Military Leadership Diversity Commission

Decision Paper #4: Promotion

February 2011

MLDC decision papers present the Commission-approved, subcommittee-specific recommendations. 

These recommendations are the product not only of the logic and evidence presented in the decision 

papers but also the values and judgments of the Commissioners. Legally imposed time constraints 

naturally limited the Commission’s ability to undertake extensive research. Thus, the decision papers 

present the evidence that was available and that could be collected during the discovery phase of the 

Commission. The decision papers were reviewed by subject-matter experts external to the Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

CONTENTS

Introduction .....................................................................................................................1

Charter Tasks ...................................................................................................................................... 1

Strategy to Address the Charter Tasks ................................................................................................ 2

Commission-Approved Recommendations Related to Promotion ..................................................... 3

Organization of This Paper ................................................................................................................. 4

Promotion Outcomes by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender ........................................................5

Data Sources, Data Limitations, and Definitions................................................................................ 5

Promotion Outcomes for Officers....................................................................................................... 7

Promotion Outcomes for Enlisted Personnel.................................................................................... 11

Summary............................................................................................................................................ 13

Fairness in the Officer Promotion Process........................................................................14

The Officer Promotion System Defined by U.S. Code, Title 10 ...................................................... 14

The Promotion Board Process........................................................................................................... 15

Inputs to the Promotion Board.......................................................................................................... 20

The Services’ Efforts to Educate Members About the Promotion Process...........................27

Survey Results.................................................................................................................................... 27

Recommendations and Conclusion ..................................................................................30

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 30

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 35

References ......................................................................................................................36
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

1

INTRODUCTION

In the military’s closed personnel system, the demographic diversity of leadership depends on the 

demographic diversity of accessions and on the relative career progression rates of members of each 

demographic group. For a given level of demographic diversity of accessions, if women and racial or 

ethnic minorities progress at lower rates than white men, they will be under-represented in the top 

ranks. Furthermore, career progression in the military has two components: rates of retention to each 

promotion window and rates of promotion to each pay grade. To explore the role that promotion 

rates play in determining the demographic profiles of senior leadership, the Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission (MLDC) created a subcommittee tasked with examining the fairness of 

promotion opportunities for members of all demographic groups. The goal of this decision paper is 

to provide an overview of the subcommittee’s findings and to show how they support the 

Commission’s final recommendations for ensuring that all race, ethnicity, and gender groups have 

fair opportunities to be competitive for promotion.

Charter Tasks

The Promotion Subcommittee was assigned and addressed two charter tasks:

• Evaluate the establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command 

opportunities and their effect by race, ethnicity, and gender for officers at grade O-5 and 

above.

• Evaluate the existence and maintenance of fair promotion, assignment, and command 

opportunities for racial, ethnic, and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the 

levels of warrant officer, chief warrant officer, company and junior grade, field and 

midgrade, and general and flag officer.

In acknowledgment of the importance of senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) among 

military leadership, the Commission also addressed these issues for the enlisted corps when 

appropriate.

Unfairness in the promotion system can arise from both institutional and individual bias, and it 

can affect both the actual selection process and each candidate’s preparation for that process.

Institutional bias exists in the military if Department of Defense (DoD) or Service policies 

intentionally or inadvertently lead to different promotion outcomes for members of different 

demographic groups. A specific type of institutional bias is structural barriers to advancement, which 

are defined as “prerequisites or requirements that exclude minorities [and women] to a relatively 

greater extent than non-Hispanic whites [and men]” and are “inherent in the policies and procedures 

of the institution” (Kirby et al., 2000, p. 525). An example of a structural barrier is the DoD policy 

that restricts women from serving in certain career fields or assignments that involve direct ground 

combat (Harrell & Miller, 1997). Although this policy is not intended to inhibit the advancement of 

women, it likely does so in practice because the combat-related career fields and assignments from 

which women are barred are considered to be career-enhancing. The decision paper for the 

Branching and Assignments Subcommittee addresses this and other structural barriers in detail 

(Decision Paper #2). Since it is generally illegal to consider race, ethnicity, or gender in promotion 

selection decisions, institutional bias is now more likely to affect how members become competitive 

for promotion than the promotion selection process itself.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

2

In contrast, individual bias can surface anywhere in the process because it comes from members 

of the institution and is not codified in policy. Individual bias is manifested in individual practices 

and decisions, which range from unconscious behaviors to outright discrimination. Such bias can 

affect promotion outcomes if it affects who gets the best assignments, how servicemembers are 

evaluated in performing their assignments, and/or who is ultimately selected for promotion. 

Promotion outcomes can also be indirectly affected by bias if servicemembers who experience such 

bias are more likely to leave than those who do not (e.g., they leave before they can even be 

considered for promotion). Although fundamentally different, these two types of bias are related: 

Individual bias can keep women and minorities from advancing only if institutional policies and 

cultures do not serve to minimize biased individual practices.

Strategy to Address the Charter Tasks

The subcommittee’s first step in addressing the assigned charter tasks was to determine whether 

promotion outcomes vary by race, ethnicity, and gender. The subcommittee’s primary finding was 

that across Services, over time, and roughly controlling for military occupation, minority officers have 

been promoted at lower rates than white officers. There is also evidence that, in some Services, for 

some pay grades, and during some periods, female officers have had lower promotion rates than male 

officers. Also, minority enlisted members have lower promotion rates than other enlisted members.

These results do not, however, necessarily mean that the military personnel system does not 

provide fair promotion opportunities for all its members. Therefore, the next step was to look more 

closely at the promotion system to understand whether and how it may have contributed to creating 

the observed promotion gaps. Specifically, the Promotion Subcommittee examined three aspects of 

the promotion system, looking especially for sources of bias, either individual or institutional:

• the officer promotion board process—the laws, policies, and practices related to board 

composition, precept language, and the review and evaluation of candidates’ records

• inputs to the promotion board—the assignment histories and performance evaluations 

that make up candidates’ records1

• the Services’ efforts to educate their members about the promotion process and 

promotion opportunities—the extent to which such efforts are, or are perceived to be, 

equally effective for members of all demographic groups.

The subcommittee evaluated each of these areas by reviewing relevant laws, policies, and 

practices as described and provided by Service representatives and/or available in the public domain. 

In addition, the subcommittee supplemented the Services’ information by reviewing the results of 

surveys that asked servicemembers themselves whether they think the promotion processes and the 

promotion opportunities provided by their Services are fair.

 1

 Note that the Promotion Subcommittee evaluated the contribution of assignment histories on a surface level. For a 

more in-depth discussion, refer to Decision Paper #2.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

3

Commission-Approved Recommendations Related to Promotion2

Based on the results of the Promotion Subcommittee’s examination of actual promotion outcomes 

and its evaluation of the Services’ promotion systems, the Commission makes the following 

promotion-related recommendations:

Recommendation 1—

The Services should report enlisted and officer promotion rates based on a common 

definition of demographic groups, a common methodology, and a common reporting 

structure to the Secretary of Defense. Specific deviations for demographic groups and

career fields should be investigated for underlying causes, and corrective actions should 

be taken as appropriate.

• a. Each Service shall make the promotion and/or selection rate of 

underrepresented groups a key metric of the Services’ success in creating an 

inclusive environment.

Recommendation 2—

DoD should continue to require that its Services use a common survey instrument to 

monitor and periodically report on servicemembers’ perceptions about promotion 

opportunities. The Coast Guard should participate in this effort. DoD and the Services 

should take corrective actions whenever negative perceptions emerge or persist.

Recommendation 3—

The Services shall ensure that promotion board precepts provide guidance regarding 

Service-directed special assignments outside of normal career paths and/or fields. As 

appropriate, senior raters’ evaluations should acknowledge when a servicemember has 

deviated from the due-course path at the specific request of his/her leadership.

Recommendation 4—

DoD and the Services must ensure that there is transparency throughout the entire 

promotion system so that servicemembers may better understand performance 

expectations and promotion criteria and processes.

• a. The Services shall educate and counsel all servicemembers on the importance 

of, and their responsibility for, a complete promotion board packet.

 2

 The recommendations discussed in this decision paper are the Commission-approved, topic-specific 

recommendations that resulted from the Commission’s understanding and interpretation of the findings from this 

subcommittee. Following the approval of all of the subcommittee-specific recommendations, the Commission 

developed its final recommendations by combining recommendations across subcommittees to reduce overlap and 

repetition. Therefore, the recommendations presented in this paper do not map directly to the recommendations 

presented in the Commission’s forthcoming final report.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

4

Organization of This Paper

This decision paper is structured around the strategy for addressing the charter tasks. It begins by 

showing promotion rates by race, ethnicity, and gender for each Service and for both officers and 

enlisted personnel. Following from the result that promotion rates are, in fact, lower for minority 

and, in some cases, female officers, the next section presents the subcommittee’s evaluation of 

different aspects of the officer promotion system. The third section reviews the Services’ efforts to 

educate their members about promotion processes and opportunities. The decision paper concludes 

with a discussion of the recommendations and how they emerged from the subcommittee’s 

investigation.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

5

PROMOTION OUTCOMES BY RACE, ETHNICITY, AND GENDER

During the December 2009 meeting, the Services briefed the Commission on officer and enlisted 

promotion rates for men and women and members of different race and ethnicity groups. This 

section of the decision paper summarizes these rates and presents the key findings from these 

briefings.

It is important to acknowledge what the data presented here do and do not indicate about racial, 

ethnic, and gender differences in promotion outcomes and the overall fairness of the promotion 

system. Demographic differences in promotion outcomes do not, on their own, indicate that there is 

bias in the promotion process. Instead, they simply show whether there are average, aggregate 

differences in promotion outcomes between men and women and between minorities and whites. 

They also show whether such differences are large enough to merit additional attention to identify 

their underlying causes.3

Data Sources, Data Limitations, and Definitions

Data Sources

Except where otherwise noted, the data for this section come from the Service briefings presented at 

the December 2009 MLDC meeting and span, at most, the four fiscal years (FYs) from FY 2007 to 

FY 2010.

For officers, all five Services presented line officer promotion rates for FY 2008 and FY 2009, but 

the Marine Corps did not present rates for FY 2007, and the Army and the Air Force did not 

present rates for FY 2010. The Navy and the Coast Guard presented promotion rates from FY 2007 

to FY 2010.4 The Commission requested data for line officers for two reasons. First, the majority of 

military officers, and especially senior officers,5 are line officers—commanders of warships, ground 

combat units, combat aviation units, and combat support units. Officers who are not line officers are 

those whose primary duties are in noncombat specialties, including chaplains, lawyers, supply 

officers, and medical officers. Second, looking only at promotion rates for line officers controls for 

some occupation-specific factors that may affect the promotion of females and racial or ethnic 

minorities; combining line and non–line officers could mask or exaggerate differences in male/female 

or white/minority promotion rates.

For enlisted personnel, the four DoD Services presented promotion rates for senior NCOs from 

all military specialties. The promotion rates for the Air Force, the Army, and the Marine Corps6

span three fiscal years (FY 2007 through FY 2009), and the Navy data span four (FY 2007 through 

FY 2010). The Coast Guard did not present data on enlisted promotion because of data limitations 

and because its senior enlisted personnel do not promote via a board process.7

 3 The main findings related to this question can also be found in Issue Paper #45 and Issue Paper #47.

4

 All Coast Guard and Marine Corps officers are considered line officers.

5

 See Decision Paper #2 and Issue Paper #23.

6 The Marine Corps did not provide enlisted promotion rates for FY 2007–FY 2010 at the December 2009 

briefings. Instead, data for FY 1999, FY 2004, and FY 2007 were provided. Major Ryan W. Reilly provided enlisted 

promotion data from the Marine Corps to the Center for Naval Analysis on February 18, 2010.

7 Advancement rates for the enlisted Coast Guard are unavailable because the number of enlisted members of the 

Coast Guard who are eligible to advance is not recorded.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

6

For both officers and enlisted personnel, the data tables present average promotion rates 

(calculated from all the data provided, not just the common years) rather than trends over time.

Data Limitations

The enlisted promotion rates provided by the Services and presented here are “raw” rates in that they 

do not control for factors other than race, ethnicity, and gender that have been shown to affect 

enlisted promotion outcomes (e.g., occupation, education level, and entrance exam score). The officer 

promotion rates are for line officers only, so they include a rough occupation control but no other 

controls that have been shown to matter (e.g., accession source, college grades, and marital status) 

(Hosek et al., 2001). This means that the raw rates may be picking up the effects of underlying 

differences in characteristics other than race, ethnicity, or gender. Thus, rather than providing the 

basis for strong policy recommendations, these comparisons of raw rates highlight areas for further 

investigation.

Additionally, all recent (FY 2007–2010) officer promotion rates reported, except for the Army, 

are for those promoted in the zone. Promotion zones, as defined by U.S. Code, Title 10, are 

eligibility categories for the consideration of officers by a mandatory promotion board. The most 

junior officer in the zone defines the lower bound and the most senior in the zone defines the upper 

bound for a particular competitive category. Above-the-zone (AZ) officers are officers that are senior 

to the most senior officer in the zone for that competitive category and are still eligible for promotion 

to the next grade. Below-the-zone (BZ) officers are those who are junior to the most junior officer in 

the zone for that competitive category and are eligible to be considered for promotion to the next 

grade. The majority of officers are promoted in-zone, and, thus, the promotion rates that we 

calculated (except for the Army) are for officers who are in-zone.8

Race and Ethnicity Categories

The race and ethnicity categories used in the Services’ presentations differed from those used in other 

decision papers and those defined in Issue Paper #1. The most substantive difference is that race and 

ethnicity are defined separately, such that the racial and ethnic groups are not mutually exclusive. 

Thus, the race and ethnicity categories are as follows:

• black, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic

• Hispanic, all races

• “other,” Hispanic and non-Hispanic (this includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, American 

Indians, Alaska natives, and individuals reporting more than one race).9

For readability, we refer to Hispanic and non-Hispanic blacks as “blacks” and members of the 

Hispanic and non-Hispanic “other” group as “others.”

 8

 The Services did not consistently report promotion rates for AZ and BZ, and the time constraints of the MLDC 

did not allow for investigation into and resulting discussion of promotion rates for demographic groups within these 

two other zones. 

9

 The Services are not consistent in defining race and ethnicity groups beyond white, black, and Hispanic. The Navy 

allows respondents to pick Asian/Pacific Islander/Native American (A/PI/NA), the Air Force and the Marine 

Corps refer to a fourth group as “other” (which therefore includes A/PI/NA), the Coast Guard has two additional 

groups (A/PI/NA and “other”), and the Army has three additional groups (A/PI, NA, and “other”). Where rates are 

available for multiple groups, we present a rate that has been averaged across groups.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

7

Promotion Outcomes for Officers

Recent Outcomes for Officers

For context, Table 1 shows overall average promotion rates for all five Services. The data show that, 

over each Service’s data period, the likelihood of advancement varied by Service. In particular, officers 

in the Army were promoted at the highest rates. With the exception of the Army at pay grades O-4 

and O-5, the rates in Table 1 are comparable to the desired active-duty promotion rates given by 

U.S. Department of Defense (2009)—80, 70, and 50 percent for promotion to O-4, O-5, and O-6, 

respectively, with a 10-percentage point variance around each of these percentages.

Table 1. Recent Line Officer Promotion Rates

Average Promotion Rate (%)

Pay Grade Navy Air Force Army Marine Corps Coast Guard

O-4 84 90 94 87 82

O-5 79 76 90 69 73

O-6 55 45 57 52 58

NOTES: Navy and Coast Guard averages are based on data from FY 2007 to FY 2010, Army and Air Force averages are based on data 

from FY 2007 to FY 2009, and Marine Corps averages are based on data from FY 2008 to FY 2010.

Table 2 compares promotion rates for officers in each minority demographic group and in each 

Service with each Service- and pay grade–specific average.

10 Black officers in all five Services had 

below-average promotion rates to O-4 and O-5. The gaps were largest in the Navy and smallest in 

the Army. Except in the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard, black officers’ promotion rates to O-6 

were within a few percentage points of the overall Service-specific rate. The promotion rates of black 

officers in the Coast Guard are difficult to interpret because there were few black officers in the 

Coast Guard. On average, in each of the four years for which data were provided, there were 21, 

seven, and one black officers eligible for promotion to O-4, O-5, and O-6, respectively, in the Coast 

Guard.

For Hispanic officers, the Coast Guard had the greatest difference compared with the overall 

promotion rate to O-4. For the other Services, Hispanic officer promotion rates to O-4 were slightly 

below average. Except in the Army, Hispanics were also promoted to O-5 at below-average rates. 

The largest gap at the O-5 level was in the Marine Corps. In the Navy, the Air Force, and the 

Marine Corps, Hispanics were also behind in rates of promotion to O-6. Although promotion rates 

were generally below average for Hispanic officers, Hispanic promotion rates were typically not as 

low as black promotion rates.

 10 Any differences that are noted here and for subsequent promotion rates are not based on statistical tests for 

significance, unless otherwise stated. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

8

Table 2. Recent Average Line Officer Promotion Rates to O-4, O-5, and O-6, by Service, Race, Ethnicity, and 

Gender

Average Line Officer Promotion Rate (%)

Pay Grade Navy Air Force Army Marine Corps Coast Guard

Black Overall Black Overall Black Overall Black Overall Black Overall

O-4 68 84 86 90 90 94 79 87 64 82

O-5 51 79 66 76 83 90 51 69 54 73

O-6 53 55 42 45 54 57 44 52 17 58

Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall

O-4 83 84 88 90 93 94 84 87 75 82

O-5 71 79 70 76 90 90 57 69 70 73

O-6 48 55 34 45 58 57 45 52 71 58

Other Overall Other Overall Other Overall Other Overall Other Overall

O-4 87 84 83 90 93 94 90 87 69 82

O-5 71 79 68 76 83 90 54 69 43 73

O-6 57 55 40 45 53 57 67 52 19 58

Female Overall Female Overall Female Overall Female Overall Female Overall

O-4 74 84 90 90 93 94 86 87 69 78

O-5 75 79 75 76 86 90 71 69 43 64

O-6 64 55 47 45 46 57 68 52 19 54

NOTES: Promotion rates do not distinguish between male and female officers. They also do not distinguish between Hispanic and nonHispanic blacks, Hispanics of different races, or between Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans, etc.

Only in the Air Force and the Coast Guard did “other” officers have promotion rates to O-4 that 

were substantially below the overall Service-specific promotion rate to that grade. Other officers in 

each Service had below-average promotion rates to O-5. Most noticeably, “other” officers had very 

low promotion rates in the Coast Guard. The O-6 promotion rates of “other” officers also lagged 

behind the overall rates in the Air Force, the Army, and the Coast Guard. The promotion rates of 

“other” officers in the Coast Guard are difficult to interpret because there were few of these officers 

in the Coast Guard. On average, there were 15, eight, and four of these officers eligible for 

promotion to O-4, O-5, and O-6, respectively, in the Coast Guard in each of the four years.

Finally, female officers in the Navy and the Coast Guard had below-average promotion rates to 

O-4 and O-5. In the Army, female officers also had below-average promotion rates to O-5.

Although female officers had below-average promotion rates to O-6 in the Army and the Coast 

Guard, female officers’ O-6 promotion rates were well above average in the Navy and the Marine 

Corps. The promotion rates of female officers in the Coast Guard are difficult to interpret because 

there were few female officers in the Coast Guard. On average, there were 50, 21, and eight female 

officers at the O-4, O-5, and O-6 levels, respectively, in the Coast Guard in each of the four years.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

9

Promotion Rates to O-7 and to O-8

The consideration of flag officer promotion rates requires an important caveat. The minority 

representation in the eligible populations for promotion to O-7 and O-8 can be very small. In those 

circumstances, a single promotion can cause a minority promotion rate to change substantially. We 

discuss flag officer promotion rates only for descriptive reference and not to recommend changes to 

promotion policies.

When females have been promoted to O-7 and O-8, their promotion rates have roughly equaled 

the Service averages. This is also true of Asians/Pacific Islanders, except for promotions to O-8 in 

the Coast Guard. Although Hispanics have had well-above-average promotion rates to O-7 in the

Marine Corps and the Coast Guard, the promotion rates of blacks to this pay grade have been below 

average for these Services. Blacks and Hispanics have experienced very low promotion rates to O-8 in 

the Army and the Marine Corps. Table 3 displays these results for promotions to O-7; Table 4 

displays these results for promotions to O-8.

Table 3. Recent Average Line Officer Promotion Rates to Flag/General Officer Rank, O-7

Average Promotion Rate to O-7 (%)

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Air Force Army Coast Guard Marine Corps Navy

Overall 3 2 3 7 2

Black 2 2 0 0 5

Hispanic 1 1 15 16 2

Asian/PI 4 2 0 0 5

Female 3 1 1 0 4

NOTE: The Coast Guard did not distinguish among O-7, O-8, and O-9 in the promotion of flag officers.

Table 4. Recent Average Line Officer Promotion Rates to Flag/General Officer Rank, O-8

Average Promotion Rate to O-8 (%)

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Air Force Army Marine Corps

Overall 38 41 88

Black 45 31 33

Hispanic 25 0 0

Asian/PI 50 50 33

Female 39 37 0

NOTES: The Coast Guard did not distinguish among O-7, O-8, and O-9 in the promotion of flag officers. The Navy did not present 

promotion rates to O-8 at the meeting in December 2009.

Promotion rates to O-7 were very low because, according to Title 10, the number of O-7s should 

be about 3–4 percent of the number of O-6s for each force (Powers, 2010). Title 10 allows for a ratio 

of O-8s to O-7s—between two-fifths and two-thirds for each force—that is relatively high compared 

with the ratio of O-7s to O-6s.11

 11 The allowed ratios of O-9s to O-8s are also roughly bounded between two-fifths and two-thirds.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

10

Summary of Recent Officer Promotion Outcomes

In several cases, the data show that promotion rates from O-4 to O-6 for several minority groups 

were lower than the average. In particular,

• In all Services, black officers’ promotion rates were substantially lower than the pay grade–

specific average promotion rates for their respective Services.

• Except in the Army, Hispanic officers’ promotion rates were below the Service- and pay 

grade–specific averages. Across the Services, Hispanic officers tended to have higher 

promotion rates than black officers.

• Officers from other race and ethnicity groups in each Service had substantially lower-thanaverage promotion rates to O-5. In the Air Force and Coast Guard, their promotion rates to 

O-4 were also below average.

• Female officers in the Navy and the Coast Guard had substantially lower-than-average 

promotion rates to O-4 and O-5.

Historical Promotion Outcomes for Officers

To investigate a little more fully the robustness of the findings presented in the previous section, the 

Promotion Subcommittee compared the recent results provided by the Services with results from a 

2001 study by Hosek et al. that covered a much longer time frame and controlled for other personal 

characteristics beyond race, ethnicity, and gender. (Time and resource constraints did not allow for 

the subcommittee to do this type of analysis itself.) Specifically, for officers who were commissioned 

between 1967 and 1991, Hosek et al. (2001) used regression analysis to separate the effects of race 

and gender on promotion outcomes from the effects of other factors, including prior enlisted service,

accession source, academy, Reserve Officers’ Training Corps [ROTC] scholarship, ROTC regular, 

Officer Candidates School/ Officer Training School, direct appointment), a more detailed 

occupation breakout (executive, intelligence, engineering and maintenance, administration, 

supply/procurement), and accession cohort. These controls allow for stronger conclusions than can be 

drawn from the analysis of raw promotion rates.

Table 5 summarizes the results of Hosek et al.’s analysis of promotion outcomes for different 

minority groups compared with white males. For example, the “–4” in the top left cell indicates that

black male officers were 4 percentage points less likely to be promoted from O-3 to O-4 than 

comparable white male officers competing in the same promotion window. From this data, we can 

see that, during the relevant years, black males were less likely than white males to be promoted to 

O-4 and O-5. Similarly, other minority males were less likely than white males to be promoted to O4.

For minorities, the recent promotion rates presented in Table 2 are similar to the past rates 

computed by Hosek et al. (2001). Specifically, black officers continued to have below-average 

promotion rates to O-4 and O-5. Similarly, Hispanics (i.e., other minorities) had Service-specific 

promotion rates to O-4 that were lower than the overall average promotion rates to that pay grade.

This gives credence to the idea that these racial or ethnic differences in recent rates still hold even 

after controlling for other factors, and it indicates that some of these historical promotion disparities 

have persisted.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

11

Table 5. Regression-Adjusted Promotion Outcomes for Officers Commissioned Between 1967 and 1991 

Differences in Promotion Rates for Row Group vs. White Male Officers

Race, Gender O-3 to O-4 O-4 to O-5 O-5 to O-6

Black, male –4* –6* +5

Other minority, male –8*

White, female +5* 0 +3

Black, female –4 –6

Other minority, female –6 –3

SOURCE: Hosek et al., 2001.

NOTES: As the authors report, these values are rounded to the nearest integer. An asterisk (*) indicates that an estimate is statistically 

significant. An empty cell indicates an instance for which the sample size was too small to estimate a promotion rate differential. The 

promotions to O-4, O-5, and O-6 took place in 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1980.

Promotion Outcomes for Enlisted Personnel

Following the same structure as the discussion of officer promotion outcomes, the presentation of 

enlisted outcomes begins with overall average rates for each Service that provided data, then proceeds 

to the discussion of how minority and female rates vary from the Service- and pay grade–specific 

averages.

The data in Table 6 show that, for FY 2007–FY 2009/FY 2010, the likelihood of advancement 

varied by Service. Marine Corps NCOs were more likely to advance than NCOs in the other 

Services. Advancement also varied by pay grade. In the Navy, the Air Force, and the Army, enlisted 

servicemembers were more likely to be promoted to E-7 than to either E-8 or E-9.12

Table 6. Average Promotion Rates to E-7, E-8, and E-9, by Service

Average Promotion Rate (%)

Pay Grade Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy

E-7 23 28 35 21

E-8 9 14 48 11

E-9 19 22 43 11

NOTES: Navy and Coast Guard averages are based on data from FY 2007 to FY 2010, Army and Air Force averages are based on data 

from FY 2007 to FY 2009, and Marine Corps averages are based on data from FY 2008 to FY 2010.

Table 7 shows that, in the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy, the promotion rates of black 

NCOs were equal to or within a couple of percentage points of the average rates for E-7 through E9. In the Marine Corps, however, the promotion rates of black NCOs were substantially below 

average for all three pay grades.

In all the Services, Hispanics’ promotion rates to E-7 through E-9 were generally equal to or 

within a couple of percentage points of the overall Service average. There were exceptions: In the 

 12 Similar to limits set with officers, Title 10 sets the authorized daily average number of enlisted members on active 

duty (other than for training) in an armed force in pay grades E–8 and E–9 in a fiscal year to not be more than 2.5 

percent and 1.25 percent, respectively.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

12

Army, Hispanic NCOs had higher-than-average promotion rates to E-7; in the Marine Corps, they 

had lower-than-average promotion rates to E-8. The promotion rates in Table 4 show that Hispanic 

NCOs had higher promotion rates than black NCOs in the Marine Corps and, to some extent, the 

Army.

Only in the Marine Corps were “other” NCOs’ promotion rates to E-7 more than 2 percentage 

points below the overall promotion rate to E-7 between FY 2007 and FY 2010. Only in the Navy 

was the “other” NCOs’ promotion rate to E-8 more than a couple of percentage points below the 

overall average. “Other” NCOs in all four Services had below-average promotion rates to E-9; the 

difference was only greater than a few percentage points in the Air Force.

In the Navy and the Air Force, women’s promotion rates were equal to or greater than the 

average rates for all three pay grades. In the Army and the Marine Corps, female NCOs promoted to 

E-7 at higher-than-average rates, but they promoted to E-8 and E-9 at lower-than-average rates. In 

the Marine Corps, the differences between the female and average rates were substantial: The female 

promotion rate to E-7 was 6 percentage points greater than the average, and the female promotion 

rate to E-9 was 12 percentage points below the average.

Table 7. Average Promotion Rates to E-7, E-8, and E-9, by Service, Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

Average Promotion Rate (%)

Pay Grade Air Force Army Marine Corps Navy

Black Overall Black Overall Black Overall Black Overall

E-7 23 23 26 28 26 35 21 21

E-8 10 9 18 14 42 48 10 11

E-9 17 19 19 22 38 43 11 11

Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall Hispanic Overall

E-7 22 23 32 28 33 35 21 21

E-8 11 9 16 14 44 48 12 11

E-9 17 19 21 22 45 43 13 11

Other Overall Other Overall Other Overall Other Overall

E-7 24 23 31 28 31 35 21 21

E-8 8 9 17 14 49 48 8 11

E-9 11 19 21 22 40 43 10 11

Female Overall Female Overall Female Overall Female Overall

E-7 22 23 30 28 41 35 20 21

E-8 11 9 11 14 45 48 11 11

E-9 19 19 18 22 31 43 11 11

NOTES: Promotion rates do not distinguish between male and female officers (unless stated). For blacks, they do not distinguish 

between Hispanic and non-Hispanic blacks. For Hispanics, they do not distinguish between white and non-white Hispanics, and for 

Asian/Pacific Islander, do not distinguish between Asians, Pacific Islanders, and Native Americans. Female rates do not make any 

distinction between different races or ethnicities.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

13

Summary of Recent Enlisted Promotion Outcomes

The raw promotion rates presented by the Services and summarized here indicate that there were a 

few cases, especially in the Marine Corps, in which advancement differed by race, ethnicity, and 

gender, but that below-average rates for minority NCOs are not the widespread phenomenon they 

are for officers. Here are the key findings:

• Black marines had substantially lower-than-average promotion rates to E-7, E-8, and E9.

• Hispanic marines had promotion rates to E-7 and E-8 that were somewhat lower than 

average.

• “Other” airmen had a substantially lower-than-average promotion rate to E-9. “Other” 

marines had a promotion rate to E-7 that was somewhat below average.

• Female marines had a substantially lower-than-average promotion rate to E-9 but a 

higher-than-average promotion rate to E-7. Female soldiers had a slightly below-average 

promotion rate to E-8 and E-9.

Summary

The most important takeaway from the analysis of promotion outcomes is that minority officers have 

lower promotion rates than white officers for pay grades O-4 to O-6. With only a few exceptions—

for example, Hispanic Army officers—this pattern appears to hold for all Services and minority 

groups, and it appears to have persisted over time and to hold up even when controlling for military 

occupation.13 Thus, this result is sufficiently robust to warrant additional investigation.

The gender differences for officers and the racial, ethnic, and gender differences for enlisted 

personnel are more varied across both Services and pay grades and thus do not signal the same 

widespread, persistent majority-minority gap. For female officers, recent promotion rates signal 

promotion rate gaps for a few of the Services. The differences in the historical promotion rates for 

female officers from the Hosek et al. (2001) paper and recent promotion rates for this group indicate 

that differences in promotion rates can change over time.14 Past promotion rates cannot always 

predict future promotion rates, and rates should be continuously monitored.

 13 To reiterate, the occupation controls for the recent promotion rate are rough, accounting only for the distinction 

between line officers and other officers. Hosek et al.’s 2001 study of past promotion rates included morecomprehensive controls.

14 Hosek et al.’s (2001) analyses do not distinguish between Service and also do not distinguish between all race and 

ethnicity groups within the female category. For this reason, it is not clear how recent promotion rate gaps directly 

map to historical promotion rate gaps, but the noted difference between the two does remind the reader that current 

rates may not predict future rates.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

14

FAIRNESS IN THE OFFICER PROMOTION PROCESS

To directly address issues of fairness in the military promotion system, the Promotion Subcommittee 

examined two main aspects of the officer promotion process. First, the subcommittee reviewed the 

laws, policies, and practices related to the promotion board process itself, defined chronologically as 

the time between the convening of a promotion board and its selection of officers for promotion. 

Second, the subcommittee looked at inputs to the board process, defined as the events that take place 

before a board is convened. In both investigations, the subcommittee looked for potential sources of 

individual and institutional bias.

The subcommittee focused on the officer promotion process because the charter tasks explicitly 

directed the Commission to investigate promotion fairness for the officer corps and because the 

below-average promotion rates for minority officers indicate that there could indeed be unfairness in 

that system.

The Officer Promotion System Defined by U.S. Code, Title 10

Officer promotion is competitive beyond O-3, and the process is largely defined by various provisions 

of Title 10 of the U.S. Code, combined with DoD Directives and other guidance. Here, the 

Promotion Subcommittee calls out four features of the system and their implications for its 

examination of fairness in the promotion process.

First, Title 10 stipulates that officers must be grouped into functionally related career fields. 

These groupings are known as competitive categories because officers in each grouping compete only 

among themselves for promotion. Although Title 10 requires the Services to have competitive 

categories, it allows each Service to define its own categories within DoD guidelines.

Second, the law requires each Service secretary to determine the maximum number of officers 

that each promotion board may recommend for promotion. According to the law, this number 

should be based on the number of positions needed to achieve the mission in each grade in each 

competitive category, as well as the number of officers needed to fill vacancies in the relevant time 

period.

The competitive aspect of the system emerges because there are typically more officers eligible for 

promotion than can be selected. Thus, the third important feature of the system is the selection 

criteria defined in Title 10. According to the law, candidates must be selected based on the “best and

fully qualified” standard.15

Finally, eligibility for promotion is defined by both Title 10 and DoD guidelines in terms of time 

in Service and time in grade, which function as proxies for experience. Within this construct, each 

competitive category has a well-established sequence (or set of sequences) of tours or assignments 

that each officer should have within the prescribed time frame. These sequences are known as duecourse career paths. Key credentials and milestones include professional military education (PME) 

and/or the acquisition of civilian advanced degrees, selection for a command position,16 and 

outstanding performance in key assignments (as evidenced by evaluations), such as joint assignments.

 15 Even when the number of promotions allowed is the same as the number of eligible officers, the best-and-fullyqualified standard must be met.

16 The process of selecting officers for command is similar to that used for making promotions. To achieve the 

highest possible level of performance, the Services must select the best fully qualified officers eligible for command. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

15

The first two features of the system mean that the promotion selection process can create 

demographic differences in advancement rates only within, not across, competitive categories. 

Demographic differences in promotion rates that arise because of demographic differences in 

branching or occupational assignments are the result of how the Services apportion promotion 

opportunities across competitive categories. The Promotion Subcommittee addressed the former and 

the Branching and Assignments Subcommittee addressed the latter. The third and fourth features of 

the system mean that becoming best and fully qualified is about getting the right experience in the 

allotted time and being evaluated highly.

The Promotion Board Process

Promotion boards are statutory selection boards because many of the rules governing them are found 

in Title 10.

17 The subcommittee assessed the extent to which the rules governing four aspects of the 

promotion board process were likely to introduce or minimize institutional and individual bias. This 

subsection describes these four aspects of the promotion board process and the efforts undertaken to 

remain fair and objective within each one.

18

Board Composition

The basic composition of promotion boards is defined in Title 10, Section 612. All promotion 

boards must consist of five or more officers on the active-duty list who must be serving in a grade 

higher than the grade of the officers under consideration. Each board member must be serving in 

grade O-4 or higher, and each board must include at least one officer from the competitive category 

of officers to be considered for promotion. There are also provisions for reserve and joint 

representation. Officers may not sit on consecutive boards.

In addition, most Services maintain that the racial, ethnic, and gender mix of the promotion 

board members should be a consideration. The Service briefings presented at the fall 2009 meetings 

do not explicitly say why this is a consideration, but there may be an underlying assumption that a 

demographically diverse board is more likely to evaluate a demographically diverse candidate pool 

fairly than is a homogeneous board (Roth et al., 2003).

Constructing a demographically representative promotion board can be a challenge, particularly 

for the smaller Services. Several issue papers show that the officer corps is majority white and male 

and that the senior officer corps is proportionally more white and male than the junior officer corps 

(Issue Paper #19). Nevertheless, policy set forth by the Secretary of the Air Force holds that the 

board composition should be similar to the racial, ethnic, and gender mix of the pool of eligible 

officers, and Army and Marine Corps guidance calls for ethnic and gender representation on boards 

to the extent that the officer population allows. The Coast Guard and Navy briefings to the

Commission did not indicate that the racial, ethnic, and gender mix of their statutory boards was 

 

For officers, selection for command is a key career milestone that is critical for advancement to the highest ranks. 

The integrity of the selection processes for both promotion and command must be maintained by selecting the best 

fully qualified officers by evaluating training, experience, and performance and not such criteria as race, ethnicity, or 

gender.

17 See Title 10, Sections 611–618. The Coast Guard follows similar law in Title 14, so where Title 10 is cited for 

the military Services, it is implied that related sections of Title 14 or other similar law apply to the Coast Guard.

More generally, Title 10 forces similar timing of promotions to the various pay grades and establishes similar up-orout career progression rules across the military Services. 

18 This information is also presented in Issue Paper #34.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

16

specifically considered, although other Navy sources suggest that the racial, ethnic, and gender mix of 

the board is a concern (Navy Personnel Command, Bureau of Naval Personnel, n.d.).

Precept Language

Department of Defense Instruction (DoDI) 1320.14 grants authority to the Secretaries of the 

military departments to issue written instructions to selection boards and gives guidance on what 

those written instructions may include. In particular, Services may include “guidelines to ensure the 

consideration of all eligible officers without prejudice or partiality” (U.S. Department of Defense, 

1996, p. 6).

The military Services’ current practices regarding providing equal opportunity instructions to 

promotion boards vary slightly, although all adhere to DoDI 1320.14. Some of the Services expand 

on the DoD guidelines. For example, Department of the Navy guidance allows Navy and Marine 

Corps promotion board precepts to include the following language: “[T]o determine those officers 

who are best and fully qualified, you must ensure that officers are not disadvantaged because of their 

race, religious preference, ethnicity, gender, or national origin” (U.S. Department of the Navy, 1996). 

The Army instructs its boards that they may take into consideration the fact that there has been past 

institutional discrimination but that they may not consider or grant any preferences based on past 

discrimination. The Air Force brief indicated that the Air Force does not expand on DoDI 1320.14 

in instructing its boards on equal opportunity matters. DoDI 1320.14 does not cover the Coast 

Guard, but the Coast Guard briefing and documents subsequently sent to the Commission 

concerning promotion board precepts suggest that the Coast Guard follows the spirit of DoDI 

1320.14. Thus, the precepts include specific language that instructs and reminds board members that 

promotion decisions are not to be based on race, ethnicity, or gender.

Content of Eligible Officer Records

General Information

All the Services said that the review and evaluation of eligible officer records—the information 

supplied to the board for each eligible officer—was central to identifying officers for promotion. 

Common features of eligible officer records include the list of all of the positions that officers have 

held, the results of evaluations by commanding officers, training and education milestones, and 

information about other qualifications and subspecialty achievements. Finally, all the Services allow 

eligible officers to write a letter to the board highlighting particular achievements.

Racial, Ethnic, and Gender-Specific Information

Knowledge of eligible officers’ race, ethnicity, or gender could affect how candidates are evaluated by 

the board. In some situations, such knowledge could lead to a fairer evaluation of the officer. For 

example, knowing that an officer is a woman may explain why she has not held certain positions, 

particularly in combat; it could justify what might otherwise be considered an inferior record. 

However, there is also concern that, if boards know the race, ethnicity, and gender of eligible officers, 

the promotion process may be less fair. For example, there is some experimental research that shows 

that private-sector job candidates with black-sounding names are less likely to be granted interviews 

than are candidates with white-sounding names, even if the résumés submitted are identical 

(Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). Similarly, Goldin and Rouse (2000) found that “blind” auditions 

for orchestra positions, in which a screen hides the identity of the person auditioning, “fostered 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

17

impartiality in hiring and increased the proportion of women in symphony orchestras” compared 

with auditions in which the person auditioning was seen by evaluators.

Information on the race, ethnicity, and gender of officers could be revealed in several ways: Race, 

ethnicity, and gender could be reported directly to the board as part of the official personnel record; 

the Services may require officers to include a photograph in their records, which could reveal race, 

ethnicity, or gender; and the gender (and, possibly, the race or ethnicity) of eligible officers may be 

revealed by including the full names of the eligible officers or in the use of pronouns or other 

descriptive language in evaluations by commanding officers.

Drawing from the Services’ briefings and other information provided by the Services, Table 8 

summarizes what type of information about the race, ethnicity, and gender of eligible officers is made 

available to promotion boards and the reasons for providing the information. The Marine Corps 

reports the race, ethnicity, and gender of eligible officers to the board. In addition, it requires each 

eligible officer to submit a photograph so that board members can review the candidate’s physical 

bearing and see whether the uniform is being worn properly.19 The Army has essentially the same 

reporting and requirements as the Marine Corps and applies them for the same reasons. The Navy 

does not report the race, ethnicity, and gender of candidates to its boards, but it does require that 

photographs be submitted as part of the eligible officer package. The Navy dropped the photograph 

requirement in 2006, but it was reinstated by the Chief of Naval Personnel only a year later because 

he felt that the board should consider military bearing.20 The Air Force eliminated the use of 

photographs in the promotion process in 1995 and has not reported the race, ethnicity, or gender of 

the eligible officers to selection boards since 2002. In addition, it has discouraged the use of genderspecific pronouns in officer evaluations. The Coast Guard does not allow race, ethnicity, or gender to 

be indicated in eligible officer records, does not use photographs at promotion boards, and, in officer 

evaluations, does not allow gender-specific pronouns and other descriptive language (including 

names) that indicates the officer’s race, ethnicity, or gender. The information in Table 8 suggests that 

the Coast Guard promotion boards receive the least amount of information on the race, ethnicity, 

and gender of eligible officers.

The Promotion Subcommittee is not aware of any research that examines whether the evidence 

from the civilian sector on how knowledge of race, ethnicity, and gender biases the evaluation of 

current and potential employees extends to military promotion boards. More research is required to 

test this hypothesis, and the variation across the Services in terms of the amount of knowledge that 

the boards have may provide an opportunity for doing so.

 19 For example, the photograph allows the board to compare the officers’ list of medals and awards reported in their 

personnel record with the uniform worn in the photograph.

20 At the December 2009 MLDC meeting, the Navy representative also said that there was concern about officers 

appearing to be physically fit, even though the results of physical fitness reports are available in eligible officer 

records. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

18

Table 8. Information About Race, Ethnicity, and Gender Provided to Officer Promotion Boards

Service

Race, Ethnicity, and 

Gender Stated in 

Packages?

Photographs Included in 

the Process?

Reason for the Inclusion 

of Photographs

Evaluations Include 

Gender Pronouns

Air Force No No N/A Discouraged

Army Yes Yes Review of military bearing, 

medals

Yes

Coast Guard No No N/A No

Marine Corps Yes Yes Review of military bearing, 

medals

Yes

Navy No Yes, except from 2005 

through early 2007

Review of military bearing Yes

NOTES: N/A means that the information is not applicable. The Coast Guard was the only Service that indicated in its briefing 

presentation that the names of the eligible officers were not included in the information made available to boards.

Review and Evaluation of Eligible Officer Records

The main work of the promotion board is to rank the eligible officers for selection to promote. Title 

10, Section 613, requires each board member to swear that “he will perform his duties as a member 

of the board without prejudice or partiality and having in view both the special fitness of officers and 

the efficiency of his armed force.” The Air Force briefing summarized the key criteria considered in 

evaluating applicants, criteria that are similar across the Services and, more importantly, on the 

surface, are race-, ethnicity-, and gender-neutral:

• performance

• professional qualities

• leadership

• job responsibility

• achievements (qualifications and awards)

• career development education and training

• academic education.

As noted, the Services attempt to create board membership that mirrors the demographic mix of 

the eligible officer pool, with the goal of making the evaluation process as fair as possible. 

Nevertheless, individual board members may have conscious or unconscious biases against officers of 

a particular race, ethnicity, or gender, and this bias may affect the fairness of their evaluations of 

officers’ records. Unfortunately, these biases may be subtle, and there may be little that the Services 

can do about them. Thus, the relevant concern is whether the features of the review and evaluation 

process accentuate or diminish these potential underlying biases.

A key feature common to all of the Service board evaluation processes is that every eligible record 

is considered by every board member. In one approach, every board member reviews and scores each

record; some Services have board members review and score records simultaneously, while other 

Services allow board members to review and score records individually, at their own pace.

21 In 

another approach, each eligible officer record is randomly assigned to and reviewed by one board 

member; that board member is responsible for summarizing the salient features of the record, scoring 

 21 The Army uses the latter method.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

19

the record (in some cases), and then briefing the record to the rest of the board.22 The record is 

available to the rest of the board during the briefing. After the briefing, the board members score the 

record.23 Regardless of the approach used, Title 10, which forbids board members from introducing 

negative information that is not in the official records, further ensures that the process is objective.

Some concern has been expressed that the second approach described above—the “single-briefer” 

approach—could make it more likely that individual bias will be introduced into the evaluation 

process. To the subcommittee’s knowledge, there is no research on this topic, but conceptually, it is 

not clear how such bias would be introduced. Even if a single briefer has particular biases, the 

random assignment of records to each briefer makes it unlikely that an entire group of eligible 

officers who share the same race, ethnicity, or gender would be affected. The other safeguards already 

mentioned—board membership that is demographically representative of the candidate pool, changes 

in board membership over time, and full board input on the final decision—also decrease the 

likelihood that the single-briefer approach is more likely to introduce systemic or persistent bias. It 

must be acknowledged, however, that because of the large numbers of records to review, boards 

typically have only a few minutes to evaluate each eligible officer. This limits the amount of 

discussion of each record and may give extra weight to the single briefer’s evaluation.24

Once the records have been scored, the Services must still decide which officers will be selected 

to promote. In general, the highest-scoring records in the specialties most in demand by the Service 

will be ranked highest for selection to promote. However, each Service may differ in precisely how 

individual board member scores are tallied and used to make selection decisions. For example, the 

Services may define and incorporate outlier scores differently.

Fairness of the Board Process—Summary

Overall, the promotion board process appears to be designed to be institutionally fair and to mitigate 

the impact of potential bias on the part of any individual board member: Selections are made not by a 

single individual but by multimember boards that are, to the extent possible, demographically 

representative of the pool of candidates. The fact that the entire board membership changes from one 

board to the next further decreases the likelihood that individual bias can cause systemic or persistent 

demographic differences in promotion outcomes. Furthermore, the guidance to these boards—which 

can be in the form of precepts, instructions, or actual laws—requires that selections be made based on 

the needs of the Services and the best-and-fully-qualified criterion, without regard to race, ethnicity, 

or gender.

 22 The Navy and the Marine Corps use this approach.

23 We describe the process for evaluating eligible officers who are in-the-zone (IZ) for promotion because in-zone 

officers make up the majority of promotions. The promotion boards are responsible for BZ and AZ promotions as 

well, and each Service employs a slightly different method for selecting officers for promotion from these zones. 

However, all BZ and AZ records are considered by every board member, just as the IZ records are. In addition, the 

Services are required to adhere to the “best and fully qualified” standard as well as to the guidance in the board 

precept to make BZ and AZ selections.

24 As noted previously, the Army does not use the single briefer approach; in addition, it does not allow discussion of 

the eligible officer records by board members. Board members may discuss an officer record only if the record is 

recommended to show cause (e.g., if the officer has been shown to display substandard performance, misconduct, 

actions inconsistent with national security, or moral/professional dereliction). 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

20

Inputs to the Promotion Board

No matter how carefully it is designed, the promotion board process cannot address the impact of 

unfairness that occurs before a board is convened. Specifically, the competitiveness of an officer’s 

record depends both on his or her assignment history and on supervisors’ assessments of his or her 

performance in each position. To continue its investigation of unfairness in the promotion system, 

the Promotion Subcommittee assessed potential for bias in these two inputs to the promotion boards, 

because bias here may affect a candidate’s ability to promote. We evaluate bias in several ways. We 

assess whether the institutional policies and practices themselves relating to assignment histories and 

evaluations are biased toward a specific race, ethnicity, or gender group. We also assess individual 

bias, or unfairness on the part of the members of the institution. Within the Services, these members 

would include supervisors who evaluate servicemembers on their performance and those who assign 

servicemembers to positions. We could directly evaluate policies and practices, but, to address the 

presence of individual bias, we relied on survey results of how fair servicemembers felt their 

evaluations and opportunities to receive career-enhancing assignments were.

Assignment Histories

Assignments can affect an officer’s career progression in two ways. First, both opportunities to serve 

in specific assignments and actual promotion opportunities vary by competitive category and by 

occupations within a competitive category. This aspect of assignments is covered by the Branching 

and Assignments Subcommittee (see Decision Paper #2 and Issue Paper #23). Second, the duecourse career paths for each officer community identify key assignments within occupations and 

competitive categories. This aspect of assignments is addressed by the Promotion Subcommittee and 

is the focus of this subsection. The subcommittee started its assessment of assignment opportunities 

by analyzing results of surveys that assessed servicemembers’ perceptions of their own promotion 

opportunities. However, servicemembers’ perceptions (e.g., thinking they are receiving adequate 

opportunities for advancement) and actual outcomes (e.g., actually getting assignments needed to be 

competitive for promotions) may not be aligned. Therefore, the subcommittee also investigated the 

extent to which female and minority officers may disproportionately receive assignments that take 

them off the due-course path, thus rendering them less competitive for promotion than their 

majority counterparts.

Servicemembers’ Perceptions of Assignment Opportunities

The subcommittee analyzed responses to selected questions from three different surveys and found 

ambiguous results. The first two surveys are large-scale surveys administered regularly by the Defense 

Manpower Data Center (DMDC): the 2009 Workplace and Equal Opportunity Survey of ActiveDuty Members (WEOA) and the Status of Forces Survey (SOFS) of Active Duty Members 

administered in late 2008. Then, to supplement the information from these surveys, the 

subcommittee added its own questions to the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute 

(DEOMI) Organizational Climate Survey (DEOCS). Note that, despite this section’s focus on the 

officer promotion system, all of the survey results reported below are based on samples that included 

both officers and enlisted personnel—the WEOA and SOFS results were not given to the 

subcommittee in a format that allowed separate analysis for officers, and the sample from the 

DEOCS supplement was too small to allow separate analysis for officers.

WEOA Results. The WEOA is conducted by DMDC as part of a quadrennial cycle of human 

relations surveys mandated by law. Specifically, Title 10, Section 481, requires the Secretary of 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

21

Defense to conduct cross-Service surveys to identify and assess racial, ethnic, and gender issues and 

discrimination among members of the Armed Forces. The survey targets active-duty members of the 

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard who had at least six months of service at 

the time the survey was first fielded and were below flag rank. For the 2009 WEOA, data were 

collected predominantly via the web in February, March, and April 2009, and completed surveys 

(defined as those with at least half the survey questions answered) were received from 26,167 eligible 

respondents. The resulting sample of respondents was 72 percent enlisted and 28 percent officers, 

and 84 percent DoD and 16 percent Coast Guard.

25

As part of this survey, respondents were asked the following:

• During the past 12 months, did any of the following happen to you? If it did, do you 

believe your race/ethnicity was a factor?

– 1. Your current assignment has not made use of your job skills?

– 2. Your current assignment is not good for your career if you continue in the 

military?

– 3. You did not receive day-to-day short-term tasks that would help you prepare 

for advancement?

– 4. You did not have a professional relationship with someone who advised 

(mentored) you on career development or advancement?

– 5. You did not learn until it was too late of opportunities that would help your 

career?

– 6. You were unable to get straight answers about your promotion possibilities?

– 7. You were excluded by your peers from social activities?

These seven survey items capture servicemembers’ perceptions about whether an aspect of their 

current military assignment or career progression was hampered by their race or ethnicity. Thus, any 

answer in the affirmative to one of these seven questions indicated that the servicemember 

experienced assignment/career discrimination due to his or her race or ethnicity, and thus the answer 

to the main question would be, yes, a servicemember experienced career/assignment discrimination 

due to his or her race or ethnicity. The survey results showed that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were 

significantly more likely than whites to indicate experiencing assignment/career discrimination (6, 5, 

5, and 2 percent responded “yes,” respectively).

SOFS Results. The SOFS of Active Duty Members is administered to DoD servicemembers 

three times a year; the Coast Guard does not participate in the SOFS.26 As with the WEOA, the 

target population is active-duty members who had completed at least six months of service and were 

below flag rank six months prior to data collection. Members of the National Guard and Reserve in 

active-duty programs were not eligible. The SOFS data used here were collected via the web between 

November 5 and December 19, 2008. A total of 10,435 eligible members returned usable surveys, 

again defined as those with at least half the questions answered. The final sample included 3,474 

officers (33 percent), 6,303 enlisted members (61 percent), and 658 warrant officers (6 percent).

As part of this survey, servicemembers were asked the following:

 25 See Defense Manpower Data Center, 2010a, for more information about the data collection and sampling 

methods, as well the final sample.

26 The SOFS is also administered to reserve members (twice a year) and DoD civilian employees (once a year). 

Spouses of active-duty and reserve members are also a part of the Human Relations Survey Program. See Klerman, 

2009, for more information on the SOFS.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

22

• How much do you agree with the following statements about your military career and 

Service (1= strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = 

strongly agree)?

– 1. I will get the assignments I need to be competitive for promotions.

Analysis of responses to this question yielded no statistically significant difference in the 

percentage of “agree” (i.e., a response of “4” or “5”) responses between non-Hispanic whites (49 

percent) and minorities (52 percent). In contrast, the percentage of disagree (i.e., responding with “1” 

or “2”) responses for this statement was significantly higher for non-Hispanic whites (22 percent) 

than for minorities (18 percent). Women were less likely than men to agree—45 percent vs. 51 

percent, respectively—but there were no gender differences in “disagree” responses.

DEOCS Supplement Results. To collect information more specifically tailored to the 

Commission’s investigations, DEOMI allowed several MLDC subcommittees to add questions to its 

DEOCS. The Promotion Subcommittee added several sets of questions to learn about 

servicemembers’ perceptions of various aspects of the promotion system, and its questions were 

fielded during March 2010. During this time period, a total of 2,196 servicemembers completed the 

survey, with 2,004 of these providing usable information.

27 Relevant shares of the final sample were: 

87 percent enlisted personnel, 12 percent officers, and 1 percent warrant officers; 60 percent were 

white non-Hispanic.

28 It is important to note that the DEOCS sample is much smaller than the 

WEOA and SOFS samples, and it was collected without using any particular sampling 

methodology. Therefore, it is less likely to be representative of the population of servicemembers as a 

whole.

One set of survey items focused on perceptions about opportunities for advancement. Specifically, 

using a 5-point scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree), respondents were asked to indicate 

agreement with the following statements:

1. I can expect to get the assignments needed to be competitive for promotion.

2. To date, I am satisfied with the pace of my promotions.

3. I am satisfied with my chances for future advancement.

 27 To be counted as part of the sample, each respondent must have provided ethnicity information and must not 

have displayed systematic response bias (e.g., put the same response for all questions). From the original 2,196 

people who completed the survey, 108 were removed for having random response patterns, and 84 were removed for 

not providing race or ethnicity information. This resulted in the final sample of 2,004 servicemembers, with 79.4 

percent from the Active Component.

28 A total of 2,196 servicemembers completed the survey, with 2,004 of the servicemembers providing usable 

information. The gender breakdown of the final sample of 2,004 participants was 85 percent male and 15 percent 

female. The racial/ethnic breakdown was as follows:

• 60 percent white non-Hispanic

• 13 percent black non-Hispanic

• 15 percent Hispanic

• 4 percent Asian non-Hispanic

• 7 percent other non-Hispanic (American Indian, Alaska Native, Pacific Islander, or multiple races). 

Each Service was represented in the survey sample, with 5 percent (110 respondents) from the Air Force, 38 percent 

(765 respondents) from the Army, 6 percent (121 respondents) from the Coast Guard, 17 percent (334 respondents) 

from the Marine Corps, and 33 percent (664 respondents) from the Navy. In terms of corps, 87 percent of 

participants were enlisted, 12 percent were regular officers, and 1 percent were warrant officers.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

23

4. I believe I have received adequate training to be competitive for promotions.

5. I believe I have received the necessary assignments to be competitive for promotions.

6. Completing all necessary professional development courses enhanced my chance of being 

promoted.

Responses were averaged across the items to create a single representative score.

29 The overall 

average score across items and respondents was 3.69 (SD = 0.95),

30 indicating only somewhatpositive perceptions of opportunities for advancement. There was one statistically significant 

difference across demographic groups: Women were less satisfied than men with their promotion 

opportunities (3.58 and 3.71, respectively). However, the size of the difference is very small, meaning 

that the difference cannot be interpreted as having practical significance.

31

Deviations from the Due-Course Career Path

As described in the overview of the officer promotion system, each functional community within 

each Service has a defined due-course career path describing the successive milestones that members 

need to achieve to be competitive for promotion to each rank. Because of the strict timing 

requirements of the military promotion system, deviations from the due-course path can negatively 

affect an officer’s competitiveness in the selection process.

Hosek et al. (2001), who found that minority officers had lower career progression rates than 

white officers during the 1970s and 1980s, concluded that black officers were more likely to be given 

assignments that took them off the due-course path. According to Hosek et al. (2001),

Black officers’ ability to develop competitive career records may also be 

aggravated by policies that the services have developed to increase the 

number of minority recruits. In discussions with officer managers and 

midcareer officers, we were told that the services place minority officers 

disproportionately in certain positions: recruiting and ROTC 

assignments, where they have high visibility to potential minority 

recruits, and the Equal Opportunity (EO) Office. Unfortunately, many 

officers regard these assignments as less desirable than assignments in 

their career field. These assignments take officers out of their particular 

occupational fields for a period of time, potentially weakening their 

ability to demonstrate “occupational credibility” in their career profile. 

Thus, while these policies may increase the services’ ability to recruit and 

retain minorities, they may simultaneously damage the long-term 

competitiveness of black officers for promotion. This is despite the fact 

that all services explicitly instruct promotion board members that atypical 

assignment patterns among minorities and women may be due to the 

services’ assignment policies, rather than a reflection of the caliber of the 

officer.

 29 To support averaging these items into a single unified scale, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis and 

examined the extent to which the scale demonstrated acceptable reliability or internal consistency. We found that it 

did (α = 0.86).

30 SD stands for standard deviation, which is a statistic used to describe the variation around the mean in a sample of 

data. The larger the standard deviation, the more “spread out” the scores in the sample from the mean. 31 These results are also summarized in Issue Paper #43.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

24

The Promotion Subcommittee recognizes that this conclusion is both dated—based on 

interviews that occurred in the mid-1990s—and unconfirmed by systematic analysis of officer 

assignment patterns across Services.32 Several factors, however, led the subcommittee to highlight 

this result as part of its investigation. First, it is consistent with the subcommittee members’ more 

recent experience in their Services: They raised the issue before the results of Hosek et al. (2001) 

were made known to them. Second, in interviews with the Branching and Assignments 

Subcommittee, only Marine Corps representatives identified recruiting assignments as careerenhancing.33 Third, although the study by Hosek et al. (2001) and an OSD report based on the 

study’s early findings (Gilroy et al., 1999) recommended that DoD do further research to determine 

whether black officers’ promotion rates were indeed hampered by recruiting- and EO-related 

deviations from the due course, the Promotion Subcommittee was unable to find any indication that 

this recommendation was ever implemented.

Performance Evaluations

The second input to the promotion board investigated by the Promotion Subcommittee was 

candidates’ performance evaluations. Specifically, the subcommittee considered whether bias in the 

evaluations of officers’ performance can explain the observed minority-majority gap in promotion 

rates. As with its assessment of assignment histories, the subcommittee considered both recent survey 

results regarding servicemembers’ perceptions about whether they had been evaluated fairly and 

findings from past research.

Past Research

Starting with the latter, the subcommittee again drew on research by Hosek at al. (2001), who found 

qualitative evidence that the subjectivity of performance evaluations opens the door for bias. 

According to Hosek et al. (2001), the black officers they interviewed “expected that the measured 

career progress of blacks would be weaker than the progress of their white peers” because “[w]hite 

officers expect black officers to have weaker skills and abilities; to overcome this expectation, the 

‘performance bar’ gets increased for black officers.” Since these conclusions were purely 

impressionistic, Hosek et al. (2001) considered other evidence. Specifically, they cite a Navy study 

(Mehay, 1995) that found that adding controls for ratings on performance evaluations to statistical 

models of promotion outcomes rendered the racial difference in promotion rates statistically 

insignificant. Mehay (1995) further suggests that performance evaluations were lower for minorities 

due to lack of obtaining certain qualifications, which is likely tied to previous ship assignments, but it 

was unclear what drove these inadequate ship assignments.

 32 With regard to analytical confirmation of the qualitative results, Hosek at al. (2001) note the following: 

[A] recent GAO [Government Accountability Office] study (1995) of a limited number of highprofile, career-enhancing jobs in the Army, Navy, and Air Force found no significant difference in 

the relative chances of receiving such assignments between white and black officers. It should be 

noted that the GAO study did not examine the relative chances of assignment to positions 

thought to be career damaging. However, the Army’s Office of Economic and Manpower 

Analysis has reported that black officers are twice as likely as white officers to be serving in a 

recruiting assignment, although black officers appear no more likely to be serving in ROTC 

commands.

33 See Decision Paper #2.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

25

Turning to more recent perceptions of objectivity of performance evaluations, the subcommittee 

analyzed results from the same three surveys it used to analyze perceptions about assignments—the 

2009 WEOA, the 2008 SOFS, and the MLDC supplement to the DEOCS.

WEOA Results. From the WEOA, the subcommittee analyzed responses to the following 

question:

• During the past 12 months, did any of the following happen to you? If it did, do you 

believe your race/ethnicity was a factor?

– 1. You were rated lower than you deserved on your last evaluation?

– 2. Your last evaluation contained unjustified negative comments?

– 3. You were held to a higher performance standard than others in your job?

– 4.You did not get an award or decoration given to others in similar 

circumstances?

These four survey items were used to assess servicemembers’ belief that their race or ethnicity was 

a factor in others’ judgment about their military performance (e.g., evaluations or awards). Thus, if a 

servicemember answered “yes” to any of the four questions, they held a belief that that their race or 

ethnicity was a factor in others’ judgment about their military performance. The results from this 

question indicated that blacks, Hispanics, and Asians were significantly more likely than whites to 

indicate experiencing discrimination regarding their evaluations (6, 6, 6, and 2 percent who 

responded “yes,” respectively).

SOFS Results. The relevant question from the SOFS was as follows:

• How much do you agree with the following statements about your military career and 

Service (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, 5 = 

strongly agree)?

– 1. My performance appraisal is a fair reflection of my performance.

Analysis of these responses showed no significant differences by race or ethnicity (non-Hispanic 

white vs. total minority) or gender.

DEOCS Supplement Results. The subcommittee added the following set of evaluation-related 

questions to the DEOCS: Using a 5-point scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree), 

respondents were asked to indicate agreement with the following statements:

• 1. My performance evaluation is a fair reflection of my performance.

• 2. On my last performance evaluation, I was rated lower than I deserved.

As in the previous section, we averaged responses across the two items to create a single 

representative score for perceptions of the fairness of performance evaluations; because the second 

question was negatively worded, its scores were reversed so that higher scores reflect more-positive 

perceptions of one’s performance evaluations.34 The overall average score across items and 

respondents was 3.58 (SD = 1.07), indicating only somewhat-positive perceptions of the fairness of 

 34 To support averaging these items into a single unified scale, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis, which is 

a statistical procedure designed to examine the extent to which the items are measuring a single theme. We also 

examined the extent to which the scale demonstrated acceptable reliability or internal consistency (α = 0.57). This 

alpha level appears to be low, but, because alpha levels increase with the number of items in a scale, this alpha level 

can be considered acceptable because there were only two items in the scale (i.e., the minimum for a scale).
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

26

one’s performance evaluations. There were no statistically significant differences based on race, 

ethnicity, or gender.

35

Promotion Board Inputs—Summary

The subcommittee’s review of survey results regarding servicemembers’ perceptions about the fairness 

of both assignment opportunities and performance evaluations generated ambiguous results. 

According to the 2009 WEOA, minority servicemembers were more likely than whites to believe 

that race or ethnicity was a factor in both their assignments and their performance evaluations. In 

contrast, both the SOFS and the MLDC supplement to the DEOCS indicated that white and 

minority servicemembers had similar perceptions about the fairness of these two “inputs.” These two 

surveys did, however, find significant differences by gender: According to responses on both the 

SOFS and the DEOCS, women were less likely than men to agree that they received the 

assignments they needed to be competitive for promotion. Despite this ambiguity, the Commission 

recommends continued monitoring of servicemembers’ perceptions about these issues, especially 

using validated survey instruments and rigorous sampling methodologies.

In addition, the subcommittee found some evidence that minority officers, especially black 

officers, may be more likely than white officers to be asked by their Services to serve in assignments 

that take them off their communities’ due-course paths. The Commission believes that this issue 

bears further investigation.

 35 These results are also summarized in Issue Paper #43. 
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

27

THE SERVICES’ EFFORTS TO EDUCATE MEMBERS ABOUT THE 

PROMOTION PROCESS

The Promotion Subcommittee’s last area of investigation was how well the Services minimize 

institutional or individual bias with respect to educating both officers and enlisted personnel about 

their respective promotion systems. According to their briefings to the Commission, the Services use 

a variety of methods, both formal and informal, to educate servicemembers about the promotion 

systems. Many of the Services rely on mentors, career counselors, or affinity groups to teach junior 

members how the systems work. The Services also direct members to search for information on their 

personnel management websites. For example, the Air Force maintains information about promotion 

on the Air Force Personnel Center website. This web-based information can include videos about 

promotion, PowerPoint slides on force development, and information on previous promotion board 

members and board results. These informal methods are just that—informal—and do not involve any 

systematic implementation or tracking.

The Services also use more-formal educational methods. Many of the Services conduct “road 

shows” or “spread-the-word” trips in which a small set of trainers (e.g., Coast Guard Career 

Management Branch staff officers) travel to installations to present information on promotion and 

career development. For example, the Army sends a group of officers from its Human Resources 

Command to visit officers in the Intermediate Level Education program at Fort Leavenworth. Some 

Services also assign dedicated career counselors (e.g., Air Force career assistance advisors) to different 

locations throughout the force. Finally, some Services also reported that they imbed information 

about promotion into educational courses (e.g., the Air Force’s squadron commander’s courses).

More detailed information on the Services’ mentoring programs and the career-development 

resources they provide is found in Issue Paper #33 and Issue Paper #38. Combined, these issue 

papers show that the Services are making extensive efforts to assist their members in career 

development, including teaching them about the promotion process. There is, however, very little 

information about the overall effectiveness of these efforts—either overall or for members of different 

demographic groups; the Services do not appear to evaluate the effectiveness of their educational 

efforts.

36 In particular, it is not clear how the effectiveness of more-informal methods may differ 

across race, ethnicity, and gender groups. Again, in the absence of direct evidence of individual bias, 

the subcommittee used survey data regarding servicemembers’ perceptions on how informed they feel 

they are about the promotion process.

Survey Results

To investigate how well the Services’ attempts to inform servicemembers about the promotion 

process are working, the subcommittee once again turned to the DEOCS, adding another set of 

questions to the survey while it was being fielded in March 2010. Specifically, the subcommittee 

added a set of questions designed to address whether servicemembers believe that they understand 

the promotion system in their Services and for their corps. Using the same 5-point scale (ranging 

from 1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree), respondents were asked to rate their agreement with 

the following statements:

 36 If such information exists, it did not accompany the information describing the programs.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

28

• 1. I know how my Service’s promotion system works.

• 2. I am provided with adequate information about how the promotion process works.

• 3. I know what I need to do to get promoted in my field.

Because the subcommittee was interested in examining overall knowledge about the promotion 

system, researchers averaged responses across the items to create a single representative score.

37 Using 

a composite score affords a more reliable assessment of a group’s opinion by minimizing the influence 

of any wording bias that may be contained in a single item (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The 

overall average score across items and respondents was 4.13 (SD = 0.95), indicating that, on average, 

servicemembers more than “moderately agree” with statements that indicate that they have enough 

knowledge of the promotion system. Table 9 shows average ratings for each scale and individual 

item, broken out by race, ethnicity, and gender.38 Importantly, there were no statistically significant 

differences between minorities and whites or between men and women.

Table 9. Average Level of Knowledge About the Promotion System, by Gender, Race, and Ethnicity

Survey Item Average Rating 

Across All Items 1 2 3

Gender

Overall average (N = 2,004) 4.16 4.17 4.09 4.22

Female (N = 294) 4.12 4.11 4.04 4.24

Male (N = 1,710) 4.17 4.18 4.11 4.22

Race or Ethnicity

Overall average (N = 2,004) 4.16 4.17 4.09 4.22

White non-Hispanic (N = 1,208) 4.18 4.19 4.12 4.23

Black non-Hispanic (N = 269) 4.09 4.08 4.03 4.16

Hispanic (N = 307) 4.16 4.17 4.05 4.26

Asian non-Hispanic (N = 75) 4.24 4.24 4.12 4.37

Other non-Hispanic (N = 145) 4.08 4.08 4.06 4.10

NOTES: Survey Item 1 = I know how my Service’s promotion system works. Survey Item 2 = I am provided with adequate information 

about how the promotion process works. Survey Item 3 = I know what I need to do to get promoted in my field. Response scale: 1 = 

totally disagree, 2 = moderately disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = moderately agree, 5 = totally agree. N = group sample 

size. 

Similarly, the survey results reported in relation to career-development resources39 demonstrated 

that there were no demographic differences in servicemembers’ satisfaction with the careerdevelopment resources they received.

 37 To support averaging these items into a single unified scale, we conducted an exploratory factor analysis (a 

statistical procedure designed to assess the extent to which the items are measuring a single theme). We also 

examined the extent to which the scale demonstrated acceptable reliability or internal consistency (α = 0.86).

38 To save space, survey results by corps (i.e., enlisted, warrant officer, and commissioned officer) and branch of 

Service are not provided here. Interested readers can read survey results broken out by corps and branch of Service in 

the appendix of Issue Paper #43.

39 See Issue Paper #38.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

29

Although servicemembers generally reported that they know how their promotion system works, 

qualitative data from the informational meetings suggest that this reported knowledge may not be 

accurate. That is, many of the participants in the informational meetings stated that they know how 

the promotion system works but, when asked to explain the promotion system, had some difficulty

doing so. Furthermore, participants in the informational meetings stated that they did not start to 

learn about the promotion system until they were eligible to go before a promotion board. In 

addition, only a few of these participants stated that they had received any formal education on the 

promotion system, and several said that they had received information about the system from a 

superior only once or twice in their entire careers. Although the informational meeting data are based 

on a small set of responses (mainly from NCOs and officers), the results suggest that self-assessed 

confidence in knowledge about the promotion system may not translate into a full understanding of 

the promotion system: Perceptions of knowledge and actual knowledge of the promotion system may 

not be the same, and people may not be aware of how little they know about the promotion process 

until it is too late. Also, it could be the case that promotion education is not effective for anyone, but 

the majority group is able to learn about promotion from other resources (e.g., mentoring), whereas 

the minority group is not able to use other resources. For this reason, effectiveness of promotion 

education should be independently verified to assess whether it is actually working in general and 

whether it is reaching all demographic groups uniformly.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

30

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

Recommendations

The Commission’s promotion-related recommendations reflect not only the specific findings from 

the investigation described in the body of this decision paper but also some lessons learned during the 

investigative process. In light of initial findings that a gap existed between promotion rates for 

minority and white officers, the subcommittee searched for possible institutional and individual 

biases that might be related to the gap by examining the promotion selection process, the inputs to 

the promotion board, and any efforts to educate servicemembers about the promotion process. Thus, 

the overall goal of the recommendations is to drive the Services to actions that will help explain and, 

ultimately, address unfairness in the system as revealed by such gaps. The Commission also 

recognizes, however, that other gaps could emerge over time. Thus, the recommendations are also 

intended to ensure that the Services are vigilant about monitoring promotion outcomes for all 

groups, among both officers and enlisted personnel.

Recommendation 1—

The Services should report enlisted and officer promotion rates based on a common 

definition of demographic groups, a common methodology, and a common reporting 

structure to the Secretary of Defense. Specific deviations for demographic groups and 

career fields should be investigated for underlying causes, and corrective actions should 

be taken as appropriate.

The Promotion Subcommittee reported recent promotion rates by race, ethnicity, and gender as 

provided by the Services. Although the Service representatives were gracious in their provision of 

information and time to the Commission, the Commission nevertheless identifies incomplete 

recordkeeping and reporting as an impediment to ensuring fair promotion opportunities for members 

of all demographic groups across all Services. Without complete and consistent records, the Services 

cannot accurately track and identify persistent or emerging demographic differences in promotion 

outcomes.

Two primary data shortcomings affected the subcommittee’s ability to carry out its investigation. 

First, the data provided were not consistent across Services, thus impeding the subcommittee’s ability 

to formulate DoD-wide assessments of promotion patterns. For example, although all the Services 

were given the same data request, each provided data for a different time period. More importantly, 

the Services do not use the same race and ethnicity categories, despite the fact that there is clear 

guidance from the Office of Management and Budget regarding how data by race and ethnicity 

should be reported by federal agencies.40 Second, except for rough occupation controls for officers, 

the promotion rates provided by the Services were “raw” rates that did not control for the impact of 

factors other than race, ethnicity, and gender. To understand what is driving demographic differences 

in promotion rates and draw policy-relevant conclusions, it is important to isolate the effects of 

demographics from other factors. Furthermore, to do this across Services requires using a common 

methodology to the extent that Service characteristics allow.

 40 See Issue Paper #1.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

31

Thus, in making this recommendation, the Commission recognizes that the Services already 

collect and report enlisted and officer promotion rates, but seeks to emphasize the importance of: (1) 

keeping records that are complete and consistent across all Services, (2) reporting outcomes regularly 

and in a common format, and (3) ensuring that factors other than race, ethnicity, and gender are 

controlled for when calculating promotion rates. In addition, the Commission urges that the Services 

not only continue to report on promotion rates for both officers and enlisted personnel, but take 

action when promotion rates for one group are persistently different from those of another.

Recommendation 1a—

Each Service shall make the promotion and/or selection rate of underrepresented groups 

a key metric of the Services’ success in creating an inclusive environment.

This recommendation follows from the Commission’s understanding of the Services’ and DoD’s 

diversity management goals. Specifically, diversity management policies are intended to both increase 

representation of women and minorities in the Services and increase readiness and capability. 

Increasingly, creating an inclusive environment is seen as a way to achieve both objectives and is 

considered an essential value for a diverse workforce. According to Lim et al. (2008), inclusion 

“implies preserving identity and maintaining individual differences.” It promotes rather than mutes 

individual differences and, if managed effectively, can allow an organization to benefit from wellcrafted diversity policies and practices.41

Achieving similar promotion rates across demographic groups is an indirect, but bottom–line, 

indicator that diversity management policies are promoting an inclusive environment. And part of 

promoting an inclusive environment is to ensure that both institutional as well as individual bias is 

minimized. As the Chief of Naval Operations stated at the June 2010 meeting of the MLDC, “I can 

look at some of our demographics today in the leadership of the Navy, and see where the initiatives 

of the 80’s have now come to fruition” (Roughead, 2010). It is very important to note, however, that 

using promotion rates as the sole metric of inclusion is not advised. Lim et al. (2008) cite R. 

Roosevelt Thomas as stating just that: “[E]ven the most diversity-friendly organizations have 

plateaued in their efforts to manage diversity, having achieved the ‘numbers’ but not maintaining 

them or not moving beyond demographic diversity in a meaningful way.” In other words, achieving 

the “numbers” implies that representation may have been achieved, but it says nothing about 

increasing readiness and capability (or productivity in the civilian sector). Decision Paper #8 

identifies several potential approaches to assessing inclusiveness, including the use of surveys to 

evaluate organizational climate. One example of such a survey already in use is the DEOMI Diversity 

Management Climate Survey, which specifically measures climate factors associated with diversity 

and inclusion.

 41 See Decision Paper #5 and Decision Paper #6 for more on inclusion.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

32

Recommendation 2—

DoD should continue to require that its Services use a common survey instrument to 

monitor and periodically report on servicemembers’ perceptions about promotion 

opportunities. The Coast Guard should participate in this effort. DoD and the Services 

should take corrective actions whenever negative perceptions emerge or persist.

Like promotion rates, survey results regarding servicemembers’ perceptions about the fairness of 

the promotion system can be good indicators of the inclusiveness of the organizational climate and 

the extent to which diversity management policies are being successfully implemented. They can also 

help uncover reasons for any racial, ethnic, or gender gaps that are revealed when tracking actual 

promotion outcomes.

The Promotion Subcommittee used two large-scale, cross-Service surveys to assess 

servicemembers’ perceptions about the fairness of their promotion opportunities and performance 

evaluations. As noted, the WEOA is conducted because it is required by law. Specifically, Title 10, 

Section 481, requires that the Secretary of Defense carry out surveys to “identify and assess racial and 

ethnic issues and discrimination, and to identify and assess gender issues and discrimination, among 

members of the armed forces.” A similar requirement is specified for the Coast Guard in Title 6 of 

the U.S. Code, which covers the Department of Homeland Security. The WEOA addresses the 

requirement for racial and ethnic issues, and a companion survey, the Workplace and Gender 

Relations Survey, addresses the requirement for gender issues. These surveys are designed to solicit 

information on the following:

• Indicators of positive and negative trends for professional and personal relationships 

among members of all racial and ethnic groups and between men and women.

• The effectiveness of DoD policies designed to improve relationships among all racial and 

ethnic groups and between men and women.

• The effectiveness of current processes for complaints on and investigations into 

racial/ethnic and gender discrimination.

The SOFS, in contrast, is not required by law and has a broader focus. In particular, it is not 

specifically intended to address racial, ethnic, and gender issues, though its results can be analyzed to 

determine whether attitudes differ along these demographic dimensions.

With this recommendation, the Commission acknowledges the value of these surveys—especially 

given the fact that they are used commonly across Services—and explicitly encourages their use to 

understand reasons not only for the differences in promotion outcomes documented in this decision 

paper, but also for any other differences that may emerge in the future. The recommendation also 

explicitly exhorts the Services to act on any results that indicate there may be problems in their 

organizational climates: Simply collecting and reporting data is of no value if the data are not used to 

guide policies and decisionmaking. A recommended first step is to understand the differences in 

promotion-related results from the two surveys.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

33

Recommendation 3—

The Services shall ensure that promotion board precepts provide guidance regarding 

Service-directed special assignments outside of normal career paths and/or fields. As 

appropriate, senior raters’ evaluations should acknowledge when a servicemember has 

deviated from the due-course path at the specific request of his/her leadership.

The subcommittee’s review of the fairness of the military promotion system focused on 

identifying instances of institutional bias and areas where individual bias could be introduced. The 

subcommittee concluded that individual bias is most likely to enter the system via commanding 

officers’ evaluations of their subordinates, and that institutional bias is most apparent in the 

assignment process. This recommendation deals with the latter. Specifically, there is some indication 

that minority officers are disproportionately diverted from their due-course career paths to fill 

recruiting and equal opportunity assignments, thus making them less competitive for promotion.42

This result is mainly supported by the Commissioners’ collective wisdom and by Hosek et al. (2001), 

who recommended the following:

Avoid atypical assignment policies wherever possible. Fitting in all the 

assignments and education necessary for advancement is difficult, and 

other assignments make this even more difficult. Disproportionately 

assigning minorities and women to jobs, such as recruiting or equal 

opportunity, where diversity is highly valued, also removes them from 

operational units where they can mentor younger officers.

The Commission acknowledges that this conclusion is both dated and unconfirmed by systematic 

analysis of officer assignment patterns across the Services, but nevertheless felt strongly that minority 

officers should not be penalized for helping their Services execute their diversity efforts—it is not 

only unfair to the officers, but self-defeating to the Services’ demographic diversity goals. Of course, 

the Services should use personnel data to examine both whether minority officers are indeed more 

likely to be assigned to these diversity-related positions and whether these assignments are, in fact, 

career-damaging. Regardless of the results of such an investigation, however, the Services should still 

ensure that promotion board precepts provide guidance to board members on how to value servicedirected assignments that take officers off the due-course path and that performance evaluations 

should, when possible, note when a candidate has taken an unusual assignment at the request of his 

or her leadership.

Although the main motivation for this recommendation was to eliminate institutional bias that 

might contribute to the promotion gap between minority and white officers, the wording is 

intentionally general, referring to any Service-directed assignment that falls outside the community 

norm. This wording reflects the Commission’s position that diversity both encompasses many kinds 

of human difference and contributes to mission capability. In particular, diversity of experience, 

potentially reflected in deviations from the due-course path, is expected to be of extra value in the 

context of changing warfighting environments and the development of new doctrine. Indeed, 

Decision Paper #2 notes that the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan may already be changing 

the Services’ ideas about what is considered a “key” assignment, and Decision Paper #7 reviews the 

new skill requirements laid out in the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (U.S. Department of 

 42 The Branching and Assignments Subcommittee addresses other assignment-related barriers to career progression 

for minorities and women (Decision Paper #2).
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

34

Defense, 2010). Both changes mean that promotion boards must be open to nontraditional 

assignment histories until due-course career paths need to be reevaluated.

Recommendation 4—

DoD and the Services must ensure that there is transparency throughout the entire 

promotion system so that servicemembers may better understand performance 

expectations and promotion criteria and processes.

Both the Promotion Subcommittee and the Branching and Assignment Subcommittee found 

that the Services use multiple approaches to educate their members about how to be successful in 

general, and about the promotion system in particular. These approaches include formal seminars, 

formal and informal mentoring, and the establishment of websites that provide general and 

community-specific information about key career milestones and due-course career paths. Both 

subcommittees also found, however, that, despite the time and resources expended on these efforts, 

no Service is systematically evaluating their effectiveness—either overall or for the different 

demographic groups.

Given the Commission’s timeline and scope, the subcommittees had only limited ability to 

conduct their own investigations into the effectiveness of the Services’ career-development and 

promotion-education resources. The results from both subcommittees’ additions to the DEOCS 

indicate that servicemembers are neither very satisfied nor very dissatisfied with their Services’ efforts 

and that these opinions do not meaningfully vary by race, ethnicity, or gender. However, as noted 

earlier, self-assessed knowledge is not the same as actual knowledge, and servicemembers may not be 

aware of their lack of knowledge. For example, in the informal information sessions conducted by the 

Promotion Subcommittee, servicemembers did not uniformly report being formally educated about 

the promotion process or receiving such education from a supervisor.

This recommendation is intended to emphasize the importance of making the promotion system 

as transparent as possible to ensure that all servicemembers have adequate and equal knowledge in 

their efforts to proactively manage their own careers. It reflects lessons from the private sector, which 

show that providing the information needed for self-guided career management is an important 

aspect of successful diversity management.43 In particular, the subcommittee calls out the importance 

of providing information from previous promotion boards to help servicemembers better understand 

performance expectations, promotion criteria, and the promotion process. While the subcommittee 

understands that only a limited amount of information can be disclosed from these proceedings, the 

Services should ensure that servicemembers know how to obtain any information that is released, 

such as promotion board precepts (an indicator of what is valued), the career fields of selectees, and 

any briefings that emerge after a board convenes.

Recommendation 4a—

The Services shall educate and counsel all servicemembers on the importance of, and their 

responsibility for, a complete promotion board packet.

As part of the educational efforts mentioned above, the Services already provide their officers 

with some instruction on how to construct a complete promotion packet in preparation for being 

evaluated by the promotion board. With this recommendation, the Commission calls out this 

 43 See Issue Paper #50.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

35

fundamental step as necessary for ensuring that the promotion system works minimally well for all 

officers. This is a simple procedural step that, if not done properly, could decrease a servicemember’s 

chances to promote. The Services should ensure that education on doing this is effective and reaches 

all servicemembers equally.

Conclusion

The Promotion Subcommittee was tasked with evaluating the extent to which the Services establish 

and maintain fair promotion opportunities for women and men and members of all races and 

ethnicities. As the first step in its evaluation, the subcommittee showed that, across Services, over 

time, and roughly controlling for military occupation, minority officers have promoted to the ranks of 

O-4 through O-6 at lower rates than white officers.

This gap does not, on its own, however, indicate that the military promotion system is unfair. 

Thus, the subcommittee’s next step was to evaluate the promotion process, looking specifically for 

instances of, or potential for, institutional and individual bias, as well as explanations for the observed 

white-minority differential. The subcommittee found that the promotion board process—in which 

eligible officers’ records are reviewed and evaluated for promotion selection—is designed to be 

institutionally fair and likely mitigates any individual bias that may arise during the review and 

evaluation process. The subcommittee also found, however, indications that bias may be introduced 

into the system before the promotion board convenes. In particular, institutional bias that values 

having minorities in positions related to recruiting and equal opportunity may knock these officers 

off their due-course career trajectories and make them less competitive for promotion. Finally, the 

subcommittee looked for evidence that the Services’ career-development resources help all

servicemembers successfully manage their own careers. Although it uncovered no evidence to the 

contrary, the subcommittee also found that the Services do not systematically evaluate the 

effectiveness of their career-development programs.

The Commission’s promotion-related recommendations reflect these findings by identifying 

aspects of the promotion system that should be improved and reemphasizing aspects that should be 

continued to ensure that all members have equal opportunity to be competitive for promotion.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

36

REFERENCES

Barrett, K. (2009, December 16). Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Briefing presented to the 

Military Leadership Diversity Commission in Arlington, VA. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from 

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/meeting-december09

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and 

Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–

1013.

Biernat, M., & Kobrynowicz, D. (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower 

minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social 

Psychology, 72(3), 544–557.

Bowen C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of 

real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30(10), 2194–2215.

Defense Manpower Data Center. (2010a). 2009 Workplace and equal opportunity survey of active duty 

members [WEOA2009].

Defense Manpower Data Center. (2010b). Status of forces survey of active duty members: Attitudes toward 

promotions.

Defense Officer Personnel Management Act, Pub. L. 96-513, 94 Stat. 2835, December 12, 1980, 

codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 611 et seq. (2009).

Engrum, R. (2009, December 16). United States Coast Guard. Briefing presented to the Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission in Arlington, VA. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from 

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/meeting-december09

Gilroy, C., Eitelberg, M., Enns, J., Hosek, S., Kilburn, R., Laurence, J., Mehay, S., Tiemeyer, P., & 

Verdugo, N. (1999, August). Career progression of minority and women officers. Washington, DC: Office of 

the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness).

Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of blind auditions on female 

musicians. The American Economic Review, 90(4), 715–741.

Harrell, M. C., & Miller, L. L. (1997). New opportunities for military women: Effects upon readiness, 

cohesion, and morale [MR-896-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Horne, J., Rado, M., Pinckney, B., & Atkinson, B. (2009, December 16). Promotion selection boards. 

Briefing presented to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission in Arlington, VA. Retrieved January 

3, 2011, from http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/meeting-december09

Hosek, S. D., Tiemeyer, P., Kilburn, M. R., Strong, D. A., Ducksworth, S., & Ray, R. (2001). Minority 

and gender differences in officer career progression [MR-1184-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND 

Corporation.

Kirby, S. N., Harrell, M. C., & Sloan, J. (2000). Why don’t minorities join special operations forces? 

Armed Forces and Society, 26, 523–545.

Klerman, J. A. (2009). Data for DoD manpower policy analysis [TR-486-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

37

Lim, N., Cho, M., & Curry, K. (2008). Planning for diversity: Options and recommendations for DoD 

leaders [MG-743-OSD]. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Mehay, S. L. (1995). Analysis of performance data for junior Navy and Marine Corps officers. Monterey, CA: 

Naval Postgraduate School.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2009). How we define race and ethnicity categories for MLDC 

research [Issue Paper #1]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Demographic profile of the active-duty officer corps: 

September 2008 snapshot [Issue Paper #13]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Demographic profile of the active-duty enlisted force 

[Issue Paper #19]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Military occupations and implications for racial/ethnic 

and gender diversity: Officers [Issue Paper #23]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Mentoring programs across the Services [Issue Paper 

#33]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). The active-duty officer promotion and command selection 

process [Issue Paper #34]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Career development resources in the Services [Issue 

Paper #38]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Knowledge and perceptions of promotion within the 

Services [Issue Paper #43]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Recent officer promotion rates by race/ethnicity and 

gender [Issue Paper #45]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Recent enlisted promotion rates by race/ethnicity and 

gender [Issue Paper #47]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2010). Department of Defense Directive 1020.02: A foundation 

for effective, accountable diversity management? [Issue Paper #50]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Branching and assignments [Decision Paper #2]. 

Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Defining diversity [Decision Paper #5]. Arlington, 

VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Diversity leadership [Decision Paper #6]. Arlington, 

VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Implementation and accountability [Decision Paper 

#7]. Arlington, VA: Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Metrics [Decision Paper #8]. Arlington, VA: Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Decision Paper #4: Promotion

38

Navy Personnel Command, Bureau of Naval Personnel. (n.d.) Active officer promotions (Pers-80). 

Retrieved on November 1, 2010, from http://www.npc.navy.mil/NR/rdonlyres/D8C8EDFA-9C07-

462A-A09B-38C9FA4704FE/0/ActivePromoBrief52207Revised.ppt

Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Parcell, A. D., & Kraus, A. (2010, January). Recommendations from the CNGR implementation plan: 

Exploring the requirements of DOPMA and ROPMA [CRM D0021641.A2]. Alexandria, VA: CNA.

Powers, R. (2010). Military commissioned officer promotions. Retrieved May 10, 2010, from 

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/promotions/l/blofficerprom.htm

Pulakos, E. D., White, L. A., Oppler, S. H., & Borman, W. C. (1989). Examination of race and sex 

effects on performance ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 770–780.

Roth, P. L., Huffcutt, A. I., & Bobko, P. (2003). Ethnic group differences in measures of job 

performance: A new meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 8(4), 694–706.

Roughead, G. (2010, June). Remarks to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, McLean, VA.

U.S. Department of Defense. (1996, September 24). Commissioned officer promotion program procedures

[Instruction 1320.14].

U.S. Department of Defense. (2009, July 22). Commissioned officer promotion reports [Instruction 1320.13].

U.S. Department of Defense. (2010). Quadrennial Defense Review report.

U.S. Department of the Navy, Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs. (1996, 

December 18). Equal opportunity (EO) within the Department of the Navy [SECNAV Instruction 

5350.16A].

USMC promotion process. (2009, December 16). Briefing presented to the Military Leadership Diversity 

Commission in Arlington, VA. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from 

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/meeting-december09

Ward, B. (2009, December 16). Air Force promotions. Briefing presented to the Military Leadership 

Diversity Commission in Arlington, VA. Retrieved January 3, 2011, from 

http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/activities/meeting-december09