immediate 

unit

5,511 5.5 % 3.9 % 5.9 % 5.5 % 8.1% 13.4 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents and used to measure unit 

cohesion:

Question 14a. Service members in my immediate unit work together to get the job done

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 49,096 38.8 % 37.2 % 39.4 % 37.5 % 43.0 % 39.1%

Agree 56,065 49.6 % 49.8 % 49.7% 50.5 % 48.2 % 52.5 %

Neither agree 

nor disagree 6,502 7.5 % 8.3 % 7.6 % 7.4 % 6.0 % 6.5 %

Disagree 2,620 3.3 % 3.8 % 2.6 % 3.8 % 2.4 % 1.7%

Strongly 

disagree 525 0.7% 0.9 % 0.6 % 0.8 % 0.5 % 0.3 %

Question 14b. Service members in my immediate unit pull together to perform as a team

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 46,604 36.7% 35.7% 36.7% 35.3 % 40.1% 37.3 %

Agree 54,747 47.7% 47.7% 47.4 % 48.4 % 46.9 % 51.7%

Neither agree 

nor disagree 9,288 10.4 % 10.9 % 11.3 % 10.6 % 9.1% 8.4 %

Disagree 3,405 4.2 % 4.6 % 3.8 % 4.6 % 3.3 % 2.2 %

Strongly 

disagree 692 1.0 % 1.1% 0.9 % 1.1% 0.6 % 0.3 %
167

Question 14c. Service members in my immediate unit trust each other

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 34,036 26.0 % 25.6 % 27.4 % 23.9 % 28.1% 25.3 %

Agree 52,829 43.0 % 42.4 % 43.2 % 42.8 % 43.6 % 49.4 %

Neither agree 

nor disagree 19,314 20.5 % 21.1% 20.3 % 21.3 % 19.0 % 18.8 %

Disagree 6,597 7.9 % 8.1% 7.1% 8.8 % 7.2 % 5.3 %

Strongly 

disagree 1,923 2.6 % 2.8 % 2.0 % 3.1% 2.2 % 1.3 %

Question 14d. Service members in my immediate unit really care about each other

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 31,731 24.4 % 24.6 % 24.4 % 21.4 % 26.7% 22.5 %

Agree 50,948 41.0 % 40.4 % 41.7% 39.9 % 42.2 % 46.1%

Neither agree 

nor disagree 23,526 24.2 % 24.6 % 24.1% 26.2 % 22.1% 24.0 %

Disagree 6,256 7.3 % 7.3 % 7.0 % 8.6 % 6.6 % 5.7%

Strongly 

disagree 2,174 3.1% 3.2 % 2.8 % 3.9 % 2.4 % 1.7%

Question 15a. Service members in my immediate unit can get help from their leaders on 

personal problems

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 40,013 32.2 % 30.3 % 38.7% 31.9 % 33.6 % 29.3 %

Agree 54,434 46.9 % 46.5 % 46.1% 47.9 % 46.8 % 53.2 %

Neither agree 

nor disagree 13,577 13.7% 15.0 % 10.5 % 13.0 % 13.1% 12.8 %

Disagree 4,712 5.2 % 5.9 % 3.4 % 5.1% 4.9 % 3.4 %

Strongly 

disagree 1,565 2.0 % 2.3 % 1.4 % 2.2 % 1.5 % 1.2 %
168

Question 15b. Leaders in my immediate unit trust their unit members

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 30,501 23.6 % 22.4 % 25.5 % 22.8 % 25.8 % 21.9 %

Agree 57,204 47.3 % 46.6 % 49.1% 46.9 % 47.7% 53.6 %

Neither agree 

nor disagree 18,782 20.1% 21.2 % 18.2 % 20.7% 18.3 % 18.2 %

Disagree 6,203 7.1% 7.7% 5.6 % 7.5 % 6.7% 5.0 %

Strongly 

disagree 1,546 1.9 % 2.1% 1.6 % 2.1% 1.6 % 1.3 %

Question 15c. Leaders in my immediate unit have the skills and abilities to lead unit members 

into combat

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 29,500 24.6 % 25.7% 29.5 % 20.4 % 24.0 % 14.3 %

Agree 47,621 40.5 % 41.8 % 42.2 % 37.1% 40.3 % 33.5 %

Neither agree 

nor disagree 25,514 23.1% 20.9 % 19.7% 28.3 % 24.1% 35.7%

Disagree 7,806 7.7% 7.6 % 5.7% 8.8 % 7.9 % 10.2 %

Strongly 

disagree 3,739 4.1% 4.0 % 3.0 % 5.5 % 3.8 % 6.3 %

Question 15d. Leaders in my immediate unit care about their Service members

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Strongly 

agree 39,768 30.5 % 29.8 % 33.1% 28.5 % 32.5 % 27.5 %

Agree 53,353 45.6 % 44.9 % 45.9 % 46.0 % 45.9 % 52.9 %

Neither agree 

nor disagree 14,705 16.3 % 17.0 % 15.1% 17.2 % 15.0 % 15.0 %

Disagree 4,423 5.2 % 5.6 % 3.7% 5.5 % 4.7% 3.3 %

Strongly 

disagree 1,868 2.5 % 2.8 % 2.2 % 2.8 % 1.8 % 1.3 %
169

The following questions were only asked to respondents that said they were not 

currently deployed:

Question 16a. How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... On a day-today basis?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 20,809 41.0 % 36.6 % 43.9 % 39.4 % 47.8 % 43.0 %

Ef fective 22,957 47.0 % 47.9 % 46.1% 49.1% 44.2 % 49.2 %

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

4,018 10.1% 12.7% 8.8 % 10.2 % 6.9 % 6.8 %

Inef fective 566 1.5 % 2.3 % 0.9 % 1.0 % 0.8 % 0.8 %

Very 

inef fective 138 0.4 % 0.6 % 0.2 % 0.3 % 0.2 % 0.2 %

Question 16b. How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... When a crisis 

or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 18,650 35.6 % 32.1% 34.8 % 34.5 % 42.0 % 39.3 %

Ef fective 22,352 45.3 % 45.1% 46.2 % 46.5 % 44.0 % 47.7%

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

6,113 15.5 % 18.5 % 15.1% 15.7% 11.4 % 10.9 %

Inef fective 1,020 2.8 % 3.5 % 2.9 % 2.3 % 2.0 % 1.7%

Very 

inef fective 285 0.8 % 0.9 % 1.1% 1.0 % 0.6 % 0.4 %
170

The following questions were only asked to respondents that said they were 

currently deployed:

Question 17a. How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... In a field 

environment or out to sea?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 3,288 40.2 % 39.9 % 49.4 % 38.5 % 39.4 % 48.3 %

Ef fective 3,505 43.4 % 42.8 % 41.6 % 45.8 % 45.4 % 39.8 %

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

917 13.5 % 14.0 % 8.5 % 13.5 % 12.9 % 11.5 %

Inef fective 146 2.2 % 2.6 % 0.2 % 1.8 % 1.6 % 0.4 %

Very 

inef fective 42 0.7% 0.8 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.6 % 0.0 %

Question 17b. How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... When a crisis 

or negative event happens that affects your immediate unit?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 2,719 32.2 % 31.5 % 38.9 % 31.3 % 34.2 % 38.3 %

Ef fective 3,744 45.9 % 45.3 % 47.0 % 46.8 % 47.6 % 48.6 %

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

1,130 16.9 % 17.6 % 12.0 % 17.3 % 14.8 % 10.7%

Inef fective 243 3.9 % 4.3 % 1.6 % 3.8 % 2.8 % 2.4 %

Very 

inef fective 63 1.1% 1.3 % 0.5 % 0.7% 0.6 % 0.0 %
171

Question 17c. How effective is your immediate unit in completing its mission... In an intense 

combat situation?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

ef fective 2,361 30.2 % 30.4 % 41.0 % 26.1% 29.5 % 20.9 %

Ef fective 3,237 39.3 % 39.3 % 40.1% 38.9 % 40.0 % 31.0 %

Equally as 

ef fective as 

inef fective

1,827 24.5 % 23.5 % 16.1% 29.4 % 26.8 % 41.1%

Inef fective 255 3.8 % 4.3 % 1.4 % 3.4 % 2.3 % 5.0 %

Very 

inef fective 144 2.2 % 2.4 % 1.3 % 2.2 % 1.5 % 2.0 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents and were used to measure 

unit readiness:

Question 18a. To perform its immediate mission-essential tasks, does your unit have enough... 

Trained personnel?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 81,409 70.5 % 69.6 % 77.3 % 67.9 % 71.0 % 71.4 %

No 29,196 24.8 % 24.6 % 18.9 % 28.2 % 25.6 % 24.7%

Don’ t know 4,207 4.7% 5.8 % 3.8 % 3.9 % 3.4 % 4.0 %

Question 18b. To perform its immediate mission-essential tasks, does your unit have enough... 

Experienced personnel?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 78,910 68.1% 69.1% 72.9 % 65.0 % 66.0 % 70.1%

No 31,911 27.5 % 25.8 % 23.6 % 31.1% 30.6 % 25.9 %

Don’ t know 3,953 4.3 % 5.1% 3.4 % 3.8 % 3.3 % 4.0 %
172

Question 18c. To perform its immediate mission-essential tasks, does your unit have enough... 

Motivated personnel?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 85,769 68.8 % 68.3 % 70.3 % 67.0 % 69.8 % 74.6 %

No 22,860 24.8 % 24.9 % 23.3 % 27.4 % 23.8 % 18.8 %

Don’ t know 6,040 6.4 % 6.8 % 6.4 % 5.6 % 6.4 % 6.7%

Question 19. To perform its immediate mission-essential tasks, does your unit have enough 

deployable personnel?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 58,670 50.8 % 50.6 % 54.4 % 47.1% 52.3 % 49.6 %

No 22,304 19.0 % 19.4 % 14.6 % 20.0 % 19.2 % 20.0 %

Don’ t know 17,448 17.7% 20.1% 14.7% 13.8 % 17.2 % 16.0 %

Does not 

apply 16,339 12.5 % 9.9 % 16.3 % 19.1% 11.3 % 14.4 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 20. For your immediate unit to work together well, how important is it for unit 

members to socialize together off-duty?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

impor tant 10,592 10.8 % 11.5 % 14.5 % 8.4 % 9.4 % 8.1%

Impor tant 40,818 35.3 % 35.5 % 39.8 % 32.6 % 35.3 % 32.7%

Neither 

impor tant nor 

unimpor tant

47,517 40.5 % 40.0 % 35.4 % 42.6 % 42.0 % 44.6 %

Unimpor tant 13,012 10.8 % 10.5 % 8.2 % 12.8 % 10.9 % 12.0 %

Very 

unimpor tant 2,685 2.6 % 2.5 % 2.0 % 3.5 % 2.4 % 2.6 %
173

Question 21. How would you rate your immediate unit’s morale?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very high 9,687 8.0 % 8.5 % 7.9 % 7.4 % 7.5 % 5.1%

High 46,275 35.5 % 36.0 % 38.1% 33.5 % 34.8 % 33.0 %

Moderate 45,788 41.3 % 40.6 % 40.1% 41.7% 42.4 % 46.4 %

Low 9,704 11.0 % 10.7% 10.3 % 12.1% 11.3 % 11.6 %

Very low 3,210 4.2 % 4.1% 3.6 % 5.3 % 4.0 % 3.9 %

Question 22. How would you rate your own morale?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very high 21,139 17.7% 19.2 % 18.0 % 16.8 % 15.9 % 11.2 %

High 48,951 38.8 % 38.7% 39.1% 36.3 % 40.4 % 39.8 %

Moderate 33,356 30.4 % 29.1% 29.6 % 31.5 % 32.0 % 37.7%

Low 7,831 8.5 % 8.3 % 8.3 % 9.8 % 8.0 % 8.4 %

Very low 3,449 4.6 % 4.7% 5.0 % 5.7% 3.6 % 2.9 %

Question 23. How well prepared is your immediate unit to perform its mission?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very well 

prepared 26,169 20.9 % 18.5 % 23.4 % 20.2 % 25.4 % 20.5 %

Well 

prepared 59,039 48.8 % 45.5 % 50.9 % 50.3 % 53.2 % 56.1%

Moderately 

prepared 25,648 25.5 % 29.3 % 22.6 % 25.8 % 19.0 % 20.7%

Poorly 

prepared 3,254 4.1% 5.6 % 2.7% 3.1% 2.1% 2.4 %

Very poorly 

prepared 531 0.8 % 1.1% 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.4 % 0.4 %
174

Question 24. How well prepared are you to perform your military job?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very well 

prepared 41,085 35.4 % 34.6 % 38.8 % 34.8 % 36.6 % 28.5 %

Well 

prepared 55,751 47.1% 46.3 % 45.8 % 47.7% 48.3 % 54.3 %

Moderately 

prepared 15,930 15.1% 15.8 % 13.8 % 15.7% 13.5 % 15.9 %

Poorly 

prepared 1,590 1.9 % 2.5 % 1.2 % 1.4 % 1.3 % 1.2 %

Very poorly 

prepared 404 0.6 % 0.8 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.2 %

Question 25. In the last 2 months, about how often has your immediate unit socialized 

together, off-duty?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Not at all in 

the last 2 

months

34,191 30.5 % 33.3 % 21.2 % 29.7% 30.0 % 24.2 %

Once 32,534 25.8 % 25.4 % 23.8 % 26.4 % 27.2 % 26.8 %

Two or three 

times 35,873 30.8 % 28.9 % 37.4 % 31.2 % 31.5 % 33.0 %

Four or more 

times 11,981 12.8 % 12.4 % 17.6 % 12.8 % 11.3 % 16.0 %
175

The following question was only asked of respondents that said they were “Now 

married”:

Question 26. How does your spouse feel about your military service?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positive 25,405 29.9 % 27.8 % 30.9 % 29.8 % 33.7% 32.6 %

Positive 25,334 30.9 % 30.4 % 27.7% 30.4 % 33.4 % 34.4 %

An equal mix 

of positive 

and negative 

feelings

20,343 31.9 % 33.3 % 33.6 % 32.8 % 27.8 % 28.3 %

Negative 2,317 3.7% 4.3 % 3.5 % 3.7% 2.7% 2.7%

Very 

negative 1,378 2.7% 3.3 % 3.1% 2.5 % 1.7% 1.3 %

Not sure 452 0.9 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 0.7% 0.8 % 0.7%

The following question was only asked of respondents that said they were in a 

committed relationship, but not currently married:

Question 27. How does your significant other feel about your military service?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positive 4,509 23.8 % 22.4 % 21.6 % 24.0 % 28.5 % 21.7%

Positive 5,015 27.3 % 26.2 % 26.3 % 26.0 % 31.4 % 32.9 %

An equal mix 

of positive 

and negative 

feelings

5,538 38.6 % 40.7% 41.1% 38.0 % 32.5 % 36.9 %

Negative 647 4.8 % 4.9 % 5.3 % 6.1% 3.0 % 4.0 %

Very 

negative 364 3.2 % 3.7% 3.2 % 3.6 % 1.5 % 2.3 %

Not sure 385 2.4 % 2.1% 2.5 % 2.4 % 3.1% 2.1%
176

The following question was only asked of respondents that said they were “Now 

married”:

Question 28. How does the rest of your family feel about your military service?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very

positive 28,331 34.4 % 29.7% 38.0 % 38.6 % 38.9 % 44.3 %

Positive 29,525 37.3 % 37.2 % 35.4 % 36.2 % 38.9 % 39.4 %

An equal mix 

of positive 

and negative 

feelings

14,492 23.1% 26.9 % 22.7% 20.4 % 18.2 % 13.4 %

Negative 1,235 2.1% 2.8 % 1.4 % 1.8 % 1.3 % 0.9 %

Very 

negative 480 1.1% 1.4 % 0.8 % 1.0 % 0.6 % 0.5 %

Not sure 1,189 1.9 % 1.9 % 1.6 % 2.0 % 2.0 % 1.5 %

The following question was only asked of respondents that did not say they were 

“Now married”:

Question 29. How does your family feel about your military service?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positive 17,576 42.4 % 37.1% 42.1% 46.3 % 50.1% 53.4 %

Positive 12,484 29.7% 29.9 % 29.2 % 28.7% 30.1% 33.0 %

An equal mix 

of positive 

and negative 

feelings

7,640 22.7% 26.9 % 24.0 % 19.7% 16.0 % 10.8 %

Negative 691 2.1% 2.6 % 1.9 % 2.0 % 1.2 % 0.6 %

Very 

negative 344 1.1% 1.5 % 0.9 % 1.0 % 0.7% 0.6 %

Not sure 727 2.0 % 2.0 % 1.7% 2.2 % 2.0 % 1.6 %
177

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 30. Would you ever recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she 

pursue service in the military?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes, and I 

have done so 85,602 69.5 % 69.2 % 61.9 % 66.5 % 75.2 % 76.2 %

Yes, but I 

have not done 

so to date

17,041 15.9 % 15.7% 17.5 % 17.9 % 14.3 % 15.7%

No 11,873 14.6 % 15.1% 20.5 % 15.6 % 10.5 % 8.1%

Question 31. Why did you join the military? Choose 2 that best apply.

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Pay and 

allowances 16,435 15.6 % 15.3 % 11.2 % 17.0 % 16.7% 20.2 %

Education 

benefits /GI 

Bill

41,074 41.2 % 41.1% 30.1% 44.5 % 44.5 % 35.8 %

Retirement 

benefits 15,489 11.4 % 10.9 % 5.4 % 12.4 % 14.1% 17.0 %

Health 

benefits 6,655 7.0 % 6.5 % 4.3 % 8.5 % 7.8 % 11.9 %

Family 

tradition 13,661 12.0 % 13.5 % 10.6 % 9.8 % 11.4 % 8.9 %

To serve my 

country or to 

defend the 

nation

67,338 53.3 % 56.8 % 62.2 % 43.3 % 49.5 % 48.6 %

Needed a job 10,564 10.1% 9.3 % 8.7% 10.8 % 11.5 % 14.3 %

See the world 20,092 17.9 % 12.2 % 21.7% 28.2 % 21.0 % 14.4 %

Live by 

Service’s core 

values

7,837 5.4 % 5.6 % 12.9 % 3.0 % 3.4 % 5.1%

Service 

members’ 

moral values

5,545 4.2 % 4.7% 6.0 % 2.8 % 3.4 % 3.8 %

Other 12,703 11.4 % 11.9 % 15.0 % 11.1% 8.9 % 10.0 %
178

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 32. Which one of the following statements best describes your current military 

career intentions?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast

Guard

Definitely 

stay in until 

retirement

54,834 37.9 % 36.2 % 25.2 % 40.3 % 45.2 % 44.7%

Probably stay in 

until retirement 21,550 20.8 % 21.4 % 17.6 % 18.4 % 22.7% 23.4 %

Definitely stay 

in beyond 

my present 

obligation, but 

not necessarily 

until 

retirement

4,308 5.6 % 5.6 % 7.3 % 6.9 % 3.7% 5.2 %

Probably stay 

in beyond 

my present 

obligation, but 

not necessarily 

until 

retirement

8,116 10.5 % 10.9 % 13.3 % 10.6 % 8.2 % 8.8 %

Definitely leave 

upon completion 

of my present 

obligation

6,459 9.6 % 9.9 % 18.5 % 9.5 % 5.5 % 4.7%

Probably leave 

upon completion 

of my present 

obligation

7,269 10.0 % 10.2 % 15.7% 9.2 % 7.6 % 7.4 %

Have met 

retirement 

eligibility but 

continue to 

serve

12,119 5.6 % 5.8 % 2.3 % 5.1% 7.0 % 5.9 %
179

Question 33. What THREE factors do you consider most important to you when deciding 

whether to remain in the military? Mark up to 3:

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Pay and 

allowances / 

Bonuses

27,353 26.1% 24.9 % 24.5 % 29.5 % 26.5 % 29.2 %

Education 

benefits 14,394 16.8 % 16.2 % 14.1% 19.5 % 17.4 % 15.1%

Quality of 

leadership 20,094 20.4 % 22.6 % 25.8 % 16.7% 16.3 % 14.1%

Retirement 

benefits 42,334 30.4 % 28.3 % 20.0 % 33.6 % 36.4 % 38.8 %

Years 

completed 

toward 

retirement

26,551 18.7% 18.3 % 11.4 % 18.7% 23.1% 20.4 %

Current 

economic 

situation and 

civilian job 

availability

25,770 26.5 % 23.3 % 29.0 % 29.6 % 29.2 % 34.5 %

Family 

separations 

and stability

19,735 18.7% 19.6 % 19.1% 20.8 % 15.3 % 15.9 %

Health 

benefits 19,987 18.4 % 17.0 % 14.7% 21.1% 20.4 % 27.1%

Deploymentrelated 

considerations

11,934 12.3 % 14.5 % 13.0 % 10.0 % 9.6 % 3.8 %

Live by 

Service’s core 

values

6,185 4.4 % 5.0 % 6.4 % 2.8 % 3.4 % 3.2 %

Service 

members’ 

moral values

7,850 6.5 % 6.9 % 8.4 % 5.6 % 5.7% 4.2 %

Camaraderie 18,806 14.4 % 15.0 % 20.6 % 11.8 % 12.8 % 9.2 %

To serve and 

defend my 

country

34,231 25.7% 27.8 % 26.2 % 21.0 % 25.0 % 19.8 %

Job 

satisfaction 36,800 30.5 % 28.9 % 33.2 % 30.9 % 31.7% 37.0 %

Family 

satisfaction 

with military

21,736 20.0 % 20.8 % 22.3 % 18.6 % 18.3 % 19.7%

Other 3,994 4.1% 4.4 % 4.8 % 4.1% 3.4 % 2.2 %
180

Question 34. Do you currently serve with a male or female Service member you believe to be 

homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 35,506 36.0 % 37.6 % 24.9 % 46.0 % 30.6 % 29.9 %

No 79,128 64.0 % 62.4 % 75.1% 54.0 % 69.4 % 70.1%

Question 35. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a leader you believed to be 

homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 43,089 38.5 % 40.4 % 30.8 % 44.3 % 33.4 % 40.9 %

No 71,506 61.5 % 59.6 % 69.2 % 55.7% 66.6 % 59.1%

Question 36. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a coworker you believed to be 

homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 78,749 69.3 % 68.9 % 58.2 % 78.6 % 67.9 % 72.0 %

No 35,840 30.7% 31.1% 41.8 % 21.4 % 32.1% 28.0 %

Question 37. In your career, have you ever worked in a unit with a subordinate you believed to 

be homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 60,040 49.1% 51.0 % 43.4 % 62.8 % 37.6 % 46.8 %

No 54,653 50.9 % 49.0 % 56.6 % 37.2 % 62.4 % 53.2 %
181

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a 

leader they believed to be gay or lesbian:

Question 38. In the unit where you had a leader you believed to be gay or lesbian, about how 

many other unit members also believed the leader to be gay or lesbian?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

All or most 19,773 47.5 % 47.9 % 40.7% 50.8 % 45.9 % 48.1%

Some 11,062 24.8 % 25.5 % 26.0 % 22.2 % 25.2 % 23.8 %

A few 5,091 12.8 % 12.9 % 16.0 % 12.5 % 11.7% 12.6 %

None 1,050 2.6 % 2.5 % 3.7% 2.8 % 2.4 % 2.2 %

Don’ t know 6,031 12.2 % 11.1% 13.5 % 11.6 % 14.8 % 13.2 %

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served 

with a leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few 

other unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 39a. How would you rate that unit’s... Ability to work together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 13,805 30.9 % 30.1% 23.8 % 32.7% 33.9 % 33.1%

Good 20,062 46.0 % 45.3 % 44.6 % 47.8 % 46.3 % 49.2 %

Neither good 

nor poor 5,924 14.8 % 15.2 % 19.7% 13.0 % 13.6 % 12.5 %

Poor 2,422 6.2 % 6.9 % 8.8 % 4.8 % 4.7% 3.8 %

Very Poor 773 2.2 % 2.6 % 3.1% 1.7% 1.4 % 1.5 %

Question 39b. How would you rate that unit’s... Morale?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 11,092 24.6 % 24.2 % 18.4 % 25.6 % 27.1% 24.7%

Good 19,078 43.3 % 43.6 % 40.0 % 44.9 % 42.2 % 45.6 %

Neither good 

nor poor 7,331 18.1% 17.9 % 22.1% 16.7% 18.3 % 17.4 %

Poor 3,992 9.9 % 9.9 % 14.0 % 9.1% 9.0 % 8.6 %

Very Poor 1,447 4.1% 4.4 % 5.5 % 3.6 % 3.4 % 3.7%
182

Question 39c. How would you rate that unit’s... Performance?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 13,953 31.1% 29.7% 26.5 % 32.9 % 34.8 % 34.1%

Good 20,404 47.0 % 46.6 % 45.7% 48.5 % 46.7% 49.5 %

Neither good 

nor poor 5,739 14.6 % 15.4 % 17.9 % 12.6 % 13.3 % 12.0 %

Poor 2,090 5.2 % 6.0 % 6.9 % 4.3 % 3.8 % 3.3 %

Very Poor 712 2.1% 2.4 % 3.1% 1.6 % 1.4 % 1.0 %

Question 40. Among all the factors that affect how well a unit works together, how much did 

the unit members’ belief that this leader was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s ability to work 

together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 2,947 9.2 % 10.4 % 15.9 % 6.6 % 6.2 % 6.3 %

Some 6,207 16.6 % 17.3 % 20.7% 15.3 % 14.6 % 15.0 %

A lit tle 5,951 16.4 % 16.5 % 19.5 % 15.9 % 15.3 % 15.9 %

Not at all 18,208 50.5 % 49.0 % 36.6 % 54.7% 55.9 % 55.4 %

No basis to 

judge 2,588 7.2 % 6.8 % 7.4 % 7.6 % 8.1% 7.4 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some 

or a little to the previous question:

Question 41. Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 2,306 15.9 % 15.5 % 14.3 % 18.7% 15.0 % 17.8 %

Mostly 

negative 5,652 37.5 % 39.7% 43.8 % 30.2 % 34.6 % 30.3 %

About equally 

positive and 

negative

7,184 46.6 % 44.8 % 41.8 % 51.1% 50.4 % 51.9 %
183

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a 

leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other 

unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 42. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit 

members’ belief that this leader was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 2,625 8.1% 9.3 % 13.0 % 5.7% 5.5 % 4.8 %

Some 5,581 14.9 % 15.6 % 20.3 % 13.3 % 12.7% 12.6 %

A lit tle 6,064 16.4 % 16.7% 19.5 % 15.5 % 15.5 % 15.6 %

Not at all 19,087 53.5 % 51.8 % 38.6 % 58.3 % 58.7% 59.9 %

No basis to 

judge 2,529 7.1% 6.7% 8.6 % 7.2 % 7.7% 7.2 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some 

or a little to the previous question:

Question 43. Was the effect on the unit’s morale...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 1,211 9.1% 8.1% 9.3 % 12.1% 9.0 % 10.1%

Mostly 

negative 6,560 46.1% 48.8 % 51.1% 37.6 % 43.2 % 41.7%

About equally 

positive and 

negative

6,497 44.8 % 43.1% 39.6 % 50.3 % 47.9 % 48.2 %
184

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a 

leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other 

unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 44. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit 

members’ belief that this leader was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s performance?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 2,066 6.4 % 7.4 % 10.4 % 4.7% 4.3 % 3.8 %

Some 4,887 13.2 % 13.9 % 18.2 % 11.6 % 11.2 % 11.0 %

A lit tle 5,145 14.3 % 14.5 % 18.5 % 13.4 % 12.9 % 13.5 %

Not at all 21,119 58.6 % 57.0 % 44.1% 63.2 % 63.7% 64.2 %

No basis to 

judge 2,599 7.4 % 7.2 % 8.8 % 7.1% 7.9 % 7.6 %

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a 

leader they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few other 

unit members believed the leader to be gay or lesbian:

Question 45. Was the effect on the unit’s performance...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 931 8.6 % 8.1% 8.3 % 10.6 % 7.9 % 10.0 %

Mostly 

negative 5,572 46.2 % 48.9 % 50.1% 38.6 % 42.9 % 41.1%

About 

equally 

positive 

and 

negative

5,583 45.2 % 43.0 % 41.6 % 50.7% 49.2 % 49.0 %
185

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with 

a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian:

Question 46. In the unit where you had a coworker you believed to be gay or lesbian, about 

how many other unit members also believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

All or most 38,770 53.1% 53.3 % 48.2 % 57.5 % 51.1% 49.0 %

Some 20,271 23.8 % 23.9 % 25.5 % 21.2 % 25.0 % 25.3 %

A few 9,357 12.2 % 12.6 % 13.8 % 11.1% 11.5 % 12.3 %

None 1,162 1.6 % 1.5 % 2.6 % 1.4 % 1.5 % 1.6 %

Don’ t 

know 9,060 9.4 % 8.7% 9.9 % 8.8 % 11.0 % 11.7%

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with 

a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few 

other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 47a. How would you rate that unit’s... Ability to work together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 24,379 29.5 % 28.3 % 21.8 % 31.5 % 33.1% 31.3 %

Good 38,031 47.1% 46.2 % 46.8 % 48.3 % 47.8 % 50.7%

Neither 

good nor 

poor

10,732 15.0 % 15.8 % 19.5 % 13.3 % 13.3 % 13.4 %

Poor 4,123 6.2 % 7.1% 8.3 % 5.3 % 4.4 % 3.7%

Very Poor 1,263 2.2 % 2.6 % 3.6 % 1.7% 1.4 % 0.9 %

Question 47b. How would you rate that unit’s... Morale?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 19,840 23.5 % 22.9 % 17.5 % 24.8 % 26.2 % 23.2 %

Good 37,476 45.6 % 45.7% 42.7% 46.1% 45.7% 49.3 %

Neither 

good nor 

poor

13,486 18.8 % 18.9 % 23.2 % 17.7% 17.9 % 17.9 %

Poor 5,789 8.7% 8.8 % 11.5 % 8.4 % 7.5 % 7.6 %

Very Poor 1,855 3.4 % 3.6 % 5.1% 3.0 % 2.7% 2.1%
186

Question 47c. How would you rate that unit’s... Performance?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 24,503 29.5 % 27.8 % 24.6 % 31.1% 33.5 % 31.3 %

Good 39,127 48.6 % 48.0 % 47.3 % 49.7% 49.1% 52.7%

Neither 

good nor 

poor

10,476 15.0 % 16.0 % 18.5 % 13.9 % 12.8 % 12.3 %

Poor 3,134 4.9 % 5.7% 6.7% 3.9 % 3.4 % 2.7%

Very Poor 1,117 2.0 % 2.5 % 2.9 % 1.5 % 1.2 % 1.0 %

Question 48. Among all the factors that affect how well a unit works together, how much did 

the unit members’ belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s ability to work 

together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 3,213 8.7% 10.0 % 13.2 % 6.8 % 5.9 % 4.9 %

Some 8,176 18.3 % 19.2 % 25.2 % 15.1% 16.2 % 15.4 %

A lit tle 8,026 17.8 % 18.2 % 20.1% 17.8 % 16.3 % 17.5 %

Not at all 20,842 47.5 % 45.1% 33.4 % 52.8 % 53.7% 53.7%

No basis 

to judge 3,288 7.6 % 7.4 % 8.1% 7.6 % 7.9 % 8.5 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some 

or a little to the previous question.

Question 49. Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 2,296 12.4 % 12.3 % 10.2 % 14.4 % 12.1% 16.3 %

Mostly 

negative 8,384 43.0 % 44.4 % 48.1% 37.2 % 41.5 % 35.0 %

About 

equally 

positive 

and 

negative

8,777 44.6 % 43.3 % 41.7% 48.4 % 46.4 % 48.8 %
187

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with 

a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few 

other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 50. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit 

members’ belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 4,312 7.2 % 8.3 % 10.7% 5.5 % 5.2 % 4.1%

Some 10,688 15.2 % 16.2 % 21.4 % 13.0 % 12.6 % 12.6 %

A lit tle 11,668 16.6 % 16.8 % 19.9 % 15.7% 15.6 % 15.8 %

Not at all 36,671 53.8 % 51.7% 39.8 % 59.1% 58.7% 60.4 %

No basis 

to judge 4,884 7.2 % 7.0 % 8.2 % 6.7% 7.8 % 7.1%

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some 

or a little to the previous question.

Question 51. Was the effect on the unit’s morale...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 1,880 7.5 % 7.0 % 10.1% 5.7% 7.3 % 9.0 %

Mostly 

negative 13,214 49.9 % 51.6 % 43.9 % 55.1% 47.9 % 43.9 %

About equally 

positive and 

negative

11,570 42.7% 41.4 % 46.0 % 39.2 % 44.8 % 47.0 %
188

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a 

subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few 

other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 52. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance, how much did the unit 

members’ belief that this coworker was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s performance?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 3,393 5.9 % 6.8 % 9.4 % 4.6 % 4.0 % 2.9 %

Some 9,531 13.8 % 15.1% 18.5 % 11.5 % 11.2 % 10.4 %

A lit tle 10,427 14.8 % 15.0 % 19.8 % 13.4 % 13.6 % 14.2 %

Not at all 39,626 57.9 % 55.7% 43.8 % 63.1% 62.9 % 64.3 %

No basis to 

judge 5,229 7.7% 7.3 % 8.5 % 7.3 % 8.3 % 8.3 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some 

or a little to the previous question.

Question 53. Was the effect on the unit’s performance...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 1,444 6.5 % 6.1% 6.1% 8.3 % 6.3 % 8.0 %

Mostly 

negative 11,735 51.0 % 53.2 % 55.2 % 45.1% 48.2 % 44.2 %

About equally 

positive and 

negative

10,125 42.5 % 40.8 % 38.7% 46.6 % 45.5 % 47.8 %
189

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served with 

a subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian:

Question 54. In the unit where you had a subordinate you believed to be gay or lesbian, about 

how many other unit members also believed the subordinate to be gay or lesbian?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

All or most 25,818 45.1% 45.3 % 41.1% 50.0 % 41.0 % 41.1%

Some 16,055 25.3 % 25.7% 25.5 % 23.2 % 26.8 % 25.3 %

A few 8,710 15.2 % 15.4 % 16.9 % 13.0 % 16.0 % 16.7%

None 1,316 2.7% 2.7% 3.4 % 2.6 % 2.5 % 2.6 %

Don’ t know 8,006 11.7% 10.9 % 13.1% 11.2 % 13.7% 14.2 %

The following questions were only asked to respondents who said they served 

with a subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or 

a few other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 55a. How would you rate that unit’s... Ability to work together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 18,378 29.4 % 28.6 % 21.5 % 31.3 % 33.3 % 31.2 %

Good 28,831 46.7% 46.2 % 47.2 % 47.5 % 46.7% 49.5 %

Neither good 

nor poor 8,479 15.6 % 15.7% 19.7% 14.8 % 14.5 % 14.4 %

Poor 3,179 6.0 % 6.9 % 8.2 % 4.9 % 4.1% 3.9 %

Very Poor 1,006 2.2 % 2.7% 3.4 % 1.5 % 1.4 % 1.0 %

Question 55b. How would you rate that unit’s... Morale?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 15,579 24.6 % 24.3 % 18.2 % 25.6 % 28.0 % 24.4 %

Good 28,615 45.6 % 45.9 % 42.4 % 46.6 % 45.0 % 49.4 %

Neither good 

nor poor 10,415 19.1% 18.7 24.9 % 18.4 % 18.4 % 18.1%

Poor 3,937 7.6 % 7.7% 10.3 % 7.1% 6.4 % 6.3 %

Very Poor 1,274 3.0 % 3.4 % 4.2 % 2.4 % 2.3 % 1.7%
190

Question 55c. How would you rate that unit’s... Performance?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very good 18,613 29.7% 28.5 % 23.6 % 31.3 % 34.0 % 31.1%

Good 29,357 47.7% 47.5 % 47.8 % 48.5 % 47.0 % 51.0 %

Neither good 

nor poor 8,420 15.7% 15.9 % 19.1% 14.8 % 14.5 % 14.1%

Poor 2,452 4.9 % 5.5 % 6.5 % 4.2 % 3.2 % 2.9 %

Very Poor 885 2.1% 2.5 % 3.0 % 1.3 % 1.3 % 0.9 %

Question 56. Among all the factors that affect how well a unit works together, how much did 

the unit members’ belief that this subordinate was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s ability to 

work together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 1,333 8.1% 8.8 % 12.2 % 6.8 % 5.0 % 5.5 %

Some 3,277 18.1% 19.2 % 24.3 % 15.1% 14.0 % 15.9 %

A lit tle 3,480 18.9 % 18.3 % 23.1% 18.7% 18.3 % 20.5 %

Not at all 8,434 49.1% 48.2 % 33.9 % 53.7% 56.5 % 51.0 %

No basis to 

judge 1,072 5.8 % 5.5 % 6.5 % 5.7% 6.1% 7.1%

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some, 

or a little to the previous question:

Question 57. Was the effect on the unit’s ability to work together...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 814 11.7% 11.8 % 9.3 % 14.0 % 10.6 % 14.4 %

Mostly 

negative 3,691 43.9 % 45.2 % 48.6 % 39.4 % 40.0 % 36.0 %

About equally 

positive and 

negative

3,582 44.4 % 43.0 % 42.1% 46.6 % 49.3 % 49.5 %
191

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with 

a coworker they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few 

other unit members believed the coworker to be gay or lesbian:

Question 58. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s morale, how much did the unit 

members’ belief that this subordinate was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s morale?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 3,293 7.5 % 8.6 % 11.2 % 5.9 % 4.7% 3.8 %

Some 8,234 15.5 % 16.2 % 21.4 % 13.0 % 13.6 % 12.7%

A lit tle 9,222 17.2 % 17.0 % 21.5 % 16.4 % 16.5 % 16.4 %

Not at all 26,705 53.9 % 52.4 % 39.1% 59.2 % 59.0 % 61.0 %

No basis to 

judge 2,935 5.9 % 5.8 % 6.8 % 5.5 % 6.1% 6.0 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some, 

or a little to the previous question:

Question 59. Was the effect on the unit’s morale...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 1,394 7.9 % 7.6 % 6.1% 10.0 % 7.4 % 10.2 %

Mostly 

negative 10,384 49.0 % 51.2 % 52.7% 43.4 % 46.0 % 43.2 %

About equally 

positive and 

negative

8,935 43.1% 41.1% 41.2 % 46.7% 46.6 % 46.7%
192

The following question was only asked to respondents who said they served with a 

subordinate they believed to be gay or lesbian and where all, most, some or a few 

other unit members believed the subordinate to be gay or lesbian:

Question 60. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance, how much did the unit 

members’ belief that this subordinate was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s performance?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 2,773 6.5 % 7.3 % 10.2 % 5.0 % 4.2 % 3.5 %

Some 7,479 14.3 % 15.2 % 19.0 % 12.0 % 12.4 % 11.6 %

A lit tle 8,265 15.6 % 15.7% 20.0 % 14.6 % 14.5 % 13.9 %

Not at all 28,699 57.3 % 55.6 % 43.2 % 62.3 % 62.4 % 64.3 %

No basis to 

judge 3,134 6.3 % 6.2 % 7.5 % 6.0 % 6.4 % 6.6 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some, 

or a little to the previous question:

Question 61. Was the effect on the unit’s performance...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 1,136 7.2 % 7.1% 5.9 % 8.4 % 6.6 % 8.5 %

Mostly 

negative 9,500 50.4 % 52.5 % 54.4 % 44.4 % 47.4 % 46.1%

About equally 

positive and 

negative

7,837 42.5 % 40.4 % 39.7% 47.1% 45.9 % 45.4 %

The following question was asked of all respondents:

Question 62. Did you ever serve in combat with a Service member of any rank whom you 

believed to be homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 25,487 34.6 % 44.6 % 29.0 % 26.9 % 23.8 % 6.0 %

No 61,528 65.4 % 55.4 % 71.0 % 73.1% 76.2 % 94.0 %
193

The following question was only asked to respondents that said they had served in 

combat with a Service member they believed to be homosexual:

Question 63. About how many other members of that combat unit also believed the Service 

member to be gay or lesbian?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

All or most 11,739 49.9 % 52.7% 40.7% 49.7% 43.2 % 48.8 %

Some 7,236 26.5 % 25.7% 29.8 % 24.9 % 29.8 % 24.7%

A few 3,778 14.8 % 14.0 % 19.2 % 15.3 % 15.6 % 14.8 %

None 212 0.9 % 0.8 % 1.4 % 1.1% 0.8 % 1.4 %

Don’ t know 2,473 7.9 % 6.9 % 8.9 % 9.0 % 10.6 % 10.3 %

Question 64. How did that unit perform in combat?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very well 9,982 37.7% 37.1% 34.6 % 37.5 % 42.1% 38.5 %

Well 10,807 42.5 % 43.0 % 44.6 % 41.4 % 40.3 % 41.6 %

Neither well 

nor poorly 3,578 15.3 % 15.1% 16.4 % 17.3 % 13.8 % 13.3 %

Poorly 762 3.3 % 3.7% 3.0 % 2.3 % 2.8 % 6.1%

Very poorly 244 1.2 % 1.1% 1.4 % 1.4 % 1.0 % 0.4 %

Question 65. Among all the factors that affect a unit’s performance in combat, how much did 

the belief that the Service member was gay or lesbian affect the unit’s combat performance:

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

A lot 1,441 6.7% 6.8 % 10.1% 5.7% 5.5 % 5.7%

Some 3,582 15.9 % 16.4 % 18.0 % 14.2 % 14.5 % 12.8 %

A lit tle 3,502 15.0 % 15.0 % 20.1% 13.8 % 13.5 % 17.6 %

Not at all 12,879 56.4 % 55.8 % 46.2 % 59.5 % 61.5 % 56.8 %

No basis to 

judge 1,279 5.9 % 5.9 % 5.6 % 6.9 % 5.0 % 7.1%
194

The following question was only asked to respondents that answered a lot, some 

or a little to the previous question. 

Question 66. Was the effect on the unit’s combat performance...

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Mostly 

positive 714 9.4 % 8.4 % 11.0 % 12.7% 9.5 % 24.4 %

Mostly 

negative 4,263 49.3 % 51.0 % 48.8 % 41.4 % 49.2 % 41.2 %

About equally 

positive and 

negative

3,524 41.3 % 40.7% 40.1% 45.9 % 41.3 % 34.4 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 67a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be 

for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... Hold Service members to the high 

standards of military personal conduct regardless of their sexual orientation?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very easy 21,550 19.8 % 19.1% 13.3 % 22.5 % 22.2 % 18.9 %

Easy 23,031 19.3 % 18.7% 13.9 % 21.7% 21.1% 23.0 %

Equally as 

easy as 

dif ficult

25,472 22.4 % 22.1% 21.4 % 23.7% 22.2 % 24.6 %

Dif ficult 21,611 18.1% 18.6 % 22.8 % 15.7% 16.6 % 16.8 %

Very 

dif ficult 19,564 17.0 % 18.4 % 25.0 % 12.6 % 13.7% 12.9 %

Don’ t know 3,509 3.5 % 3.1% 3.7% 3.7% 4.1% 3.9 %
195

Question 67b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be 

for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... Treat Service members in the same 

manner regardless of their sexual orientation?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very easy 15,100 13.8 % 13.3 % 7.8 % 16.6 % 15.5 % 14.0 %

Easy 19,777 16.4 % 15.7% 9.8 % 20.4 % 17.8 % 19.3 %

Equally as 

easy as 

dif ficult

24,130 20.9 % 20.6 % 17.9 % 22.8 % 21.5 % 22.7%

Dif ficult 26,281 21.6 % 21.8 % 24.0 % 19.5 % 21.9 % 21.8 %

Very 

dif ficult 26,247 24.2 % 26.0 % 37.6 % 17.6 % 19.4 % 18.8 %

Don’ t know 3,170 3.0 % 2.6 % 2.9 % 3.1% 3.9 % 3.5 %

Question 67c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be 

for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... Provide the same opportunities to all 

Service members regardless of their sexual orientation?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very easy 17,675 16.2 % 15.6 % 10.0 % 19.5 % 17.8 % 17.1%

Easy 23,418 19.9 % 19.5 % 13.9 % 23.5 % 20.8 % 23.0 %

Equally as 

easy as 

dif ficult

26,099 22.4 % 21.8 % 21.9 % 23.9 % 22.7% 23.4 %

Dif ficult 22,452 18.7% 19.2 % 21.5 % 15.6 % 18.6 % 17.8 %

Very 

dif ficult 21,549 19.5 % 21.1% 29.4 % 14.0 % 16.2 % 15.1%

Don’ t know 3,367 3.2 % 2.8 % 3.3 % 3.4 % 3.8 % 3.6 %
196

Question 67d. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be 

for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... Make sure all Service members are 

treated with respect by their coworkers?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very easy 12,052 11.8 % 11.6 % 6.9 % 14.0 % 12.8 % 11.2 %

Easy 15,939 14.0 % 13.9 % 8.6 % 16.7% 14.5 % 15.2 %

Equally as 

easy as 

dif ficult

24,927 21.4 % 20.8 % 16.9 % 23.9 % 22.7% 24.2 %

Dif ficult 26,437 20.7% 20.1% 21.4 % 19.9 % 22.3 % 22.7%

Very 

dif ficult 32,434 29.4 % 31.3 % 43.7% 22.6 % 24.3 % 23.4 %

Don’ t know 2,847 2.7% 2.3 % 2.6 % 3.0 % 3.4 % 3.3 %

Question 67e. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how easy or difficult do you think it will be 

for leadership as they start implementing the policy to... Enforce good order and discipline?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very easy 17,219 16.5 % 16.0 % 11.3 % 18.8 % 18.3 % 16.3 %

Easy 21,954 19.3 % 18.9 % 13.2 % 21.7% 21.1% 22.1%

Equally as 

easy as 

dif ficult

27,125 23.6 % 23.2 % 21.8 % 24.7% 24.2 % 26.7%

Dif ficult 22,805 18.3 % 18.4 % 21.3 % 16.9 % 17.7% 17.0 %

Very 

dif ficult 22,496 19.4 % 20.9 % 29.5 % 14.8 % 15.2 % 14.6 %

Don’ t know 2,970 2.9 % 2.5 % 2.9 % 3.1% 3.5 % 3.3 %
197

The following questions were asked of all respondents and used to measure unit 

cohesion:

Question 68a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

How Service members in your immediate unit work together to get the job done?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,154 6.6 % 7.0 % 3.9 % 7.7% 6.4 % 6.4 %

Positively 11,887 11.8 % 11.9 % 8.8 % 14.1% 11.1% 12.7%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

36,822 32.1% 31.5 % 31.1% 33.5 % 32.6 % 34.3 %

Negatively 22,548 18.7% 19.7% 25.8 % 14.4 % 16.9 % 15.9 %

Very 

negatively 11,507 10.9 % 12.2 % 17.0 % 7.1% 8.3 % 6.4 %

No ef fect 24,105 19.9 % 17.8 % 13.4 % 23.2 % 24.8 % 24.2 %

Question 68b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

How Service members in your immediate unit pull together to perform as a team?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,411 6.9 % 7.3 % 4.0 % 7.9 % 6.7% 6.5 %

Positively 12,718 12.5 % 12.6 % 9.2 % 14.9 % 11.7% 13.8 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

36,480 31.8 % 31.2 % 30.9 % 33.0 % 32.4 % 34.0 %

Negatively 22,126 18.2 % 19.1% 24.9 % 13.9 % 16.7% 15.3 %

Very 

negatively 11,890 11.3 % 12.7% 17.9 % 7.3 % 8.5 % 6.5 %

No ef fect 23,334 19.3 % 17.1% 13.1% 22.9 % 23.9 % 23.8 %
198

Question 68c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

How Service members in your immediate unit trust each other?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,123 6.5 % 6.9 % 3.8 % 7.5 % 6.3 % 6.6 %

Positively 12,003 11.6 % 11.7% 8.0 % 13.7% 11.2 % 13.2 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

35,348 31.2 % 30.3 % 29.5 % 33.1% 32.1% 34.0 %

Negatively 23,501 19.2 % 19.8 % 25.7% 15.7% 17.9 % 16.1%

Very 

negatively 14,697 13.9 % 15.7% 21.6 % 9.4 % 10.3 % 8.6 %

No ef fect 21,245 17.6 % 15.6 % 11.4 % 20.6 % 22.1% 21.5 %

Question 68d. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

How much Service members in your immediate unit care about each other?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,015 6.5 % 6.9 % 3.7% 7.1% 6.3 % 6.2 %

Positively 11,892 11.6 % 11.9 % 8.4 % 13.4 % 10.8 % 13.1%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

38,829 33.6 % 32.8 % 32.0 % 35.0 % 34.6 % 36.7%

Negatively 21,733 18.2 % 18.9 % 24.6 % 14.7% 16.4 % 14.7%

Very 

negatively 12,136 11.8 % 13.0 % 19.1% 8.4 % 8.8 % 7.5 %

No ef fect 22,201 18.4 % 16.4 % 12.1% 21.3 % 23.1% 21.7%
199

Question 69a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the 

extent to which... Service members in your immediate unit can get help from their leaders on 

personal problems?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,621 6.9 % 7.1% 4.4 % 7.8 % 6.7% 7.1%

Positively 13,490 13.1% 13.3 % 10.9 % 15.3 % 11.8 % 14.2 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

38,049 33.5 % 33.3 % 33.6 % 33.6 % 34.0 % 34.3 %

Negatively 18,106 15.9 % 16.8 % 21.3 % 12.4 % 14.0 % 13.8 %

Very 

negatively 9,149 8.8 % 9.6 % 13.7% 6.6 % 6.7% 6.2 %

No ef fect 27,197 21.9 % 19.9 % 16.1% 24.2 % 26.8 % 24.4 %

Question 69b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the 

extent to which... Leaders in your immediate unit trust their unit members?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,104 6.4 % 6.7% 3.7% 7.4 % 6.3 % 6.3 %

Positively 13,301 12.8 % 13.0 % 10.1% 15.1% 12.0 % 14.5 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

38,448 33.8 % 32.9 % 34.5 % 34.6 % 34.5 % 34.9 %

Negatively 18,882 16.4 % 17.9 % 22.2 % 12.2 % 13.7% 13.3 %

Very 

negatively 9,133 9.0 % 10.1% 14.1% 6.4 % 6.5 % 5.6 %

No ef fect 26,622 21.7% 19.4 % 15.4 % 24.4 % 27.0 % 25.5 %
200

Question 69c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

the extent to which... Leaders in your immediate unit have the skills and abilities to lead unit 

members into combat?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,377 6.8 % 7.3 % 4.3 % 7.5 % 6.6 % 6.0 %

Positively 12,759 12.6 % 13.2 % 10.0 % 14.4 % 11.1% 12.3 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

36,661 32.7% 32.4 % 33.3 % 33.0 % 32.7% 32.8 %

Negatively 16,245 13.7% 14.3 % 17.9 % 10.6 % 12.9 % 11.6 %

Very 

negatively 10,990 10.2 % 10.7% 16.5 % 7.4 % 8.4 % 7.8 %

No ef fect 29,380 24.1% 22.1% 17.9 % 27.1% 28.3 % 29.6 %

Question 69d. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect the 

extent to which... Leaders in your immediate unit care about their Service members?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 6,720 7.0 % 7.4 % 4.4 % 7.7% 6.8 % 6.6 %

Positively 13,783 13.3 % 13.7% 10.3 % 15.5 % 12.1% 14.4 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

39,804 34.6 % 33.8 % 35.5 % 34.6 % 35.7% 36.1%

Negatively 15,575 14.0 % 15.2 % 19.7% 10.7% 11.6 % 11.3 %

Very 

negatively 8,205 8.4 % 9.3 % 13.8 % 6.2 % 6.0 % 5.7%

No ef fect 28,214 22.7% 20.6 % 16.3 % 25.3 % 27.8 % 26.0 %
201

The following questions were asked to respondents who have never been deployed 

or haven’t been in combat environment since September 11, 2001:

Question 70a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... On a day-to-day basis?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,690 6.9 % 7.6 % 4.6 % 7.5 % 6.5 % 5.8 %

Positively 4,383 10.5 % 11.2 % 8.1% 12.3 % 9.0 % 9.7%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

15,577 32.6 % 32.1% 35.3 % 32.2 % 32.2 % 33.8 %

Negatively 7,013 14.1% 14.9 % 20.1% 11.1% 12.5 % 13.4 %

Very 

negatively 2,940 6.7% 6.8 % 11.3 % 5.7% 5.5 % 5.0 %

No ef fect 14,881 29.3 % 27.3 % 20.7% 31.2 % 34.3 % 32.3 %

Question 70b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... When a crisis or negative event 

happens that affects your immediate unit?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,722 7.0 % 7.6 % 4.7% 7.4 % 6.6 % 5.8 %

Positively 4,289 10.2 % 10.8 % 8.0 % 12.4 % 8.8 % 9.5 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

15,629 32.8 % 32.9 % 33.8 % 32.8 % 32.1% 34.9 %

Negatively 6,283 12.4 % 13.1% 18.4 % 9.2 % 11.3 % 11.4 %

Very 

negatively 3,375 7.6 % 7.8 % 13.2 % 6.1% 6.4 % 5.1%

No ef fect 15,134 29.9 % 27.7% 21.8 % 32.1% 34.8 % 33.3 %
202

The following questions were asked to respondents who have been deployed at 

some point and been in combat environment since September 11, 2001:

Question 71a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... In a field environment or out to 

sea?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,092 4.1% 4.1% 3.0 % 4.7% 4.1% 4.6 %

Positively 3,881 7.3 % 7.8 % 4.5 % 9.1% 5.9 % 6.0 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

15,906 25.8 % 25.5 % 22.1% 27.6 % 26.7% 28.4 %

Negatively 15,385 21.6 % 21.8 % 25.3 % 18.6 % 21.4 % 19.3 %

Very 

negatively 15,295 22.7% 23.6 % 34.1% 16.7% 19.2 % 23.2 %

No ef fect 12,050 18.6 % 17.2 % 11.0 % 23.3 % 22.7% 18.5 %

Question 71b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... When a crisis or negative event 

happens that affects your immediate unit?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,290 4.4 % 4.4 % 3.1% 5.0 % 4.5 % 4.9 %

Positively 4,503 8.1% 8.6 % 5.6 % 9.7% 7.1% 8.3 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

21,586 33.3 % 33.0 % 32.9 % 33.7% 34.0 % 36.9 %

Negatively 11,131 16.0 % 16.6 % 20.4 % 13.1% 14.4 % 12.8 %

Very 

negatively 8,489 13.4 % 14.6 % 19.6 % 9.2 % 10.5 % 10.7%

No ef fect 16,582 24.7% 22.7% 18.4 % 29.3 % 29.5 % 26.4 %
203

Question 71c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect 

your immediate unit’s effectiveness at completing its mission... In an intense combat situation?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,323 4.6 % 4.8 % 3.3 % 4.8 % 4.3 % 4.9 %

Positively 4,231 7.8 % 8.1% 6.0 % 9.2 % 6.6 % 6.1%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

20,146 31.4 % 31.4 % 30.2 % 32.5 % 31.2 % 33.5 %

Negatively 9,982 14.0 % 14.2 % 17.3 % 11.6 % 13.6 % 13.8 %

Very 

negatively 10,730 16.6 % 17.5 % 24.1% 11.9 % 14.2 % 13.3 %

No ef fect 17,029 25.6 % 23.9 % 19.0 % 30.0 % 29.9 % 28.4 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 72. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in 

your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect how 

often your immediate unit socializes together off-duty?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Probably 

increase 

how much 

we get 

together

1,606 1.9 % 2.1% 1.4 % 2.4 % 1.4 % 2.1%

Probably 

decrease 

how much 

we get 

together

40,322 36.9 % 38.5 % 51.9 % 30.9 % 31.5 % 31.9 %

It would 

probably 

have no 

ef fect

52,068 44.8 % 43.6 % 31.4 % 49.9 % 49.6 % 47.3 %

Don’ t know 17,988 16.4 % 15.8 % 15.4 % 16.8 % 17.4 % 18.6 %
204

Question 73. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in 

your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your level of 

morale be affected?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 1,819 1.9 % 2.0 % 1.1% 2.3 % 1.9 % 2.1%

Positively 2,941 2.9 % 3.1% 1.6 % 3.6 % 2.6 % 3.0 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

15,157 13.2 % 13.4 % 13.7% 13.7% 12.5 % 13.2 %

Negatively 19,611 16.0 % 16.5 % 21.3 % 12.6 % 15.0 % 13.6 %

Very 

negatively 12,612 11.9 % 13.3 % 18.2 % 8.0 % 9.1% 7.1%

No ef fect 48,721 43.6 % 42.0 % 32.6 % 48.4 % 48.2 % 47.4 %

Don’ t know 11,164 10.5 % 9.7% 11.4 % 11.3 % 10.8 % 13.6 %

Question 74. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would your job 

performance be affected?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 1,249 1.4 % 1.5 % 0.9 % 1.7% 1.2 % 1.4 %

Positively 1,908 2.1% 2.2 % 1.6 % 2.5 % 1.6 % 2.0 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

16,438 14.3 % 14.9 % 16.1% 13.3 % 13.1% 14.3 %

Negatively 11,049 9.7% 10.4 % 13.7% 7.0 % 8.4 % 8.1%

Very 

negatively 5,330 5.7% 6.4 % 9.1% 4.2 % 4.0 % 3.6 %

No ef fect 66,704 57.9 % 56.3 % 48.6 % 61.8 % 62.7% 59.4 %

Don’ t know 9,336 8.9 % 8.3 % 10.1% 9.6 % 9.0 % 11.3 %
205

Question 75a. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

Your personal readiness?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,351 2.9 % 3.2 % 2.2 % 3.0 % 2.4 % 2.6 %

Positively 3,651 4.2 % 4.7% 3.6 % 5.2 % 2.9 % 4.0 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

23,604 21.5 % 21.6 % 23.7% 21.7% 20.1% 22.5 %

Negatively 7,641 7.2 % 8.1% 10.4 % 5.2 % 5.1% 5.4 %

Very 

negatively 3,974 4.3 % 4.8 % 7.2 % 3.0 % 3.0 % 2.4 %

No ef fect 70,629 60.0 % 57.7% 53.0 % 61.8 % 66.5 % 63.0 %

Question 75b. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

Your immediate unit’s readiness?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,159 2.6 % 2.8 % 2.0 % 2.8 % 2.2 % 2.4 %

Positively 3,686 4.2 % 4.6 % 3.3 % 5.2 % 3.1% 4.0 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

28,175 25.8 % 25.8 % 27.4 % 26.3 % 24.7% 25.6 %

Negatively 18,416 15.2 % 16.9 % 21.5 % 11.9 % 11.5 % 10.6 %

Very 

negatively 6,040 6.0 % 6.9 % 10.3 % 4.0 % 4.0 % 3.0 %

No ef fect 53,177 46.1% 42.9 % 35.5 % 49.8 % 54.5 % 54.5 %
206

Question 75c. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

Your motivation?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,661 3.2 % 3.6 % 2.4 % 3.2 % 2.6 % 2.9 %

Positively 4,315 4.7% 5.1% 3.5 % 5.9 % 3.6 % 4.5 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

20,303 18.6 % 18.3 % 19.4 % 19.9 % 17.7% 21.0 %

Negatively 15,940 13.5 % 14.7% 19.3 % 9.6 % 11.7% 9.6 %

Very 

negatively 8,701 8.6 % 9.6 % 15.1% 5.7% 6.1% 4.1%

No ef fect 59,737 51.3 % 48.7% 40.4 % 55.6 % 58.3 % 58.0 %

Question 75d. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

Your immediate unit’s motivation?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,135 2.6 % 2.9 % 2.0 % 2.7% 2.2 % 2.4 %

Positively 3,765 4.3 % 4.7% 3.1% 5.4 % 3.2 % 4.2 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

28,091 25.4 % 25.3 % 25.2 % 26.7% 24.8 % 26.1%

Negatively 22,646 18.8 % 20.5 % 26.8 % 14.0 % 15.4 % 13.2 %

Very 

negatively 8,397 8.3 % 9.4 % 14.9 % 5.4 % 5.5 % 3.7%

No ef fect 46,483 40.6 % 37.2 % 28.0 % 45.8 % 49.0 % 50.5 %
207

Question 75e. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

Your ability to train well?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,403 3.0 % 3.3 % 2.3 % 3.1% 2.4 % 2.6 %

Positively 3,789 4.3 % 4.7% 3.2 % 5.3 % 3.1% 4.2 %

Equally as 

positively 

as negatively

23,191 20.8 % 20.5 % 21.3 % 22.2 % 19.9 % 22.5 %

Negatively 15,760 13.4 % 14.8 % 19.0 % 9.6 % 11.0 % 10.3 %

Very 

negatively 7,120 7.4 % 8.3 % 13.3 % 4.9 % 4.9 % 4.1%

No ef fect 59,356 51.1% 48.3 % 40.8 % 54.9 % 58.7% 56.4 %

Question 75f. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member 

in your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how, if at all, would it affect... 

Your immediate unit’s ability to train well together?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 2,250 2.7% 3.0 % 2.0 % 3.0 % 2.3 % 2.5 %

Positively 3,792 4.3 % 4.8 % 3.2 % 5.3 % 3.2 % 4.3 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

27,230 24.5 % 24.2 % 23.4 % 26.2 % 24.4 % 26.0 %

Negatively 25,132 20.8 % 22.2 % 28.9 % 15.8 % 18.3 % 16.9 %

Very 

negatively 10,735 10.5 % 11.8 % 18.1% 7.0 % 7.4 % 5.8 %

No ef fect 42,388 37.1% 34.1% 24.5 % 42.7% 44.5 % 44.5 %
208

The following question was only asked to individuals that said they were “Now 

married”:

Question 76. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your spouse feels 

about your military service be affected?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 1,869 2.7% 2.6 % 1.8 % 3.1% 2.7% 4.0 %

Positively 3,071 4.1% 4.1% 3.0 % 4.5 % 3.9 % 5.1%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

7,166 10.3 % 10.7% 11.3 % 10.1% 9.3 % 9.3 %

Negatively 11,813 14.3 % 14.6 % 17.9 % 12.6 % 13.8 % 13.7%

Very 

negatively 9,346 13.5 % 15.3 % 18.2 % 10.1% 11.0 % 8.9 %

No ef fect 31,383 42.3 % 40.5 % 33.2 % 46.8 % 45.9 % 43.8 %

Don’ t know 8,759 12.8 % 12.2 % 14.6 % 12.9 % 13.3 % 15.2 %

The following question was only asked to individuals that said they were in a 

committed relationship, but not “Now married”:

Question 77. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your significant 

other feels about your military service be affected?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 969 6.1% 6.4 % 3.8 % 7.1% 5.6 % 7.4 %

Positively 953 5.5 % 5.4 % 4.7% 6.0 % 5.6 % 6.1%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

1,643 10.4 % 10.3 % 12.6 % 9.9 % 9.6 % 11.3 %

Negatively 1,748 11.3 % 11.9 % 17.1% 8.9 % 8.6 % 10.9 %

Very 

negatively 1,361 9.6 % 10.7% 14.0 % 7.4 % 6.6 % 7.9 %

No ef fect 7,014 42.6 % 42.0 % 32.6 % 45.3 % 48.1% 42.4 %

Don’ t know 2,219 14.5 % 13.3 % 15.4 % 15.5 % 15.9 % 14.0 %
209

The following question was only asked to individuals that said they were “Now 

married”:

Question 78. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way the rest of your 

family feels about your military service be affected?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 1,269 1.8 % 1.7% 1.0 % 2.2 % 1.8 % 2.4 %

Positively 2,227 3.0 % 3.2 % 1.9 % 3.4 % 2.8 % 3.7%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

8,232 11.3 % 11.4 % 11.5 % 11.6 % 10.7% 11.2 %

Negatively 13,373 16.8 % 17.5 % 19.8 % 14.4 % 16.0 % 15.2 %

Very 

negatively 10,019 15.2 % 16.7% 22.2 % 11.8 % 12.1% 10.8 %

No ef fect 27,178 36.0 % 34.7% 26.5 % 40.0 % 39.5 % 38.0 %

Don’ t know 11,206 15.9 % 14.7% 17.1% 16.7% 17.1% 18.7%

The following question was only asked to individuals that said they were not “Now 

married”:

Question 79. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, would the way your family feels 

about your military service be affected?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 1,511 4.1% 4.4 % 2.5 % 4.4 % 3.8 % 4.9 %

Positively 1,585 3.9 % 4.0 % 2.1% 4.8 % 3.9 % 5.1%

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

4,095 11.2 % 11.4 % 12.9 % 10.6 % 10.0 % 12.0 %

Negatively 5,030 13.2 % 13.1% 18.3 % 11.2 % 12.1% 12.4 %

Very 

negatively 3,925 11.6 % 12.3 % 18.4 % 9.4 % 8.1% 8.0 %

No ef fect 16,021 40.0 % 39.9 % 28.3 % 42.5 % 45.3 % 39.5 %

Don’ t know 5,928 16.0 % 14.9 % 17.6 % 17.0 % 16.6 % 18.0 %
210

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 80. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will it affect your willingness to 

recommend to a family member or close friend that he or she join the military?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Positively 6,646 6.3 % 6.5 % 3.5 % 7.1% 6.4 % 7.6 %

Equally as 

positively 

as 

negatively

10,962 9.9 % 9.9 % 10.4 % 10.3 % 9.4 % 10.3 %

Negatively 30,611 27.3 % 29.1% 40.3 % 21.4 % 22.5 % 19.8 %

No ef fect 52,479 46.5 % 45.4 % 34.4 % 50.0 % 51.7% 50.7%

Don’ t know 10,704 10.0 % 9.2 % 11.4 % 11.2 % 10.0 % 11.6 %

Question 81. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, how, if at all, will your military career plans be 

affected?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

I will stay 

longer 

than I had 

planned

1,422 1.7% 1.9 % 0.7% 2.2 % 1.2 % 1.7%

I will think 

about 

staying 

longer 

than I had 

planned

1,500 1.8 % 2.0 % 1.5 % 2.2 % 1.4 % 1.5 %

I will think 

about 

leaving 

sooner 

than I had 

planned

12,698 11.1% 11.8 % 15.0 % 8.6 % 9.9 % 9.1%

I will leave 

sooner 

than I had 

planned

12,126 12.6 % 14.2 % 23.1% 7.9 % 8.2 % 6.2 %

My military 

career plans 

would not 

change

73,210 62.3 % 60.2 % 47.5 % 68.0 % 69.0 % 67.5 %

Don’ t know 10,690 10.5 % 9.8 % 12.2 % 11.2 % 10.3 % 14.0 %
211

For this question, respondents were asked to say how repeal would impact the 

importance of the three factors they selected, in response to question 33, as most 

important to them when deciding whether to remain in the military:

Question 82a. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Pay 

and allowances / Bonuses

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

14,988 54.5 % 54.4 % 44.3 % 57.0 % 56.8 % 56.5 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

5,447 21.4 % 21.8 % 21.8 % 21.5 % 20.3 % 20.5 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

3,057 12.4 % 13.9 % 19.1% 9.1% 10.1% 7.8 %

Don’ t know 2,927 11.7% 9.9 % 14.8 % 12.5 % 12.8 % 15.3 %

Question 82b. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Education benefits

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

7,289 51.7% 52.3 % 43.9 % 51.4 % 53.9 % 50.7%

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

3,215 24.2 % 24.4 % 25.6 % 25.6 % 21.7% 25.4 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,373 9.9 % 10.8 % 12.0 % 7.8 % 9.1% 7.1%

Don’ t know 1,954 14.2 % 12.4 % 18.4 % 15.2 % 15.3 % 16.8 %
212

Question 82c. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Quality of leadership

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

10,570 52.4 % 53.2 % 46.4 % 53.3 % 53.7% 52.8 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

4,553 23.6 % 23.7% 23.1% 23.3 % 23.8 % 24.4 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

2,213 11.9 % 12.2 % 16.3 % 9.2 % 9.8 % 8.9 %

Don’ t know 2,077 12.1% 10.9 % 14.2 % 14.2 % 12.7% 13.8 %

Question 82d. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Retirement benefits

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

25,305 58.1% 56.1% 52.7% 60.4 % 61.0 % 60.0 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

8,099 20.8 % 21.6 % 21.5 % 20.3 % 19.6 % 20.1%

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

3,493 9.4 % 11.3 % 13.3 % 6.7% 7.4 % 5.7%

Don’ t know 4,318 11.8 % 11.0 % 12.4 % 12.6 % 12.0 % 14.2 %
213

Question 82e. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Years completed toward retirement

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

16,133 58.8 % 57.1% 53.2 % 61.8 % 60.9 % 60.6 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

4,803 19.9 % 20.8 % 19.6 % 18.8 % 19.0 % 18.9 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

2,355 10.3 % 12.2 % 14.7% 7.2 % 8.3 % 6.5 %

Don’ t know 2,585 11.1% 9.9 % 12.5 % 12.2 % 11.8 % 14.0 %

Question 82f. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Current economic situation and civilian job availability

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

14,176 54.8 % 53.9 % 47.9 % 56.7% 58.1% 54.4 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

5,120 21.1% 21.8 % 22.3 % 20.6 % 19.7% 22.6 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

2,568 11.3 % 13.0 % 16.3 % 8.3 % 8.7% 7.9 %

Don’ t know 2,984 12.8 % 11.3 % 13.5 % 14.4 % 13.6 % 15.0 %
214

Question 82g. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Family separations and stability

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

12,055 60.2 % 60.9 % 49.6 % 60.3 % 64.2 % 59.9 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

3,525 19.6 % 19.7% 21.4 % 19.8 % 17.9 % 19.7%

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,644 9.0 % 9.4 % 13.8 % 7.5 % 6.7% 6.2 %

Don’ t know 1,825 11.3 % 9.9 % 15.3 % 12.4 % 11.3 % 14.2 %

Question 82h. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Health benefits

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

11,112 54.9 % 55.1% 47.5 % 54.5 % 57.2 % 56.7%

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

4,032 22.3 % 23.1% 22.6 % 23.9 % 19.8 % 19.8 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,714 9.5 % 10.6 % 13.5 % 6.9 % 8.5 % 6.4 %

Don’ t know 2,441 13.3 % 11.2 % 16.4 % 14.8 % 14.5 % 17.0 %
215

Question 82i. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Deployment-related considerations

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

6,430 52.7% 52.7% 44.9 % 54.0 % 56.4 % 46.9 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

2,439 21.5 % 22.7% 19.0 % 18.7% 21.1% 25.2 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,477 13.8 % 13.5 % 21.4 % 13.1% 10.7% 10.4 %

Don’ t know 1,188 12.1% 11.1% 14.6 % 14.1% 11.8 % 17.5 %

Question 82j. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Live by Service’s core values

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

3,160 51.3 % 51.2 % 47.5 % 53.2 % 54.0 % 48.0 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

1,353 23.5 % 22.9 % 24.8 % 26.1% 21.7% 29.1%

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

904 14.3 % 15.3 % 16.7% 11.9 % 10.9 % 7.6 %

Don’ t know 601 11.0 % 10.5 % 11.0 % 8.9 % 13.4 % 15.4 %
216

Question 82k. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Service members’ moral values

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

3,341 43.7% 44.5 % 36.6 % 45.4 % 45.1% 42.6 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

2,131 28.3 % 28.0 % 29.4 % 29.2 % 27.4 % 28.7%

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,339 16.9 % 17.9 % 21.0 % 11.3 % 15.5 % 14.6 %

Don’ t know 771 11.2 % 9.5 % 13.0 % 14.1% 11.9 % 14.1%

Question 82l. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Camaraderie

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

8,961 47.4 % 47.8 % 41.1% 50.3 % 49.0 % 48.1%

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

4,293 24.3 % 24.7% 23.2 % 24.5 % 23.9 % 24.5 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

2,919 16.3 % 16.9 % 22.4 % 13.0 % 12.9 % 12.4 %

Don’ t know 2,073 12.0 % 10.5 % 13.4 % 12.2 % 14.3 % 15.0 %
217

Question 82m. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? To 

serve and defend my country

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

20,530 59.2 % 58.6 % 54.5 % 61.9 % 61.4 % 58.2 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

6,482 20.1% 20.6 % 19.8 % 19.7% 19.5 % 20.9 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

3,218 10.3 % 11.2 % 13.8 % 8.3 % 7.8 % 7.5 %

Don’ t know 3,071 10.4 % 9.7% 11.9 % 10.1% 11.3 % 13.4 %

Question 82n. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? Job 

satisfaction

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

20,332 54.4 % 54.1% 45.3 % 57.1% 57.2 % 55.9 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

7,498 21.9 % 22.7% 22.8 % 20.8 % 20.5 % 21.5 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

4,113 12.4 % 13.2 % 18.5 % 9.9 % 10.0 % 8.4 %

Don’ t know 3,753 11.4 % 10.0 % 13.4 % 12.2 % 12.3 % 14.2 %
218

Question 82o. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Family satisfaction with military

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

12,693 57.6 % 57.7% 49.6 % 59.3 % 61.0 % 57.2 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

4,155 20.0 % 20.5 % 21.9 % 18.1% 19.1% 19.9 %

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,969 10.2 % 10.6 % 15.4 % 8.6 % 7.6 % 8.0 %

Don’ t know 2,234 12.2 % 11.3 % 13.1% 13.9 % 12.3 % 14.9 %

Question 82p. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. How important, compared with the 

repeal, would the following factors be to you in deciding whether to remain in the military? 

Other

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant 

than repeal

1,504 40.3 % 41.0 % 31.5 % 41.5 % 43.1% 45.5 %

Equally as 

impor tant 

as repeal

655 19.3 % 19.9 % 17.7% 21.8 % 16.1% 19.1%

Less 

impor tant 

than repeal

491 15.9 % 17.6 % 19.8 % 11.2 % 13.1% 9.9 %

Don’ t know 932 24.5 % 21.4 % 31.0 % 25.6 % 27.7% 25.5 %
219

The following question was answered by all respondents:

Question 83. In your opinion, which of the following are the top THREE factors that enable you 

to fulfill your mission during combat?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Having NCOs /

POs who lead by 

example

33,789 37.5 % 43.1% 38.3 % 28.5 % 32.8 % 27.2 %

Having of ficers 

who lead by 

example

24,764 18.0 % 18.0 % 14.1% 18.9 % 18.8 % 21.2 %

Unit training /

Individual 

training

46,615 39.1% 39.4 % 40.1% 40.1% 37.0 % 42.6 %

Length of time 

serving together 4,668 5.5 % 6.1% 7.5 % 4.6 % 3.7% 6.1%

Individual unit 

members’ 

technical 

capabilities

20,139 16.6 % 14.8 % 15.2 % 16.5 % 21.5 % 15.1%

Unit morale 33,484 31.3 % 29.4 % 32.4 % 35.9 % 32.1% 26.1%

Clear task 

objectives 32,138 26.1% 24.3 % 21.8 % 28.7% 29.6 % 31.4 %

Trust among unit 

members 54,139 48.2 % 47.6 % 53.5 % 48.5 % 46.3 % 53.3 %

Unit members 

who get along 

well socially

7,343 9.3 % 9.1% 11.1% 8.5 % 9.5 % 10.1%

Similar moral 

values among 

unit members

9,714 8.6 % 9.6 % 8.7% 6.9 % 7.9 % 6.8 %

Having only 

heterosexual 

members in the 

unit

4,471 5.2 % 6.0 % 8.2 % 3.3 % 3.8 % 3.7%

Diversity among 

unit members 3,641 4.0 % 3.4 % 2.1% 6.9 % 3.7% 4.5 %

Having unit 

members who 

work together as 

a team

58,062 49.9 % 48.8 % 46.5 % 51.5 % 52.8 % 50.1%
220

For this question, respondents were asked to say how repeal would impact the 

importance of the three factors they selected, in the previous question, as most 

important to them being able to fulfill their mission in combat:

Question 84a. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Having NCOs/POs who lead by example

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

13,138 37.7% 37.7% 40.3 % 37.2 % 36.5 % 37.4 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

9,010 26.5 % 26.5 % 27.9 % 25.7% 25.9 % 27.5 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

1,685 6.1% 6.4 % 10.0 % 4.3 % 4.5 % 4.3 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

9,795 29.7% 29.4 % 21.7% 32.8 % 33.2 % 30.9 %

Question 84b. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Having officers who lead by example

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

9,787 38.4 % 38.5 % 42.0 % 37.6 % 37.7% 36.1%

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

6,834 27.3 % 26.4 % 28.4 % 28.2 % 27.6 % 28.9 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

1,016 5.2 % 6.1% 7.0 % 4.3 % 3.7% 3.1%

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

7,032 29.2 % 29.0 % 22.5 % 29.9 % 31.0 % 31.9 %
221

Question 84c. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Unit training/Individual training

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

12,195 27.6 % 28.6 % 31.9 % 26.4 % 24.6 % 22.4 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

14,738 30.5 % 30.9 % 33.6 % 29.9 % 28.5 % 31.4 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

1,752 4.5 % 5.0 % 7.1% 3.7% 2.9 % 3.7%

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

17,663 37.3 % 35.4 % 27.4 % 40.0 % 44.0 % 42.6 %

Question 84d. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Length of time serving together

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

1,381 29.3 % 29.5 % 32.1% 28.4 % 26.5 % 28.0 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

1,386 29.1% 28.9 % 27.8 % 32.5 % 27.9 % 29.5 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

371 9.5 % 9.0 % 12.6 % 9.7% 8.7% 6.8 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

1,497 32.1% 32.5 % 27.4 % 29.3 % 36.9 % 35.7%
222

Question 84e. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Individual unit members’ technical capabilities

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

4,256 22.7% 23.3 % 25.6 % 21.8 % 21.5 % 21.8 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

5,824 27.7% 28.1% 29.4 % 26.9 % 27.0 % 29.2 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

553 3.6 % 3.9 % 5.8 % 3.7% 2.4 % 2.9 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

9,407 45.9 % 44.7% 39.2 % 47.6 % 49.1% 46.1%

Question 84f. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Unit morale

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

12,365 36.2 % 37.3 % 41.5 % 33.4 % 34.2 % 31.9 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

10,096 29.6 % 30.2 % 29.6 % 29.7% 28.1% 29.5 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

2,856 8.9 % 9.4 % 12.8 % 7.2 % 7.6 % 8.7%

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

7,946 25.3 % 23.1% 16.1% 29.7% 30.1% 29.9 %
223

Question 84g. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Clear task objectives

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

7,257 23.5 % 24.3 % 25.1% 22.9 % 22.4 % 21.2 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

9,242 27.6 % 27.2 % 30.8 % 27.7% 26.9 % 28.5 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

877 3.6 % 4.0 % 5.8 % 2.9 % 2.5 % 3.0 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

14,575 45.3 % 44.5 % 38.3 % 46.5 % 48.3 % 47.4 %

Question 84h. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Trust among unit members

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

22,721 40.8 % 41.8 % 44.6 % 38.3 % 38.9 % 35.3 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

14,944 26.8 % 26.4 % 25.5 % 28.0 % 27.4 % 29.2 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

4,210 9.0 % 9.6 % 13.0 % 7.3 % 7.1% 6.7%

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

11,913 23.4 % 22.2 % 16.9 % 26.4 % 26.6 % 28.8 %
224

Question 84i. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Unit members who get along well socially

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

2,620 35.9 % 36.8 % 41.3 % 32.5 % 33.5 % 33.0 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

2,198 28.8 % 28.5 % 26.3 % 29.6 % 29.5 % 35.0 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

836 11.8 % 12.7% 15.5 % 10.1% 9.2 % 9.8 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

1,579 23.6 % 22.0 % 17.0 % 27.8 % 27.8 % 22.2 %

Question 84j. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Similar moral values among unit members

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

4,729 46.2 % 46.6 % 45.5 % 43.7% 47.5 % 41.8 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

2,745 28.5 % 27.9 % 28.1% 28.3 % 30.2 % 31.6 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

1,328 14.6 % 15.1% 16.8 % 13.8 % 12.9 % 11.8 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

843 10.8 % 10.5 % 9.6 % 14.2 % 9.5 % 14.8 %
225

Question 84k. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Having only heterosexual members in the unit

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

2,764 63.1% 64.9 % 59.5 % 62.2 % 61.1% 62.1%

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

910 19.6 % 19.0 % 18.8 % 19.8 % 21.8 % 20.8 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

636 15.0 % 14.2 % 18.4 % 14.7% 14.2 % 14.8 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

121 2.4 % 1.9 % 3.3 % 3.2 % 2.9 % 2.3 %

Question 84l. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Diversity among unit members

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Moreimpor tant 

than before 

repeal

1,004 26.8 % 26.0 % 26.4 % 28.3 % 26.2 % 29.9 %

As impor tant as 

before repeal 1,207 33.3 % 32.3 % 30.0 % 35.7% 32.9 % 33.3 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

143 4.5 % 4.8 % 11.4 % 3.0 % 4.3 % 1.9 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

1,260 35.4 % 36.8 % 32.1% 33.0 % 36.7% 34.9 %
226

Question 84m. How would the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect the importance of these 

factors? Having unit members who work together as a team

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

More 

impor tant than 

before repeal

21,403 36.4 % 37.6 % 41.1% 33.2 % 34.8 % 32.2 %

As impor tant 

as before 

repeal

16,448 27.6 % 27.6 % 27.3 % 28.1% 27.2 % 28.3 %

Less impor tant 

than before 

repeal

3,136 6.1% 6.4 % 10.2 % 5.0 % 4.8 % 5.0 %

Would not be 

impacted by 

repeal

16,661 29.9 % 28.4 % 21.4 % 33.6 % 33.2 % 34.5 %

The following question was asked of all respondents:

Question 85. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are working with a Service member in 

your immediate unit who has said he or she is gay or lesbian, how would that affect your own 

ability to fulfill your mission during combat?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Very 

positively 1,238 1.5 % 1.7% 0.8 % 1.6 % 1.2 % 1.5 %

Positively 1,463 1.7% 1.8 % 1.6 % 2.0 % 1.2 % 1.4 %

Equally as 

positively as 

negatively

12,704 11.8 % 12.2 % 13.6 % 11.4 % 10.5 % 9.9 %

Negatively 15,998 13.2 % 13.8 % 17.2 % 10.1% 12.9 % 9.4 %

Very 

negatively 8,471 8.3 % 8.9 % 13.6 % 5.6 % 6.7% 5.4 %

No ef fect 58,422 53.0 % 52.7% 41.9 % 56.4 % 56.6 % 49.0 %

Don’ t know of 

does not apply 12,633 10.6 % 8.8 % 11.3 % 12.9 % 10.9 % 23.5 %
227

The following questions were asked of all respondents that said they were serving 

with or had previously served with a Service member they believed to be gay or 

lesbian:

Question 86. Have you shared a room, berth or field tent with a Service member you believed 

to be homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 27,757 38.3 % 41.8 % 26.8 % 46.9 % 28.0 % 34.6 %

No 57,416 61.7% 58.2 % 73.2 % 53.1% 72.0 % 65.4 %

Question 87. Have you been assigned to share bath facilities with an open bay shower that is 

also used by a Service member you believed to be homosexual?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes 36,005 50.1% 56.8 % 42.0 % 49.5 % 40.2 % 34.5 %

No 49,235 49.9 % 43.2 % 58.0 % 50.5 % 59.8 % 65.5 %

The following questions were asked of all respondents:

Question 88. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to share a room, berth 

or field tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you 

most likely to do?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Take no action 30,470 26.7% 26.8 % 13.8 % 30.6 % 29.3 % 30.3 %

Discuss how we 

expect each other 

to behave and 

conduct ourselves 

while sharing a 

room, ber th or 

field tent

24,549 24.2 % 24.1% 22.6 % 26.7% 23.4 % 21.8 %

Talk to a chaplain, 

mentor, or leader 

about how to 

handle the 

situation

2,644 2.4 % 2.3 % 3.2 % 2.5 % 2.3 % 2.6 %

Talk to a leader to 

see if I have other 

options

32,277 28.1% 28.6 % 38.1% 22.1% 27.1% 24.8 %

Something else 9,604 8.7% 9.4 % 13.0 % 7.0 % 6.8 % 6.7%

Don’ t know 11,376 9.9 % 8.9 % 9.3 % 11.1% 11.0 % 13.9 %
228

Question 89. If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share a room, berth or field 

tent with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which are you most 

likely to do?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Take no action 34,531 30.3 % 29.5 % 17.7% 36.1% 33.1% 34.6 %

Discuss how we 

expect each other 

to behave and 

conduct ourselves 

while sharing a 

room, berth or field 

tent

28,313 27.3 % 27.3 % 27.8 % 28.9 % 26.3 % 24.9 %

Talk to a chaplain, 

mentor, or leader 

about how to handle 

the situation

2,566 2.5 % 2.4 % 2.7% 2.8 % 2.5 % 1.9 %

Talk to a leader to 

see if I have other 

options

27,156 24.0 % 25.3 % 31.9 % 17.2 % 23.1% 19.4 %

Something else 7,524 6.9 % 7.9 % 10.0 % 4.7% 5.2 % 4.4 %

Don’ t know 10,321 9.0 % 7.6 % 9.8 % 10.4 % 9.8 % 14.7%

Question 90. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you are assigned to bathroom facilities 

with an open bay shower that someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member also 

used, which are you most likely to do?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Take no action 32,757 29.4 % 30.0 % 16.4 % 33.3 % 31.0 % 29.7%

Use the shower at 

a dif ferent time 

than the Service 

member I thought 

to be gay or 

lesbian

28,841 25.8 % 26.2 % 27.9 % 23.5 % 25.9 % 23.8 %

Discuss how we 

expect each other 

to behave and 

conduct ourselves

10,768 11.0 % 10.9 % 10.4 % 13.2 % 9.8 % 10.8 %

Talk to a chaplain, 

mentor, or leader 

about how to 

handle the 

situation

1,297 1.3 % 1.3 % 1.7% 1.3 % 1.2 % 1.2 %

Talk to a leader to 

see if I had other 

options

20,619 17.7% 17.3 % 25.2 % 13.9 % 17.8 % 18.0 %

Something else 7,637 7.0 % 7.6 % 10.3 % 5.2 % 5.6 % 5.0 %

Don’ t know 8,833 7.9 % 6.8 % 8.1% 9.5 % 8.7% 11.5 %
229

Question 91. If a wartime situation made it necessary for you to share bathroom facilities with 

an open bay shower with someone you believe to be a gay or lesbian Service member, which 

are you most likely to do?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Take no action 35,215 31.5 % 31.8 % 18.4 % 36.3 % 33.3 % 32.4 %

Use the shower 

at a dif ferent 

time than the 

Service member 

I thought to be 

gay or lesbian

28,220 25.3 % 25.8 % 27.9 % 22.1% 25.4 % 22.4 %

Discuss how 

we expect each 

other to behave 

and conduct 

ourselves

11,389 11.5 % 11.4 % 11.4 % 13.7% 10.2 % 11.8 %

Talk to a 

chaplain, 

mentor, or 

leader about 

how to handle 

the situation

1,378 1.4 % 1.4 % 1.7% 1.5 % 1.3 % 1.1%

Talk to a leader 

to see if I had 

other options

18,622 16.1% 16.1% 22.6 % 12.4 % 16.0 % 15.1%

Something else 6,775 6.2 % 6.7% 9.2 % 4.4 % 5.1% 4.2 %

Don’ t know 8,933 8.0 % 6.7% 8.8 % 9.6 % 8.7% 13.0 %

Question 92. Do you usually attend military social functions?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes, by 

myself 23,221 21.0 % 19.0 % 26.9 % 21.1% 23.0 % 18.2 %

Yes, with 

my spouse, 

significant other 

or other family 

members

61,222 49.3 % 51.4 % 49.9 % 46.7% 46.6 % 44.2 %

No 26,386 29.7% 29.6 % 23.2 % 32.2 % 30.4 % 37.6 %
230

The following question was only asked to respondents that said they attended 

military social functions:

Question 93. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member attended 

a military social function with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to do?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Continue to 

at tend military 

social 

functions

41,690 49.5 % 48.1% 36.8 % 56.8 % 53.7% 54.0 %

Stop bringing 

my spouse, 

significant other 

or other family 

members with 

me to military 

social 

functions

4,644 5.0 % 5.2 % 5.5 % 4.8 % 4.3 % 4.3 %

Stop at tending 

military social 

functions

25,231 30.4 % 32.5 % 40.4 % 23.0 % 26.4 % 24.8 %

Something else 2,556 3.0 % 3.0 % 4.0 % 2.7% 2.8 % 2.3 %

Don’ t know 10,067 12.1% 11.2 % 13.3 % 12.7% 12.9 % 14.5 %

The following question was only asked to respondents that said they attended 

military family programs:

Question 94. Do you usually attend military family programs?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes, by

myself 8,044 8.0 % 9.0 % 9.2 % 6.9 % 6.4 % 5.4 %

Yes, with 

my family 49,330 40.1% 44.2 % 36.8 % 33.9 % 38.1% 32.4 %

No 52,717 51.9 % 46.9 % 54.0 % 59.2 % 55.4 % 62.2 %
231

The following questions were asked of all respondents.

Question 95. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and a gay or lesbian Service member 

participated in military family programs with a same-sex partner, which are you most likely to 

do?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Continue to 

par ticipate in 

military family 

programs

23,634 43.1% 43.7% 30.4 % 47.9 % 44.4 % 46.4 %

Stop bringing 

my family with 

me to military 

family 

programs

5,550 8.6 % 8.8 % 8.9 % 9.0 % 8.0 % 7.2 %

Stop 

par ticipating in 

military family 

programs 

altogether

20,578 35.1% 35.3 % 46.8 % 28.9 % 33.7% 30.8 %

Something else 1,370 2.3 % 2.3 % 2.5 % 2.3 % 2.1% 2.0 %

Don’ t know 6,148 10.9 % 10.0 % 11.4 % 11.9 % 11.8 % 13.7%
232

Question 96. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you had on-base housing and a gay or 

lesbian Service member was living with a same-sex partner on-base, what would you most 

likely do?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

I would get 

to know them 

like any other 

neighbors.

46,740 42.2 % 41.6 % 27.7% 47.3 % 45.8 % 47.3 %

I would make a 

special ef for t 

to get to know 

them.

1,893 1.9 % 1.9 % 2.1% 1.9 % 1.6 % 1.9 %

I would be 

uncomfor table, 

but access to 

the exchange, 

commissary, and 

MWR facilities is 

more impor tant 

to me than who 

my 

neighbors are 

when deciding 

where to live.

5,385 5.1% 5.2 % 6.2 % 5.2 % 4.3 % 4.5 %

I would be 

uncomfor table, 

but the quality 

of on-base 

housing is more 

impor tant to me 

than who my 

neighbors are 

when deciding 

where to live.

5,293 5.2 % 5.3 % 7.6 % 4.7% 4.3 % 4.3 %

I would be 

uncomfor table, 

but the cost of 

moving makes it 

unlikely I would 

leave on-base 

housing.

7,088 6.3 % 6.6 % 8.4 % 5.1% 5.4 % 5.8 %

I would probably 

move of f-base. 19,944 17.6 % 18.7% 25.0 % 13.1% 15.7% 12.6 %

Something else 6,261 5.5 % 5.6 % 5.8 % 5.5 % 5.3 % 4.1%

Don’ t know 17,957 16.3 % 15.1% 17.2 % 17.2 % 17.6 % 19.5 %
233

Question 97. What is your present pay grade?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

E1–E3 8,486 14.8 % 12.6 % 30.6 % 12.7% 13.8 % 11.5 %

E4 13,523 22.4 % 27.6 % 24.5 % 17.3 % 13.8 % 25.0 %

E5 –E6 26,938 33.4 % 30.5 % 25.8 % 41.5 % 37.2 % 34.4 %

E7–E9 19,718 12.0 % 11.9 % 7.8 % 10.5 % 15.8 % 8.8 %

W1–W5 3,678 1.5 % 2.3 % 1.3 % 0.5 % 0.0 % 4.8 %

O1– O3 16,688 8.5 % 8.5 % 5.9 % 8.8 % 9.3 % 10.0 %

O4 or 

above 20,937 7.4 % 6.5 % 4.2 % 8.7% 10.2 % 5.5 %

Question 98. What is your current age?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

18 –24 16,742 29.8 % 28.1% 53.6 % 27.5 % 24.3 % 28.0 %

25 –31 27,374 30.7% 31.0 % 28.5 % 31.7% 30.1% 35.2 %

32–38 25,042 18.2 % 17.9 % 11.0 % 20.9 % 20.2 % 18.4 %

39 – 45 24,907 13.4 % 14.1% 5.4 % 13.7% 15.5 % 12.0 %

46–52 12,341 6.0 % 6.6 % 1.3 % 5.0 % 7.7% 5.4 %

53–59 3,402 1.7% 2.1% 0.1% 1.0 % 2.1% 1.0 %

60 or older 224 0.1% 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.1% 0.1% 0.0 %

Question 99. Are you male or female?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Male 90,893 84.4 % 84.4 % 92.2 % 83.6 % 81.1% 87.2 %

Female 18,587 15.6 % 15.6 % 7.8 % 16.4 % 18.9 % 12.8 %

Question 100. Are you Spanish/ Hispanic/ Latino?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes: MexicanAmerican, Mexican, 

Chicano, Puerto 

Rican, Cuban, 

Central or South 

American, or other 

Spanish/ Hispanic/ 

Latino

11,916 13.1% 13.3 % 18.4 % 13.0 % 10.4 % 12.0 %

No 97,322 86.9 % 86.7% 81.6 % 87.0 % 89.6 % 88.0 %
234

Question 101. What is your race? Mark one or more races to indicate what you consider 

yourself to be.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

White 89,092 78.0 % 77.8 % 81.3 % 72.0 % 80.3 % 88.5 %

Black or 

AfricanAmerican

12,678 17.2 % 18.0 % 14.1% 19.8 % 15.7% 7.9 %

NativeAmerican, 

American Indian 

or Alaska Native

3,767 4.1% 3.8 % 4.5 % 5.3 % 3.5 % 4.5 %

Asian-American, 

Asian-Indian, 

Chinese, 

Filipino, 

Japanese, 

Korean, 

Vietnamese or 

other Southeast 

Asian

5,261 5.2 % 4.4 % 4.6 % 8.2 % 5.3 % 3.5 %

Native Hawaiian, 

Samoan, 

Guamanian, 

Chamorro or 

other Pacific 

Islander

1,320 1.4 % 1.2 % 1.4 % 1.5 % 1.5 % 1.9 %

Question 102. Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances who are gay or 

lesbian, or whom you believe to be gay or lesbian?

N Overall Army Marine

Corps Navy AirForce

Coast

Guard

Yes, one 20,937 18.9 % 19.2 % 20.2 % 17.4 % 18.8 % 18.3 %

Yes, more 

than one 45,793 39.9 % 39.6 % 33.2 % 43.8 % 40.5 % 41.2 %

No 43,364 41.2 % 41.2 % 46.6 % 38.8 % 40.6 % 40.5 %

Question 103. If you would like to share other thoughts and opinions about the impacts on 

you, your family, your immediate unit, or your Service if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, please 

use the space below.

This question was an open comment field.
235

D SURVEY RESPONSES: 2010 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

SURVEY OF SPOUSES

APPENDIX

The following question was asked of all respondents:

Question 1. What is your marital status? MARK ONE.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Married 43,465 97.8 % 97.3 % 97.1% 97.6 % 99.0 % 98.9 %

Separated 740 2.2 % 2.7% 2.9 % 2.4 % 1.0 % 1.1%

Divorced Respondents that answered that they were “divorced” or “widowed” were asked to 

skip to the end. The answers for the remaining questions were only tabulated from 

those respondents that said they were married or separated.

Widowed

The following questions were asked of all eligible respondents:

Question 2. How many years have you been married?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

5 years or 

less 15,650 43.0 % 42.3 % 62.5 % 43.4 % 36.3 % 41.1%

6 to 10 

years 10,193 24.0 % 24.2 % 19.9 % 25.2 % 24.3 % 25.1%

11 to 15 

years 7,118 14.6 % 14.7% 9.3 % 14.9 % 16.5 % 14.2 %

16 to 20 

years 5,685 10.0 % 9.9 % 5.8 % 10.1% 11.7% 11.3 %

21 to 25 

years 3,280 5.1% 5.2 % 2.0 % 4.4 % 6.6 % 5.2 %

More than 

25 years 2,220 3.3 % 3.6 % 0.4 % 2.0 % 4.6 % 3.1%
236

Question 3. In which branch of the Armed Forces is your spouse currently serving?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Army, Active 

Duty 5,458 27.6 % 58.6 % – – –

Army National 

Guard, Army 

Reserve

7,980 19.5 % 41.4 % – – – –

Navy, Active 

Duty 4,346 15.2 % – – – – –

Navy Reserve 2,220 2.6 % – – 85.6 % – –

Air Force, Active 

Duty 3,658 15.2 % – – 14.4 % 65.5 % –

Air National 

Guard, Air Force 

Reserve

6,972 8.0 % – – – 34.5 % –

Marine Corps, 

Active Duty 4,040 8.4 % – 90.6 % – – –

Marine Corps 

Reserve 2,285 0.9 % – 9.4 % – – –

Coast Guard, 

Active Duty 2,477 2.2 % – – – – 86.3 %

Coast Guard 

Reserve 720 0.4 % – – – – 13.7%

Question 4. Are you currently serving, or have you ever served, in the military?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, 

currently

Respondents that answered that they were currently ser ving in the militar y were 

asked to skip to the end and their answers were not included in the final response 

tally.

Yes, 

previously 

but not now

4,703 11.8 % 12.2 % 7.2 % 12.3 % 13.0 % 7.8 %

No 39,471 88.2 % 87.8 % 92.8 % 87.7% 87.0 % 92.2 %
237

The following questions were asked of all eligible respondents:

Question 5. Is your spouse currently deployed?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes 5,737 15.8 % 18.6 % 14.3 % 16.6 % 10.4 % 9.8 %

No 38,415 84.2 % 81.4 % 85.7% 83.4 % 89.6 % 90.2 %

Question 6. How many times has your spouse been deployed since September 11, 2001?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Never 11,207 21.5 % 18.6 % 17.1% 17.2 % 30.0 % 48.6 %

1 time 12,138 28.2 % 33.8 % 27.7% 20.3 % 24.1% 14.4 %

2 times 9,387 23.5 % 27.6 % 26.7% 21.4 % 17.0 % 8.0 %

3 times 4,993 12.9 % 12.2 % 16.0 % 15.9 % 11.4 % 4.7%

4 or more 

times 5,688 13.9 % 7.8 % 12.6 % 25.2 % 17.4 % 24.2 %

Question 7. Do you have any family members, friends or acquaintances, including coworkers, 

whom you believe to be gay or lesbian?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, one 5,236 12.1% 11.9 % 14.1% 11.5 % 12.5 % 10.6 %

Yes, more 

than one 27,091 59.0 % 57.5 % 57.1% 63.2 % 58.9 % 66.5 %

No 11,726 28.9 % 30.6 % 28.9 % 25.3 % 28.6 % 22.9 %

Question 8. Has your spouse ever worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she 

believed to be a homosexual Service member?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes 14,082 34.8 % 32.5 % 26.9 % 45.9 % 33.1% 43.9 %

No 12,019 26.4 % 26.7% 35.0 % 17.7% 29.5 % 23.0 %

Don’ t Know 17,916 38.8 % 40.8 % 38.1% 36.4 % 37.4 % 33.0 %
238

The following questions were asked to respondents that said that their spouse has 

worked on a daily basis with an individual he or she believed to be a homosexual 

Service member.

Question 9. How well did you know that individual? If more than one individual, please answer 

thinking about the Service member with whom your spouse worked most recently.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Very well 1,331 9.9 % 10.5 % 7.9 % 9.5 % 9.7% 9.2 %

Well 1,938 14.8 % 14.9 % 12.8 % 13.5 % 16.4 % 15.8 %

Somewhat 

well 3,241 23.7% 24.1% 24.3 % 22.5 % 24.2 % 21.6 %

Not well at 

all 7,513 51.7% 50.5 % 55.0 % 54.5 % 49.6 % 53.4 %

Question 10. Compared with other Service members in the community, how much did that 

Service member participate in military social activities?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

More than most 

other Service 

members in the 

community

830 6.2 % 6.3 % 4.8 % 5.7% 7.2 % 5.4 %

Less than most 

other Service 

members in the 

community

1,346 9.2 % 9.5 % 10.8 % 7.8 % 9.4 % 9.5 %

About the 

same as most 

other Service 

members

6,338 45.7% 46.5 % 45.5 % 44.1% 45.9 % 47.0 %

Don’ t Know 5,497 38.8 % 37.6 % 38.8 % 42.5 % 37.5 % 38.1%
239

The following questions were asked of all eligible respondents.

Question 11. If Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed, the military will want to prepare and assist 

spouses in understanding the new policy. How would you like the military to provide you with 

information on the new policy? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

No special activities 

or communications 

would be necessary

19,039 43.0 % 42.5 % 37.0 % 43.0 % 45.8 % 49.1%

Distribute printed 

information to 

spouses about 

repeal

16,000 37.4 % 37.8 % 40.9 % 38.5 % 34.8 % 34.4 %

Provide information 

about the repeal on 

military Web sites

14,793 34.3 % 34.0 % 38.1% 36.3 % 32.3 % 31.5 %

Have interactive 

chats available on 

line to answer 

questions from 

Service member 

spouses

3,191 8.2 % 8.5 % 8.5 % 9.2 % 6.9 % 7.0 %

Conduct information 

sessions on bases 

and installations 

about repeal

5,367 13.5 % 13.8 % 15.4 % 13.8 % 12.4 % 9.5 %

Provide information 

through military 

chaplains trained to 

work with spouses 

and family members 

on repeal

5,891 14.5 % 15.4 % 16.7% 14.1% 12.4 % 10.9 %

Provide information 

through other 

military counselors 

trained to work with 

spouses and family 

members on repeal

5,663 14.1% 14.8 % 15.6 % 14.8 % 11.9 % 11.2 %

Provide information 

through Family 

Readiness Group/

Work-Life Program 

leaders trained to 

work with spouses 

and family members 

on repeal

8,308 21.2 % 22.9 % 25.3 % 20.1% 17.7% 14.0 %

Offer courses to 

spouses on how to 

discuss repeal within 

their families

3,337 9.1% 9.9 % 11.5 % 9.5 % 6.7% 6.1%

Other 1,649 3.6 % 3.7% 3.7% 3.2 % 3.7% 3.1%
240

Question 12. Overall, how do you feel about your spouse’s current military service?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Very 

positive 16,097 32.9 % 29.0 % 32.4 % 35.0 % 38.6 % 43.3 %

Positive 15,151 32.5 % 31.6 % 30.7% 32.2 % 35.2 % 34.4 %

An equal mix 

of positive 

and negative 

feelings

11,401 30.6 % 34.8 % 33.3 % 28.2 % 23.9 % 20.1%

Negative 699 1.8 % 1.9 % 1.8 % 2.3 % 1.1% 1.0 %

Very 

negative 454 1.4 % 1.8 % 1.3 % 1.4 % 0.7% 0.6 %

Never 

thought 

about it

279 0.8 % 0.9 % 0.6 % 0.9 % 0.6 % 0.6 %

Question 13. Which one of the following statements best describes your spouse’s current 

military career intentions?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Definitely stay in 

until retirement 24,415 51.8 % 48.1% 41.1% 54.7% 60.5 % 62.4 %

Probably stay in 

until retirement 8,405 20.1% 20.9 % 20.9 % 19.1% 19.3 % 18.7%

Definitely stay in 

beyond present 

obligation, but not 

necessarily until 

retirement

1,322 3.8 % 3.9 % 5.4 % 4.5 % 2.6 % 2.3 %

Probably stay in 

beyond present 

obligation, but not 

necessarily until 

retirement

2,048 5.7% 6.2 % 8.0 % 5.7% 4.2 % 3.1%

Definitely leave 

upon completion 

of present

obligation

1,631 4.9 % 5.6 % 9.0 % 4.4 % 2.5 % 1.9 %

Probably leave 

upon completion 

of present 

obligation

1,665 4.7% 5.4 % 8.7% 3.7% 2.8 % 2.1%

Have met 

retirement 

eligibility but will 

continue to serve

2,888 4.5 % 4.6 % 2.7% 4.3 % 5.0 % 6.8 %

Don’ t Know 1,646 4.4 % 5.4 % 4.3 % 3.6 % 3.1% 2.7%
241

Question 14. Which of the following best describes your preference for your spouse’s military 

career intentions?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Remain in the 

military until 

retirement

30,684 67.0 % 63.2 % 57.3 % 69.3 % 75.5 % 78.8 %

Remain in the 

military beyond 

present 

obligation, but not 

necessarily until 

retirement

3,698 10.0 % 10.4 % 14.0 % 10.4 % 7.6 % 7.5 %

Leave upon 

completion of his 

or her present 

obligation

3,564 9.2 % 10.9 % 12.1% 8.1% 5.8 % 4.7%

I do not have a 

strong preference 6,063 13.8 % 15.4 % 16.6 % 12.3 % 11.1% 8.9 %
242

Question 15. What are the most important factors you and your spouse consider when making 

decisions about his or her future in the military? PLEASE MARK UP TO 3 FACTORS.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Spouse’s 

current pay and 

benefits

18,685 49.3 % 49.3 % 45.4 % 49.0 % 50.2 % 55.0 %

Your job status 2,548 7.2 % 6.9 % 7.4 % 7.1% 7.5 % 10.2 %

Education 

benefits (for 

you, your 

spouse, and /or 

your children)

7,245 22.1% 22.7% 20.4 % 22.9 % 21.1% 18.8 %

Spouse’s 

retirement 

benefits

17,158 38.9 % 36.8 % 28.6 % 39.6 % 45.8 % 43.3 %

Spouse’s years 

completed 

toward 

retirement

6,612 15.5 % 15.4 % 13.3 % 14.7% 17.3 % 13.6 %

Current 

economic 

situation and 

civilian job 

availability

8,652 26.8 % 25.6 % 33.4 % 27.6 % 26.0 % 29.6 %

Family 

separations and 

stability

6,823 17.7% 19.7% 18.6 % 18.1% 13.2 % 14.0 %

Medical care 9,456 29.2 % 28.4 % 30.2 % 30.2 % 29.2 % 33.0 %

Childcare 

options 244 0.9 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 0.9 % 0.6 % 0.9 %

Deploymentrelated 

considerations

5,079 13.1% 15.5 % 14.9 % 10.4 % 10.4 % 4.9 %

Spouse’s ability 

to serve and 

defend the 

country

4,496 10.6 % 10.9 % 9.7% 9.8 % 11.4 % 8.2 %

Spouse’s job 

satisfaction 8,683 21.0 % 19.3 % 22.3 % 21.6 % 23.2 % 25.4 %

Our satisfaction 

with military life 4,343 12.1% 11.2 % 15.5 % 12.6 % 12.7% 10.1%

Our children’s 

well-being 6,451 18.8 % 19.0 % 22.3 % 19.7% 15.9 % 20.3 %

Living on-base 164 0.7% 0.8 % 1.0 % 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.3 %

The ability to 

live in a close 

knit military 

community

408 1.2 % 1.3 % 1.6 % 0.9 % 1.2 % 0.7%

Other 916 2.4 % 2.5 % 2.9 % 2.5 % 2.2 % 1.6 %
243

Question 16. How important a factor would a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be to you in 

making decisions about your spouse’s future in the military?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Very 

impor tant 5,906 13.4 % 13.9 % 17.4 % 12.0 % 12.5 % 9.7%

Impor tant 5,356 12.0 % 11.9 % 15.3 % 11.3 % 11.6 % 9.0 %

Neither 

impor tant 

nor 

unimpor tant

11,783 27.7% 27.7% 27.4 % 26.9 % 28.3 % 28.7%

Unimpor tant 7,222 16.0 % 15.8 % 13.3 % 16.6 % 16.9 % 18.1%

Very 

unimpor tant 10,981 24.1% 23.5 % 19.5 % 26.4 % 24.9 % 29.2 %

Don’ t Know 2,790 6.7% 7.2 % 7.1% 6.8 % 5.7% 5.3 %

Question 17. Would a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect your preference for your spouse’s 

plans for his or her future in the military?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, I would want 

my spouse to stay 

longer

1,031 2.8 % 2.9 % 2.2 % 3.5 % 2.5 % 2.3 %

Yes, I would want 

my spouse to 

leave earlier

5,507 11.8 % 12.0 % 16.5 % 9.6 % 11.7% 7.6 %

No, it would have 

no ef fect on my 

preference for my 

spouse’s plans for 

military service in 

the future

32,439 73.8 % 73.6 % 66.5 % 75.6 % 75.0 % 79.4 %

Don’ t Know 5,068 11.6 % 11.5 % 14.8 % 11.3 % 10.8 % 10.7%

Question 18. Have you ever recommended to a family member or close friend that he or she 

pursue service in the military?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes 33,354 75.4 % 74.7% 71.5 % 74.6 % 78.2 % 81.9 %

No 10,794 24.6 % 25.3 % 28.5 % 25.4 % 21.8 % 18.1%
244

Question 19. Would a repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell affect your willingness to recommend 

military service to a family member or close friend?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, I would 

be more likely 

to recommend 

military service to 

a family member 

or close friend

1,924 4.8 % 4.9 % 3.7% 5.5 % 4.6 % 5.4 %

Yes, I would 

be less likely 

to recommend 

military service to 

a family member 

or close friend

8,521 17.9 % 17.6 % 23.4 % 15.3 % 18.9 % 13.1%

No, it would 

not af fect my 

willingness to 

recommend 

military service to 

a family member 

or close friend

29,254 67.2 % 67.1% 60.8 % 69.6 % 67.6 % 73.0 %

Don’ t Know 4,375 10.0 % 10.4 % 12.1% 9.6 % 8.9 % 8.5 %

Question 20. What is your preference on where to live?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

In on-base 

housing 7,175 21.6 % 21.8 % 31.1% 15.1% 23.4 % 12.0 %

In military 

housing of fbase

2,156 6.5 % 5.8 % 7.0 % 11.0 % 4.2 % 7.4 %

In civilian 

housing 34,326 71.9 % 72.4 % 61.9 % 73.9 % 72.4 % 80.6 %

Question 21. Where do you currently live?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

In on-base 

housing 4,347 16.2 % 16.0 % 22.9 % 11.4 % 18.7% 7.3 %

In military 

housing of fbase

1,200 4.1% 2.5 % 4.8 % 9.8 % 2.7% 6.0 %

In civilian 

housing 38,522 79.7% 81.5 % 72.3 % 78.8 % 78.6 % 86.7%
245

Question 22. Assuming you had a choice on where to live, what are the most important factors 

you would consider? PLEASE MARK UP TO 3 FACTORS.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Cost of housing 21,527 56.8 % 54.7% 60.0 % 59.3 % 57.7% 60.1%

Housing 

condition 14,564 39.7% 41.8 % 42.0 % 36.6 % 37.4 % 34.6 %

Amount of space 7,415 21.8 % 23.2 % 20.8 % 20.5 % 20.9 % 16.6 %

Quality of 

schools in the 

area

18,811 44.4 % 43.6 % 38.3 % 45.9 % 46.8 % 47.6 %

Safety of the 

community 22,186 58.5 % 57.2 % 59.3 % 61.2 % 58.7% 59.0 %

Sense of the 

community 

in the 

neighborhood

2,841 5.9 % 5.7% 5.6 % 6.0 % 6.4 % 5.9 %

Presence of 

children in the 

neighborhood

1,515 3.7% 3.7% 3.9 % 3.4 % 3.6 % 3.1%

Commuting time 

to your job 6,329 14.6 % 14.8 % 12.3 % 14.1% 15.4 % 17.0 %

Proximity to 

spouse’s job 8,233 21.6 % 20.8 % 26.5 % 22.6 % 20.1% 26.2 %

Neighbors that I 

know and trust 2,915 6.7% 7.0 % 6.4 % 5.5 % 7.4 % 5.6 %

The values of the 

community 4,278 9.1% 9.4 % 7.8 % 7.6 % 10.2 % 8.2 %

Presence of local 

businesses 1,113 2.8 % 2.9 % 2.5 % 2.5 % 2.7% 2.8 %

Easy access to 

the exchange, 

commissary, and 

MWR 

facilities

2,377 6.8 % 6.7% 8.1% 7.8 % 6.1% 5.7%

Other 983 2.5 % 2.7% 2.8 % 2.4 % 2.1% 3.1%
246

Question 23. Assuming you had a choice on where to live, how important would a repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell be to you in considering where to live?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Very 

impor tant 5,660 13.2 % 13.9 % 16.1% 11.9 % 12.0 % 9.1%

Impor tant 3,831 8.6 % 8.5 % 11.0 % 7.8 % 8.4 % 6.7%

Neither 

impor tant 

nor 

unimpor tant

12,062 27.7% 27.7% 27.8 % 28.2 % 27.4 % 28.0 %

Unimpor tant 7,758 17.8 % 17.8 % 15.7% 17.1% 19.0 % 18.9 %

Very 

unimpor tant 12,016 26.4 % 25.6 % 22.5 % 29.1% 27.1% 32.1%

Don’ t Know 2,751 6.3 % 6.5 % 6.9 % 5.9 % 6.0 % 5.2 %

Question 24. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and you live in on-base housing. If a 

gay or lesbian Service member lived in your neighborhood with their partner, would you stay 

on-base or would you try to move out?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

I would 

stay onbase

20,185 49.5 % 48.9 % 48.1% 51.9 % 49.0 % 54.6 %

I would try 

to move 

out

7,004 15.8 % 15.9 % 19.8 % 13.6 % 16.3 % 12.4 %

Don’ t Know 4,727 10.9 % 10.6 % 12.9 % 10.6 % 11.2 % 8.7%

Does not 

apply, I 

would not 

live onbase

11,987 23.7% 24.5 % 19.2 % 23.9 % 23.5 % 24.2 %
247

The following question was asked to respondents that said they would stay onbase, try to move out, or don’t know if Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and they 

live on-base.

Question 25. While living on-base, which of the following would you do?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

I would make a 

special ef for t to 

get to know the 

gay or lesbian 

Service member 

and par tner

876 2.6 % 2.5 % 2.4 % 3.0 % 2.5 % 3.6 %

I would get 

to know them 

like any other 

neighbor

20,021 63.1% 62.4 % 57.5 % 66.4 % 63.7% 70.9 %

I would generally 

avoid them when I 

could

4,230 13.2 % 13.8 % 15.6 % 11.1% 13.0 % 9.4 %

I would do nothing 3,767 12.8 % 12.8 % 16.5 % 12.4 % 12.0 % 9.4 %

I would do 

something else 1,031 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 2.6 % 3.3 % 2.6 %

Don’ t Know 1,613 5.2 % 5.4 % 4.9 % 4.6 % 5.5 % 4.1%

The following questions were asked of all eligible respondents.

Question 26. In the last 12 months, about how many informal military social events, such as 

picnics, gatherings and holiday parties, have you attended?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

All or nearly 

all of these 

events

4,753 10.9 % 11.6 % 13.8 % 9.9 % 9.2 % 10.4 %

Many of 

these events 6,422 15.3 % 14.1% 18.8 % 15.4 % 16.3 % 14.9 %

Some of 

these events 11,042 25.8 % 24.8 % 26.9 % 24.8 % 28.2 % 26.6 %

Very few of 

these events 11,391 26.1% 25.6 % 24.8 % 26.3 % 27.4 % 26.7%

None of 

these events 10,119 21.9 % 23.8 % 15.7% 23.7% 18.9 % 21.3 %
248

Question 27. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. Would the attendance of a gay or 

lesbian Service member with his or her partner affect how often you attend these types of 

military social events?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, I would 

at tend these 

types of 

military social 

events more 

of ten

559 1.4 % 1.4 % 1.3 % 1.5 % 1.3 % 1.2 %

Yes, I would 

at tend these 

types of 

military social 

events less 

of ten

8,203 18.1% 18.1% 23.0 % 15.3 % 19.0 % 14.3 %

No, it would not 

af fect my 

at tendance at 

these types of 

military social 

events

31,315 72.0 % 71.6 % 66.8 % 75.0 % 71.8 % 77.9 %

Don’ t Know 3,877 8.5 % 8.9 % 8.9 % 8.2 % 7.9 % 6.5 %

Question 28. During your spouse’s most recent deployment since September 11, 2001, how 

many deployment-support gatherings did you attend?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

All or nearly 

all of these 

gatherings

3,925 9.4 % 11.8 % 12.0 % 9.3 % 4.1% 2.9 %

Many of these 

gatherings 3,572 9.0 % 10.7% 9.5 % 9.0 % 5.9 % 4.0 %

Some of these 

gatherings 5,515 13.3 % 14.6 % 13.7% 13.2 % 11.1% 7.5 %

Very few of 

these gatherings 6,283 15.8 % 17.3 % 15.8 % 16.5 % 13.1% 6.6 %

None of these 

gatherings 14,119 32.7% 28.4 % 33.1% 36.6 % 38.3 % 34.2 %

Does not apply, 

my spouse 

has not been 

deployed since 

September 11, 

20 01

10,401 19.8 % 17.3 % 15.9 % 15.5 % 27.5 % 44.7%
249

Question 29. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed and your spouse is deployed. Would 

the presence of a partner of a gay or lesbian Service member affect how often you attend 

deployment-support activities?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, I would 

at tend 

deploymentsuppor t 

activities more 

of ten

506 1.3 % 1.3 % 1.3 % 1.7% 1.0 % 0.8 %

Yes, I would 

at tend 

deploymentsuppor t 

activities less 

of ten

6,168 13.4 % 13.0 % 16.7% 11.8 % 14.5 % 11.1%

No, it would 

not af fect my 

at tendance at 

deploymentsuppor t 

activities

33,063 76.2 % 76.8 % 72.4 % 77.7% 75.1% 77.8 %

Don’ t Know 4,208 9.1% 8.8 % 9.7% 8.8 % 9.4 % 10.3 %
250

Question 30. If you had concerns about the impact of the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, to 

whom would you likely turn? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Would not 

need to talk to 

someone

13,370 31.4 % 31.3 % 27.1% 33.5 % 31.1% 35.8 %

My spouse 30,130 68.5 % 68.2 % 73.2 % 66.8 % 68.9 % 64.9 %

A family 

member 11,209 26.8 % 26.5 % 33.3 % 25.9 % 25.8 % 25.3 %

A friend 

outside of 

your family

8,358 19.9 % 19.6 % 24.2 % 18.7% 20.0 % 16.7%

A neighbor 2,399 5.9 % 5.9 % 8.2 % 5.4 % 5.5 % 4.5 %

Key Spouse/

Senior 

Spouse

1,373 3.3 % 3.1% 5.1% 2.4 % 4.1% 1.0 %

Airmen 

and Family 

Readiness 

Center

1,073 2.6 % 1.5 % 2.2 % 1.3 % 6.2 % 0.6 %

Military 

Family Life 

Consultants 

(MFLC)

2,246 6.0 % 6.9 % 5.1% 5.7% 5.1% 3.7%

Other 

military 

spouses

8,130 19.2 % 18.6 % 26.1% 19.1% 17.9 % 17.6 %

Family 

Readiness 

Group

3,495 9.3 % 12.0 % 13.8 % 6.7% 4.8 % 1.5 %

Work-Life 

Program 402 0.9 % 0.8 % 0.6 % 1.2 % 0.5 % 4.5 %

Ombudsman/

Ombuds 

Offices

1,043 2.3 % 0.8 % 0.8 % 8.6 % 0.6 % 5.7%

Support 

services on 

the base or 

installation

2,368 6.1% 6.1% 6.8 % 7.2 % 5.1% 4.3 %

Support 

services in 

the civilian 

community

972 2.2 % 2.5 % 2.4 % 2.1% 1.7% 1.4 %

A military 

chaplain 4,959 12.0 % 13.7% 12.8 % 9.8 % 10.5 % 7.7%

Community 

religious 

leaders

5,328 11.4 % 11.3 % 10.9 % 10.7% 12.7% 9.1%

Someone else 1,572 3.5 % 3.5 % 3.6 % 3.0 % 3.7% 2.8 %
251

Question 31. How would you rate your overall family readiness to handle the challenges of 

military life?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Very ready 11,891 26.0 % 24.4 % 26.5 % 29.1% 26.4 % 29.2 %

Ready 15,838 35.4 % 32.9 % 37.8 % 36.3 % 38.5 % 36.6 %

About an 

equal mix 

of feeling 

ready and 

unready

11,488 26.8 % 27.8 % 25.0 % 26.7% 25.6 % 26.8 %

Unready 1,451 3.3 % 4.2 % 3.3 % 2.6 % 2.2 % 2.7%

Very 

unready 880 2.4 % 3.4 % 2.1% 1.4 % 1.3 % 1.7%

Not sure 2,482 6.1% 7.3 % 5.3 % 3.8 % 6.1% 3.0 %

Question 32. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. Would repeal affect your family 

readiness?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, it 

would 

improve my 

family 

readiness

401 1.0 % 1.1% 1.0 % 1.3 % 0.7% 0.9 %

Yes, it 

would 

reduce my 

family 

readiness

3,809 8.2 % 8.4 % 10.9 % 6.6 % 8.3 % 5.5 %

No, it 

would have 

no 

ef fect on 

my family 

readiness

34,179 77.2 % 76.0 % 70.8 % 81.2 % 78.3 % 84.7%

Don’ t Know 5,654 13.5 % 14.5 % 17.3 % 10.8 % 12.7% 8.9 %
252

Question 33. What family readiness programs would you turn to for assistance in sustaining 

family readiness? MARK ALL THAT APPLY.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Military One 

Source 18,270 48.1% 53.2 % 57.8 % 46.4 % 38.1% 16.2 %

Health 

Facilities 9,532 23.0 % 22.6 % 20.1% 24.2 % 24.1% 25.3 %

Deployment 

Suppor t 

Programs

16,479 40.1% 41.1% 40.9 % 40.0 % 39.9 % 18.2 %

On-base 

Chapels 6,095 15.9 % 16.2 % 16.9 % 14.0 % 16.8 % 12.5 %

Family 

Suppor t 

Programs

21,930 54.6 % 54.9 % 48.5 % 54.0 % 57.9 % 43.8 %

Work-Life /

Employee 

Assistance 

Programs

5,833 14.2 % 13.4 % 13.7% 14.7% 13.4 % 34.2 %

Other 4,697 10.8 % 10.3 % 11.0 % 11.1% 11.1% 15.2 %

Question 34. How important are military family programs in supporting your overall family 

readiness?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Very

impor tant 9,392 23.3 % 25.8 % 24.7% 23.1% 18.7% 14.3 %

Impor tant 14,762 34.4 % 35.0 % 37.4 % 32.7% 34.4 % 26.7%

Neither 

impor tant 

nor 

unimpor tant

13,526 29.7% 27.5 % 27.3 % 30.8 % 33.7% 38.5 %

Unimpor tant 4,176 8.2 % 7.6 % 6.8 % 8.6 % 9.0 % 13.5 %

Very 

unimpor tant 2,126 4.3 % 4.1% 3.8 % 4.7% 4.2 % 7.0 %
253

Question 35. Assume Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell is repealed. If the partner of a gay or lesbian 

Service member participated in a family support program, would it affect your participation?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes, I would 

par ticipate in that 

family suppor t 

program more 

of ten

433 1.1% 1.2 % 1.0 % 1.2 % 1.0 % 0.9 %

Yes, I would 

par ticipate in that 

family suppor t 

program less 

of ten

7,019 15.2 % 14.9 % 19.5 % 12.8 % 16.5 % 12.4 %

No, it would not 

af fect my 

par ticipation 

in that family 

suppor t program

32,541 75.1% 75.4 % 69.9 % 78.0 % 73.8 % 78.5 %

Don’ t Know 4,066 8.6 % 8.5 % 9.6 % 8.0 % 8.7% 8.2 %

Question 36. Please tell us if you have any other thoughts or comments about how a repeal of 

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell would affect your family readiness. PLEASE PRINT.

This question was an open comment field.

Question 37. What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

12 years or less of 

school, but no high 

school diploma, 

certificate, or GED

676 2.1% 2.6 % 1.9 % 2.0 % 1.2 % 0.9 %

High school diploma 

or GED 4,563 13.3 % 14.4 % 15.2 % 11.9 % 11.6 % 9.5 %

Some college credit, 

but no degree 11,571 31.2 % 31.6 % 36.1% 31.3 % 28.5 % 28.7%

Associate’s degree 

(e.g., AA, AS) 6,462 16.1% 16.3 % 16.3 % 16.0 % 15.5 % 16.7%

Bachelor’s degree 

(e.g., BA, AB, BS) 13,551 25.8 % 24.2 % 22.2 % 27.0 % 29.0 % 30.8 %

Master’s, 

professional, or 

doctorate degree 

(e.g., MA, MS, MD, 

JD, DVM, DDS, PhD)

7,242 11.6 % 10.9 % 8.3 % 11.8 % 14.2 % 13.5 %
254

Question 38. What age were you on your last birthday?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Up to 20 

years old 629 2.4 % 2.2 % 7.1% 2.3 % 1.2 % 1.2 %

21 to 25 

years old 5,265 16.9 % 15.6 % 34.2 % 16.4 % 13.7% 12.9 %

26 to 30 

years old 8,078 22.2 % 22.0 % 24.7% 22.9 % 20.9 % 24.2 %

31 to 35 

years old 8,031 19.1% 18.7% 14.9 % 20.3 % 20.4 % 22.6 %

36 to 40 

years old 7,905 16.0 % 16.6 % 10.5 % 16.4 % 16.5 % 15.9 %

41 years 

old or 

more

14,048 23.4 % 25.0 % 8.6 % 21.7% 27.3 % 23.2 %

Question 39. Are you male or female?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Male 2,741 6.7% 6.6 % 1.1% 7.0 % 9.1% 4.8 %

Female 41,367 93.3 % 93.4 % 98.9 % 93.0 % 90.9 % 95.2 %

Question 40. Do you or your spouse have any children living at home either part-time or fulltime?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes 33,655 76.4 % 78.3 % 69.9 % 75.3 % 76.4 % 73.9 %

No 10,441 23.6 % 21.7% 30.1% 24.7% 23.6 % 26.1%
255

The following questions were asked of respondents that said they had children 

living at home either part-time or full-time.

Question 41a. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time 

or full-time, in each age group? 5 years old or younger?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

None 15,384 40.5 % 42.2 % 24.4 % 39.1% 43.9 % 38.1%

One 11,344 37.2 % 36.9 % 47.6 % 37.6 % 33.8 % 38.4 %

Two or three 6,742 22.0 % 20.6 % 27.4 % 23.0 % 22.0 % 23.2 %

Four or more 105 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.6 % 0.4 % 0.3 % 0.3 %

Question 41b. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time 

or full-time, in each age group? 6-12 years old?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

None 17,605 53.0 % 51.2 % 61.8 % 53.4 % 52.9 % 56.3 %

One 9,867 29.4 % 30.3 % 24.3 % 29.9 % 29.0 % 28.3 %

Two or three 5,938 17.1% 17.9 % 13.6 % 16.3 % 17.6 % 14.8 %

Four or more 171 0.5 % 0.6 % 0.3 % 0.4 % 0.5 % 0.5 %

Question 41c. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time 

or full-time, in each age group? 13-17 years old?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

None 23,418 72.8 % 71.3 % 83.2 % 73.5 % 71.7% 75.2 %

One 7,329 20.0 % 21.0 % 12.7% 19.3 % 21.0 % 18.5 %

Two or three 2,763 7.0 % 7.5 % 4.0 % 7.1% 7.1% 6.1%

Four or more 53 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.1% 0.1% 0.2 %

Question 41d. How many children do you or your spouse have, living at home either part-time 

or full-time, in each age group? 18 years old or older?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

None 28,012 86.3 % 84.7% 94.3 % 88.3 % 85.2 % 88.8 %

One 4,073 10.1% 11.2 % 4.5 % 8.9 % 10.9 % 8.8 %

Two or three 1,422 3.4 % 3.9 % 1.2 % 2.7% 3.7% 2.4 %

Four or more 44 0.2 % 0.2 % 0.0 % 0.1% 0.2 % 0.0 %
256

The following questions were asked of all eligible respondents.

Question 42. Are you of Hispanic or Latino origin?

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

Yes 4,637 12.9 % 13.7% 16.0 % 13.2 % 10.1% 9.9 %

No 39,113 87.1% 86.3 % 84.0 % 86.8 % 89.9 % 90.1%

Question 43. What is your race? PLEASE SELECT ONE OR MORE.

N Overall Army Marine 

Corps Navy Air Force

Coast 

Guard

White 36,912 81.9 % 80.4 % 86.0 % 77.8 % 85.7% 91.0 %

Black or 

AfricanAmerican

3,279 12.1% 14.9 % 8.4 % 12.4 % 8.3 % 4.8 %

Asian 2,292 6.0 % 4.4 % 5.7% 10.6 % 5.9 % 4.2 %

Native Hawaiian 

or other Pacific 

Islander

626 1.8 % 1.6 % 2.1% 2.2 % 1.7% 1.6 %

American Indian 

or Alaska Native 884 2.6 % 2.8 % 2.7% 2.8 % 2.2 % 2.6 %

Question 44. As the last question in the survey, we’d like you to tell us about any other 

thoughts or opinions you have – positive, negative, or neutral – about the implications on 

family readiness and support or other aspects of military life if the government decides to 

repeal the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell law and policy. PLEASE PRINT.

This question was an open comment field.
Staff Leadership

Captain Anne G. Hammond, U.S. Navy, Deputy Chief of Staff

Mr. Doug McCoy, Assistant Chief of Staff

Writing Team

Dr. Gerald F. Goodwin, Lead Writer

Colonel Gary A.Packard, Jr., PhD, U.S. Air Force

Lieutenant Colonel Jenny Caruso, U.S. Army

Major Linell A. Letendre, U.S. Air Force

Mr. James A. Cadogan

Mr. Jonathan L. Lee

Dr. Robert P. Trost

Editors

Mr. Benjamin Bryant, Lead Editor

Mr. Thomas J. Zamberlan, Technical Editor

Layout and Design

Mr. Nicholas Doyle, Lead Designer

Ms. Kathleen Jones

Mr. Kelly Guerrero

Mr. Floyd Stewart

Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated 

with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”
Report of the Comprehensive Review of 

the Issues Associated with a Repeal of 

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

November 30, 2010