a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2005 MILITARY 

PERSONNEL

Reporting Additional 

Servicemember 

Demographics Could 

Enhance 

Congressional 

Oversight

GAO-05-952
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-952.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Derek B. 

Stewart at (202) 512-5559 or 

steward@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-952, a report to 

Congress Requesters 

September 2005

MILITARY PERSONNEL

Reporting Additional Servicemember 

Demographics Could Enhance 

Congressional Oversight 

Since the institution of the All Volunteer Force in 1973, the military has 

become older and better educated, with increasing representation of racial 

and ethnic minorities, females, spouses, and parents. Today’s force also 

differs from the U.S. civilian workforce in a number of important ways. For 

example, the military is younger than the civilian workforce. From a racial 

diversity perspective, the military, as of December 2004, had proportionately 

fewer Whites, partly because the military has proportionately more African 

Americans. Although Hispanic representation in the Active Component has 

markedly increased from 5 percent in 1993 to 9 percent in 2004, it is below the 

11 percent for the U.S. civilian workforce. The representation of women in 

the military, at 16 percent, is below that of women in the U.S. workforce, at 48 

percent, partly because of military policy and federal statutes. Although the 

1997 government-wide requirements for the collection and reporting of 

information on race and ethnicity were to have been implemented by January 

1, 2003, DOD has not yet fully implemented the requirements and its internal 

monthly reports continue to use some of the former racial/ethnic categories. 

This situation makes it difficult for Congress to monitor and directly compare 

the military and U.S. civilian racial and ethnic compositions. 

Over the past decade, the Active Component met its overall recruiting goals 

more frequently than has the Reserve Component. GAO found that a 

combination of personal, demographic, family, and societal factors, as well as 

the availability of economic and educational incentives, influence youths’ 

decision to join or not to join the military. DOD reports that over half of 

today’s youth are not qualified to serve because they cannot meet the 

military’s entry standards for health, education, aptitude, or other 

requirements. DOD has not collected information on a recruit’s 

socioeconomic status since 1999. Recent DOD research using recruits’ zip 

codes as a proxy to indicate socioeconomic status and community population 

density found that the median income of recruits’ communities is similar to 

that of other youth and that the majority of recruits come from rural and 

suburban areas. Without ongoing research on recruits’ socioeconomic status 

and communities, DOD will not be able to promptly and accurately inform 

Congress and the public about how representation in the services matches 

that of the applicable U.S. population. 

In fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004, AC enlisted personnel had lower retention 

rates than officers and there were no consistent differences between the rates 

of racial/ethnic subgroups. While DOD prepares retention rates, it does not 

publish active duty retention rates which could be used by Congress in its 

oversight of military retention and related issues. 

As of May 28, 2005, 1,841 servicemembers had died and 12,658 had been 

wounded in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom. Most 

of those who died or were wounded were Active Component Army or Marine 

Corps junior enlisted personnel. Among those who died, 71 percent were 

White, 10 percent were Hispanic, and 9 percent were African American. 

The high pace of military 

operations, thousands of casualties 

in ongoing military operations, and 

the services’ recruiting challenges 

have raised questions about who is 

serving in today’s military and 

concern that certain subgroups of 

the U.S. population may be 

disproportionately represented 

among those fighting and dying in 

support of the war on terrorism. 

These challenges and concerns 

have increased the need for 

information on the demographic 

characteristics of military 

personnel. 

GAO was asked to address three 

questions: (1) What are the 

demographic characteristics of 

servicemembers and how do they 

compare to the comparable U.S. 

civilian workforce? (2) How well 

are the services meeting their 

overall recruitment goals, and what 

influences whether or not 

individuals join the military? (3) 

What are the demographic 

characteristics of servicemembers 

who remained in the military in 

fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004? 

GAO was also asked to examine 

the demographic characteristics of 

servicemembers who died or were 

wounded in combat in Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends four actions to 

enhance Congress’ ability to 

monitor demographic changes in 

the military. 
Page i GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 7

The Charge and the Debate of the All Volunteer Force 7

DOD Publications and Databases for Force Demographics 8

Changing Demographics 9

Demographic 

Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

11

Question 1 and Summary of Approach 11

Summary of Findings 11

Findings 14

Recruiting 54

Question 2 and Summary of Approach 54

Summary of Findings 54

Findings 56

Retention 100

Question 3 and Summary of Approach 100

Summary of Findings 100

Findings 102

Casualties 114

Additional Question and Summary of Approach 114

Summary of Findings 114

Findings 116

Conclusions 130

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

132

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

133
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 134

Appendix II: Analytic Issues 138

Datasets Used in Analyses 138

Tabulating Data on Race and Ethnicity 139

DOD Used Zip Codes to Estimate Recruits’ Socioeconomic Status 

and Community Population Density 140

Rounding Error 141

Appendix III: Structure of the Reserve Component 143

Appendix IV: Military Occupational Specialties That Exclude Females 145

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Defense 152

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 155

Tables Table 1: Percentage of the AC that Is Female 10

Table 2: Percentage of Servicemembers Serving for More than 4 

Years 10

Table 3: Number of Servicemembers in Each Service as of 

December 31, 2004 14

Table 4: Number of Servicemembers in Each Pay Grade Subgroup 

as of December 31, 2004 15

Table 5: Percent of Servicemembers in Pay Grade Subgroups as of 

December 31, 2004 16

Table 6: Percent of Servicemembers in Each DOD Occupational 

Area as of December 31, 2004 18

Table 7: Percent of Enlisted Personnel in Each Component in DOD 

Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 20

Table 8: Percent of Officers in Each Component in DOD 

Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 21

Table 9: Percent of Servicemembers and Civilians Across Racial/

Ethnic Subgroups 22
Contents

Page iii GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 10: Percent of Enlisted Personnel and Civilians with a High 

School Diploma or Equivalent or Some College in the 

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups 28

Table 11: Percent of Officers and Civilian College Graduates in the 

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups 30

Table 12: Percent of AC Enlisted Personnel in Each Racial/Ethnic 

Subgroup and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 

2004 32

Table 13: Percent of AC Officers in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup 

and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 2004 34

Table 14: Percent of RC Enlisted Personnel in Each Racial/Ethnic 

Subgroup and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 

2004 36

Table 15: Percent of RC Officers in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup 

and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 2004 37

Table 16: Percent of Servicemembers and Civilian Workers in Each 

Racial/Ethnic and Gender Subgroup 40

Table 17: Distribution of Race/Ethnicity Among Female 

Servicemembers and Civilians 42

Table 18: Representation of AC Females across and within Enlisted 

Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 44

Table 19: Representation of AC Females across and within Officer 

Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 44

Table 20: Representation of RC Females across and within Enlisted 

Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 46

Table 21: Representation of RC Females across and within Officer 

Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 47

Table 22: Percentage of Servicemembers and Employed Civilians in 

Educational Categories 50

Table 23: DOD and Service-Specific Educational Standards 70

Table 24: Aptitude Standards and Required and Actual Percentages 

of Nonprior-service Recruits at or Above the 50th Percentile 

in Fiscal Year 2004 72

Table 25: Percent of Nonprior-service Accessions Scoring in AFQT 

Categories I-IIIA during Selected Years 73

Table 26: Examples of DOD Medical Standards which May Have 

Disqualified Potential Recruits in Fiscal Year 2004 74
Contents

Page iv GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 27: DOD and Service-Specific Moral Character Standards for 

Nonprior-service Recruits in Fiscal Year 2004 76

Table 28: Percent of AC Servicemembers in Each Racial/Ethnic 

Subgroup Who Have 1 Year or Less of Service in Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2002, and 2004 86

Table 29: Percent of Enlisted AC Accessions between 1999 and 2004 

and Comparable Civilian Youth Aged 17-21 from 

Community Population Density Subgroups 90

Table 30: Percent of Enlisted AC Accessions and Comparable 

Civilian Youth Aged 17-21 from Geographic Regions 91

Table 31: Examples of the Reserve Components’ Economic 

Enlistment Incentives Being Offered in February 2005 96

Table 32: Examples of Reserve Component Educational Enlistment 

Incentives Being Offered in February 2005 98

Table 33: AC Enlisted Retention in Fiscal Years 2000-2005 106

Table 34: AC Continuation Rates for Each Service in Fiscal Years 

2000, 2002, and 2004 108

Table 35: AC Continuation Rates for Race and Gender Subgroups in 

Fiscal Years 2000, 2002, and 2004 109

Table 36: AC Enlisted Continuation Rates for DOD Occupational 

Codes in Fiscal Years 2000, 2002, and 2004 110

Table 37: AC Officer Continuation Rates for DOD Occupational 

Codes in Fiscal Years 2000, 2002, and 2004 111

Table 38: Continuation Rates for RC Servicemembers in Fiscal Years 

2000, 2002, and the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2004 112

Table 39: Continuation Rates for RC Servicemembers by Years of 

Service in Fiscal Years 2002 and the Fourth Quarter of 

Fiscal Year 2004 113

Table 40: Number and Percent of Servicemembers in Racial/Ethnic 

Subgroups Who Died in Selected Military Operations as of 

May 28, 2005 116

Table 41: Operation and Circumstance of Death of the 1,841 

Servicemembers Who Died in Operations Iraqi Freedom 

and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005 118

Table 42: Representation of Selected Demographic Subgroups 

Among the 1,841 Servicemembers Who Died in Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 

2005 120
Contents

Page v GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 43: Community Population Density and Estimated 

Socioeconomic Status of the 482 Reservists Who Died in 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of 

May 28, 2005 122

Table 44: Operation for the 12,658 Servicemembers Who Were 

Wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom as of May 28, 2005 124

Table 45: Representation of Selected Demographic Subgroups 

Among the 12,658 Servicemembers Who Were Wounded in 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of 

May 28, 2005 126

Table 46: Community Population Density and Estimated 

Socioeconomic Status of the 3,197 Reservists Who Were 

Wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom as of May 28, 2005 128

Table 47: Military Occupational Specialties That Exclude Females 

as of March 1997 145

Figures Figure 1: Military Racial and Ethnic Representation 24

Figure 2: Percent of Males and Females in Each Component and 

among Employed Civilians 38

Figure 3: Percentage of the AC, RC, and U.S. Population in Age 

Categories 48

Figure 4: Percent of Servicemembers and Civilians in Three 

Citizenship Subgroups in 2004 52

Figure 5: AC and RC Achievement of Enlisted Recruiting Goals for 

Fiscal Years 1995 through 2004 64

Figure 6: DOD Components’ Achievement of Enlisted Recruiting 

Goals for October 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005 66

Figure 7: Four General Types of Factors that Influence Youths’ 

Decisions About Joining 78

Figure 8: Economic and Educational Incentives 92
Contents

Page vi GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Abbreviations

AC Active Component

AFQT Armed Forces Qualifying Test

AVF All Volunteer Force

CPS Current Population Survey

DOD Department of Defense

DMDC Defense Manpower Data Center

RC Reserve Component

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 22, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Charles Rangel

House of Representatives

Since the advent of the All Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1973, the active duty 

force has undergone several demographic changes. Our previous 

examination of the demographic composition of the AVF showed that 

between 1974 and 2000, the force became older and better educated. The 

AVF also experienced increases in the proportions of servicemembers who 

were racial/ethnic minorities, females, married, or parents.1

A number of significant events have occurred within the last 4 years, 

namely, the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and the ensuing 

Operations Enduring Freedom, Noble Eagle, and Iraqi Freedom. These 

military commitments increased the pace of operations for U.S. forces, 

particularly in the Army and Marine Corps. To ensure that the military has 

sufficient personnel to meet U.S. global commitments, Congress in October 

2004 authorized increases in personnel for the Army and Marine Corps.2

Ensuring the availability of sufficient numbers of trained, high-quality 

personnel in an environment of increased deployment and armed conflict 

has proven to be one of the greatest personnel challenges faced by the U.S. 

military since the inception of the AVF. The active Army, the Army Reserve, 

and the Army National Guard, for example, missed their early fiscal year 

2005 recruiting goals. We are currently looking at the military services’ 

efforts to enhance recruitment and retention of enlisted personnel. 

1

GAO, Military Personnel: Active Duty Benefits Reflect Changing Demographics, but 

Opportunities Exist to Improve, GAO-02-935 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2002). 

2

See the Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005, Pub. L. 

No. 108-375, § 401 (2004) and GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Conduct a DataDriven Analysis of Active Military Personnel Levels Required to Implement the Defense 

Strategy, GAO-05-200 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2005). 
Page 2 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

The high pace of military operations, thousands of casualties in ongoing 

military operations, and the services’ recruiting challenges have raised 

questions about who is serving in today’s military and concern that certain 

subgroups of the U.S. population are disproportionately represented 

among those fighting and dying in support of the war on terrorism. These 

challenges and concerns have increased the need for information about the 

demographic characteristics of military personnel.

As agreed with your offices, this report addressed three questions: (1) What 

are the demographic characteristics of servicemembers, and how do they 

compare to those of similarly aged and educated civilians in the U.S. 

workforce? (2) How well are the services meeting their recruitment goals, 

and what influences whether or not individuals join the military? (3) What 

are the demographic characteristics of servicemembers who remained in 

the military in fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004? You also asked us to 

examine the demographic characteristics of servicemembers who died or 

were wounded in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan in support of Operations 

Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom.

To address these objectives, we examined Department of Defense (DOD) 

policies, regulations, and instructions and reviewed laws relating to the 

staffing of the military. We also reviewed governmentwide guidance on 

demographic analyses, such as the recent change in the way that 

information about racial/ethnic groups is to be gathered and displayed, as 

well as reports on servicemembers’ demographics, recruitment, retention, 

and casualties issued by GAO, DOD, the services, and individuals from 

other organizations such as RAND, the Center for Naval Analysis, and the 

University of Maryland’s Center for Research on Military Organization. 

Additionally, we interviewed policy officials from the Office of the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and military researchers 

from DOD, the services, and other organizations to obtain insights into the 

factors that influence enlistment decisions, attitudes and opinions of 

today’s youth, recruiting challenges, characteristics of recruits, and 

demographic trends. We also requested that the Defense Manpower Data 

Center provide databases containing demographic data on active and 

reserve component servicemembers. We determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes and analyzed the data to identify the 

demographic characteristics of servicemembers. We conducted our work 

between August 2004 and July 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Additional information on our scope, 

methodology, and analytic procedures are presented in appendixes I and II. 
Page 3 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Results in Brief According to DOD data, the demographic composition of the military is 

somewhat different than that of the similarly aged and educated segment of 

the civilian workforce.3

 When compared to comparable civilian workers, 

the military had proportionately fewer Whites (67 percent in the military 

compared to 71 percent in the civilian workforce), partly because the 

military has proportionately more African Americans (17 percent in the 

military versus 11 percent in the civilian workforce). The representation of 

American Indian/Alaskan Natives in the military equals that of the civilian 

workforce (about 1 percent in each). Although Hispanic representation in 

the military has markedly increased over the last decade to 9 percent, 11 

percent of the comparable civilian workforce is of Hispanic ethnicity. 

Similarly, while Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders are 3 percent of the 

military, they comprise 5 percent of the civilian workforce. The 

representation of women in the military, at 16 percent, is partly impacted 

by military policy and federal statutes denying women access to military 

specialties involving ground combat. The distribution of racial/ethnic 

subgroups among female servicemembers differed from that of female 

civilian workers. For example, African Americans’ representation among 

female servicemembers at 28 percent was higher than their 13 percent 

representation among civilian female workers, but Whites’ representation 

among female servicemembers at 54 percent was below their 71 percent 

representation among civilian female workers. Two percent of 

servicemembers are not U.S. citizens. The top three foreign countries of 

origin identified by servicemembers who are not U.S. citizens or nationals 

are the Philippines, Mexico, and Jamaica. Also, DOD has not fully 

implemented the government-wide requirements on the collection and 

reporting of racial and ethnic data that were to have been implemented by 

January 1, 2003. The services continue to convert their data on current 

servicemembers’ race and ethnicity and DOD’s internal monthly reports of 

servicemember race and ethnicity continue to use the previous racial and 

ethnicity categories.4

 This results in racial and ethnic tabulations that 

cannot be clearly compared to tabulations of the U.S. population as 

reported by other federal agencies such as the Bureau of the Census, 

3

Data for DOD were as of December 2004 and for the civilian workforce were as of 2003. See 

app. II for a description of the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement, used as the source of civilian data in this report. 

4

DOD’s internal tabulations do include a category for multiracial individuals, which is 

consistent with the revised guidelines, but continue to include “Hispanic” as a racial 

subgroup instead of reporting it separately, in accordance with the revised federal 

guidelines for self-reported data on race and ethnicity.
Page 4 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

making it difficult for Congress to compare the military and civilian racial 

and ethnic compositions. The continued use of the former categories and 

methods may result in the undercounting of Hispanic servicemembers who 

belong to a minority racial subgroup.

Over the past decade the Active Component5

 (AC) has met its overall 

recruiting goals more frequently than has the Reserve Component (RC). We 

found that a combination of personal, demographic, family, and societal 

factors influence whether or not individuals join the military. According to 

DOD researchers, at least half of today’s youth between the ages of 16 and 

21 are not qualified to serve in the military because they fail to meet the 

military’s entry standards for education, aptitude, health, moral character, 

or other requirements. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2004, the AC annually 

accessed between approximately 176,400 to 183,000 nonprior-service 

enlisted personnel and about 17,500 to 21,500 officers. However, since 

fiscal year 2002, the proportion of recruits who are African Americans has 

declined in the AC. DOD has not routinely surveyed and reported on the 

socioeconomic status of its servicemembers since 1999 and has not 

previously routinely reported on the types of communities from which 

recruits are drawn. A recent DOD analysis of over 1 million recruits found 

that recruits came from communities representing all socioeconomic levels 

and, at $44,500, the median income of recruits’ communities roughly 

equaled the $44,300 median income of the communities of civilian youths. 

Proportionately more recruits came from the South and West than from the 

Northeast. Additionally, proportionately more enlisted recruits

(45 percent-52 percent) than similarly aged civilian youth (40 percent) 

came from a rural community. Weaknesses with DOD’s measures of 

recruits’ socioeconomic status and community population density limit the 

information provided to Congress to perform its oversight role. To support 

recruiting, DOD spent over $455 million in fiscal year 2003 for enlistment 

bonuses, college funds, and loan repayments that were designed, in part, to 

help the services maintain the required numbers of personnel in critical 

occupational specialties. Some incentives have increased. While economic 

5

We use the term “Active Component” to collectively refer to the four active duty services: 

the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force. We use the term “Reserve Component” to 

collectively refer to the six reserve components: the U.S. Army Reserve, U.S. Army National 

Guard, U.S. Navy Reserve, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve, U.S. Air Force Reserve, and U.S. Air 

National Guard. Although the Coast Guard Reserve also assists DOD in meeting its 

commitments, it comes under the day-to-day control of the Department of Homeland 

Security rather than DOD. The manpower strengths and analyses reported herein exclude 

the Coast Guard Reserve. 
Page 5 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

and educational incentives are cited as important factors youth consider in 

their decisions to join or not join the military, DOD data also shows that the 

attractiveness of joining the military after high school has declined because 

of operations in Iraq.

In fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004, DOD reported that 85 to 87 percent of 

all AC enlisted personnel and 90 to 93 percent of AC officers remained in 

the military. In the RC, 83 to 85 percent of enlisted personnel and 88 to 89 

percent of officers remained in the military. In general, active or reserve Air 

Force continuation rates tended to be higher than rates for the other 

components. In the AC, there were no consistent differences between the 

continuation rates of racial/ethnic subgroups and the rates for females 

were within 2 percentage points of the rates for males in each year 

examined. While DOD routinely prepares some of these types of retention 

analyses for use within the department, it does not provide active duty 

retention rates in reports such as Population Representation in the 

Military Services, which could be used by Congress in its oversight of 

military retention and related issues. 

As of May 28, 2005, 1,841 servicemembers had died and 12,658 had been 

wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. Of the 1,841 

servicemembers who died, 482 were reservists. Of the 12,658 

servicemembers who were wounded, 3,197 were reservists. Most of those 

who died or were wounded were junior enlisted personnel in the active 

Army or Marine Corps. Seventy-two percent of those who died were either 

killed in combat or died later of wounds received while in combat. White 

servicemembers constituted 71 percent of the deaths although they 

represented 67 percent of the AC and Selected Reserve6

 we examined. In 

contrast, African Americans accounted for 9 percent of the deaths in these 

operations although they comprised 17 percent of the AC and Selected 

Reserve force we studied. Hispanic servicemembers comprised 10 percent 

of the deaths compared to the 9 percent of the AC and Selected Reserve 

force we examined. The majority of selected reservists who were killed or 

wounded during these operations were from communities that DOD 

classified as being of medium socioeconomic status.

6

The Selected Reserve comprises part-time drilling reservists, full-time unit support 

personnel, Individual Mobilization Augmentees, and reservists who are in training. See app. 

III for more information on reserve personnel categories.
Page 6 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

To improve the ability of the public, DOD, and Congress to identify and 

monitor demographic changes in the race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, 

and community population density of servicemembers in the AVF and to 

enhance Congress’s ability to perform its oversight functions, we are 

recommending that DOD (1) gather and report data on race and ethnicity 

that are consistent with the required procedures set forth by the Office of 

Management and Budget, (2) conduct research to determine a feasible 

process for assessing the socioeconomic status of recruits and periodically 

include these findings in annual reports on servicemembers, (3) assess the 

type of communities recruits come from and periodically include a 

measure of population density in the annual demographic reports, and 

(4) include continuation rates on AC and RC personnel in DOD’s annual 

demographic reports. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD 

concurred with our four recommendations. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the 

Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; 

and the Chiefs of the National Guard Bureau, the Army Reserve, the Army 

National Guard, the Air Force Reserve, the Air National Guard, the Navy 

Reserve, and the Marine Corps Reserve. We will also make copies available 

to others upon request. The report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions concerning this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VI.

Derek B. Stewart

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 7 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Background

The Charge and the 

Debate of the All 

Volunteer Force

In 1970, President Nixon directed the Commission on an All Volunteer 

Armed Force–the Gates Commission--to develop a plan to eliminate 

conscription and institute an All Volunteer Force (AVF). The commission 

unanimously recommended the elimination of conscription, while noting 

that, except during major wars and the latter half of the 20th century, the 

United States has historically relied on volunteers for its military forces. 

Prior to the adoption of the AVF, there were a number of arguments made 

for and against an AVF. Some of these arguments, offered by members of 

the commission, Congress, military leaders, and the public, follow:

• Arguments against an AVF

• Opinion that military service is an obligation of citizenship.

• Concern that the military would attract an insufficient number of 

recruits, especially during times of war.

• Concern that because of relatively poorer civilian opportunities, 

African Americans would be attracted to the higher pay of a 

voluntary force and therefore would be overrepresented in the force.

• Fear that a volunteer military would not attract a cross section of 

high-quality American youth, causing a decline in military 

effectiveness.

• The AVF is costly because of higher costs for benefits and increased 

pay.

• Arguments for an AVF

• Concern that conscription is inequitable, divisive, and inefficient.

• Availability of more potential recruits in the late 1960s because the 

“baby boom” generation provided more young men eligible for 

military service.

• Concern that minorities, especially African Americans, represented a 

disproportionate share of Vietnam War fatalities.
Background

Page 8 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The higher cost of an AVF transfers the burden of military service 

from draftees to the population as a whole. The higher cost also is 

partly offset by lower turnover and fewer people in a training status.

• Conscription is costly because of the higher costs of recruiting, 

training, and turnover.

Despite opposition from many in the military, Congress, and the 

administration, the AVF was adopted on July 1,1973, marking the end of 

conscription. 

DOD Publications and 

Databases for Force 

Demographics

The Office of the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness publishes 

the demographic characteristics of military personnel in several official 

documents. 

• For 30 years, the Office of Accession Policy has produced the 

Population Representation in the Military Services,1

 which contains 

• demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, and ethnicity, 

of current active duty personnel and selected reservists (including 

the Coast Guard); 

• military characteristics of current active duty and selected reservists 

such as pay grade, DOD occupational area, and years of service;

• information on applicants and accessions; and

• trends. 

• Similarly, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

Affairs annually publishes the Official Guard and Reserve Manpower 

Strengths and Statistics which includes data on Selected Reservists as 

well as reservists in the Individual Ready Reserve, Inactive National 

Guard, and Retired Reserves (see app. III for more information on 

reserve personnel categories). The report includes:

1

The most recent report can be accessed at http://dod.mil/prhome/poprep2003.
Background

Page 9 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• tabulations on current reservists’ demographic and military 

characteristics such as gender, race, ethnicity, pay grade, and 

occupational category; and

• data on end strength, accessions, attrition, and retention. 

• Data sources—Data for both reports are drawn from databases 

maintained by the DMDC. (See app. II for more detailed information on 

the data sources used in this report.)

• The active duty master and loss files are the sources of information 

for active duty personnel.

• The Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System is the 

source of information for reserve component personnel.

Changing 

Demographics

The AC of the AVF has been characterized by increased: 

• Representation of African Americans and Hispanics.

• At the initiation of the AVF in 1973, African Americans and Hispanics 

comprised 12 percent and 1 percent, respectively, of the AC.

• A decade later in 1983, African American and Hispanic 

representation had increased to 19 percent and 4 percent, 

respectively.

• By 1993, African Americans and Hispanics comprised 19 percent and 

5 percent, respectively, of the AC. 

• By December 2004, AC African American representation had 

decreased 1 percentage point to 18 percent, while Hispanic 

representation rose 4 percentage points to 9 percent.

• Representation of women (see table 1).
Background

Page 10 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 1: Percentage of the AC that Is Female 

Sources: Percentages are GAO calculations using data from DOD’s Selected Manpower Statistics: Fiscal Year 2003, pp. 44-45, 71-73.

• Retention (see table 2).

Table 2: Percentage of Servicemembers Serving for More than 4 Years 

Source: Bernard D. Rostker, “The Gates Commission: Right for the Wrong Reasons,” from The All Volunteer Force: Thirty Years of 

Service, Brassey’s Inc. (Washington, D.C. 2004), p. 29.

Note: Rows may not total 100 percent because of rounding.

Year Percentage female

Pre-AVF 1964 1

AVF initiation 1973 2

Post-AVF

1983 9

1993 12

2003 15

Year

Percentage of each service

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Pre-AVF 1969 18 31 16 46

Post-AVF 2002 51 49 35 66
Page 11 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Question 1 and 

Summary of Approach

What are the demographic characteristics of servicemembers and how do 

they compare to those of similarly aged and educated civilians in the U.S. 

workforce?

We compared the characteristics of over 2.2 million servicemembers in the 

AC and RC to a nationally representative sample of civilian workers. We 

examined almost 1.4 million AC servicemembers who were on active duty 

on December, 31, 2004. We also examined almost 835,000 RC Selected 

Reservists in the Army Reserve, Army National Guard, Navy Reserve, 

Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. We 

compared servicemembers’ characteristics to those of employed civilians 

in the United States, aged 18-49, with at least a high school diploma or 

equivalent.

Summary of Findings 

1A. Military force overview AC servicemembers comprise 63 percent of all servicemembers examined. 

The components vary both in the extent to which junior personnel 

comprise the enlisted corps and in their occupational make-up. 

1B. Race and ethnicity • There are proportionately more African American and proportionately 

fewer White servicemembers in the military than in the comparable 

civilian workforce.

• The proportions of both Hispanics and Asian Americans/Pacific 

Islanders in the military are slightly lower than in the comparable 

civilian workforce.

• The proportion of American Indians/Alaskan Natives in the military is 

about the same as that in the comparable civilian workforce.

1C. Gender About 16 percent of the armed forces are female, with representation being 

highest in the Air Force and lowest in the Marine Corps.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 12 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1D. Age We compared the age of servicemembers to that of the entire U.S. 

population and found that, in general, servicemembers are younger than 

persons in the U.S. population.

1E. Education We compared the education levels of servicemembers to those of the entire 

U.S. population and found that proportionately fewer servicemembers have 

attended college than in the U.S. population.

1F. Citizenship and country 

of origin

Two percent of all servicemembers are not U.S. citizens. Among the 

countries of birth most frequently cited by noncitizens are the Philippines, 

Mexico, and Jamaica.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 13 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 14 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Findings

1A. Military Force 

Overview—Force Strength

Table 3: Number of Servicemembers in Each Service as of December 31, 2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

a

National Guard servicemembers, with their unique federal and state roles, perform under the 

command of the President for federal missions such as warfighting and under the command of the 

state governor for state missions such as responding to natural disasters.

• Over 2.2 million servicemembers from the AC and RC Selected Reserve 

were in the military on December 31, 2004 (see table 3).

• AC servicemembers comprised 63 percent (1,396,239) of the 

servicemembers we reviewed.

• There were 834,633 RC Selected Reservists serving as Individual 

Mobilization Augmentees, drilling reservists, or in unit support or 

training.1

• The Army is the largest service and the only one with less than half of its 

personnel in the AC. 

Service Active

Selected Reserve

Reserve National Guard Total a

Army 488,143 198,947 335,490 1,022,580

Navy 365,419 79,467 0 444,886

Air Force 365,567 74,875 105,805 546,247

Marine Corps 177,110 40,049 0 217,159

Total 1,396,239 393,338 441,295 2,230,872

1

We excluded from our analyses reservists in the Individual Ready Reserve, Inactive 

National Guard, Standby Reserve, and Retired Reserve. See app. III for a description of RC 

structure.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 15 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 4: Number of Servicemembers in Each Pay Grade Subgroup as of December 31, 2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: AC enlisted subtotal includes 15 AC enlisted personnel with unknown pay grades. AC officer 

subtotal includes 1 AC officer with unknown pay grade. RC enlisted subtotal includes 7 RC enlisted 

personnel with unknown pay grades. RC officer subtotal includes 2 RC officers with unknown pay 

grades.

• Of the 2.2 million servicemembers, almost 1.9 million or 84 percent were 

enlisted personnel (see table 4). 

• In the AC enlisted and officer corps, there are more junior than senior 

personnel, although the opposite pattern is noted in the RC. The higher 

proportion of senior personnel in the RC enlisted and officer corps may 

reflect the fact that many RC accessions have prior military service and 

therefore entered the RC at a pay grade above the lowest (entry-level) 

pay grade. 

Component

Junior

enlisted

(E1-E4)

Senior

enlisted

(E5-E9)

Warrant

officers

(WO1-

WO5)

Junior

officers

(O1-O3)

Senior

officers

(O4-O6)

General/

Flag

officers

(O7-O10)

Subtotals

Total

Total

enlisted

Total

officers

Total AC 609,075 560,794 15,586 126,020 83,867 881 1,169,884 226,355 1,396,239

Total RC 329,429 380,306 9,821 46,373 68,098 597 709,742 124,891 834,633

Total 938,504 941,100 25,407 172,393 151,965 1,478 1,879,626 351,246 2,230,872
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 16 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1A. Military Force 

Overview—Pay Grade

Table 5: Percent of Servicemembers in Pay Grade Subgroups as of December 31, 2004 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

• Some components have proportionately more enlisted personnel than 

do other components (see table 5).

• The components with the highest proportions of enlisted personnel 

are both Marine Corps components and the Army National Guard (91 

percent to 89 percent).

• The Air Force Reserve and Navy Reserve have the lowest proportions 

of enlisted personnel (78 percent and 79 percent, respectively).

• The mix of junior (E1-E4) and senior (E5-E9) pay grades in the enlisted 

force varies across components. 

Component

Pay grade subgroup Subtotals

Junior

enlisted

(E1-E4)

Senior

enlisted

(E5-E9)

Warrant

officers

(WO1-

WO5)

Junior

officers

(O1-O3)

Senior

officers

(O4-O6)

General/

flag

officers

(O7-O10)

Total

enlisted

Total

officers

Army 46 38 2 8 6 <1 84 16

Navy 40 45 <1 9 6 <1 85 15

Marine Corps 60 29 1 6 3 <1 89 10

Air Force 36 44 0 12 8 <1 80 20

Total AC 44 40 1 9 6 <1 84 16

Army Reserve 38 43 1 8 10 <1 81 19

Army National Guard 48 41 2 5 3 <1 89 10

Navy Reserve 26 53 <1 5 16 <1 79 21

Marine Corps Reserve 71 20 1 1 7 <1 91 9

Air Force Reserve 22 56 0 6 16 <1 78 22

Air National Guard 24 63 0 4 8 <1 87 12

Total RC 39 46 1 6 8 <1 85 15

Total military 42 42 1 8 7 <1 84 16
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 17 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Junior enlisted personnel make up over half of the enlisted force in 

the Marine Corps Reserve (71 percent) and active Marine Corps (60 

percent). 

• In contrast, junior enlisted make up about one quarter of the Air 

Force Reserve (22 percent), Air National Guard (24 percent), and 

Navy Reserve (26 percent).

• Although the overall officer corps is about evenly split between junior 

(8 percent) and senior (7 percent) officer pay grades, the Navy Reserve 

and Air Force Reserve have two to three times as many senior as junior 

officers. 
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 18 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1A. Military Force 

Overview—Occupational 

Areas

Table 6: Percent of Servicemembers in Each DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 2004 

Legend: N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• Table 6 shows that over half of AC and RC enlisted personnel are in 

three occupational areas:

• electrical/mechanical equipment repair (21 percent and 16 percent, 

respectively);

• infantry, gun crews, and seamanship (17 percent and 19 percent, 

respectively); and

• functional support and administration (16 percent and 20 percent, 

respectively).

• The biggest differences between AC and RC enlisted occupation 

concentrations is that, relative to the RC, the AC has proportionately 

more enlisted personnel in: 

DOD enlisted occupational codes and areas 

Component

DOD officer occupational codes and areas 

Component

AC RC AC RC

0 Infantry, gun crews, & seamanship 17 19 N/A N/A N/A

1 Electronic equipment repairers 9 5 1 General officers & executives N.E.C. 1 1

2 Communications & intelligence specialists 10 5 2 Tactical operations officers 36 33

3 Health care specialists 7 6 3 Intelligence officers 5 6

4 Other technical & allied specialists 3 3 4 Engineering and maintenance officers 14 11

5 Functional support & administration 16 20 5 Scientists & professionals 5 7

6 Electrical/mechanical equipment repairers 21 16 6 Health care officers 16 19

7 Craftsworkers 4 6 7 Administrators 6 8

8 Service & supply handlers 9 12 8 Supply, procurement, & allied officers 9 10

9 Nonoccupational 5 8 9 Nonoccupational 6 4

Total 101 100 Total 98 99
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 19 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• communications and intelligence (10 percent and 5 percent, 

respectively); and

• electrical/mechanical equipment repair (21 percent and 16 percent, 

respectively).

• Over half of AC and RC officers are in the following three occupational 

areas:

• tactical operations (36 percent and 33 percent, respectively); 

• health care (16 percent and 19 percent, respectively); and 

• engineering and maintenance (14 percent and 11 percent, 

respectively).

• The distribution of occupations both within and between AC and RC 

components is in the process of change. In July 2003, the Secretary of 

Defense directed the services to examine their AC-RC force structure to 

minimize the imbalances that result in lengthy, repeated, or frequent RC 

mobilization.

• The services rebalanced about 10,000 military spaces both within and 

between the AC and RC in fiscal year 2003 and planned to rebalance 

another 20,000 spaces each in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Between 

fiscal years 2005 and 2009, the Army will rebalance over 100,000 

spaces of force structure.

• As part of its rebalancing, for example, the Army National Guard is 

converting Cold War artillery capability into the military police, 

chemical, intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance units needed 

for current operations.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 20 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1A. Military Force 

Overview—Occupational 

Areas

Table 7: Percent of Enlisted Personnel in Each Component in DOD Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

DOD enlisted occupational 

codes and areas 

AC RC

Army Navy

Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Army

Reserve

Army

National

Guard

Navy

Reserve

Marine

Corps

Reserve

Air Force

Reserve

Air

National

Guard

0 Infantry, gun crews, & 

seamanship

26 9 10 23 8 30 11 31 11 10

1 Electronic equipment 

repairers

6 13 9 7 2 3 10 4 5 9

2 Communications & 

intelligence specialists

11 9 8 7 4 6 7 8 3 4

3 Health care specialists 8 9 7 0 10 4 9 0 11 4

4 Other technical & allied 

specialists

314 3 4 3 1 1 3 5

5 Functional support & 

administration

16 12 21 16 26 14 22 12 27 22

6 Electrical/mechanical 

equipment repairers

14 29 25 16 11 14 19 13 22 28

7 Craftsworkers 2 6 5 2 6 4 14 3 6 6

8 Service & supply handlers 13 7 5 12 19 13 7 15 5 6

9 Nonoccupational 1 6 6 13 10 9 1 11 8 6

Total 100 101 100 99 100 100 101 98 101 100
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 21 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 8: Percent of Officers in Each Component in DOD Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004

Legend: N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• The enlisted occupational structure varies among the active 

components (see table 7).

• In the AC, the Army and Marine Corps have a higher proportion (over 

a fifth) of their enlisted forces in the occupations which are part of 

the infantry, gun crews, and seamanship occupational area than did 

the active Navy and Air Force. 

• In contrast, the active Navy and Air Force have their greatest 

concentrations of enlisted personnel in electrical/mechanical 

equipment repair occupations. 

• At least a third of officers in each active and reserve component except 

the Army Reserve (17 percent) and the Air Force Reserve (31 percent) 

were in tactical operations (see table 8).

DOD officer occupational 

codes and areas

AC RC

Army Navy

Air

Force

Marine

Corps

Army

Reserve

Army

National

Guard

Navy

Reserve

Marine

Corps

Reserve

Air Force

Reserve

Air

National

Guard

1 General officers & 

executives N.E.C.

<1 <1 1 4 <1 1 <1 11 2 3

2 Tactical operations officers 36 39 33 45 17 44 38 47 31 37

3 Intelligence officers 6 4 5 5 5 3 11573

4 Engineering and 

maintenance officers

15 12 15 11 10 11 12 10 12 14

5 Scientists & professionals 6 4 6 3 11 3 4 5 9 5

6 Health care officers 17 20 16 0 31 8 20 0 24 15

7 Administrators 7 4 7 8 9 7 6 7 7 10

8 Supply, procurement, & 

allied officers

10 6 9 13 13 10 6 13 8 6

9 Nonoccupational 2 11 5 11 1 11 2 <1 1 3

Total 99 100 97 100 97 98 99 98 101 96
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 22 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

Component Composition

Table 9: Percent of Servicemembers and Civilians Across Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data on servicemembers as of December 31, 2004, and comparable civilians included in the 

March 2004 Current Population Survey which reflects civilians’ employment status in 2003.

Note: Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• Table 9 shows that compared to the civilian workforce, the military has 

proportionately:

• More African Americans (17 percent versus 11 percent). Within the 

military, African American representation is highest in the Army 

Reserve (24 percent) and active Army (23 percent) and lowest in the 

Marine Corps Reserve and Air National Guard (9 percent each).

• Fewer Hispanics (9 percent versus 11 percent). In general, lacking a 

high school diploma reduces the likelihood of being accepted into 

military service, and Hispanics drop out of high school at higher rates

Component 

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White

African

American Hispanic

Asian American/

Pacific Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaskan Native

Other/

Unknown

Army 60 23 10 3 1 3

Navy 62 19 8 6 3 3

Air Force 72 15 6 2 <1 4

Marine Corps 66 12 14 2 1 5

Total AC 65 18 9 4 1 3

Army Reserve 60 24 11 4 1 1

Army National Guard 74 14 7 2 1 2

Navy Reserve 64 15 9 4 1 7

Marine Corps Reserve 68 9 14 4 1 5

Air Force Reserve 72 16 7 2 <1 4

Air National Guard 80 9 6 2 1 2

Total RC 70 16 8 3 1 3

Total military 67 17 9 3 1 3

Civilian workforce 71 11 11 5 <1 1
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 23 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

than members of other racial/ethnic subgroups.2 Within the military, 

Hispanic representation is highest in both Marine Corps components 

(14 percent each) and lowest in the active Air Force and Air National 

Guard (6 percent each).

• Fewer Whites (67 percent versus 71 percent) and Asian 

Americans/Pacific Islanders (3 percent versus 5 percent).

• The components differ in overall minority representation. 

• The AC is 65 percent White and 34 percent minority.

• The RC is 70 percent White and 30 percent minority.

• The active Army and Army Reserve each have a minority 

representation of about 40 percent compared to the Air National 

Guard, which has a 20 percent minority representation.

2

Anita U. Hattiangadi, Gary Lee, and Aline O. Quester, Recruiting Hispanics: The Marine 

Corps Experience Final Report, CRM D0009071.A2, Center for Naval Analysis (Alexandria, 

Va.: January 2004).
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 24 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

New Federal Requirements

Figure 1: Military Racial and Ethnic Representation

• The previously presented analysis on race/ethnicity and those in later 

parts of this report must be understood in the context of recent changes 

in the procedures for collecting and reporting information on racial and 

ethnic group membership.

• In 1997, the Office of Management and Budget issued Statistical Policy 

Directive Number 15, “Race and Ethnic Standards for Statistics and 

Administrative Reporting,” indicating that by January 1, 2003, federal 

agencies would collect information on race and ethnicity by:

• asking about race and ethnicity in two separate questions, with the 

ethnicity question preceding the race question;

Source: Joint Combat Camera Center.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 25 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• using a minimum of five single race subgroups: American Indian or 

Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or 

Other Pacific Islander, and White; 

• enabling individuals to indicate more than one racial identity; and

• using two ethnic subgroups—Hispanic or Latino versus Not Hispanic 

or Latino—for self-reported data collections.

• In addition to changing the way racial and ethnic data are collected, the 

revised directive also changed the way federal agencies report this data 

by,

• prohibiting use of the term “nonwhite,” 

• allowing the use of a “combined format” in which being of Hispanic 

or Latino ethnicity is one of six racial/ethnic categories when 

reporting observer-collected data.

• In March 2000, the Office of Management and Budget issued OMB 

Bulletin No. 00-02, which provided guidance on the aggregation and 

allocation of multiple race responses by encouraging federal agencies 

to:

• report multiple race individuals separately from single race 

individuals, and

• report racial combinations representing more than 1 percent of the 

population in an area. 
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 26 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

DOD’s Implementation of 

the New Requirements 

• Prior to 2003, DOD generally tabulated and reported servicemember 

race and ethnicity in the following subgroups: Hispanic, White, Black, 

Asian or Pacific Islander, and American Indian or Alaskan native, and 

Other or Unknown. Some DOD reports combined several subgroups to 

report on four categories: Hispanic, White, Black, and Other.

• DOD has implemented the new guidelines when collecting racial and 

ethnicity data from recruits.

• In 2003, DOD revised the form (DD 1966) used to capture information 

on recruits to comply with the newly issued guidance. The revised 

form, however, did not require recruits to respond to questions on 

race and ethnicity, and instead, enabled them to choose a “Decline to 

respond” option. 

• The Office of Accession Policy indicated that providing this option 

resulted in more servicemembers declining to supply the 

information. DOD plans to begin using another version of the form 

without the “Decline to respond” option in October 2005. 

• The components are taking different approaches to updating race and 

ethnicity in servicemembers’ personnel records. A DOD official told us 

that race and ethnicity data in one reserve component database were 

expunged and reentered when servicemembers updated their files. 

Additionally, we were told that:

• the Air Force reserve components cleared personnel records of the 

old racial/ethnic data and began entering new data consistent with 

the revised guidelines, and 

• the active Air Force notified its personnel that they should access the 

Virtual Personnel Center and confirm or revise the data.

• Although the varying approaches taken by the components to update 

personnel records can be expected to result in varying levels of 

compliance, DOD officials told us that an internal study showed that 90
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 27 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

percent of active duty servicemembers had the same race code before 

and after implementation of the new guidance.3

• Although the components are in the process of gathering or confirming 

their data on current servicemembers’ race and ethnicity to comply with 

the new guidance, DOD still reports race and ethnicity in the old format.

• DOD’s internal monthly report of servicemember demographics, 

DMDC EO 3035, still uses the previous racial and ethnicity categories 

in which, 

• Hispanic remains one of five single race subgroups instead of 

being reported separately, and

• Asian Americans, Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders are in 

one racial subgroup (instead of two subgroups—Asian and Native 

Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander—in accordance with the new 

guidance).

• DOD’s Information Delivery System produces demographic reports 

of servicemembers using the former racial/ethnic subgroups of 

White, African American, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and 

Alaska Native, although the reports also include a 

Multirace/Unknown subgroup.

• The Office of Accession Policy excluded racial/ethnic breakouts of 

current servicemembers from its Population Report of the Military 

Services: Fiscal Year 2003 (such breakouts are, however, available for 

accessions) although the office does plan to include these analyses in 

future reports.

• DOD’s continued use of the former racial and ethnic categories makes it 

difficult to directly compare race and ethnicity in the U.S. population to 

that in the military. 

3

DOD compared the race codes of 929,651 servicemembers who were on active duty in both 

March 2002 and March 2005.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 28 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

Enlisted Personnel

Table 10: Percent of Enlisted Personnel and Civilians with a High School Diploma or Equivalent or Some College in the 

Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data reflecting servicemembers as of December 31, 2004, and the March 2004 Current 

Population Survey, reflecting civilians in 2003.

Note: Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• We identified civilian workers with a high school diploma or equivalent 

certification and those who had some college as the civilians most 

comparable to enlisted servicemembers and compared the racial/ethnic 

distribution of the two groups.

• Table 10 shows that the representation of Whites among enlisted 

personnel is 2 percentage points less than their representation among 

comparable civilian workers (64 percent versus 66 percent, 

Component

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian/

Alaskan Native

Other/

Unknown

Army 58 25 11 3 1 3 101

Navy 58 21 9 6 3 2 99

Marine Corps 65 12 14 3 1 5 100

Air Force 70 17 6 2 <1 4 99

Total AC enlisted 62 20 10 4 1 3 100

Army Reserve 56 26 12 4 1 1 100

Army National Guard 73 15 8 2 1 2 101

Navy Reserve 61 18 10 4 1 6 100

Marine Corps Reserve 67 9 15 4 1 5 101

Air Force Reserve 68 19 7 2 <1 4 100

Air National Guard 79 9 6 3 1 3 101

Total RC enlisted 68 17 9 3 1 3 101

Total enlisted 64 19 10 3 1 3 100

Civilian workers with a high 

school diploma (or equivalent) 

or some college

66 14 14 3 1 1 99
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 29 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

respectively). The representation of White enlisted personnel varies by 

component.

• In the AC, the Air Force has the highest proportion of enlisted Whites 

at 70 percent, and the Army and Navy have the lowest at 58 percent.

• In the RC, the Air National Guard and Army National Guard have the 

highest proportions at 79 percent and 73 percent, respectively, and 

the Army Reserve has the lowest proportion at 56 percent.

• The racial/ethnic distribution of minority enlisted personnel varies from 

that for civilian workers with a high school diploma or equivalent or 

some college. Compared to these civilians, the military’s enlisted pay 

grades have proportionately:

• more African Americans (19 percent versus 14 percent for civilians), 

and

• fewer Hispanics (10 percent versus 14 percent for civilians).

• African American representation among enlisted personnel is highest in 

the Army Reserve (26 percent) and active Army (25 percent). 

• Hispanic enlisted representation is highest in the two Marine Corps 

components (14 percent and 15 percent).
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 30 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

Officers

Table 11: Percent of Officers and Civilian College Graduates in the Racial/Ethnic Subgroups

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data reflecting servicemembers as of December 31, 2004, and the March 2004 Current 

Population Survey reflecting civilians in March 2003.

Note: Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• Findings from table 11 indicate that the racial/ethnic representation of 

the officer corps is similar to that of the civilian college-graduate 

workforce, except

• White representation is higher among military officers (79 percent) 

than among civilian college graduates (75 percent), and

• Asian American/Pacific Islander representation is lower among 

military officers (3 percent) than among civilian college graduates (8 

percent).

Component

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

Army 75 13 5 3 <1 3 99

Navy 81 8 5 3 <1 3 100

Marine Corps 77 7 6 2 1 7 100

Air Force 82 7 4 2 <1 5 100

Total AC officers 79 9 5 3 <1 4 100

Army Reserve 73 16 6 3 <1 2 100

Army National Guard 84 7 5 2 <1 1 99

Navy Reserve 77 5 4 3 <1 12 101

Marine Corps Reserve 82 5 5 2 1 6 101

Air Force Reserve 85 6 3 1 <1 3 98

Air National Guard 87 5 3 2 <1 2 99

Total RC officers 80 9 4 2 <1 3 98

Total officers 79 9 5 3 <1 4 100

Civilian college graduates in 

the workforce 75 9 7 8 <1 1 100
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 31 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The comparison of the racial/ethnic distribution of officers to enlisted 

personnel (provided earlier in table 10) shows that

• Although White representation among officers is higher than in the 

college educated workforce (79 percent versus 75 percent, 

respectively), White representation among enlisted personnel is 

lower than comparably educated civilians (64 percent versus 66 

percent, respectively). 

• Although African American representation among officers is equal to 

that of the college workforce (9 percent for both), African American 

representation among enlisted personnel exceeds that of comparably 

educated civilians (19 percent versus 14 percent, respectively, as 

shown in table 10 on the previous page).

• Hispanic representation among both officers and enlisted is below 

that of comparably educated civilians (5 percent of officers versus 7 

percent of comparably educated civilians are Hispanic; 10 percent of 

enlisted personnel versus 14 percent of comparably educated 

civilians are Hispanic).
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 32 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

Active Component Enlisted 

Occupational Areas 

Table 12: Percent of AC Enlisted Personnel in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 

2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• The occupational areas with the highest concentration of AC White 

enlisted personnel in table 12 are:

• the nonoccupational area (which includes patients, students, and 

those with unassigned duties) at 72 percent;

DOD enlisted occupational codes and 

areas

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

0 Infantry, gun crews, & seamanship 69 14 11 3 1 3 101

1 Electronic equipment repairers 69 15 9 3 2 3 101

2 Communications & intelligence 

specialists 67 18 9 3 1 3 101

3 Health care specialists 52 25 11 7 1 4 100

4 Other technical & allied specialists 67 17 9 3 1 3 100

5 Functional support & administration 45 34 12 4 1 4 100

6 Electrical/mechanical equipment 

repairers 67 15 9 4 2 3 100

7 Craftsworkers 66 17 9 4 2 3 101

8 Service & supply handlers 53 28 11 4 1 3 100

9 Nonoccupational 72 14 4 4 3 4 101

Total AC enlisted personnel 62 20 10 4 1 3 100
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 33 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• infantry, gun crews, and seamanship (69 percent) and electronic 

equipment repair (69 percent); and communications and intelligence 

specialists (67 percent), other technical and allied specialists 

(67 percent), and electrical/mechanical equipment repairers 

(67 percent).

• The occupational areas with the highest concentrations of AC African 

American enlisted personnel are:

• functional support and administration (34 percent), 

• service and supply handlers (28 percent), and 

• health care specialists (25 percent). 

• The occupational areas with the highest concentrations of AC Hispanic 

enlisted personnel are:

• functional support and administration (12 percent), and

• infantry, gun crews, and seamanship (11 percent); health care 

specialists (11 percent); and service and supply handlers (11 

percent).

• The racial/ethnic composition of enlisted occupational areas reflects 

both servicemembers’ preferences and eligibility, as determined by, for 

example, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery test score or 

other requirements. 
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 34 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

Active Component Officer 

Occupational Areas

Table 13: Percent of AC Officers in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 2004

Legend: N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: Nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• Table 13 shows that among AC officers, the occupational areas with the 

highest concentrations of Whites are:

• general officers and executives not elsewhere classified (91 percent),

• tactical operations officers (85 percent), and 

• scientists and professionals (83 percent).

DOD officer occupational codes and 

areas

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

1 General officers & executives N.E.C. 91 5 2 <1 <1 2 100

2 Tactical operations officers 85 5 5 2 <1 3 100

3 Intelligence officers 79 8 5 3 <1 4 99

4 Engineering and maintenance officers 74 13 5 3 <1 4 99

5 Scientists & professionals 83 7 4 3 <1 3 100

6 Health care officers 76 9 4 5 <1 5 99

7 Administrators 69 17 6 2 <1 4 98

8 Supply, procurement, & allied officers 69 17 6 3 <1 4 99

9 Nonoccupational 78 5 5 3 <1 9 100

Total AC officers 79 9 5 3 <1 4 100
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 35 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The occupational areas with the highest concentrations of AC African 

Americans are:

• administrators (17 percent), and supply, procurement, and allied 

officers (17 percent); and

• engineering and maintenance officers (13 percent).

• The representation of Hispanics and Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders 

in each occupational area except general officers and executives is 

within 2 percentage points of their average representation within the AC 

officer corps.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 36 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1B. Race and Ethnicity—

Reserve Component 

Occupational Categories

Table 14: Percent of RC Enlisted Personnel in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 

2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: Nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

DOD enlisted occupational codes and areas

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

0 Infantry, gun crews, & seamanship 75 11 8 2 1 2 99

1 Electronic equipment repairers 72 13 8 3 1 3 100

2 Communications & intelligence specialists 75 11 8 3 1 3 101

3 Health care specialists 62 21 10 4 1 3 101

4 Other technical & allied specialists 72 15 9 2 1 2 101

5 Functional support & administration 57 27 10 3 1 3 101

6 Electrical/mechanical equipment repairers 73 13 9 2 1 2 100

7 Craftsworkers 72 14 8 2 1 3 100

8 Service & supply handlers 63 22 10 2 1 2 100

9 Nonoccupational 70 14 9 4 1 3 101

Total RC enlisted personnel 68 17 9 3 1 3 101
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 37 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 15: Percent of RC Officers in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup and DOD Occupational Area as of December 31, 2004

Legend: N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: Nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• In tables 14 and 15, the distribution of Hispanic, Asian American/Pacific 

Islander, and American Indian/Alaskan Native enlisted personnel and 

officers in each occupational area is within 2 percentage points of their 

overall distribution within the RC. 

• In contrast, compared to their overall representation in the RC, White 

enlisted personnel are more often found in the infantry, gun crews, and 

seamanship occupational area; White officers are more often found in 

the general officer and executive occupational area. 

• Relative to their overall representation in the RC, African American 

enlisted personnel were less often found in the infantry, gun crews, and 

seamanship and more often found in functional support and 

administration and service and supply handler occupational areas. 

African American officers were more often found in the administrator 

and supply, procurement, and allied officer occupational areas. 

DOD officer occupational codes and area

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American 

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

1 General officers & executives N.E.C. 92 3 3 1 <1 2 101

2 Tactical operations officers 87 4 4 2 <1 3 100

3 Intelligence officers 81 5 4 3 <1 6 99

4 Engineering and maintenance officers 79 11 5 3 <1 3 101

5 Scientists & professionals 84 7 4 2 <1 3 100

6 Health care officers 75 12 5 3 <1 4 99

7 Administrators 73 16 6 2 1 3 101

8 Supply, procurement, & allied officers 73 16 6 2 1 3 101

9 Nonoccupational 78 10 5 3 <1 4 100

Total RC officers 80 9 4 2 <1 3 98
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 38 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1C. Gender—Component 

Composition

Figure 2: Percent of Males and Females in Each Component and among Employed Civilians

• Overall, 16 percent of the military is female: 15 percent of the AC and 17 

percent of the RC (see fig. 2).

• The Marine Corps Reserve has the lowest representation of women 

(5 percent).

• The Army Reserve (24 percent) and Air Force Reserve (23 percent) 

have the highest representations of women.

• The National Defense Authorization Acts of fiscal years 1992, 1993, and 

1994 enabled women to be permanently assigned to combat aircraft and 

combatant ships. Since 1994, DOD policy has allowed women to be 

assigned to any unit except those below the brigade level whose primary 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Marine Corps Reserve

Active Marine Corps

Army Guard

Active Navy

Active Army

Air National Guard

Active Air Force

Navy Reserve

Air Force Reserve

Army Reserve

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data on servicemembers as of December 31, 2004 and the March 2004 Current

Population Survey which reflects civilians employment status in March 2003.

Percent

21

19

18

14

14

13

6

5

24

23

79

81

82

86

86

87

94

95

76

77

AC

15% 48% 17%

RC U.S.

Females

Males
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 39 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. (See app. IV for 

occupations which exclude females.)

• GAO and RAND estimated that the combat exclusion policy results in 

women being excluded from about 15 percent to 20 percent of all 

military positions. These positions are in units such as infantry, special 

forces, and units such as Army ground surveillance radar units that 

collocate with direct ground combat units.4

4

GAO, Gender Issues: Information on DOD’s Assignment Policy and Direct Ground 

Combat Definition, GAO/NSIAD-99-7 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1998) and Margaret C. Harrell 

and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women, Effects Upon Readiness, 

Cohesion, and Morale, RAND MR-896-OSD (Washington, D.C.: 1997). 
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 40 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1C. Gender—Component 

Racial/Ethnic and Gender 

Composition

Table 16: Percent of Servicemembers and Civilian Workers in Each Racial/Ethnic and Gender Subgroup

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data reflecting servicemembers as of December 31, 2004, and the March 2004 Current 

Population Survey, reflecting civilian employment status in 2003.

Notes: Because of rounding, the totals for percentages of males and females sometimes varies from 

percentages in other tables. Rows also may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• Table 16 shows that over half of the military–58 percent–consists of 

White males. The second through fourth largest racial/ethnic and gender 

subgroups are African American males (13 percent), White females

(9 percent), and Hispanic males (7 percent).

• Representation of some racial/ethnic and gender subgroups in the 

military differs from that in the civilian workforce.

Component

Racial/Ethnic and gender subgroup 

Total

White

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

M F M F M F M FM F M F

Army 54 6 17 6 9 2 2 1 1 <1 2 <1 100

Navy 54 7 15 4 7 1 5 1 2 <1 2 <1 98

Air Force 60 12 10 5 4 1 2 1 <1 <1 3 1 99

Marine Corps 63 3 11 1 12 1 2 <1 1 <1 5 <1 99

Total AC 57 8 14 4 8 1 3 1 1 <1 3 1 101

Army Reserve 48 11 15 9 8 3 3 1 <1 <1 1 <1 99

Army National Guard 66 8 11 3 6 1 1 <1 1 <1 2 <1 99

Navy Reserve 53 11 10 5 7 2 3 1 1 <1 6 1 100

Marine Corps Reserve 65 3 8 1 13 1 3 <1 1 <1 5 <1 100

Air Force Reserve 57 15 10 6 5 2 1 <1 <1 <1 3 1 100

Air National Guard 67 13 6 3 5 1 2 <1 1 <1 2 1 101

Total RC 60 10 11 5 7 2 2 <1 1 <1 2 1 101

Total military 58 9 13 4 7 1 3 1 1 <1 3 1 101

Civilian workforce 37 34 5 6 6 5 3 2 <1 <1 1 1 100
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 41 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• White males are 58 percent of the military compared to 37 percent of 

civilian workers. In contrast, African American males are 13 percent 

of the military compared to 5 percent of civilian workers.

• White females are 9 percent of the military compared to 34 percent of 

civilian workers. In contrast, Hispanic females are 1 percent in the 

military compared to 5 percent of civilian workers.

• All other differences between military and civilian workforce 

representation are 2 percentage points or less. 

• Compared to the other components, the Army Reserve has the largest 

percentage (52 percent) of its servicemembers who are other than White 

males. 
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 42 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1C. Gender—Racial/Ethnic 

Composition of Female 

Servicemembers

Table 17: Distribution of Race/Ethnicity Among Female Servicemembers and Civilians

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data reflecting servicemembers as of December 31, 2004, and the March 2004 Current 

Population Survey reflecting civilian employment status in 2003.

Notes: 350,278 female AC and Selected Reserve servicemembers and 42,004,449 (weighted) female 

civilian workforce participants were included in this analysis. Rows may not total 100 percent due to 

rounding.

• Minority racial/ethnic females comprise 46 percent of all female 

servicemembers, compared to 29 percent of all employed civilian 

females (see table 17).

• African American females participate in the military at a rate more 

than twice their civilian workforce participation. Twenty-eight 

percent of female servicemembers are African Americans compared 

to 13 percent of female civilian workers. 

Component (percent of the entire 

component that is female)

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

Army (14%) 42 39 11 4 1 3 100

Navy (14%) 52 28 9 5 3 3 100

Air Force (19%) 61 23 6 3 1 6 100

Marine Corps (6%) 54 18 18 3 2 6 101

AC females (15%) 52 30 9 4 2 4 101

Army Reserve (24%) 47 36 11 4 1 1 100

Army National Guard (23%) 62 25 8 2 1 2 100

Navy Reserve (21%) 55 24 10 3 1 7 100

Marine Corps Reserve (5%) 59 15 16 5 1 4 100

Air Force Reserve (23%) 63 24 7 2 <1 4 100

Air National Guard (18%) 73 15 6 3 1 3 101

RC females (17%) 58 27 9 3 1 3 101

Female servicemembers (16%) 54 28 9 3 1 3 98

Females in the civilian workforce (48%) 71 13 10 5 <1 1 100
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 43 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The proportion of military females who are Hispanic (9 percent) is 

similar to the proportion of civilian females who are Hispanic (10 

percent).

• The representation of racial/ethnic minorities among female 

servicemembers varies by component.

• The active Army (58 percent) and Army Reserve (53 percent) have 

the highest proportions of racial/ethnic minorities among their 

female personnel. 

• In contrast, the Air National Guard (27 percent) has the lowest 

proportion of racial/ethnic minorities among its female personnel.

• Except for their lower representation in both Marine Corps 

components and the Air National Guard, African American females 

comprise 23 percent to 39 percent of female servicemembers in each 

of the other components.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 44 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1C. Gender—Active 

Component Occupational 

Areas and Gender

Table 18: Representation of AC Females across and within Enlisted Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Note: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. The second column does not total 100 percent because of rounding.

Table 19: Representation of AC Females across and within Officer Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004

DOD enlisted occupational codes and areas 

Percent of occupational area

that is female

Percent of females in the military who are

in the occupational area

0 Infantry, gun crews, & seamanship 4 5

1 Electronic equipment repairers 9 5

2 Communications & intelligence specialists 16 10

3 Health care specialists 34 16

4 Other technical & allied specialists 16 3

5 Functional support & administration 31 33

6 Electrical/mechanical equipment repairers 6 9

7 Craftsworkers 7 2

8 Service & supply handlers 17 11

9 Nonoccupational 13 5

Total 15 99

DOD officer occupational codes and areas

Percent of occupational area

that is female

Percent of females in the military who are

in the occupational area

1 General officers & executives N.E.C. 4 <1

2 Tactical operations officers 5 11

3 Intelligence officers 18 6

4 Engineering and maintenance officers 13 12

5 Scientists & professionals 15 5

6 Health care officers 36 37

7 Administrators 28 11

8 Supply, procurement, & allied officers 19 11

9 Nonoccupational 10 4

Total 15 97
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 45 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Legend: N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. The second column does not total 100 percent because of rounding.

• The first columns in tables 18 and 19 show that although female 

servicemembers constitute 15 percent of the AC military, AC females are 

concentrated in health care and administrative occupations.

• The enlisted occupational areas with the highest concentrations of 

female servicemembers are health care specialists (34 percent) and 

functional support and administration (31 percent).

• The officer occupational areas with the highest concentrations of 

females are health care officers (36 percent) and administrators 

(28 percent).

• The second columns in tables 18 and 19 show that when data on only 

females are examined, the enlisted occupational areas with the largest 

female representation are functional support and administration (33 

percent) and health care specialists (16 percent), and the officer 

occupational area is health care officers (37 percent).

• Overall, females are excluded from 178 enlisted occupational specialties 

(5 percent of all enlisted occupational specialties), mostly in infantry, 

gun crew, and seamanship; electronic equipment repairers; and 

electrical/mechanical equipment repairers occupational areas (see app. 

IV). Females are excluded from 17 officer specialties (less than 

1 percent of all officer specialties).
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 46 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1C. Gender—Reserve 

Component Occupational 

Areas and Gender 

Table 20: Representation of RC Females across and within Enlisted Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. The second column does not total 100 percent because of rounding.

DOD enlisted occupational codes and areas Percent of occupational area

that is female

Percent of females in the military who

are in the occupational area

0 Infantry, gun crews, & seamanship 5 6

1 Electronic equipment repairers 10 3

2 Communications & intelligence specialists 12 4

3 Health care specialists 37 13

4 Other technical & allied specialists 17 3

5 Functional support & administration 36 41

6 Electrical/mechanical equipment repairers 7 6

7 Craftsworkers 8 3

8 Service & supply handlers 17 12

9 Nonoccupational 21 10

Total 17 101
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 47 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 21: Representation of RC Females across and within Officer Occupational Areas as of December 31, 2004

Legend: N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified.

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, those with unassigned duties, and 

unknowns. The second column does not total 100 percent because of rounding.

• Like their AC counterparts, RC female servicemembers are also 

concentrated in health care and administrative occupations (see tables 

20 and 21).

• The enlisted occupational areas with the greatest concentrations of 

females are health care specialists (37 percent) and functional 

support and administration (36 percent).

• The officer occupational areas with the greatest concentrations of 

females are health care officers (42 percent) and administrators (32 

percent).

• Also like their AC peers, when data on only females are considered, the 

enlisted occupational area with the greatest concentration of female 

enlisted personnel is functional support and administration (41 

percent). The officer occupational area with the greatest concentration 

of female personnel is health care officers (46 percent). 

DOD officer occupational codes and areas

Percent of occupational area

that is female

Percent of females in the military who

are in the occupational area

1 General officers & executives N.E.C. 4 <1

2 Tactical operations officers 3 6

3 Intelligence officers 19 6

4 Engineering and maintenance officers 12 8

5 Scientists & professionals 13 5

6 Health care officers 42 46

7 Administrators 32 14

8 Supply, procurement, & allied officers 20 11

9 Nonoccupational 13 3

Total 18 99
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 48 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1D. Age

Figure 3: Percentage of the AC, RC, and U.S. Population in Age Categories

Note: The chart for the U.S. population omits the 21 percent of the U.S. population under 15 years of 

age and the 7 percent of the U.S. population 75 years of age or older.

• Figure 3 shows that overall, 69 percent of AC and 49 percent of RC 

servicemembers are between the ages of 20 and 34, compared to 21 

percent of the U.S. population.

• The RC has five times the proportion of older servicemembers as the 

AC—15 percent of the RC compared to 3 percent of the AC is at least 45 

years of age.

• The ages of AC servicemembers ranged from 17-73 and their average age 

was 28.3 years.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

17-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45+ 

Percentage

Years of age Years of age

Reserve component

Active component

6

21

34

7

28

35

20

29

U.S. population

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data relfecting servicemember age as of

December 31, 2004, and decennial census reflecting the age of the U.S. population in 2000.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

15-19 46-74 20-24 25-34 35-44 

20

29

7 7

14

16

29
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 49 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• In comparison, RC servicemembers ranged from 17-67 years of age, and 

their average age was 33.2 years.

• Civilians aged 18-49 analyzed from the Current Population Survey to 

whom we compared servicemembers had an average age of 34.3 years. 
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 50 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1E. Education

Table 22: Percentage of Servicemembers and Employed Civilians in Educational 

Categories

Sources: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data reflecting servicemember education as of December 31, 2004. Data for employed U.S. 

population 18 years of age and older from Table 5a, Educational Attainment of Civilians 16 Years and Over by Labor Force Status, Age, 

Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2004, Current Population Survey, U.S. Census Bureau, http://census.gov, downloaded July 26, 2005.

• Proportionately more servicemembers than employed persons in the 

U.S. population aged 18 and older had earned a high school diploma or 

its equivalent (see table 22).

• Four percent of AC servicemembers and 7 percent of RC 

servicemembers did not have a high school diploma or its equivalent.

• In contrast, 10 percent of employed persons in the U.S. population 

aged 18 and older did not have a high school diploma or its 

equivalent.

Highest educational attainment for servicemembers 

Component

AC RC

Unknown 3 3

Less than high school 1 4

High school equivalency 4 4

High school diploma 68 51

Some college 7 16

Baccalaureate degree 11 15

Graduate degree 6 7

Total servicemembers 100 100

Highest educational attainment for employed U.S. population 18 years of age and 

older

Less than high school 10

High school diploma or equivalency 30

Some college 29

Baccalaureate degree 20

Graduate degree 10

Total employed U.S. population 18 years of age and older 99
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 51 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Although 24 percent of AC servicemembers had at least some college 

education, 38 percent of RC servicemembers were comparably 

educated. 

• In general, employed civilians had more postsecondary school 

educational attainment than either AC or RC servicemembers. About 59 

percent of employed persons in the U.S. population aged 18 and older 

compared to 24 percent of the AC and 38 percent of the RC had at least 

some college education.
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 52 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

1F. Citizenship and Country 

of Birth

Figure 4: Percent of Servicemembers and Civilians in Three Citizenship Subgroups in 2004

Note: Non-U.S. citizens are those who owe permanent allegiance to the United States, such as 

persons born in American Samoa or the Swains Island.

• Compared to the comparable civilian workforce, the military has 

proportionately fewer non-U.S. citizens or nationals (see fig. 4). Two 

percent of the AC and RC (over 40,000 servicemembers) are non-U.S. 

citizens compared to about 7 percent of civilian workers.

1%

Citizen data 

missing

2%

Noncitizens 

and nationals

97%

•

U.S. citizens 

(by birth or

naturalization)

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data reflecting servicemembers as of December 31, 2004

and the March 2004 Current Population Survey, reflecting civilian employment status in March 2003.

7%

Noncitizens

and nationals

•

•

93%

U.S. citizens 

(by birth or

naturalization)

Military Civilian

The top countries of birth of servicemembers

who are non-U.S. citizens or nationals

Philippines (12%)

Unknown (39%)

United Sates (8%)

Mexico (7%)

Jamaica (3%)

The five countries of birth of civilians

who are non-U.S. citizens or nationals

Mexico (26%)

India (7%)

Philippines (4%)

China (4%)

Elsewhere (4%)
Demographic Characteristics of 

Servicemembers

Page 53 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Thirty-nine percent (about 19,500) of all servicemembers who were 

not U.S. citizens or nationals had “unknown” for the country of birth 

in their personnel record, and most (almost 15,500) were in the RC.

• DOD records also showed that the personnel records of 12 percent of 

the noncitizens and nationals (almost 4,200 servicemembers) 

indicated their country of birth was the United States. This finding 

was surprising because persons born in the United States are U.S. 

citizens, and it could not be explained by DOD officials. 

• In Executive Order 13269 issued July 3, 2002, the President exempted 

aliens and noncitizen nationals, serving honorably in an active duty 

status on September 11, 2001, or thereafter, from the usual requirements 

for becoming a citizen (for example, the number of years an individual 

must wait between applying and receiving citizenship). By Spring 2005, 

DOD officials reported that over 20,000 military personnel had become 

citizens since September 11, 2001, and that DOD was processing 5,000 

more applications for citizenship.5

5

Statement of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, David S.C. Chu, 

before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on April 5, 2005.
Page 54 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Recruiting

Question 2 and 

Summary of Approach

How well are the services meeting their recruitment goals, and what 

influences whether or not individuals join the military?

We reviewed recent GAO, DOD, and others’ studies and data on enlistment 

goals and rates, recruiting, and the factors that shape youths’ intentions to 

join the military. To identify changes in the demographic make-up of new 

servicemembers, we obtained and analyzed data on servicemembers who 

had 1 year or less of military service and examined DOD analyses of 

recruits’ socioeconomic status and home community. We also met with 

DOD and service representatives to discuss trends in recruiting and factors 

affecting the Army’s ability to recruit. Finally, we reviewed the economic 

and educational incentives available to recruits. Although we discuss 

findings for both enlisted personnel and officers, we primarily focus on the 

former because enlisted personnel comprise 84 percent of all 

servicemembers.

Summary of Findings

2A. Recruiting overview For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the AC annually accessed about 176,400 

to about 183,000 nonprior-service enlisted personnel and about 17,500 to 

about 21,500 officers. 

2B. Achieving enlisted 

recruiting goals

Over the past decade, the AC met its recruiting goals more frequently than 

did the RC. 

• Over the past decade, some components, particularly in the Army, have 

less frequently met their enlisted recruiting goals than have other 

components.

• DOD estimates that over half of the youth in the U.S. population 

between the ages of 16 and 21 do not meet the minimum requirements 

for enlistment.

• Personal, demographic, family, and societal factors influence youths’ 

enlistment decisions.
Recruiting

Page 55 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2C. Recruit characteristics Since fiscal year 2000, the proportion of recruits who are African 

Americans has declined, while the proportion of Hispanic recruits has 

increased. Recruits tend to be disproportionately from the middle class and 

from Southern and Western regions of the United States.

2D. Enlistment incentives The military has increased its educational and economic incentives in an 

attempt to meet its recruiting goals. 
Recruiting

Page 56 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Findings

2A. Recruiting Overview • Congress mandates the services’ endstrengths. The National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 established the following AC 

endstrengths:

• Army—512,400,

• Navy—365,900,

• Marine Corps—178,000, and

• Air Force—359,700.

• Additionally, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

2005 authorized the Secretary of Defense to increase the authorized end 

strengths of the active Army and active Marine Corps by an additional 

10,000 and 6,000, respectively, to support the operations in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. 

• In fiscal year 2004, the Army achieved its accession goal in part by 

drawing from its delayed entry program, a pool of individuals who have 

signed a contract to join the military at a future date up to 1 year in 

advance. Typically, the Army likes to have 35 percent of its annual 

accession goal in the delayed entry program, but by the end of fiscal 

year 2004, the delayed entry program had been reduced to 18 percent of 

the Army’s annual accession goal.
Recruiting

Page 57 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Enlisted and officer recruiting differ partly because the accession of 

enlisted personnel is typically more immediate than the accession of 

most officers. The two major officer accession programs—the military 

academies1

 and Reserve Officers’ Training Corps—take up to 4 years to 

produce newly commissioned officers. The military fulfills its remaining 

requirements for officers through Officer Candidate School and Officer 

Training School. Consequently, today’s policy decisions on officer 

recruiting shape the future availability of officers and depend on the 

extent to which retention rates and the need for officers are accurately 

forecasted.2

1

See GAO, Military Education: DOD Needs to Enhance Performance Goals and Measures 

to Improve Oversight of Military Academies, GAO-03-1000 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 

2003) for information on the military academies.

2

Lawrence Kapp, Recruiting and Retention: A Brief Overview of Fiscal Year 2004 and 

Fiscal Year 2005 for Active Duty Enlisted Personnel, Congressional Research Service 

(Washington, D.C.: March 2005).
Recruiting

Page 58 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2A. Recruiting Overview—

Active Component 

• AC enlisted accessions—Each year for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, 

the AC accessed approximately 176,400 to 183,000 nonprior-service 

enlisted recruits.

• More of these accessions joined the Army than any other service:

• 39 to 43 percent joined the Army, 

• 22 to 27 percent joined the Navy, 

• 17 to 20 percent joined the Air Force, and 

• 16 to 18 percent joined the Marine Corps.

• In fiscal year 2004, all active components met their goal.

• AC officer accessions—Each fiscal year from 2000 through 2003, about 

17,500 to 21,500 officers were accessed into the AC.

• The percentage of officers accessed by each service is as follows: 

• 30 to 34 percent joined the Army,

• 31 to 37 percent joined the Air Force,

• 22 to 29 percent joined the Navy, and

• 7 to 9 percent joined the Marine Corps.

• In fiscal year 2004, the active services accessed over 16,400 officers 

to active duty. Only the Air Force, with its shortfall of 12 percent 

(comprised mostly of medical specialty direct appointments), missed 

its commissioned officer recruiting goal that year.3

• Active duty officers and enlisted personnel are required to be available 

to serve for 8 years, although some of that service may be in a reserve 

component. 

3

Statement of Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, David S.C. Chu, 

before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, April 5, 2005, p 20.
Recruiting

Page 59 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics
Recruiting

Page 60 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2A. Recruiting Overview—

Reserve Component 

• RC enlisted accessions—Each year for fiscal years 2000 through 2004, 

the RC accessed about 118,000 to 153,000 enlisted personnel.

• More of these accessions joined the Army National Guard and Army 

Reserve than any other service.

• 40 to 44 percent joined the Army National Guard, 

• 25 to 32 percent joined the Army Reserve, 

• 10 to 11 percent joined the Navy Reserve,

• 6 to 7 percent joined the Marine Corps Reserve,

• 6 to 7 percent joined the Air National Guard, and

• 5 to 8 percent joined the Air Force Reserve. 

• In fiscal year 2004, the components accessed about 118,000 enlisted 

personnel to the RC, and all components except the Army National 

Guard and Air National Guard met their goal.

• 41 percent joined the Army National Guard,

• 28 percent joined the Army Reserve,

• 10 percent joined the Navy Reserve,

• 8 percent joined the Air Force Reserve, 

• 7 percent joined the Marine Corps Reserve, and

• 7 percent joined the Air National Guard.
Recruiting

Page 61 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• One difference between AC and RC recruiting is that the latter relies 

heavily on recruits who have prior military service. An official in the 

Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs told us that 

currently, about 63 percent of the RC has prior military experience. For 

example, 

• In fiscal year 2003, 52 percent of Air National Guard accessions had 

prior military service.4

• In fiscal year 2004, at least one-quarter of Marine Corps Reserve 

recruits had prior military service.5

• Historically, about 25 percent of active duty servicemembers leaving 

the Air Force enter the Air Force Reserve, accounting for a 

significant portion of Air Force Reserve accessions.6

4

Statement of Lieutenant General Daniel James III, Director, Air National Guard, before the 

Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, April 13, 2005.

5

Statements of Lieutenant General Dennis M. McCarthy, Commander, Marine Forces 

Reserve, before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on April 13, 2005, and 

Lieutenant General H.P. Osman, Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, 

United States Marine Corps Reserve, before the Senate Armed Services Personnel 

Subcommittee, April 5, 2005.

6

Statement of Lieutenant General John A. Bradley, Chief of Air Force Reserve, before the 

Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee, April 13, 2005.
Recruiting

Page 62 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2A. Recruiting Overview—

Reserve Component

Stop-loss is a policy instituted by the services that requires military 

personnel to remain in the service beyond the end of their obligation.7

Because it reduces the number of prior service recruits available to join the 

RC at a given point in time and because many entering the RC have prior 

military service, stop-loss has been cited as a factor particularly affecting 

the reserve components’ ability to meet recruitment goals.

• The Air Force was the first to issue a stop-loss in the aftermath of the 

September 11th attack, although this has since ended.

• The Army is the only service with stop-loss currently in effect, and the 

Army’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel testified in April 2005 that, 

during January 2005, the stop-loss program affected 12,353 

servicemembers in the Army’s active and reserve components. The 

Army’s current unit-based (rather than being driven by occupational 

specialty) stop-loss policy for its reserve components has remained 

continuously in effect since it was instituted in 2001.8

• Although the reserve components rely partly on recruits with prior 

military service to meet their recruiting goals, the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness noted in April 2005 that because of 

high AC retention, increasing percentages of RC recruits had no prior 

military service and that “approximately 50 percent are now expected to 

come directly from civilian life.” 

7

Stop-loss authority is provided by 10 U.S.C. §12305. For a description of the services’ 

implementation of stop-loss after September 11, 2001, see app. VI in Military Personnel: 

DOD Needs to Address Long-term Reserve Force Availability and Related Mobilization 

and Demobilization Issues, GAO 04-1031 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2004). 

8

See GAO 04-1031. 
Recruiting

Page 63 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics
Recruiting

Page 64 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals—

Performance in Fiscal Years 

1995 to 2004 Figure 5: AC and RC Achievement of Enlisted Recruiting Goals for Fiscal Years 1995 

through 2004

• Figure 5 shows that over the past 10 years, the AC has met its enlisted 

recruiting goals more frequently than the RC.

• Except for 2 years in the late 1990s, a period of low unemployment 

and economic expansion, the AC met its recruiting goals. 

• The RC did not meet its goals for 6 of the past 10 years.

• DOD researchers reported that events, such as the war in Iraq and 

increased operational tempo, have made meeting recruiting goals more 

difficult.

• In April 2005 testimony to the Military Personnel Subcommittee of the 

Senate Armed Services Committee, the Assistant Secretary of Defense 

Percent of enlisted recruiting goal achieved

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Year

Reserve components

Active components

Source: DMDC Information Delivery System.

88

98

100

100

105

101

101

101

102

96

96

97 100

102

98

100

96

101

96

101

0

100

120

90

110
Recruiting

Page 65 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

for Reserve Affairs said that although the RC was having difficulty 

meeting its recruiting objectives, reserve reenlistments in fiscal year 

2004 were slightly higher than in previous fiscal years.

• Also, the components typically start a new fiscal year with youth who 

have already signed enlistment contracts and have agreed to delay entry 

into the military until a later time. Overcoming monthly recruiting 

deficits may require that components acquire recruits from the delayed 

entry program. The reduction in the size of the delayed entry program 

may result in insufficient numbers of recruits being available in future 

months.
Recruiting

Page 66 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals—

Performance in Fiscal Year 

2005

Figure 6: DOD Components’ Achievement of Enlisted Recruiting Goals for October 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005

• Nine months into fiscal year 2005, 5 of the 10 components had not met 

their enlisted recruiting goal (see fig. 6).

• The active Army, Air National Guard, Army Reserve, and Army 

National Guard have met 86, 83, 79, and 77 percent, respectively, of 

their enlistment goals.

• Two of the six reserve components, the Air Force Reserve and 

Marine Corps Reserve, have met or exceeded their enlisted recruiting 

goals.

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Army National Guard

Army Reserve

Air National Guard

Active Army

Navy Reserve

Active Navy

Marine Corps Reserve

Active Air Force

Active Marine Corps

Air Force Reserve

Source: DOD Monthly Recruiting Announcement, July 11, 2005.

Percent of Enlisted Goal Achieved

114

101

102

100

100

86

92

83

77

79
Recruiting

Page 67 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• DOD found that the public’s perceptions about military enlistment has 

changed and that youth and their parents believe that deployment to a 

hostile environment is very likely for some types of servicemembers. 

Officials also said that fear of death and serious injury is an increasingly 

important factor affecting potential recruits’ decisions about whether 

they will join. 
Recruiting

Page 68 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals—Youth 

Ineligibility

• DOD researchers have estimated that over half of U.S. youth aged 16 to 

21 could be ineligible to join the military because they cannot meet DOD 

or service entry standards.9

 DOD accession officials stated that inability 

to meet medical and physical requirements accounts for much of the 

ineligibility among youth. 

• DOD Directive 1304.26 establishes the educational, aptitude, medical, 

and moral character standards for entry into the military, as well as 

other standards such as those for age, citizenship, and number of 

dependent children.10

• Many youth are ineligible because they cannot meet DOD or service 

standards for:

• education, as indicated by DOD’s preference for accessions with a 

high school diploma;

• mental aptitude, as indicated by receipt of an acceptable score on the 

Armed Forces Qualification Test;

• physical fitness, as indicated by the absence of certain medical 

conditions and the ability to perform the physical challenges of 

military training; and

• moral character, as indicated by few or no criminal convictions or 

antisocial behavior. 

9

National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth; 

DOD, Overview Report June 2003 Youth Poll 5, December 2003, p. 71.

10If married, a recruit can have no more than two dependents under age 18. If unmarried, a 

recruit must give up custody of dependent children.
Recruiting

Page 69 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The services may use more rigorous standards than those prescribed by 

DOD and create additional standards for areas not covered by DOD.

• Senior officials are allowed to issue waivers for some standards. 

Comparing data for 1991 to those for 2000 shows that the extent to 

which certain types of waivers were issued to enlisted accessions 

changed. For example, the number of moral waivers appeared to have 

declined, while physical and other types of waivers appear to have 

increased.11

11National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth, 

briefing fig. 4-9.
Recruiting

Page 70 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals—Youth 

Ineligibility and Educational 

Standards

Table 23: DOD and Service-Specific Educational Standards

Sources: DOD Directive 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction. Service-specific standards were 

provided by the Office of Accession Policy.

• All of the services except the Army have educational standards that 

exceed DOD’s standard of having at least 90 percent of accessions 

possessing a high school diploma (see table 23). 

• The Navy and Marine Corps standard is 95 percent, and the Air 

Force’s educational standard is 99 percent.

• Recruits with an alternate educational credential such as a general 

educational development high school equivalency diploma or a 

certificate of completion may be assigned a lower enlistment priority 

because DOD’s research shows that holders of an alternate 

educational credential are less likely than high school diploma 

graduates to complete military training and their initial obligation.

• DOD educational standards reduce the number of youth eligible for 

recruitment because DOD requires that at least 90 percent of recruits 

have a high school diploma, but only 71 percent of all high school 

students graduate with their class.12 Higher rates of high school 

completion may be reported in the Current Population Survey and other 

research, but in addition to high school diploma graduates they include 

DOD educational standard

At least 90 percent of recruits must have a high school diploma.

Service-specific educational standards

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

At least 90 percent high school 

diploma graduates

At least 95 percent high school 

diploma graduates

At least 95 percent high school 

diploma graduates

At least 99 percent high school 

diploma graduates

12Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Public High School Graduation Rates and 

College-Readiness: 1991-2002, February 2005.
Recruiting

Page 71 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

high school equivalency and general educational development diplomas 

for adults 25 and older. 

• In 2002, 52 percent of Hispanics graduated from high school compared 

to 56 percent of African Americans and 78 percent of Whites. However, 

of the youth who graduated from high school in 2002 only 40 percent of 

Whites, 23 percent of African Americans, and 20 percent, of Hispanics 

had the skills needed to attend a 4-year college.13

• Most high school graduates qualified for college actually enrolled and 

this upward trend in college enrollment, both immediately after 

graduation and in the decade after high school, potentially reduces the 

number of youth interested in becoming enlisted personnel.14

13National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth, 

briefing fig. 4-11.

14National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth.
Recruiting

Page 72 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals—Youth 

Ineligibility and Aptitude 

Standards

Table 24: Aptitude Standards and Required and Actual Percentages of Nonprior-service Recruits at or Above the 50th Percentile 

in Fiscal Year 2004 

Sources: AFQT percentiles and categories from Armor and Sackett, “Manpower Quality in the All-Volunteer Force,” Ch. 6 from The AllVolunteer Force: Thirty Years of Service.Service-specific standards were provided by the Office of Accession Policy. Data on the 

services’ 2004 actual accessions is from Recruiting and Retention: An Overview of FY 2004 and FY 2005 Results for Active and Reserve 

Component Enlisted Personnel, Congressional Research Service, pg. 10. 

• Although DOD requires that at least 60 percent of recruits be from AFQT 

Categories I-IIIA, the services require that 63 to 77 percent be from 

Categories I-IIIA (see table 24).

• The number of potential recruits available to enlist is less than the size 

of the youth population as a whole because DOD can generally access 

no more than 4 percent of its recruits from those with the lowest third of 

all AFQT scores.

• The percentage of new recruits scoring at or above the 50th percentile of 

the AFQT is higher than it was before the AVF (see table 25).

DOD aptitude standard

DOD uses the Armed Forces Qualification Test (AFQT) to gauge the verbal and quantitative aptitude of potential enlisted recruits. Based 

on their AFQT score, applicants are assigned to one of six categories.

Percentile Category Percentile Category

93-99 I 31-49 IIIB

65-92 II 10-30 IV

50-64 IIIA 1-9 V

DOD policy

Requires a minimum of 60 percent from Categories I-IIIA and a 

maximum of 4 percent from Category IV. 

Federal statute (10 U.S.C., 520)

Allows a maximum of 20 percent from Category IV, all of whom must 

be high school graduates. Unless required to meet established 

strength requirements, enlistment is denied to Category V applicants 

who have not graduated from high school.

Service-specific standards

For categories I-IIIA Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force

Goal 65% 70% 63% 77%

2004 actual accessions 72% 70% 69% 82%
Recruiting

Page 73 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 25: Percent of Nonprior-service Accessions Scoring in AFQT Categories I-IIIA 

during Selected Years

Sources: Data for 1957 and 1968 are from Paul F. Hogan, Curtis K. Simon, and John T. Warner, “Sustaining the Force in an Era of

Transformation,” Ch. 5 from The All-Volunteer Force: Thirty Years of Service, Barbara A. Bicksler, Curtis L. Gilroy, and John T. Warner, 

eds., (Washington, D.C.: Brassey, 2004), Table 2 on p. 61. Data for remaining years are from Population Representation in the Military 

Services: Fiscal Year 2003, Table D-7, obtained from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness homepage at 

http://dod.mil/prhome. 

Era Year

Percent nonprior service recruits in AFQT Categories 

I-IIIA

Pre-AVF 1957 43 in Categories I-III

1968 38 in Categories I-III

AVF initiation 1973 58

Post-AVF

1983 57

1993 71

2000 66

2001 66

2002 69

2003 72
Recruiting

Page 74 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals—Youth 

Ineligibility and Medical 

Standards 

Table 26: Examples of DOD Medical Standards which May Have Disqualified Potential Recruits in Fiscal Year 2004

Source: DOD Instruction 6130.4, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Armed Forces.

• Medical conditions result in DOD drawing recruits from only a portion 

of the overall youth population. DOD research suggests that at least 26 

percent of youth have a medical or physical condition that could make 

them ineligible to join.15

• DOD officials told us that medical and physical conditions, such as 

those shown in table 26, were the top reasons youth are ineligible to join 

the military.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that as of 

2002, about 12 percent of children under 18 years of age had been 

diagnosed with asthma. 

DOD medical standards

Recruits should be: 

• free of contagious/infectious diseases, 

• free of medical conditions or physical defects that might require excessive time away from duty or likely result in separation due 

to medical unfitness, and

• capable of completing training, adapting to the military environment, and performing duties without aggravating existing physical 

or medical defects or conditions.

Department of Defense Instruction 6130.4 identifies:

• medical conditions which, unless waived by DOD officials, disqualify applicants. For example, applicants currently affected by or 

with a history of the following would be disqualified: human immunodeficiency virus,

• coronary heart disease, asthma (diagnosed and symptomatic after age 13), endocrine and metabolic disorders such as 

diabetes mellitus, and alcohol or drug dependence or abuse.

• learning, psychiatric, and behavioral disorders such as the following, which, unless waived, disqualify applicants: attention deficit 

hyperactivity disorder, anxiety disorders, and alcohol dependence.

15DOD, Overview Report: June 2003 Youth Poll 5, December 2003 p. 72.
Recruiting

Page 75 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The National Center for Health Statistics found that obesity among 

12-19 year olds increased from 6 percent in 1974 to 16 percent in 

2002.

• The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that the 

percentage of 5-17 year olds for whom an antidepressant was 

prescribed or provided tripled from about 2 percent in 1994 to 6 

percent in 2000-2002.16

16Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Chartbook on Trends in the Health of 

Americans, p. 63.
Recruiting

Page 76 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Enlisted 

Recruiting Goals— Youth 

Ineligibility and Moral 

Character Standards

Table 27: DOD and Service-Specific Moral Character Standards for Nonprior-service Recruits in Fiscal Year 2004

Sources: DOD standards are from DOD Directive 1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction, and 

service-specific standards were from Marine Corps Order P1100.72, Navy Instruction 1130.8f, and Air Force Instruction 36-2002.

• The number of potential recruits available to enlist is less than the size 

of the overall youth population because some youth with criminal 

records or evidence of antisocial behavior will be ineligible to enlist (see 

table 27 for standards). Researchers at the Army’s Center for Accession 

Research said that about 2 percent of the 17-21 aged population who are 

qualified for service in the Army were ineligible because they have been 

incarcerated.

• Illegal drug use is a moral character condition that might result in some 

potential recruits being disqualified to enlist. 

DOD moral character standards

Recruits cannot: 

• have previously separated from the military under conditions other than honorable or for the good of the service, 

• have exhibited antisocial behavior; 

• be under a form of judicial restraint (for example, bond, probation, imprisonment, or parole); or

• have a “significant criminal record (although service secretaries may authorize “exceptions in meritorious cases, for the enlistment 

of...persons convicted of felonies.”)

Service-specific moral character standards that disqualify applicants

Army Navy Marine Corps Air Force 

Six or more minor traffic offenses, 

three or more nonminor traffic 

offenses, two or more 

misdemeanors, or one or more 

convictions for driving under the 

influence or felony.

Six or more minor traffic 

offenses, three or more 

nontraffic offenses, three 

or less minor 

misdemeanors, or one or 

more felonies.

Five or more minor traffic 

offenses, two or more serious 

traffic offenses, four or more 

class one minor nontraffic 

offenses, or two or less 

serious offenses, one felony. 

Six or more minor traffic offenses in any 

365-day period during the last 3 years, 

two or more minor nontraffic offenses in 

the last 3 years, three or more in a 

lifetime, or one or more misdemeanors 

or felonies.
Recruiting

Page 77 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• In 2000, about 25 percent of high school seniors said that they had 

used an illicit drug in the previous 30 days.17

• A recent study reported that about 39 percent of high school seniors, 

about 31 percent of sophomores, and about 15 percent of youth in 

their last year of middle school reported having used illicit drugs in 

the previous 12 months.18

17National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth, 

briefing fig. 4-16.

18National Institutes of Health, National Results of Adolescent Drug Use: Overview of key 

Findings 2004.
Recruiting

Page 78 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Recruiting 

Goals—Factors Influencing 

Youths’ Decisions About 

Joining Figure 7: Four General Types of Factors that Influence Youths’ Decisions About 

Joining

Research shows that the factors influencing whether or not youth join the 

military can be grouped into four overlapping categories: personal values, 

attitudes, and expectations; demographic factors; family factors; and 

societal factors (see fig. 7).19

• Personal values, attitudes, and expectations—Youth say they consider 

many individual-specific factors when deciding whether or not to join in 

the military.

• Tangible reasons for joining include earning money for college, 

acquiring health and vacation benefits, and learning a skill or trade. 

• Intangible reasons for joining include the opportunity to gain 

leadership experience, pride or honor, and the perception that the 

military is a good place to work.

19We have summarized some of the factors identified in several recent studies. 

Personal values,

attitudes, &

expectations

Source: GAO and Art Explosion.

Family

Societal

Demographics
Recruiting

Page 79 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Historically, many African Americans enlisted for tangible reasons 

and were more likely than White or Hispanic enlisted personnel to be 

in noncombat occupations and make a career of the military.

• Research suggests that Whites and Hispanics appear to be more 

likely than African Americans to report joining the military for 

intangible reasons such as adventure, being part of an elite team, or 

doing something for one’s country.20

• DOD officials say the perception of the military as a good place to 

work has been affected by current events. For example, DOD 

research shows that a majority of African American youth polled said 

the war on terrorism made them less likely to join the military.

20DOD, Youth Poll 6, November, 2003 and DMDC, Youth Attitude Tracking Study, July 2000.
Recruiting

Page 80 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Recruiting 

Goals—Factors Influencing 

Youths’ Decisions About 

Joining

• Demographic factors—Members of certain subgroups such as males, 

Hispanics, African Americans, and youth from the South or West, are 

disproportionately more likely than their peers in corresponding 

subgroups to enlist and make it a career. Conversely, the likelihood of 

enlisting declines with age and education. 21

• Race and ethnicity—African Americans are more likely than Whites 

to actually apply for enlistment. Hispanics are more likely than nonHispanics to say they are interested in and actually apply for 

enlistment. In addition, African Americans and Hispanics are more 

likely to make the military a career than are Whites. 

• Gender—Males are more likely than females to apply for enlistment. 

However, interest in enlistment among male high school seniors has 

declined over the last 3 decades.22

• Changing trends—Recently, interest in military service has declined 

among African Americans.23

• Family factors—Decisions about joining are influenced by variables 

such as the number of parents in the household and family support for 

joining.

• Number of parents in household—Having fewer parents in the home 

is associated with a greater likelihood that males will enlist.24

21DMDC, Youth Attitude Tracking Study, July 2000.

22National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth: 

Implications for Military Recruitment, briefing fig. 6-4.

23Meredith A. Kleykamp, Military Enlistment Decision Making among Youth: The 

Influence of Educational Goals, Military Institutional Presence, and Family Background; 

DOD, Youth Poll Wave 7, May 2004, Overview Report.

24Jerald G. Bachman, David R. Segal, Peter Freedman-Doan, and Patrick M. O’Malley, “Who 

Chooses Military Service? Correlates of Propensity and Enlistment in the U.S. Armed 

Forces,” Military Psychology, vol. 12, no. 1 (2000). 
Recruiting

Page 81 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Family support for enlistment—Although both mothers and fathers 

influence a youth’s decision to enlist, a National Research 

Council/National Academies of Science study indicated that mothers 

are more influential than fathers.25

• Changing trends—DOD research indicates that parental support for 

military service for their child has decreased over the past year and 

that opposition to military service is stronger among African 

American parents than among parents of other racial/ethnic 

subgroups.26

25Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth.

26Findings from the 2004 Image Equity Study as reported by the U.S. Army Accessions 

Command in a briefing entitled “State of the Youth Market.” 
Recruiting

Page 82 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2B. Achieving Recruiting 

Goals—Factors Influencing 

Youths’ Decisions About 

Joining

• Other DOD research suggests that compared to youth of other 

racial/ethnic subgroups, African American youth are more likely to 

perceive that if they were to join the military, they would not receive 

support for that decision from the people in their lives.27

• Declining veteran population—Because of the declining veteran 

population, youth today are less likely than in the past to have one or 

more parents who are veterans. Research has also shown that 

children of current or former servicemembers are more likely than 

other youth to join.

• Societal factors—Decisions about joining are also influenced by broader 

societal factors such as the following.

• Exposure to the military—Closure and downsizing of military 

installations results in youth today being less likely than in the past to 

be directly exposed to military personnel and facilities.

• Postsecondary school opportunities—The increased availability of 

funding for post-secondary education enables some youth with 

limited financial resources to attend college directly after high 

school.

27DOD, Youth Poll Wave 7, May 2004, Overview Report. 
Recruiting

Page 83 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Civilian labor market—High civilian unemployment is associated 

with higher enlistment rates.28 For example, during the low civilian 

unemployment of the late 1990s, some components failed to meet 

their recruiting goals. Although there are regional differences, the 

current low unemployment rate results in civilian opportunities for 

youth considering post-high school options.

• Changing trends—Some researchers suggest that the attractiveness 

of joining the military after high school, relative to attending college 

or obtaining a civilian job, has declined because of operations in Iraq. 

College is the preferred choice of many youth who are eligible for 

military enlistment. About two-thirds of high school graduates enroll 

in college, but about one-third of these will leave after their first 

year.29

28Beth Asch, et al., Military Recruiting and Retention After the Fiscal Year 2000 Military 

Pay Legislation, RAND MR-1532-08D, (Santa Monica, CA.: 2002).

29National Research Council, Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of American Youth; 

Meredith A. Kleykamp, Military Enlistment Decision Making among Youth: The Influence 

of Educational Goals, Military Institutional Presence, and Family Background. 
Recruiting

Page 84 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2C. Recruit 

Characteristics—Active 

Component Race/Ethnicity 

• DOD researchers also have reported a declining representation of 

African Americans among AC recruits.

• DOD’s semi-annual youth polls have noted that between November 

2003 and November 2004: 30

• African American and Hispanic youth’s inclination to join the 

military declined, although

• White youth’s inclination to join remained stable. 31

• The youth polls also tracked youth’s perception of the favorability of 

the U.S. military and found evidence that between November 2003 

and November 2004:

• African American youth’s perception of the favorability of the 

military has declined, although

• White and Hispanic youth’s perception of the favorability of the 

military remained unchanged.32

• Researchers suggest that parents’ favorability/support toward 

military service for their child has steadily decreased over the past 

year. Opposition to military service is stronger among African 

American parents than among parents from other racial/ethnic 

subgroups.

30DOD, Overview Report: May 2004 Youth Poll Report 7 and Crosstabulations. 

31DOD, November 2004 Youth Poll 8 Final Brief.

32DOD, November 2004 Youth Poll 8 Final Brief. 
Recruiting

Page 85 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Similarly, a DOD study of the attitudes of people who influence 

youths’ decision to join the military suggests that relative to 

influencers from other racial/ethnic subgroups, African American 

influencers were less likely to recommend military service and less 

likely to approve of the U.S. military presence in Iraq and the 

administration’s handling of foreign affairs.33

33 DOD, 2004 Influencer Poll Report and Crosstabulations. 
Recruiting

Page 86 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2C. Recruit 

Characteristics—Active 

Component Race/Ethnicity

Table 28: Percent of AC Servicemembers in Each Racial/Ethnic Subgroup Who Have 1 Year or Less of Service in Fiscal Years 

2000, 2002, and 2004

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Note: Rows may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• The concerns that we cited earlier about the comparability of racial and 

ethnic data collected before and after January 2003, when federal 

agencies were required to have implemented the new guidelines, also 

apply to the findings in table 28. Although we generally avoid reporting 

racial/ethnic trends because of the changes in the way these data are 

collected and reported, in the data DOD provided, we were able to 

identify comparable racial/ethnic subgroups for AC servicemembers in 

fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004. We were unable to do so for RC 

servicemembers. 

Component/fiscal year

Percent of AC servicemembers with 1 year or less of service

White Total

African

American Hispanic

Asian

American/

Pacific

Islander

American

Indian/

Alaskan

Native

Other/

Unknown

Army/ 2004 66 16 12 4 1 2 101

Army/ 2002 62 22 11 3 1 1 100

Army/ 2000 60 23 10 3 1 2 99

Navy/2004 64 20 4 3 5 4 100

Navy /2002 56 21 13 5 4 2 101

Navy/2000 57 20 12 5 4 1 99

Marine Corps/2004 70 8 12 0 1 10 101

Marine Corps/2002 69 12 14 2 1 1 99

Marine Corps/2000 69 13 14 2 1 2 101

Air Force/2004 76 14 3 2 1 4 100

Air Force/2002 69 16 5 1 <1 8 99

Air Force/2000 70 17 7 <1 <1 6 100
Recruiting

Page 87 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• For fiscal years 2000 and 2004, African American representation among 

AC servicemembers with 1 year or less of service declined in three 

active components. The decline was 7 percentage points for the Army, 5 

percentage points for the Marine Corps, and 3 percentage points for the 

Air Force.34

• In the Navy, Hispanic representation among those with 1 year or less of 

service declined by 8 percentage points from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal 

year 2004.

34Our analysis of servicemembers with 1 year or less of military service does not take into 

account that some recruits will leave the military prior to completing their first year of 

service or that recruits from some subgroups may be more likely to leave prematurely than 

recruits from other subgroups. 
Recruiting

Page 88 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2C. Recruit 

Characteristics—

Socioeconomic Status

• The wealthiest and the poorest segments of the applicable U.S. 

population are less likely than others to serve in the military. The 

wealthiest have other post-high school options such as attending 

college, and the poorest are more likely to be ineligible because of 

medical, aptitude, or moral disqualifiers.35

• For fiscal year 2004, DOD’s Office of Accession Policy found that 

recruits came from areas defined by zip codes whose median incomes 

were similar to those of civilian youth in general—about $44,500 for 

recruits compared to about $44,300 for civilian youth.36

• DOD used the median household income of the recruits’ and 

civilians’ home communities to represent socioeconomic status 

because data typically used to identify socioeconomic status are not 

collected on recruits. DOD performed the analyses with commercial 

marketing industry software that uses data from the U.S. Census 

Bureau and other sources to identify the social and economic 

characteristics of each U.S. postal zip code.

• DOD also found that the recruits came from communities in which 

the median income increased from about $43,000 in fiscal year 2000 

to about $44,500 in fiscal year 2004 (all values in constant 2003 

dollars). The largest increase, about $2,500, came between fiscal 

years 2001 and 2002. Researchers suggested that it represented a 

patriotic response to the September 11th terrorist attacks, after 

which a larger than usual number of recruits from higher income 

households joined the military.

35David R. Segal and Mady Wechsler Segal, “America’s Military Population,” Population 

Bulletin, vol. 59, no. 4 (2004).

36 The analyses included 1.08 million AC nonprior-service-enlisted accessions for fiscal years 

1999 through 2004 and 16.7 million comparable youth aged 17 to 21. The civilian youth 

excluded high school dropouts but included youth with general educational development 

diplomas or another credential of high school equivalency.
Recruiting

Page 89 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2C. Recruit 

Characteristics—

Socioeconomic Status 

• While the analyses provide some insight into the socioeconomic status 

of the families from which recruits come, the validity of the findings 

should be considered relative to concerns that include the following 

issues.

• Although the software can create a distribution of estimated income 

for the households from which the recruits were drawn, the software 

does not provide a comparable distribution showing the percentage 

of homes with various levels of income. This limits DOD’s ability to 

determine how well households from all socioeconomic levels are 

represented by recruits.

• The average income for a community (as represented by a zip code) 

may not represent the actual income of the recruit’s household.

• Socioeconomic status is often a measure of something more than 

income. For example, it might be a combination of household 

income, parents’ educations and occupations, and home ownership.

• If a family with a higher income lives in an area with a higher cost of 

living, that family’s socioeconomic status could be less than a family 

with less income living in a geographic area with a lower cost of 

living.

• DOD’s earlier study of socioeconomic status showed that recruits came 

from all socioeconomic levels but were proportionately most likely to 

come from the lower three quarters of the distribution of socioeconomic 

status.

• DOD’s Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal 

Year 1999 indicated that less than 25 percent of the AC nonpriorservice recruits in 1999 came from U.S. households that were 

classified as being in either the top or bottom quartiles of 

socioeconomic levels.

• DOD’s Office of Accession Policy reported that it stopped gathering 

socioeconomic status information because of concerns that included 

questions about how accurately recruits could report their family’s 

income.
Recruiting

Page 90 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2C. Recruit 

Characteristics—Population 

Density of Home 

Community 

Table 29: Percent of Enlisted AC Accessions between 1999 and 2004 and Comparable Civilian Youth Aged 17-21 from 

Community Population Density Subgroups

Source: DOD.

Note: Rows may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

• For fiscal years 1999 through 2004, rural areas provided a 

disproportionately higher percentage of nonprior-service AC enlisted 

accessions than did suburban and urban areas (see table 29). This was 

true for all four active components.

• These analyses were part of the previously described study in which 

DOD’s Office of Accession Policy examined recruits’ socioeconomic 

level.

• Using recruits’ zip codes and commercial marketing industry 

software, DOD’s Office of Accession Policy segmented the accession 

and civilian populations into rural, suburban, and urban subgroups. 

The software contains zip-code-based data on population density and

Active Component

Community population density subgroup 

Rural Suburban Urban Total

Army 48 42 10 100

Navy 45 42 13 100

Marine Corps 48 42 10 100

Air Force 52 42 7 101

17-21 year old civilian youth with a high school diploma or 

equivalent 40 46 14 100
Recruiting

Page 91 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

other characteristics from the U.S. Census Bureau and other 

sources.37

• The same study showed that proportionately more recruits come 

from the South and fewer from the Northeast when the home of 

record for recruits was compared to that for 17-21 year old youth 

(see table 30).

• At this time, no decision had been made about whether population 

density and geographic region will be routinely analyzed for DOD 

reports on the demographics of recruits and other portions of the 

military.

Table 30: Percent of Enlisted AC Accessions and Comparable Civilian Youth Aged 

17-21 from Geographic Regions

Source: DOD.

Note: Rows may not total to 100 percent due to rounding.

37In contrast to the three-category definition used above, the Census Bureau divides 

community population density into two categories—rural versus urban. How youths’ home 

communities are characterized is dependent upon whether the two-category or threecategory measure is used. For example, as seen in the table above, the three-category 

definition shows that 14 percent of qualified military applicants live in an urban area. In 

contrast, use of the Census Bureau’s two-category definition shows that 79 percent of 

comparably aged youth live in an urban area.

Geographic region subgroup

Northeast South Midwest West Total

DOD recruits 14 41 21 24 99

Comparable 17-21 youth 18 35 24 23 100
Recruiting

Page 92 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2D. Enlistment Incentives

Figure 8: Economic and Educational Incentives

• Youth weigh various economic and educational factors when deciding 

whether or not to enlist. 

• Economic incentives such as enlistment bonuses, degree bonuses, 

and occupational specialty bonuses provide cash at the time of 

enlistment or shortly thereafter.

• Educational incentives such as the Montgomery GI Bill, educational 

allowances, and student loan repayment have a longer-term 

economic benefit.

• Other incentives such as retirement also have a long-term economic 

value.

• The amount of and eligibility for incentives varies by component and 

may change depending on the recruiting environment. 

• According to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

Compensation, DOD spent over $455 million in fiscal year 2003 for all 

types of economic and educational enlistment incentives.

Economic incentives

Source: GAO and Art Explosion.

Education incentives
Recruiting

Page 93 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The military has increased the educational and economic incentives 

for enlisting. For example, in 2005 we reported that the National 

Guard would increase enlistment bonuses for nonprior-service 

recruits from $8,000 to $10,000 and the Army would increase the

maximum college scholarship from $50,000 to $70,000.38

• Some services have also increased the number of recruiters. For 

example, 

• the Army plans to add over 900 recruiters to its current force of 

5,065 recruiters in fiscal year 2005 and 

• the Marine Corps plans to add 425 recruiters to its current force of 

2,600 recruiters by fiscal year 2007.

• Despite increased incentives, recruiting remains difficult. This was 

demonstrated by the Army’s May 20, 2005, 1-day suspension of 

recruiting in order to retrain recruiters after reports of recruiters 

violating policies.

38See Military Personnel: Preliminary Observations on Recruiting and Retention Issues 

within the U.S. Armed Forces, GAO-05-419T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).
Recruiting

Page 94 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2D. Enlistment Incentives—

Economic Enlistment 

Incentives

• DOD offers a variety of economic incentives for enlistment. For 

example, DOD’s Office of Compensation reported that in fiscal year 

2003, almost $334 million was spent on enlistment bonuses.39 Other 

economic incentives include: 

• a bonus for enlistment in a specific hard-to-fill military specialties for 

up to $20,000,

• a National Call to Service Program bonus in which recruits may 

choose to receive a cash bonus of $5,000 or a monthly entitlement 

allowance of up to about $1,000, 

• a “quick ship” bonus in which recruits who are able to immediately 

join are eligible for up to $9,000, and

• college degree bonuses for up to $40,000. 

• When comparing military and civilian compensation packages, potential 

recruits may not recognize the full value of some benefits such as 

retirement. 

• We40 recently reported that:

• The most recent Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation 

found, on average, military pay was at the 70th percentile or higher 

of the wages provided to comparably educated civilians. 

• DOD does not effectively educate servicemembers about the 

competitiveness of their total compensation packages.

• Studies show that youth and newly enlisted servicemembers place 

greater value on financial compensation such as pay while retirement 

and other benefits are of greater value to midcareer servicemembers.

39Data provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Compensation).

40GAO, Military Personnel: DOD Needs to Improve the Transparency and Reassess the 

Reasonableness, Appropriateness, Affordability, and Sustainability of Its Military 

Compensation System, GAO-05-798 (Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2005). 
Recruiting

Page 95 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• One difference between the total compensation of servicemembers and 

civilians is that servicemembers’ pay comprises a smaller proportion of 

total compensation than does pay for civilians. For example, 

servicemembers also receive allowances for housing and 

subsistence/food that few civilians would receive.
Recruiting

Page 96 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2D. Enlistment Incentives—

Economic Enlistment 

Incentives

Table 31: Examples of the Reserve Components’ Economic Enlistment Incentives Being Offered in February 2005

Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.

Army Reserve

Army National 

Guard Navy Reserve

Marine Corps 

Reserve Air Force Reserve

Air National 

Guard

Enlistment 

bonus

$3,000, $5,000, 

or $8,000 for 6-

year contract

$8,000 for 6-year 

contract

$5,000 for 6 years 

for nonpriorservice recruits

$8,000 for 6-year 

contract

$8,000 for 6 years 

for nonpriorservice recruits

$5,000 for a 6-

year contract for 

nonprior-service 

recruits

Affiliation 

bonus

$50 per month x 

months 

remaining on 

military 

obligation

$50 per month x 

months remaining 

on military 

obligation

$50 per month x 

months remaining 

on military 

obligation

$50 per month

x months of 

remaining 

obligation

$50 per month x 

months remaining 

on military 

obligation

$50 per month x 

months remaining 

on military 

obligation

Prior service 

bonus

$5,000 for 6-year 

contract or two 3-

year bonuses; 

$2,500 for the 

first 3 and 

$2,000 for the 

second 3, served 

consecutively

Only two 3-year 

bonuses; $2,500 

the first 3 and 

$2,000 for the 

second 3, served 

consecutively

$2,500 for 3 

years, $5,000 for 

6-year contract

$5,000 for 6-year 

contract

$2,500 for 3-year 

contract 

$2,000 for second 

3-year contract

$8,000 for 6-year 

contract or two 3-

year bonuses; 

$4,000 for the first 

3 and $3,500 for 

the second 3, 

served 

consecutively

$5,000 for 6-year 

contract

Loan 

repayment 

$10,000 or 

$20,000 

depending on 

select critical 

skills

Max $10,000; Only 

for repayment of 

existing loans;

nonprior-service: 

for initial contract 

only; prior service: 

those who 

immediately 

reenlist or extend 

for a period not 

less than 3 years, if 

for reenlistment/ 

extension bonus 

None None Max $15,000; 

annual payments 

of $5,000 for 3 

years

15 percent or 

$500 per 

qualifying loan, not 

to exceed $2,500 

per member per 

year and $20,000 

over lifetime of 

member, for 6-

year enlistment or 

reenlistment
Recruiting

Page 97 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 31 provides examples of some of the economic incentives offered by 

the RC.

• These examples of incentives illustrate some of the tools that recruiters 

are provided to help them with their mission.

• The examples highlight the extent to which the components emphasize 

different types of incentives.

• Because the active components use the same types of incentives and 

may alter the levels of incentives to match their recruiting environment, 

a similar table of AC economic enlistment incentives is not provided.
Recruiting

Page 98 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

2D. Enlistment Incentives—

Educational Incentives

Table 32: Examples of Reserve Component Educational Enlistment Incentives Being Offered in February 2005

Source: Office of the Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.

• Examples of some of the educational incentives offered by DOD and the 

services are the: 

• Montgomery GI Bill and College Funds which provide funds for up to 

36 months (see table 32);

• College First program, which provides recruits a stipend to attend 

college for up to 24 months; and 

• National Call to Service Program, which offers recruits the option of 

choosing to have a qualifying student loan repaid for up to $18,000 

(or the previously mentioned economic incentives).

Army Reserve

Army National 

Guard Navy Reserve

Marine Corps 

Reserve

Air Force 

Reserve

Air National 

Guard

Basic Montgomery GI 

Bill

$282 per 

month

$282 per month $282 per 

month

$282 per month $282 per 

month

$282 per month

College fund $100, $200, or 

$350 per 

month

$350 per month

Available to 

nonprior service, 

officer candidate 

school, and SMP 

$350 per 

month

$350 per month $350 per 

month 

$350 per month for 

critical Air Force 

Specialty Codes
Recruiting

Page 99 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• In addition to these incentives, there is also evidence that longer-term 

educational incentives may be more attractive to some applicants than 

other benefits.41 Several studies have suggested that benefits providing 

money for college or repaying student loans may be an incentive to join 

the military for youth with college aspirations and limited financial 

resources.42 Therefore, providing educational incentives may be 

particularly important today since many potential recruits are eligible 

for and interested in attending college.

41Hogan, Simon, & Warner, “Sustaining the Force in an Era of Transformation.” 

42Congressional Budget Office, January 2004; Attitudes, Aptitudes, and Aspirations of 

American Youth, Chapter 5; Rebecca Asch, Can Du, and Matthias Schonlau, Policy Options 

for Military Recruiting in the College Market, RAND (Santa Monica, Ca.: 2004).
Page 100 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Retention

Question 3 and 

Summary of Approach

What are the demographic characteristics of servicemembers who 

remained in the military in fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004?

We identified and compared the DOD-provided rates at which 

servicemembers in service, pay grade, years of service, racial/ethnic, 

gender, and occupational subgroups remained in the military in fiscal years 

2000, 2002, and 2004. Continuation rates represent the number of subgroup 

members who remained in the military for an entire fiscal year divided by 

the number of servicemembers who were in the subgroup at the beginning 

of the fiscal year.1

 We noted differences in the extent to which subgroups 

remained in the military in fiscal years 2000, 2002, and 2004. In general, we 

discuss differences of 3 percentage points or more between subgroups. An 

ongoing GAO effort is examining in greater detail the services’ retention 

goals and achievements. 2

Summary of Findings

3A. Overview of military 

retention

With several exceptions, the AC has generally met or exceeded its overall 

retention goals for enlisted personnel over the last 5 years. 

3B. AC continuation • In each year examined, proportionately fewer enlisted personnel than 

officers remained in the military.

1

Because fiscal year 2004 continuation rates for RC servicemembers had not been published 

at the time of this report, we examined fourth quarter continuation rates for RC 

servicemembers in 2004. 

2

Although we did not address this in our report, it is important to note that not all 

servicemembers leaving the AC or RC are leaving the military entirely. As discussed in the 

previous section of this report, some AC members will enter the RC. In examining 

servicemembers who left the Selected Reserve in fiscal year 2003, the Center for Naval 

Analysis found that less than 50 percent actually left the RC and that most switched to the 

Individual Ready Reserve or to the Retired Reserve.
Retention

Page 101 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The overall AC continuation rates for enlisted personnel were 85 to 87 

percent in the 3 years examined. In contrast, the continuation rates for 

AC officers were between 90 percent and 93 percent during this period.

3C. RC continuation For fiscal years 2000, 2002, and the fourth quarter of 2004, overall RC 

enlisted retention rates ranged from 83 to 85 percent, while overall officers’ 

rates were 88 percent or 89 percent each year. 
Retention

Page 102 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Findings

3A. Overview of Military 

Retention—Military Policies 

and Practices

• Military personnel policies and practices that influence retention 

include those addressing the following issues.

• All entrants are obligated to serve 8 years. Almost all personnel who 

choose to leave active duty prior to completion of 8 years of service 

must serve the remaining balance of their obligation in the RC.3

• Enlisted recruits sign an initial “contract”—which can range from 

2 to 6 years—that specifies the length of their active duty service. 

After enlisted personnel have fulfilled their contract and the active 

duty portion of their military service obligation, they may opt to: 

(a) reenlist by signing another contract or (b) leave active duty 

and serve the remainder of their 8-year obligation in a reserve 

component. 

• Officers who have completed their initial service are not required 

to sign subsequent contracts to remain in the military. 

• The military’s “up or out” system forces turnover among officers and 

enlisted personnel who are not consistently promoted. 

• Research on first-term enlisted personnel showed that those 

promoted more quickly than usual reenlisted at higher rates than 

those promoted at a slower than the usual rate.4

3

Recruits who join the military under the National Call to Service Program, which was 

initiated on October 1, 2003, are required to serve on active duty for 15 months, after which 

they must serve either an additional period on active duty as determined by the Secretary of 

Defense, or 24 months in an active status in the Selected Reserve. After meeting these 

requirements and without a break in service, recruits must then serve the balance of their 

obligation in one of the following: on active duty; in the Selected Reserve; in the Individual 

Ready Reserve; or in the Peace Corps, Americorps, or other national service program jointly 

designated by the Secretary of Defense and the head of such a program. The National Call to 

Service Program will end on December 31, 2007.

4

RAND, How Does Deployment Affect Retention of Military Personnel? Research Brief, RB7557-OSD (Santa Monica, Ca.: 2003).
Retention

Page 103 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The stop-loss policy temporarily prevents leaving the military even 

when an obligation is finished. As a result, it may artificially inflate 

retention rates for the period when the policy was in effect and 

artificially deflate retention rates for the months after it is rescinded.

• Reenlistment/retention bonuses are available for certain hard-toretain specialties (e.g., Air Force combat controllers).

• Some special opportunities for additional education or training result 

in servicemembers incurring an additional service obligation.
Retention

Page 104 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

3A. Overview of Military 

Retention—Military Policies 

and Practices

• Each service has its own method for tracking enlisted retention.

• The Army and Marine Corps set numeric retention goals and track 

retention relative to those goals.

• The Army tracks the retention of initial term (first enlistment, 

regardless of length); midcareer (second or subsequent 

enlistments with less than 10 years of service); and career (second 

or subsequent enlistments with 10 or more years of service).

• The Marine Corps tracks retention by first enlistment and second 

or subsequent enlistment.

• The Navy and Air Force set goals in terms of percentages of those 

eligible to reenlist.

• The Navy’s most important retention categories are Zone A (up to 

6 years of service), Zone B (6 years of service to less than 10 years 

of service), and Zone C (10 years of service to less than 14 years of 

service).

• The Air Force tracks retention by first term (first enlistment, 

regardless of length); second term (second enlistment); and 

career (third or subsequent enlistment).

• A DOD official in the Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management 

Directorate told us that DOD is in the process of developing a retention 

measure that will be used by all services.

• Every year the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve 

Affairs publishes the Official Guard & Reserve Manpower Strengths & 

Statistics, which includes information that might be useful to track RC 

retention such as:

• monthly reenlistments and extensions by pay grade;

• reenlistments and extensions by race, sex, aptitude, and civilian 

educational attainment;

• continuation rates for officers and enlisted personnel in each 

component for recent years; and
Retention

Page 105 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• continuation rates for officers and enlisted personnel in each 

component by year of service.

• AC retention rates are available via DMDC’s Information Delivery 

System, an on-line data warehouse. Persons wishing to access the data 

warehouse must send a request to DMDC. Among the reports provided 

are several that would assist in tracking retention, such as,

• active duty enlisted and officer continuation rates broken out by 

service, gender, years of service, DOD occupational category, and 

race;

• active duty separations; and

• reserve and guard attrition and losses.
Retention

Page 106 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

3A. Overview of Military 

Retention—Enlisted 

Retention Goals

Table 33: AC Enlisted Retention in Fiscal Years 2000-2005

Sources: Fiscal year 2000, 2002, and 2004 data from GAO 05-419T. Data for fiscal year 2005 in April 2005 testimony by the Under

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee. 

a

The actual percentage achieved was 94.6, resulting in the component being slightly short of its goal of 

95%.

• Table 33 shows that for the active components in fiscal years 2000, 2002, 

and 2004: 

• the Army and Marine Corps met or exceeded their overall retention 

goals in each of the 3 years for each category of enlisted personnel; 

• the Navy met its retention goals except for career personnel in fiscal 

year 2002 and first term/initial enlisted personnel in fiscal year 2004; 

and

Service

Enlistment 

category

Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2005 (thru February, 2005) 

Annual Annual Annual Mission

Goal Actual

Percent 

of goal 

met Goal Actual

Percent 

of goal 

met Goal Actual

Percent 

of goal 

met Mission Actual

Performance 

of mission Goal

Army

First 

term/initial 20,000 21,402 107 19,100 19,433 102 23,000 24,903 108 12,094 11,165 92% 26,935

Midcareer 23,700 24,118 102 22,700 23,074 102 20,292 21,120 104 10,378 9,991 96% 23,773

Career 24,300 25,791 106 15,000 15,700 105 2,808 13,987 109 5,874 7,180 122% 13,454

Navy

First 

term/initial * 30% * 56% 59% Exceeded 56% 54% Short 53% 59% Exceeded 53%

Midcareer * 47% * 73% 75% Exceeded 70% 70% Exceeded 69% 69% Met mission 69%

Career * 57% * 90% 87% Short 85% 87% Exceeded 85% 85% Met mission 85%

Marine 

Corps

First 

term/initial 5,791 5,846 101 5,900 6,050 10 5,974 6,011 101 2,972 4,953 Exceeded 5,944

Subsequent * 63% * 5,784 7,258 125 5,628 7,729 137 2,540 3,072 Exceeded 5,079

Air 

Force

First 

term/initial 55% 53% Short 55% 72% Exceeded 55% 63% Exceeded 55% 55% Met mission 55%

Midcareer 75% 70% Short 75% 78% Exceeded 75% 70% Short 75% 59% Short 75%

Career 95% 91% Short 95% 95%a Short 95% 97% Exceeded 95% 94% Short 95%
Retention

Page 107 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• the Air Force missed its retention goals for: all categories of enlisted 

personnel in fiscal year 2000, career personnel in fiscal year 2002, 

and midcareer personnel in fiscal year 2004.

• Although DOD expects to meet its fiscal year 2005 active duty retention 

goals, the Office of Military Personnel Policy provided an information 

paper dated December 2004 acknowledging that retention may suffer 

because of an improving civilian labor market and high operational 

tempo. 

• An ongoing GAO effort is examining in greater detail the degree to 

which components have met their overall retention goals, met their 

retention goals for hard-to-fill critical occupations, and the steps taken 

to achieve their retention goals.
Retention

Page 108 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

3B. Active Component—

Continuation Rates

Table 34: AC Continuation Rates for Each Service in Fiscal Years 2000, 2002, and 2004

Legend: N/A=Not applicable because the Air Force does not have any warrant officers.

Source: DOD.

• Table 34 shows that, across the 3 examined years, the overall 

continuation rates for each type of servicemember remained flat, 

varying by 3 percentage points or less.

• In general, continuation rates for enlisted personnel were lower than 

those for warrant and commissioned officers. 

• In fiscal years 2002 and 2004, Air Force enlisted personnel had higher 

continuation rates than enlisted personnel from other services.

Service

AC continuation rate (percent)

Enlisted personnel Warrant Officers Commissioned officers

Fiscal 

year 2000

Fiscal 

year 2002

Fiscal 

year 2004

Fiscal 

year 2000

Fiscal 

year 

2002

Fiscal 

year 2004

Fiscal year 

2000

Fiscal 

year 

2002

Fiscal 

year 2004

Army 83 85 82 91 93 92 90 93 92

Navy 85 89 86 85 92 88 90 93 91

Marine Corps 83 83 83 91 91 90 91 93 92

Air Force 87 91 90 N/A N/A N/A 90 94 93

Total 85 87 86 90 93 92 90 93 92
Retention

Page 109 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 35: AC Continuation Rates for Race and Gender Subgroups in Fiscal Years 2000, 2002, and 2004

Source: DOD.

• Table 35 shows that for the period examined, continuation rates were 

generally highest in the first and second years of service for both 

officers and enlisted personnel. Enlisted continuation peaked again at 

10 years of service, ranging between 84 and 90 percent in the years 

examined. 

• In general, the continuation rates between most racial subgroups were 

within 3 percentage points of each other in each of the years examined. 

• The continuation rates for female enlisted personnel and officers were 

no more than 2 percentage points lower than the rates for their male 

peers in each year examined.

Type of AC subgroup

AC continuation rate (percent)

Enlisted personnel Officers

Fiscal year

2000

Fiscal year

2002

Fiscal year

2004

Fiscal year

2000

Fiscal year

2002

Fiscal year

2004

Years of 

service

1 87 88 89 99 99 98

2 90 90 91 98 99 98

3 84 87 86 95 96 95

4 60 68 65 85 88 87

5 81 84 78 85 90 87

6 83 86 85 88 93 90

10 84 90 89 87 93 94

20 50 64 55 76 80 78

Race White 84 86 85 90 93 92

African American 86 88 86 92 94 92

Other/Multiracial 86 87 88 91 94 93

Unknown 77 88 84 90 94 93

Gender Male 85 87 85 90 94 92

Female 83 86 83 90 92 90
Retention

Page 110 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

3B. Active Component—

Enlisted Continuation Rates

Table 36: AC Enlisted Continuation Rates for DOD Occupational Codes in Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2002, and 2004

Source: DOD. 

Note: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, and those with unassigned duties,

• Among AC enlisted personnel, continuation rates between DOD 

occupational areas differed by 5 percentage points or less in each year 

examined (see table 36).

• The rates for enlisted personnel in the following DOD occupational 

areas increased by at least 3 percentage points from fiscal year 2000 to 

fiscal year 2002:

• health care specialists,

• other technical and allied specialists,

• electrical and mechanical equipment repairers, and

• craftsworkers.

DOD enlisted occupational codes and 

areas

AC enlisted continuation rate (percent)

Fiscal year

2000

Fiscal year

2002

Fiscal year

2004

0 Infantry, gun crews, & seamanship 82 84 83

1 Electronic equipment repairers 85 87 86

2 Communications & intelligence 

specialists

84 87 84

3 Health care specialists 85 88 86

4 Other technical & allied specialists 85 88 85

5 Functional support & administration 86 88 86

6 Electrical & mechanical equipment 

repairers

85 88 86

7 Craftsworkers 84 88 85

8 Service & supply handlers 83 85 83

9 Nonoccupational 85 86 88
Retention

Page 111 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

3B. Active Component—

Officer Continuation Rates

Table 37: AC Officer Continuation Rates for DOD Occupational Codes in Fiscal 

Years 2000, 2002, and 2004

Legend: N/A = Not applicable, N.E.C. = Not elsewhere classified.

Source: DOD. 

Notes: The nonoccupational area includes patients, students, and those with unassigned duties. 

• Table 37 shows that in each year examined, servicemembers in the 

general officers and executives DOD occupational area had lower 

continuation rates (82 to 86 percent) than officers in other DOD 

occupational areas (90 to 98 percent).

• The rates for officers in the following DOD occupational categories 

increased by at least 3 percentage points from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal 

year 2002:

• general officers and executives,

• tactical operations officers,

• intelligence officers,

• engineering and maintenance officers,

• scientists and professionals,

• health care officers, and

• supply, procurement, and allied officers.

DOD officer occupational codes and 

areas

AC officer continuation rates (percent)

Fiscal year

2000

Fiscal year

2002

Fiscal year

2004

1 General officers & executives N.E.C. 83 86 82

2 Tactical operations officers 90 94 93

3 Intelligence officers 90 94 89

4 Engineering and maintenance officers 90 93 92

5 Scientists & professionals 90 93 92

6 Health care officers 89 92 91

7 Administrators 91 93 91

8 Supply, procurement, & allied officers 90 93 91

9 Nonoccupational 97 98 95
Retention

Page 112 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

3C. Reserve Component—

Continuation Rates

Table 38: Continuation Rates for RC Servicemembers in Fiscal Years 2000, 2002, and the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2004a

Source: Official Guard & Reserve Manpower Strengths & Statistics: FY 2004.

a

The Official Guard & Reserve Manpower Strengths & Statistics: FY 2004 contains data for each 

quarter in 2004 and does not present data for all of fiscal year 2004. 

• In the three time periods examined, total RC enlisted continuation rates 

were 83 percent or 85 percent; total RC officers’ continuation rates were 

88 percent or 89 percent (see table 38).

• In fiscal years 2002 and the fourth quarter of 2004, continuation rates for 

servicemembers in the Air National Guard were higher than those for 

servicemembers in the other reserve components.

Type of RC subgroup

RC continuation rate (percent)

Enlisted personnel Officers

Fiscal

year

2000

Fiscal

year

2002

Fiscal year

2004

(4th quarter)

Fiscal

year

2000

Fiscal

year

2002

Fiscal year

2004

(4th quarter)

Component Army Reserve 78 80 82 83 87 87

Army National Guard 83 83 85 91 92 92

Navy Reserve 80 81 80 87 85 86

Marine Corps Reserve 78 80 79 82 83 79

Air Force Reserve 89 93 89 91 92 90

Air National Guard 90 94 91 92 94 93

Total 83 85 85 88 89 89
Retention

Page 113 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Table 39: Continuation Rates for RC Servicemembers by Years of Service in Fiscal 

Years 2002 and the Fourth Quarter of Fiscal Year 2004

Source: Official Guard & Reserve Manpower Strengths & Statistics: FY 2004.

• Table 39 shows that, for RC enlisted personnel in 2002 and the fourth 

quarter of 2004, continuation rates were generally high at 1 to 3 years of 

service (82 to 89 percent). Rates were even higher at 15 years of service 

(93 to 94 percent). 

• Continuation rates among officers were higher at 15 years of service (94 

and 95 percent) than at other years of service examined.

Years of 

service

RC continuation rate (percent)

Enlisted personnel Officers

2002 2004 (4TH quarter) 2002 2004 (4TH quarter)

1 82 85 93 94

2 84 89 89 92

3 84 88 89 90

4 82 87 89 92

5 68 73 86 88

6 74 77 89 89

10 85 85 90 90

15 94 93 94 95

20 88 84 88 87

25 86 83 87 86
Page 114 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Casualties

Additional Question 

and Summary of 

Approach 

What are the Characteristics of Servicemembers Who Died or Were 

Wounded in Combat in Iraq and Afghanistan in Support of Operations Iraqi 

Freedom and Enduring Freedom?

DOD provided GAO with data on characteristics of servicemembers who 

died or were wounded while serving in Operations Enduring Freedom and 

Iraqi Freedom as of May 28, 2005. For each person listed as a casualty, the 

data included the operation in which the casualty occurred, type of 

casualty, service and component, pay grade, race/ethnicity, and gender. For 

reservists, the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Accession Policy also 

used the home-of-record zip code and the previously cited marketing 

software to (1) determine the population density (town/rural, suburban, or 

urban) of the servicemember’s community and (2) estimate the average 

socioeconomic level of the servicemember’s community because DOD 

does not have a record of socioeconomic level for each individual 

servicemember’s family. Similar population density and socioeconomic 

level analyses were not conducted on active duty personnel because the 

findings would have largely been influenced by the clustering of AC 

servicemembers in the immediate vicinity of a limited number of military 

installations. Also, some AC servicemembers’ home of record may reflect 

their current address, whereas others might not have changed their home 

of record from where they lived years earlier.

Summary of Findings

Historical overview of 

deaths

As of May 28, 2005, the number of deaths from the two examined 

operations were almost five times those sustained during the first Persian 

Gulf War but were a fraction of the deaths sustained during the Vietnam 

Conflict and Korean War.

Deaths As of May 28, 2005, 1,841 servicemembers died while serving in Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. The majority of deaths involved 

servicemembers who were active Army or Marine Corps, White, junior 

enlisted, males, between the ranks of E1 to E4. 
Casualties

Page 115 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Wounded As of May 28, 2005, a total of 12,658 servicemembers had been wounded 

while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Enduring Freedom. Fortyseven percent of those wounded while serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom 

and 23 percent of those wounded while serving in Operation Enduring 

Freedom returned to duty within 72 hours. The majority of wounded 

servicemembers were active Army or Marine Corps, White, junior enlisted, 

males, between the ranks of E1 to E4. 
Casualties

Page 116 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Findings

Historical Overview of 

Deaths—Servicemember 

Deaths in Selected Current 

and Past Military Operations 

and the Race/Ethnicity of 

Those Who Died

Table 40: Number and Percent of Servicemembers in Racial/Ethnic Subgroups Who Died in Selected Military Operations as of 

May 28, 2005

Sources: Data on active duty deaths for the Korean War, Vietnam Conflict, and the Persian Gulf War (also known as Operations Desert 

Shield/Storm) are from Washington Headquarters Service’s Web site, web1.whs.osd.mil, downloaded on April 1, 2005. Deaths during

Operations Enduring and Iraqi Freedom are a GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Note: Columns may not total 100 percent due to rounding.

• Table 40 shows that as of May 28, 2005, the combined deaths for 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom were nearly five times 

the number of deaths in the Persian Gulf War, but about 5 percent and 3 

percent the number of deaths in the Korean War and Vietnam Conflict, 

respectively.

Racial/Ethnic subgroup

Servicemember deaths 

Korean War Vietnam Conflict Persian Gulf War

Operations Iraqi

Freedom and Enduring

Freedom

#% # % # % # %

White 29,274 80 49,810 86 292 76 1296 70

African American 3,075 8 7,241 12 66 17 191 10

Hispanic 881 2 349 1 15 4 183 10

Asian American/

Pacific Islander 389 1 368 1 3 1 65 4

American Indian/

Alaskan Native 104 <1 226 <1 3 1 17 1

Other/Multiple race/Unknown 2,853 8 204 <1 3 1 89 5

Total deaths 36,576 100 58,198 100 382 100 1,841 100
Casualties

Page 117 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• The two current operations that we reviewed had resulted in the deaths 

of 1,841 servicemembers as of May 28, 2005.1

• Operation Enduring Freedom resulted in 186 deaths.

• Operation Iraqi Freedom resulted in 1,655 deaths.

• In previous large-scale military operations, 76 percent to 86 percent of 

those who died were White. In comparison, proportionately fewer White 

servicemembers have died in the two current operations.

• For Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, 70 percent of 

those who died were White servicemembers.

• As points of comparison, the representation of Whites in the three 

following reference populations are:

• 67 percent of the combined AC and Selected Reserve as of 

December 31, 2004,

• 65 percent of the AC as of December 31, 2004, and

• 71 percent of the civilian workforce as of March 2004.

1

Official DOD and Army websites indicate that the beginning dates for Operations Enduring 

Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were October 7, 2001 and March 19, 2003, respectively. 
Casualties

Page 118 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Deaths—Operation in 

Which the Death Occurred 

and the Circumstance of 

Death

Table 41: Operation and Circumstance of Death of the 1,841 Servicemembers Who Died in Operations Iraqi Freedom and 

Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: Operation Iraqi Freedom includes casualties in Iraq as well as in other countries such as 

Germany. Operation Enduring Freedom includes casualties in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, 

Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Guantanamo Bay, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Arabian Sea, Qatar, and the North 

Arabian Peninsula. 

The totals for operation and circumstance of death may not sum to 100 

percent due to rounding. To calculate row totals, we counted <1s as 0s. 

Therefore, the actual row totals may differ from those in the table.

Table 41 provides information on the operation, service, and circumstance 

of death for the 1,841 servicemembers who died in support of Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005.

• Operation—Operation Iraqi Freedom accounted for about 91 percent 

(1,655) of the deaths, and Operation Enduring Freedom accounted for 

10 percent (186).

Operation and circumstance of death

Percent of deaths in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom

Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Total

Operation Iraqi Freedom 61 27 2 1 91

Enduring Freedom 7 1 1 1 10

Circumstance of 

death

Killed in action 36 18 1 1 56

Died of wounds 13 3 <1 <1 16

Accident 13 5 <1 1 19

Illness 2 <1 <1 <1 2

Self-inflicted 2 <1 <1 <1 2

Pending 1 <1 <1 <1 1

Other 1 <1 <1 <1 1
Casualties

Page 119 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Circumstance of death

• Seventy-two percent of those who died were either killed in action 

(56 percent) or died as a result of wounds sustained during action (16 

percent).

• An additional 19 percent of those who died in either of the two 

operations did so as the result of accidents.

• The 1 percent of deaths in the “Other” category included:

• nine servicemembers who died while missing or captive,

• eight homicides, and

• four undetermined deaths.

• Service—The Army and Marine Corps sustained almost all of the deaths 

in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.

• The Army accounted for 68 percent of the deaths.

• The Marine Corps accounted for 28 percent of the deaths.
Casualties

Page 120 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Deaths—Demographic 

Characteristics of 

Servicemembers who Died

Table 42: Representation of Selected Demographic Subgroups Among the 1,841 Servicemembers Who Died in Operations Iraqi 

Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. Percentages in the right column labeled “Percent in AC and Selected Reserve” are as of 

December 31, 2004.

Notes: Operation Iraqi Freedom includes casualties in Iraq as well as in other countries such as 

Germany. Operation Enduring Freedom includes casualties in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, 

Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Guantanamo Bay, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Arabian Sea, Qatar, and the North 

Arabian Peninsula. The totals for demographic characteristics may not sum to 100 percent due to 

rounding. To calculate row totals, we counted <1s as 0s. Therefore, the actual row totals may differ 

from those in the table.

• Component—The AC represented 63 percent of the combined AC and 

Selected Reserve force that we examined earlier in this report, but it 

sustained 74 percent of the deaths (see table 42).

Demographic characteristics

Percent of deaths in Operations Iraqi Freedom and 

Enduring Freedom Percent in AC

and Selected

Army Reserve

Marine

Corps Navy Air Force Total

Component AC 46 24 2 2 74 63

RC 22 3 1 0 26 37

Pay grade E1-E4 39 21 1 0 61 42

E5-E9 22 4 1 1 28 42

Officers 8 2 <1 <1 10 16

Race/Ethnicity White 47 21 2 1 71 67

African American 8 1 <1 <1 9 17

Hispanic 7 3 <1 <1 10 9

Asian American/Pacific Islander 2 1 <1 0 3 3

American Indian/Alaskan Native <1 <1 0 <1 1 1

Multiple/Unknown 3 2 <1 <1 5 3

Gender Male 66 28 3 2 99 85

Female 2 <1 <1 <1 2 15

Age 19 or less 4 46 0 0 7 7

20-24 28 16 1 0 45 29

25-34 25 7 1 1 34 33

35-44 10 1 1 1 13 23

45+ 2 0 <1 <1 2 8
Casualties

Page 121 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Pay grade

• The death rate for junior enlisted personnel was 19 percentage points 

higher than their representation in the combined AC and Selected 

Reserve on December 31, 2004.

• The death rates for both senior enlisted personnel and officers were 

lower than their representation in the force.

• Race/ethnicity

• Whites constituted 67 percent of the AC and Selected Reserve on 

December 31, 2004, but sustained proportionately more (71 percent) 

of the deaths resulting from Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom.

• In contrast, African Americans were 17 percent of the described 

force, and 9 percent of those killed in the two operations.

• For the other four racial/ethnic subgroups, all of the comparisons of 

the force-to-death rates were within 2 percentage points.

• Gender—Males constituted 85 percent of the examined force while 

sustaining 99 percent of the deaths.
Casualties

Page 122 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Deaths—Population Density 

and Estimated 

Socioeconomic Status for 

Reservists

Table 43: Community Population Density and Estimated Socioeconomic Status of the 482 Reservists Who Died in Operations 

Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: Ninety-eight servicemembers whose zip-codes were unknown are not included in these 

analyses. Operation Iraqi Freedom includes casualties in Iraq as well as in other countries such as 

Germany. Operation Enduring Freedom includes casualties in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, 

Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Guantanamo Bay, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Arabian Sea, Qatar, and the North 

Arabian Peninsula. The totals for characteristics derived from home community zip code may not sum 

to 100 percent due to rounding. To calculate row totals, we counted <1s as 0s. Therefore, the actual 

row totals may be higher than those in the table.

Table 43 provides the population density and estimated socioeconomic 

status on the 482 reservists who died in Operations Iraqi Freedom and 

Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005.2

• The reservists who died were more likely to come from town/rural and 

urban areas and less likely to come from areas that DOD has identified 

as suburban (based on the reservists’ zip codes).

Characteristics derived from home community zip code

Percent of deaths in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom

Army

Marine

Corps Navy Air Force Total

Population density of home 

community

Urban 26 4 0 0 30

Suburban 12 4 2 <1 18

Town/rural 48 3 0 1 52

Estimated socioeconomic 

status

High 9 3 0 1 13

Medium 50 6 2 <1 58

Low 27 2 0 0 29

2

A GAO analysis of the DOD-provided data identified 482 servicemembers who died as 

reservists.
Casualties

Page 123 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Nearly one of every three (30 percent) came from the 14 percent of 

communities with the highest population density and were labeled as 

urban by DOD.

• Over half (52 percent) of deceased reservists came from the 40 

percent of communities with the lowest population density by DOD.

• In contrast, 18 percent of the deceased reservists were from the 46 

percent of communities that were labeled as suburban by DOD.

• Almost 6 of 10 (58 percent) deceased reservists came from communities 

that DOD—through use of commercial marketing software and zip 

codes—classified as being of medium socioeconomic status.3

• Because of the previously discussed limitations with using zip codes and 

community-based characteristics to estimate individuals’ actual 

socioeconomic status, these findings (and later similar findings on 

wounded servicemembers) need to be viewed with caution.

3

The marketing software used by DOD assigns socioeconomic status to communities based 

upon economic and social information from federal and commercial databases. The 

software partitions the U.S. into market segments with unique socioeconomic 

characteristics.
Casualties

Page 124 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Wounded—Operation in 

which Servicemembers 

Were Wounded and Analysis 

of the Wounded by Service

Table 44: Operation for the 12,658 Servicemembers Who Were Wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as 

of May 28, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

Notes: Operation Iraqi Freedom includes casualties in Iraq as well as in other countries such as 

Germany. Operation Enduring Freedom includes casualties in Afghanistan, the Philippines, Pakistan, 

Kuwait, Persian Gulf, Guantanamo Bay, Djibouti, Uzbekistan, Arabian Sea, Qatar, and the North 

Arabian Peninsula. The totals for operation may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding. To calculate 

row totals, we counted <1s as 0s. Therefore, the actual row totals may be higher than those in the 

table.

Table 44 provides the operation and service of the 12,658 servicemembers 

who were wounded in support of Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom as of May 28, 2005.

• Operation—97 percent of the wounded servicemembers received their 

wounds in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 3 percent received theirs in 

Operation Enduring Freedom.

• Wounded while in action—The Army sustained nearly two-thirds (65 

percent) of the wounded personnel in the two operations, and Marines 

accounted for most (31 percent) of the remaining wounded 

servicemembers. As we showed earlier when answering question 1:

• the Army represents almost half (46 percent) of the combined AC and 

Selected Reserve examined, and

• the Marine Corps represents about 10 percent of all examined 

servicemembers.

Operation 

Percent of wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom

Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Total

Operation Iraqi Freedom 63 31 2 1 97

Enduring Freedom 3 <1 <1 <1 3

Wounded while in action 65 31 2 2 100
Casualties

Page 125 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Forty-seven percent (5,723 servicemembers) of those wounded while 

serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom returned to duty within 72 hours.

• Twenty-three percent (108 servicemembers) of those wounded while 

serving in Operation Enduring Freedom returned to duty within 72 

hours. 
Casualties

Page 126 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Wounded—Demographic 

Characteristics of 

Servicemembers Who Were 

Wounded

Table 45: Representation of Selected Demographic Subgroups Among the 12,658 Servicemembers Who Were Wounded in 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. Percentages in the right column labeled “Percent in AC and Selected Reserve” are as of 

December 31, 2004.

Notes: Gender-179 Marine Corps servicemembers whose gender was reported as “unknown” or “not 

captured” in DOD reports were added to the male gender subgroup. Age-1065 servicemembers were 

of unknown age. The totals for demographic characteristics may not sum to 100 percent due to 

rounding. To calculate row totals, we counted <1s as 0s. Therefore, the actual row totals may be higher 

than those in the table.

Demographic characteristics

Percent of wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and 

Enduring Freedom Percent in AC

and Selected

Army Reserve

Marine

Corps Navy Air Force Total

Component AC 45 27 2 1 75 63

RC 21 3 <1 <1 24 37

Pay grade E1-E4 39 24 1 1 65 42

E5-E9 22 5 1 1 29 42

Officers 5 2 <1 <1 7 16

Race/ethnicity White 46 22 1 1 70 67

African American 7 1 <1 <1 8 17

Hispanic 7 4 <1 <1 11 9

Asian American/ Pacific Islander 2 1 <1 <1 3 3

American Indian/ Alaskan Native 1 <1 <1 0 1 1

Multiple/unknown <1 2 <1 <1 2 3

Gender Male 63 29 2 1 95 85

Female 2 <1 0 <1 2 15

Age 19 or less 4 10 <1 <1 14 7

20-24 28 14 1 <1 43 29

25-34 24 6 1 1 32 33

35-44 8 1 <1 <1 9 23

45+ 1 <1 <1 <1 1 8
Casualties

Page 127 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

• Component—Three-fourths of the wounded servicemembers were from 

the AC, and 24 percent were from the RC (see table 45). In comparison, 

the AC was almost two-thirds (63 percent) and the RC was about onethird (37 percent) of the combined AC and Selected Reserve as of 

December 31, 2004.

• Pay grade—Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of wounded servicemembers 

were junior enlisted personnel in pay grades E4 and below. As we 

showed earlier, junior enlisted comprise 42 percent of the examined AC 

and RC.

• Race/Ethnicity—The representation of Whites and African Americans 

among those wounded is different from their representation among the 

2.2 million AC and Selected Reserve servicemembers in the military as 

of December 31, 2004.

• The representation of Whites among the wounded (70 percent) was 3 

percentage points higher than their representation in the examined 

force (67 percent).

• In contrast, the representation of African Americans among the 

wounded was 9 percentage points less than their 17 percent 

representation in the force.

• For each of the other four racial/ethnic subgroups, their percentage 

for wounded and their representation in the force were within 2 

percentages of one another.

• Gender—Males constituted 95 percent of the wounded, but they were 85 

percent of the examined force.
Casualties

Page 128 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Wounded—Population 

Density and Estimated 

Socioeconomic Status for 

Reservists

Table 46: Community Population Density and Estimated Socioeconomic Status of the 3,197 Reservists Who Were Wounded in 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data.

Note: Four hundred and sixty servicemembers whose zip codes were unknown are not included in this 

analysis. The totals for characteristics derived from home community zip code may not sum to 100 

percent due to rounding. To calculate row totals, we counted <1s as 0s. Therefore, the actual row totals 

may be higher than those in the table.

• Table 46 shows that of the 3,197 reservists who were wounded in 

Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom as of May 28, 2005,4

• 29 percent were from the 14 percent of communities with the highest 

population density and which were labeled as urban by DOD, and

• over half (51 percent) were from the 40 percent of communities that 

had the lowest population density and were labeled as town/rural by 

DOD. 

• The majority (59 percent) of wounded reservists came from 

communities that DOD—through the use of commercial marketing 

Characteristics derived from home community zip code

Percent of wounded in Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom

Army Marine Corps Navy Air Force Total

Population density of 

home community

Urban 26 3 <1 <1 29

Suburban 15 2 1 <1 18

Town/rural 47 3 <1 1 51

Estimated socioeconomic 

status

High 9 1 0 <1 10

Medium 51 5 2 1 59

Low 28 2 <1 <1 30

4

A GAO analysis of the DOD-provided data identified 3,197 wounded servicemembers as 

reservists. 
Casualties

Page 129 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

software and zip codes—classified as being of medium socioeconomic 

status.

• Ten percent of wounded reservists came from communities DOD 

identified as being of high socioeconomic status, while

• Thirty percent of wounded reservists came from communities DOD 

characterized as being of low socioeconomic status.
Page 130 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Conclusions

Eight years after the announcement and 21⁄2 years beyond the required date, 

DOD and the components are still in the process of implementing the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 1997 guidance on gathering and 

reporting racial and ethnic subgroup membership. Consequently, at this 

time, comparing the distribution of race and ethnicity in the military to that 

of the U.S. population yields an imprecise estimate of the extent to which 

the military reflects the larger society on these demographic 

characteristics. In addition, because the components have taken different 

approaches to updating servicemember records, the extent to which direct 

comparisons of race and ethnicity across the components yield reliable and 

accurate results is unclear at this time. DOD’s reporting on the percentage 

of Hispanics is particularly problematic. The 1997 guidance on how federal 

agencies should collect and report racial and ethnic data enabled 

individuals to indicate whether or not they are Hispanic separately from 

their racial group. In contrast, the prior procedures for data gathering and 

reporting did not allow an individual to report that she or he was both 

Hispanic and a member of a racial subgroup. As a result of failing to use the 

revised procedures that require separate tabulations of racial and ethnic 

subgroup membership, DOD’s internal reports may introduce uncertainty 

about membership in racial subgroups since anyone identified as Hispanic 

was not also included in a racial subgroup. Additionally, because DOD’s 

internal reports assign all servicemembers of Hispanic ethnicity to one 

racial subgroup irrespective of the race to which they actually belong, 

DOD’s data tabulation and recoding of race and ethnicity may undercount 

the number of racial minorities in the military.

Although there is congressional and public interest in the socioeconomic 

status of the households and the types of communities from which recruits 

are drawn, DOD has not routinely reported such information in recent 

years. Without current information on the socioeconomic status of 

servicemembers, DOD cannot accurately and reliably respond to concerns 

that particular socioeconomic subgroups are underrepresented among 

those serving in the military. We listed problems associated with the 

measure DOD recently used to identify socioeconomic status for the 

analyses included in this report. The challenges associated with the former 

and current measurements of socioeconomic status might suggest that 

there is still a need for accurate information on this demographic 

characteristic. In contrast, DOD’s use of zip codes may provide an adequate 

measure of the population density (for example, rural, urban, and 

suburban) of recruits’ home of record once DOD has had more of an 

opportunity to explore the strengths and weaknesses of the commercial 

marketing software used in the analyses and the types of information that 
Conclusions

Page 131 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

DOD gathers on recruits. DOD’s prompt efforts to fill the void of 

information on recruits’ communities were responsive to the needs of 

Congress and the public for this type of information, but longer term use of 

analyses of this type could identify problems that were not detected in this 

initial set of analyses. Without ongoing research on recruits’ socioeconomic 

status and communities, DOD will not be able to promptly and accurately 

inform Congress and the public about how representation in the services 

matches that of the applicable U.S. population.

Continuation rates for Active Component servicemembers are available 

from a Defense Manpower Data Center Web site to individuals who have 

been granted access by DOD, but active duty continuation rates are not 

routinely published. As a result, Congress and interested members of the 

public may not be fully aware of the large percentage of personnel that the 

services retain each year. Also, the current high operational tempo of both 

active duty and reserve component servicemembers has raised concerns 

about the extent to which servicemembers, particularly reservists, will 

continue their military service in the future. Without better access to this 

type of data and the ability to identify and monitor changes in retention, 

Congress may not have the information it needs to (1) provide oversight of 

DOD and (2) address retention issues whenever they may begin to emerge. 

Also, failure to make the ongoing retention findings more accessible may 

require other specialized efforts or studies to obtain that information. 
Page 132 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the ability of the public, department, and Congress to identify 

and monitor demographic changes in the race, ethnicity, socioeconomic 

status, and community population density of servicemembers in the AllVolunteer Force and to enhance Congress’s ability to perform its oversight 

functions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to take the following 

four actions:

• Gather and report data on racial and ethnic subgroup membership in a 

manner that is consistent with the required procedures set forth by the 

Office of Management and Budget in 1997. In addition to requiring that 

recruits provide their racial and ethnic subgroup membership using 

revised categories and procedures, DOD should also determine 

procedures that could be used for updating the information on 

servicemembers who previously provided their racial and ethnic 

subgroup membership with different subgroup categories and 

questions.

• Conduct research to determine a feasible process for assessing the 

socioeconomic status of recruits, implement that process, and 

periodically include findings on the socioeconomic status of recruits’ 

households in annual reports on servicemembers in the active and 

reserve components.

• Conduct research to determine a feasible process for assessing the type 

of community (for example, rural, suburban, and urban) from which 

recruits were drawn and periodically include a measure of population 

density in the annual reports that describe the demographic 

characteristics of recruits in the active and reserve components.

• Include continuation rates on active and reserve component personnel 

in DOD’s annual demographic reports. Implementation of the 

recommendation could use findings from the analyses that the Defense 

Manpower Data Center already conducts for the department.
Page 133 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our four 

recommendations and indicated the department is currently working with 

the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) to determine how best to 

capture the data recommended in our report. DOD further indicated that 

the coordination will continue until a viable methodology is established 

and data are reported. DOD pointed out, and we agree, that measures of 

recruits’ socioeconomic status and community population density are 

unlikely to significantly change from one year to the next and that such 

measures need not be published every year. We have revised our second 

and third recommendations to reflect this. DOD’s comments are reprinted 

in their entirety in appendix V.
Page 134 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology AAppenednxidexiIs

To compare the demographic characteristics of servicemembers in the 

active components or in the Selected Reserve to those of similarly aged and 

educated civilians in the U.S. workforce, we began by reviewing applicable 

laws, such as the National Defense Authorization Acts of fiscal years 1992, 

1993, and 1994, which enabled women to be permanently assigned to 

combat aircraft and combatant ships; Executive Order 13269 which 

shortened the time noncitizens must wait before receiving citizenship, and 

United States Code Title 10 Section 520 which established enlistment 

aptitude standards. We reviewed Department of Defense-wide and servicespecific policies such as DOD Instruction 1336.5, Automated Extract of 

Active Duty Military Personnel Records; DOD Instruction 7730.54, Reserve 

Components Common Personnel Data System; and DOD Directive 1205.17, 

Official National Guard and Reserve Component Personnel Data. We also 

reviewed U.S. Census Bureau technical reports such as the Current 

Population Survey Technical Paper 63RV: Design and Methodology. We 

visited or conducted telephone interviews with DOD and service officials 

from the following offices: Office of the Secretary of Defense (Reserve 

Affairs); Defense Manpower Data Center (both East and West-coast 

offices); Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Equal 

Opportunity); Office of Army Demographics; U.S. Army Research Institute 

for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; and the Office of Naval Personnel, 

Research, Studies and Technology. We also visited or conducted telephone 

interviews with experts from academic and private-sector organizations 

conducting military personnel research including the Center for Naval 

Analyses, Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of 

Maryland, and RAND. We obtained and analyzed data extracted by the 

Defense Manpower Data Center from the Active Duty Master Personnel 

File and the Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System. These 

extracts contained selected variables on the over 2.2 million active duty 

and Selected Reservists in the military on December 31, 2004. We limited 

our analyses of reservists to only those in the Selected Reserve (see app. III 

for more information on reserve personnel categories) because we wanted 

to compare our findings to those contained in DOD’s annual Population 

Representation in the Military Services.

1

 We also compared the results of 

our analyses of servicemembers to those published in the December 2004 

Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) EO 3035 report. To identify the 

demographic characteristics of comparable civilian personnel, we analyzed 

data from the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current 

1

The report can be accessed at the home page for the Office of the Secretary of Defense for 

Personnel and Readiness at http://www.dod.mil/prhome/poprep2003.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 135 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Population Survey on employed civilians who were 18-49 years of age and 

possessed at least a high school diploma or equivalent. We determined that 

this subset of the United States population is comparable to AC and 

Selected Reserve personnel because the majority of servicemembers are in 

this age range, have a high school diploma or equivalent certification, and, 

by nature of their military affiliation, receive some type of compensation in 

exchange for their service. This subsetting resulted in 64,414 survey 

respondents (representing 87,411,786 Americans or almost a third of the 

total U.S. population2

) being included in our civilian analyses. We did not 

use data from the 2000 decennial census for these and other analyses in this 

report because we determined that the cost and time required to procure 

the special analyses we needed would negatively affect our ability to 

produce a timely report.

To assess the extent to which the services met their recruitment goals and 

the factors that influence an individual’s decision to join or not join the 

military, we examined applicable federal statutes such as Section 520 of 

Title 10 United States Code and reviewed DOD and service-specific policies 

on the qualification standards for enlistment such as DOD Directive 

1304.26, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and 

Induction, and DOD Instruction 6130.4, Medical Standards for 

Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction in the Armed Forces. We also 

examined DOD policy on reenlistment incentives and contacted, visited, 

conducted telephone interviews, or collected studies on recruiting, the 

youth population, and related issues from the following offices: 

Department of Defense Joint Advertising, Market Research and Studies; 

Office of the Secretary of Defense for Accession Policy; Office of the 

Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Manpower and Personnel); U.S. 

Military Entrance Processing Command; U.S. Army Accessions Command; 

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Human Resources; 

U.S. Army Personnel Command; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs; Navy Recruiting Command, 

Marine Corps Recruiting Command; Marine Corps Office of Equal 

Opportunity; Air Force Education and Training Command; Air Force 

Personnel Center; Air Force Reserve Personnel Directorate, Air Force 

Office of Testing Policy and Research Integration; Centers for Naval 

Analysis; RAND; and the Center for Research on Military Organization at 

the University of Maryland. We obtained information on DOD’s 

expenditures on enlistment incentives from the Office of the Secretary of 

2

Based on a total U.S. population size of 281,421,906, as determined by the 2000 census.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 136 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Defense (Compensation). We accessed and evaluated data from DMDC’s 

Information Delivery System (DOD’s data warehouse) and Defense Market 

Research Executive Notes. We obtained the results of a study jointly 

performed by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Accession Policy) and 

the Center for Army Accessions on the socioeconomic status and 

community population density of over 1 million active and reserve 

component recruits. We evaluated whether or not there has been a change 

in the extent to which members of racial/ethnic subgroups are entering the 

military by analyzing the race and ethnicity of almost 540,000 active duty 

servicemembers with 1 year or less of military service in fiscal years 2000, 

2002, and 2004. 

To identify the demographic characteristics of servicemembers who 

remained in the military and address our third objective, we reviewed DOD 

retention and recruiting announcements, examined data on the services’ 

retention goals and achievements for AC enlistment retention for each 

fiscal year from 2000 through February 2005, and collected previously 

published research by RAND, the Centers for Naval Analysis, and the 

Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. 

We interviewed an official from the Officer and Enlisted Personnel 

Management Directorate in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and 

discussed retention with subject matter experts at RAND and the Center 

for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland. We 

accessed DOD’s Information Delivery System and obtained the 

continuation rates for AC servicemembers and we extracted RC 

continuation rates from Official Guard & Reserve Manpower Strengths & 

Statistics: Fiscal Year 2004 Summary. 

To identify the demographic characteristics of servicemembers who died 

or were wounded in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan in support of Operations 

Iraqi Freedom or Enduring Freedom, we requested that DOD’s Washington 

Headquarters Services provide information on each applicable 

servicemember. That office developed a file that combined casualty data 

obtained from Central Command with demographic data appended to each 

servicemember’s record by DMDC, using files that we had previously 

assessed for data reliability. The data reflect casualties as of May 28, 2005. 

To identify reservists’ socioeconomic status and their community’s 

population density we extracted the zip codes of reservists’ homes of 

record and requested that the Office of Secretary of Defense (Accession 

Policy) analyze them using PRIZM,® commercial marketing software by 

Claritas, Inc. which assigns zip-codes to 1 of 64 market segments based 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 137 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

upon economic and social data from the Bureau of the Census and other 

sources. 

We determined that the data used in the preparation of this report were 

sufficiently reliable to answer our objectives. For example, we interviewed 

personnel knowledgeable about the data sources we used, inquiring about 

their methods for ensuring that the data were accurate. We reviewed 

available data for inconsistencies and, when applicable, performed 

computer testing to assess data validity and reliability. Among other things, 

appendix II describes the primary databases from which we obtained data 

extracts. 

We conducted our review between August 2004 and July 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 138 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendix II

Analytic Issues ApendxiI

Datasets Used in 

Analyses

Data on servicemembers were primarily taken from two military databases 

and one monthly report. Data on civilians were primarily taken from a 

large-scale civilian survey. 

Active Duty Military 

Personnel Master File

The Active Duty Military Personnel Master File is Department of Defense’s 

(DOD) centralized database of all individuals on active duty in the Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force.1

 We used extracts that DOD provided 

from this file as the basis for all of our analyses of Active Component (AC) 

personnel. The file is maintained by the Defense Manpower Data Center 

(DMDC) which updates it monthly based upon information submitted from 

each of the services. The file contains information on personal 

characteristics such as name, social security number, date of birth, gender, 

race, ethnic group, and education, as well as information on military 

characteristics such as service, pay grade, months of service, and duty 

occupation. Data are available on active duty servicemembers back to 

1971. The Active Duty Military Personnel Master File is also one source of 

information for demographic reports available through DOD’s Information 

Delivery System on active duty personnel.

Reserve Components 

Common Personnel Data 

System

The Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System is a centralized 

database of current and past members of the Army National Guard, Army 

Reserve, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Air 

National Guard, and is DOD’s official source of reserve accession, loss, and 

reenlistment information. The file was created in 1975 and is updated 

monthly based upon submissions by the reserve components. It contains 

information on reservists’ personal characteristics such as name, social 

security number, date of birth, gender, home address, and education, as 

well as information on their military characteristics such as service, 

reserve component, drilling status, prior service status, and date of initial 

entry into the reserve forces. This is also one source of information for 

demographic reports available through DOD’s Information Delivery System 

on reservists.

1

It also contains data on active duty personnel in the Coast Guard, Public Health Service, 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who were not included in these 

analyses. 
Appendix II

Analytic Issues

Page 139 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Defense Manpower Data 

Center EO 3035 Monthly 

Report

Each month the Defense Manpower Data Center produces an EO 3035 

report which includes cross-tabulations of pay grade, gender, and 

race/ethnicity for servicemembers in each active duty component, the AC, 

and the Coast Guard. A separate, comparable report is compiled for the 

reserve components. The findings contained in the EO 3035 reports are 

computed using information from the active duty and reserve files 

described above. As mentioned earlier in this report, the six racial/ethnic 

categories tabulated are: White, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian 

American/Pacific Islander, Black, Hispanic, and Multiracial/Unknown. This 

differs from the 1997 guidance from the Office of Management and Budget 

on the separate reporting of race and ethnicity.

Current Population Survey 

Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement

The Current Population Survey is a monthly survey conducted via personal 

and telephone interviews by the Census Bureau. The survey, which is based 

on the civilian noninstitutional population of the United States, contains 

information such as age, education, gender, occupation, hours of work, 

number of jobs held, duration of unemployment, part- or full-time status, 

and earnings on about 112,000 persons living in almost 60,000 households. 

In March, the Census Bureau fields the Annual Social and Economic 

Supplement to provide additional labor force information on topics such as 

work experience, income, and benefits. Data for employment and income 

refer to the preceding year, although demographic data refer to the time of 

the survey. Therefore, our analysis of the March 2004 Current Population 

Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement reflects respondents’ 

employment status in 2003 and their personal characteristics as of March 

2004.

Tabulating Data on 

Race and Ethnicity

Although the current guidelines require that executive agencies identify 

new racial categories and separately report race and ethnicity, we decided 

to continue using the former racial/ethnic categories in a combined format 

because (1) data using the old racial/ethnic format were available on the 

majority of servicemembers we examined and (2) some military 

components are still transitioning to the new procedures. 

To identify race/ethnicity in the DOD datasets, we first determined whether 

or not an individual was Hispanic by assigning to the Hispanic subgroup all 

servicemembers whose ethnic group on the DOD files was Cuban, Latin 

American with Hispanic descent, Mexican, Puerto Rican, or Other Hispanic 

descent. Next, we determined race by assigning servicemembers belonging 
Appendix II

Analytic Issues

Page 140 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

to a single race group to one of the following subgroups: White, African 

American, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and Asian (which includes 

Pacific Islanders, Asian Americans, and Native Hawaiians). 

Servicemembers for whom race was missing, unknown, or who had 

multiple races were assigned to one “Other/Unknown” race/ethnic 

subgroup.2

The revision of standards on the collection and reporting of data on race 

and ethnicity limits the ability to clearly discern changes in racial and 

ethnic representation before and after the new guidance was implemented. 

Additionally, because DOD components may be at differing stages of 

compliance with the 1997 guidance, tabulations of race and ethnicity over 

the next few years may reflect inconsistencies in the extent to which 

various federal organizations, both within and outside of DOD, have 

complied with the new directives. For these reasons, we decided to limit 

our analyses of racial and ethnic trends to only one analysis—an 

examination of AC servicemembers’ continuation rates in fiscal years 2000, 

2002, and 2004 by race and ethnicity. 

DOD Used Zip Codes 

to Estimate Recruits’ 

Socioeconomic Status 

and Community 

Population Density

DOD last reported the results of analyses on recruits’ socioeconomic status 

in the Population Representation in the Military Services: Fiscal Year 

1999. At that time, the socioeconomic status of enlisted accessions was 

estimated from information recruits provided on family status; parental 

educational attainment, employment status, and occupation; and home 

ownership. A commonly used socioeconomic index based upon parents’ 

education, income, and occupational prestige was also created and 

analyzed.3

DOD has ceased routinely collecting this information from recruits and we 

were told that one problem with attempting to measure the socioeconomic 

status of youth’s households is that young people may not know their 

parents’ income or other information needed to create a measure of 

socioeconomic status. However, the March 2003 Status of Forces Survey of 

2

If we were able to determine that an individual belonged to more than one race, we also 

assigned that individual to the “Other/Unknown” racial/ethnic subgroup.

3

The TSEI socioeconomic index is described in R.M. Hauser and J.R. Warren, 

Socioeconomic Indexes for Occupations: A Review, Update, and Critique (Madison, Wisc: 

Center for Demography and Ecology, October 1996).
Appendix II

Analytic Issues

Page 141 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Active Duty Members did ask active duty servicemembers to recall their 

family structure and the education, employment status, and occupation of 

their parents at the time they joined the military. Because of concerns 

about the reliability of data based upon respondents’ ability to recall 

circumstances of years past, we elected not to analyze and report these 

data. 

To estimate recruits’ socioeconomic status and the home community 

population density in the absence of data supplied by recruits, military 

researchers in the Office of Accession Policy and the Army’s Center for 

Accessions Research matched recruits’ zip codes to public and private 

databases containing economic and social information on all U.S. zip 

codes. DOD used mean household income, as determined by Bureau of the 

Census estimates, as the indicator of socioeconomic status. To indicate the 

population density for recruits’ home communities, DOD classified the zip 

codes using two sets of definitions: (1) the Census Bureau’s definitions of 

rural and urban communities4

 and (2) definitions of rural, suburban, and 

urban communities used by commercial marketing software. 5

Using zip codes as the basis for estimates of socioeconomic status and 

population density is admittedly flawed. The assumption that household 

income is the main determinate of status ignores the fact that household 

income may subject to temporary or seasonal fluctuations and that 

research shows that education and occupation are more stable, reliable 

indicators of socioeconomic status. Also, median household income may 

not be a meaningful reflection of status for individuals from economically 

stratified communities that are heavily populated by residents at either end 

of the economic spectrum. Similarly, using zip code as an indicator of 

community population density ignores the possibility that population 

clusters may form within a particular community. 

Rounding Error We rounded percentages to whole numbers as follows. If the tenth place 

(first place to the right of the decimal) equaled .4 or below, we retained the 

4

The U.S. Census Bureau defines rural areas as open country and settlements with fewer 

than 2,500 residents. Urban areas, of which there are two types—urbanized areas and urban 

clusters—comprise larger places and the densely settled areas around them.

5

DOD used marketing software developed by Claritas Inc. to group zip codes by population 

density.
Appendix II

Analytic Issues

Page 142 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

original whole percentage. If the tenth place was .5 or above, we rounded 

up to the next highest whole percentage. Percentages that were more than 

0 and less than .4 were written as <1. 
Page 143 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendix III

Structure of the Reserve Component ApendxiI

The Department of Defense has six reserve components: Army Reserve, 

Army National Guard, Navy Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, Air Force 

Reserve, and Air National Guard. Reserve forces can be divided into three 

categories: Ready Reserve, Standby Reserve, and Retired Reserve. While 

the Army Reserve, Navy Reserve, Air Force Reserve, and Marine Corps 

Reserve each consist of all three types of reservists, the Army National 

Guard and Air National Guard are composed solely of Ready Reserve 

personnel. 

Ready Reserve The Ready Reserve consists of Reserve Component units, individual 

reservists assigned to active component units, and individuals subject to 

recall to active duty to augment the active forces in time of war or national 

emergency. In fiscal year 2004, the Ready Reserve contained 1,145,035 

servicemembers, comprising about 98 percent of the total reserve 

manpower. The Ready Reserve consists of three subgroups: the Selected 

Reserve, the Individual Ready Reserve, and the Inactive National Guard. 

Selected Reserve This group comprises about 74 percent of the total reserve manpower and 

is composed of those units and individuals designated by their respective 

services and approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as so 

essential to initial wartime missions that they have priority for training, 

equipment, and personnel over all other reserve elements. The Selected 

Reserve, which contained 851,395 members in September 2004, is divided 

into three categories:

Unit members 

Unit members include both part-time drilling reservists and two types of 

full-time unit support personnel: (1) Active Guard and Reserve personnel, 

whose duty it is to organize, administer, recruit, or train Reserve 

Component units and (2) Military technicians who are federal civilians 

providing full-time support for units. 

Individual Mobilization Augmentees

Individual Mobilization Augmentees are trained individuals assigned to an 

active component. 
Appendix III

Structure of the Reserve Component

Page 144 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Training pipeline

Reservists in the training pipeline are nondeployable personnel who have 

not yet completed initial active duty for training or are professional 

training. 

Individual Ready Reserve (IRR) This group consists mainly of trained individuals who have previously 

served in Active Component units or in the Selected Reserve and who have 

a remaining military service obligation. Members of the Individual Ready 

Reserve are liable for involuntary mobilization to active duty for training or 

deployment. In fiscal year 2004, there were 284,201 reservists in this 

category.

Inactive National Guard This group consists of National Guard personnel who are attached to a 

specific unit but are temporarily unable to participate in regular training. 

Currently, this category is used only by the Army National Guard. In fiscal 

year 2004, there were 1,428 reservists in this category.

Standby Reserve Personnel assigned to the Standby Reserve have completed all obligated or 

required service or have been removed from the Ready Reserve because of 

civilian employment, temporary hardship, or disability. Standby Reservists 

maintain their military affiliation but are not required to perform training or 

to be assigned to a unit. In fiscal year 2004, there were 21,549 reservists in 

this category.

Retired Reserve The Retired Reserve consists of personnel who have been placed in a 

retirement status based on the completion of 20 or more qualifying years of 

Reserve Component or Active Component service. A member of the 

Retired Reserve does not receive retired pay until reaching age 60, unless 

he or she has 20 or more years of active duty military service. In fiscal year 

2004, there were 1,132,454 former servicemembers who had retired from a 

reserve component.
Page 145 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females ApendxiIV

Table 47: Military Occupational Specialties That Exclude Females as of March 1997

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force

0 Infantry, Gun crews, Seamanship Specialists x x x x

11B Infantryman x N/A N/A N/A

11C Indirect Fire Infantryman x N/A N/A N/A

11H Heavy Antiarmor Weapons Infantryman x N/A N/A N/A

11M Fighting Vehicle Infantryman x N/A N/A N/A

11Z Infantry Senior Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

0311 Rifleman N/A N/A x N/A

0313 LAV Crewman N/A N/A x N/A

0321 Reconnaissance Man N/A N/A x N/A

0331 Machinegunner N/A N/A x N/A

0341 Mortar Man N/A N/A x N/A

0351 Assaultman N/A N/A x N/A

0352 Anti-Tank/ Assault Guided Missileman N/A N/A x N/A

0369 Infantry Unit Leader N/A N/A x N/A

18B Special Forces Weapons Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

18C Special Forces Engineer Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

18D Special Forces Medical Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

18E Special Forces Communications Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

18F Special Forces Assistant Operations and Intelligence Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

18Z Special Forces Senior Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

9533 Special Warfare Combatant Craft Crewman N/A x N/A N/A

9534 Seal Delivery Vehicle (SDV) Team Technician N/A x N/A N/A

19E M48-M60 Armor Crewman x N/A N/A N/A

19K M1 Armor Crewman x N/A N/A N/A

19Z Armor Senior Sergeant x N/A N/A N/A

1812 M1A1 Tank Crewman N/A N/A x N/A

1833 Assault Amphibious Vehicle Crewman N/A N/A x N/A

12B Combat Engineer x N/A N/A N/A

12C Bridge Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

13B Cannon Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

16R VULCAN Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

0811 Field Artillery Cannoneer N/A N/A x N/A

0844 Field Artillery Fire Control Man N/A N/A x N/A
Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females

Page 146 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

0861 Fire Support Man N/A N/A N/A

13M Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

13P Multiple Launch Rocket System/Fire Direction Specialist x N/A N/A N/A

14J Early Warning System Operator x N/A N/A N/A

14R Line of Sight-Forward-Heavy Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

14S Avenger Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

16P CHAPARRAL Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

16S Man Portable Air Defense Systems (MANPADS) Crewmember x N/A N/A N/A

1T231 Pararescue Apprentice N/A N/A N/A x

1T251 Pararescue Journeyman N/A N/A N/A x

1T271 Pararescue Craftsman N/A N/A N/A x

1T291 Pararescue Superintendent N/A N/A N/A x

9562 Deep Submergence Vehicle Operator N/A x N/A N/A

9563 Deep Submergence Vehicle Crewmember N/A x N/A N/A

1 Electronic Equipment Repairers

ET 14SM SWS Navigation System Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14TM TRIDENT I/II Radio Frequency (RF) Equipment Maintenance 

Technician

N/A N/A N/A

ET 14TO TRIDENT I/II Radio Frequency (RF) Equipment Operator N/A x N/A N/A

CTM9238 Submarine Carry-on Equipment Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14BF Project SSN 637 ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14BG SSN 768-773 ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14CM SSN Radio Frequency (RF) Equipment Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14CT Submarine Conversion Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14EB SSN 668 Class ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14EM SSN ESM Equipment Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14EP SSN 719-767 ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14ET ESM Technician (All Classes) N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14FA TRIDENT Submarine Electronics Technician Command and 

Control System

N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14HB SSN 637 Class ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14HH SSN 21 Class ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14IC Former IC(SS) N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14JA TRIDENT ESM Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14NM Navigation Equipment Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14NO Navigation Equipment Operator N/A x N/A N/A

(Continued From Previous Page)

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force
Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females

Page 147 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

ET 14QM Former QM(SS) N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14RD SSN 637 Class Navigation Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14RM Former RM (SS) N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14RO SSN Radio Frequency (RF) Equipment Operator N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14SF SSN 594/688 Class Navigation Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14TG SSN 637/688 Class Navigation Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14TK SSN 21 Navigation Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 14ZA AN/BRD-7 Submarine Radio Direction Finding (RDF) Set 

Maintenance. Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1174 Combat Control System MK 1 Vertical Launch System Technician N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1175 Combat Control System MK 1 MOD 1 Advanced Capability 

Subsystem Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1194 AN/BSY-2(V) Advanced Maintainer N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1196 Underwater Fire Control System MK 113 MOD 9 Technician N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1312 CCS MK 2 MOD 0 Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1313 CCS MK 2 MOD 1 Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1315 CCS MK 2 MOD 3 Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1320 TRIDENT MK 118 Combat Control System Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

FTG Fire Control Technician G (Gunfire Control) N/A x N/A N/A

IC 4737 TRIDENT Submarine Ship Control and ASMO and Maintenance 

Technician (Level III)

N/A x N/A N/A

FT Fire Control Technician N/A x N/A N/A

FT 1179 AN/BSY-1 (XN-1)(V) Organizational Level Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

FTB Fire Control Technician B (Ballistic Missile Fire Control) N/A x N/A N/A

MT Missile Technician N/A x N/A N/A

MT 3305 Missile Tech (MK88 MOD 2/MK98 MOD 0 FC Sys with TRIDENT1 SSBN/Backfit SSBN)N/A x N/A N/A

MT 3307 Missile Technician (MK 98 MOD 1) TRIDENT II D-5 SWS N/A x N/A N/A

MT 3310 Missile Technician (TRIDENT I (C-4) SWS) N/A x N/A N/A

MT 3311 Missile Technician (TRIDENT II (D-5) SWS) N/A x N/A N/A

MT 3317 Missile Technician (TRIDENT-I SSBN) N/A x N/A N/A

MT 3319 Missile and Missile Checkout Technician (TRIDENT D-5 SWS 

SSBN)

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23JH Submarine Radioman Tactical Communications Equipment 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

(Continued From Previous Page)

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force
Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females

Page 148 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

STS Sonar Technician S (Submarine) N/A x N/A N/A

STS0418 AN/BSY-1 (XN-1) (V)Basic Organizational Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0419 AN/BSY-1 (XN-1) (V) Advanced Organizational Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0421 Sub Special Purpose Acoustic Equipment Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0422 BQQ-5/5 (Series) Submarine Sonar Advanced Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0424 AN/BQQ-6 trident Level II Journeyman Operation & Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0425 AN/BQQ-6 TRIDENT Level III Master Operation & Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0495 Sonar Technician AN/BQQ5 Series (B/C/D/E) Advanced 

Maintainer

N/A x N/A N/A

STS0501 Submarine Sonar Master Analyst N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23EY Submarine Radioman Strategic Communications Equipment 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23JS Submarine Radioman Tactical Communications Equipment 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23MZ Submarine Radioman Communications Combined Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23NJ Submarine Radioman Communications Combined Maintenance 

Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23SM SSN ECS Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23SO SSN ECS Operator N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23TA TRIDENT Radioman Exterior Comm Sub-Systems Operations 

and Maint Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23TB TRIDENT Radioman Exterior Comm Sub-Systems Operations 

and Maint Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23TC TRIDENT Radioman Exterior Comm Sub-Systems Operations 

and Maint Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23TM TRIDENT ECS Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

RM 23TO TRIDENT ECS Operator N/A x N/A N/A

ET 3323 Central Navigation Computer (CNC) Tech (CP-890B OR 

TRIDENT SSBN)

N/A x N/A N/A

ET 3324 Ships Inertial Navigation System (SINS) Technician N/A x N/A N/A

ET 3327 Navigation AIDS (NAVAIDS) N/A x N/A N/A

ET 3328 Navigation Electronic Technician N/A x N/A N/A

(Continued From Previous Page)

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force
Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females

Page 149 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

ET 9611 AN/SSN-2(V)4 maintainer N/A x N/A N/A

OS 0325 AN/SSN-2(V) 4 Operator N/A x N/A N/A

2 Communications and Intelligence 

13R FA Firefinder Radar Operator x N/A N/A N/A

0842 Field Artillery Radar Operator N/A N/A x N/A

96R Ground Surveillance Systems Operator x N/A N/A N/A

13C Automated Fire Support Systems Specialist x N/A N/A N/A

13E Cannon Fire Direction Specialist x N/A N/A N/A

13F Fire Support Specialist x N/A N/A N/A

19D Cavalry Scout x N/A N/A N/A

0848 Field Artillery Operations Man N/A N/A x N/A

1C231 Combat Control Apprentice N/A N/A N/A x

1C251 Combat Control Journeyman N/A N/A N/A x

1C271 Combat Control Craftsman N/A N/A N/A x

1C291 Combat Control Superintendent N/A N/A N/A x

1C431 Tactical Air Command And Control Apprentice N/A N/A N/A x

1C451 Tactical Air Command And Control Journeyman N/A N/A N/A x

1C471 Tactical Air Command And Control Craftsman N/A N/A N/A x

1C491 Tactical Air Command And Control Superintendent N/A N/A N/A x

3 Health Care 

HM 8427 Fleet Marine Force Reconnaissance Corpsman N/A x N/A N/A

HM 8491 Special Operations Independent Duty Corpsman N/A x N/A N/A

HM 8492 Special Operations Technician N/A x N/A N/A

HM 8402 Submarine Force Independent Duty Corpsman N/A x N/A N/A

HM 8403 Special Amphibious Reconnaissance Independent Duty 

Corpsman

N/A x N/A N/A

4 Other Technical and Allied

82C Field Artillery Surveyor x N/A N/A N/A

0847 Artillery Meteorological Man N/A N/A x N/A

5320 Basic Combatant Swimmer N/A x N/A N/A

5323 SDV Pilot/Navigator/DDS Operator N/A x N/A N/A

5326 Combatant Swimmer (SEAL) N/A x N/A N/A

5301 UDT/SEAL Candidate N/A x N/A N/A

5 Functional Support and Administration

9579 Chief of the Boat (all Submarines) N/A x N/A N/A

(Continued From Previous Page)

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force
Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females

Page 150 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

6 Electrical/Mechanical Equip Repairers

63D Self-Propelled Field Artillery System Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

63E M1 ABRAMS Tank System Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

63N M60A1/A3 Tank System Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

63T BFV System Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

24M VULCAN System Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

24N CHAPARRAL System Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

45D Self-Propelled Field Artillery Turret Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

45E M1 ABRAMS Tank Turret Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

45N M60A1/A3 Tank Turret Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

45T Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Turret Mechanic x N/A N/A N/A

MM 4230 SSN/SSBN Auxiliary Equipment Operator N/A x N/A N/A

MM 4231 SSN/SSBN Auxiliary Equipment Technician N/A x N/A N/A

MM 4232 SSN/SSBN Weapons Equipment Operator N/A x N/A N/A

MM 4233 SSN/SSBN Weapons Equipment Technician N/A x N/A N/A

MM 4245 SSN/SSBN Basic Auxiliary Equipment Technician N/A x N/A N/A

MM 4246 SSBN Diesel Engine (Fairbanks-Morse) Maintenance Technician N/A x N/A N/A

3351 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant Emergency Welder N/A x N/A N/A

3353 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant - Reactor Control N/A x N/A N/A

3354 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant - Electrical N/A x N/A N/A

3355 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant -Mechanical N/A x N/A N/A

3356 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant – Engineer Laboratory 

Technician 

N/A x N/A N/A

3359 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant - Special Category N/A x N/A N/A

3363 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant Supervisor- reactor Control N/A x N/A N/A

3364 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant Supervisor- Electrical N/A x N/A N/A

3365 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant Supervisor- Mechanical N/A x N/A N/A

3366 Submarine Nuclear Propulsion Plant Supervisor- Engineering 

Laboratory Technician

N/A x N/A N/A

7 Craftsworkers

52G Transmission and Distribution Specialist x N/A N/A N/A

8 Service and Supply Handlers

9 Nonoccupational

18X Special Forces Candidate (Reporting Code) x N/A N/A N/A

1C211 Combat Control Helper N/A N/A N/A x

1C411 Tactical Air command And Control Helper N/A N/A N/A x

(Continued From Previous Page)

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force
Appendix IV

Military Occupational Specialties That 

Exclude Females

Page 151 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Source: DOD 1312.1-1, Occupational Conversion Index: Enlisted/Officer/Civilian.

1T211 Pararescue Helper N/A N/A N/A x

(Continued From Previous Page)

DOD occupational 

code/ Military 

occupational 

specialty Service occupation title Army Navy

Marine 

Corps Air Force
Page 152 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 153 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics
Appendix V

Comments from the Department of Defense

Page 154 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics
Page 155 GAO-05-952 Military Demographics

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact Derek B. Stewart, (202) 512-5559 or stewartd@gao.gov

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Jack E. Edwards, Assistant 

Director, William Bates, Virginia A. Chanley, Jonathan Clark, George M. 

Duncan, Gregg J. Justice, III, John G. Smale, Mitchell B. Karpman, Renee 

McElveen, Jacquelyn S. Randolph, and Dale O. Wineholt also made key 

contributions to this report.

(350581)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548