United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Military Personnel, Committee on

National Security, House of

Representatives

July 1996 PHYSICALLY

DEMANDING JOBS

Services Have Little

Data on Ability of

Personnel to Perform

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-169

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-272083 

July 9, 1996

The Honorable Robert K. Dornan

Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you requested, we reviewed the use and development of gender-neutral

occupational performance standards in the military. Specifically, we

(1) determined the military services’ approaches to implementing

gender-neutral performance standards and screening servicemembers to

ensure that they can meet the physical demands of their occupations,

(2) determined how the military services identified the extent to which

servicemembers had problems in accomplishing the physical demands of

their jobs, and (3) evaluated the Air Force’s implementation of its strength

aptitude testing program.

Results in Brief Each of the services has taken a different approach to screening

servicemembers for physically demanding occupations. The Air Force is

the only service that requires all new recruits to take a strength aptitude

test—which consists of lifting weights on a single weight machine—and

uses the results to qualify individuals for their military occupations. Until

1990, the Army required recruits to take a virtually identical strength test

but used the results only to counsel recruits about the physical

requirements of their desired military occupations. The Navy and the

Marine Corps have not adopted occupational strength testing as a means

of screening new recruits for physically demanding occupations.

In an April 1995 report to Congress,1

 the Air Force, the Navy, and the

Marine Corps reported that they had experienced good results with their

approaches to matching servicemembers to physically demanding

occupations or had encountered few problems; the Army was silent about

its results. According to Department of Defense (DOD) and Army officials,

the services based their conclusions on the absence of complaints from

servicemembers that they were having problems completing physically

demanding tasks. However, the services have little data on which to base

their conclusions. We found that only the Army had systematically

1

Gender Neutral Standards, Report to the House Committee on National Security, Senate Committee

on Armed Services, and House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, Office of the Assistant

Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), April 1995.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

collected physical performance data since 1989 in 21 occupations and

concluded that 59 to 84 percent of servicemembers in 7 selected surveyed

occupations had no problems completing physically demanding tasks. A

1994-95 data collection for 10 of 267 occupations (including 6 of the same

occupations reported in the 1989 data collection) found 51 to 79 percent of

servicemembers had no problems completing physically demanding tasks.

The Air Force strength aptitude test, or an earlier version of it, has been in

use since 1976. However, questions about the current test’s effectiveness

in predicting capability to do physically demanding tasks, problems in the

administration of the test to new recruits, and delays in updating

occupational requirements raise concerns about whether the test is used

correctly, or is even useful.

Background In fiscal year 1980, of the more than 2 million servicemembers on active

duty, over 170,000 (8.4 percent) were women. Congressional action and

DOD policymaking lifted the prohibition on women serving in positions in

combat aviation, aboard combatant vessels,2

 and in ground units (brigade

level and above) and DOD’s new definition of combat jobs3

 opened over

259,000 additional military positions to women servicemembers since

April 1993. By December 1995, the number of women serving on active

duty had risen to over 191,000 (about 12.8 percent of the approximately

1.5 million servicemembers). At the time of our report, DOD had opened

over 80 percent of all positions to all servicemembers, ranging from a low

of 62 percent of positions open to women in the Marine Corps to a high of

over 99 percent of positions open to women in the Air Force.

Section 543 of the Fiscal Year 1994 National Defense Authorization Act

required the services to adopt gender-neutral occupational performance

standards and defined those as being work standards that are common,

relevant, and not based on gender. The act also required the services to

adopt physical performance standards for any occupation in which DOD

determined that strength, endurance, or stamina was essential to the

performance of duties. The DOD General Counsel later determined that the

2

The Fiscal Year 1992 and 1993 National Defense Authorization Act repealed 10 U.S.C. section 8549,

lifting the prohibition on women serving aboard combat aircraft, and the Fiscal Year 1994 National

Defense Authorization Act repealed 10 U.S.C section 6015, lifting the prohibition on women serving

aboard combat ships.

3

Based on a policy memorandum from the Secretary of Defense (January 13, 1994), DOD excludes

female servicemembers from units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in

direct combat on the ground. DOD defined ground combat as “engaging an enemy on the ground with

individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of

direct physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel.”

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

services were not required to have physical standards for any occupation

but that if such standards did exist they would have to be applied on a

gender-neutral basis for any occupation open to both men and women.

The services use a variety of pre-enlistment, job classification, and

retention screening devices to select qualified candidates for military

service. For example, pre-enlistment screens include requirements that

recruits score at or above a specified minimum on a cognitive test and be

within a certain height or weight range. Other standards may be

occupation-specific, such as requiring recruits entering electronics

occupations to demonstrate aptitude in the field of electronics.

Military Services

Differ in How They

Classify Recruits for

Physically Demanding

Jobs

DOD has left it to the services to determine how to classify servicemembers

into physically demanding occupations. The Air Force is the only service

that requires recruits to take a strength aptitude test. Each Air Force

enlisted occupation is categorized into one of eight strength categories,

and recruits’ test scores are used to screen them for their military

occupations. The other services permit virtually any recruit to fill nearly

all physically demanding occupations provided they meet cognitive,

height/weight, and other standards unrelated to strength capacity and

restrict women only from occupations closed by combat exclusion

policies.

In 1976, we recommended that DOD develop standards for measuring

recruits’ ability to meet strength, stamina, and operational requirements

because we found that some servicemembers were unable to do physically

demanding tasks.4

 In response, the Army categorized each enlisted

occupational specialty into one of five categories based on physical

demand. It required new recruits to take a strength test using the

“incremental lifting machine,” a weight-lifting machine developed and used

by the Air Force. The Army concluded that although the test helped to

better match recruits’ physical capabilities to requirements of physically

demanding occupations, it also prevented more women than men from

serving in certain occupations. Consequently, test results were used only

to counsel applicants about job assignments. The Army discontinued the

test in 1990.

In the 1970s, the Air Force adopted an earlier version of the test and by

1987 categorized each of its enlisted occupations into one of eight physical

4

Job Opportunities for Women in the Military: Progress and Problems (GAO/FPCD-76-26, May 11,

1976).

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

demand categories. The Air Force currently requires all recruits to take the

strength aptitude test at a military entrance processing station. The test

requires recruits to lift weights on the incremental lifting machine starting

at 40 pounds; the weight is then increased in 10-pound increments until the

recruit (1) cannot complete a lift, (2) asks to stop, or (3) lifts 110 pounds

(the maximum for any occupation in the Air Force). An Air Force

counselor uses the results to match recruits to occupations based on the

eight physical demand categories and screens out applicants who the test

results indicate would have difficulty performing physically demanding

jobs.

The Navy considered using a strength test to screen applicants for entry

into physically demanding military occupations and concluded that more

women than men would have been excluded from such jobs. The Navy

concluded, however, that women were already meeting the physical

demands of their occupations and, for that reason, did not implement its

test or categorize its occupations by physical demand. Similarly, the

Marine Corps has not adopted an occupationally based strength test or

categorized its occupations by physical demand.

The Services Have

Little Data to Assess

Capability to Perform

Physically Demanding

Tasks

Except for the Army, the services have not collected data on

servicemembers’ ability to do physically demanding jobs and have little

basis on which to conclude that servicemembers are not having problems.

We are concerned that some servicemembers may have difficulty doing

some physically demanding tasks based on the results of a limited survey

conducted by the Army Research Institute (ARI) and anecdotal information

we obtained in interviews with servicemembers. However, given

limitations on the ARI survey and our interviews, we were not able to

assess the significance of the problem.

In 1989, 1994, and 1995, ARI surveyed servicemembers5

 in selected Army

occupations. In 1989, ARI surveyed 21 combat and noncombat occupations

and found that 59 to 84 percent of male and female servicemembers in

7 selected noncombat occupations reported no difficulty in lifting objects.

In the 1994-95 follow-on survey of 10 of 267 occupations, ARI found that

51 to 79 percent of servicemembers reported no difficulty in lifting objects

in some of the same occupations as those looked at in the 1989 survey.

Because the surveys did not address the significance of the problem and

rely on self-reported data, the results must be used with caution. On the

5

ARI briefing, Physical Performance Research Update, October 1995.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

other hand, the results also suggest that the Army may have

servicemembers who have had difficulty doing physical tasks.

The other services have not done any systematic assessment of the

capability of their personnel to perform the physically demanding aspects

of their jobs. According to DOD and Army officials, the services rely upon

the absence of complaints filtering up from operational units as an

indicator that widespread performance problems do not exist. Supervisory

personnel we spoke with, however, indicated that they would work

around6

 individual performance capability problems or redistribute tasks

and that it was unlikely such information would be channeled to higher

levels unless widespread problems were encountered.

Our discussions with about 100 Army personnel in 5 occupational

specialties (2 of which were used in ARI’s survey) anecdotally supported

ARI’s finding that some soldiers were having difficulty completing some

physically demanding tasks. In addition, in discussions with over 

300 military personnel in the Air Force, the Navy, and the Marine Corps,

some individuals stated that at one time or another, they had difficulty

with some aspect of their job. Given the limited number of personnel we

interviewed and the limited number of military specialties we reviewed,

we were unable to determine whether such problems were widespread.

All four services told us that they have the capability and infrastructure

already in place to collect data on physical demands of occupations at

little or no additional cost. Each of the services has ongoing processes

through which they can identify occupational tasks in each specialty in

order to revise training curriculums and which they use for other reasons.

However, the services do not collect data on the physical demands of jobs

with these processes.

Surveys, identification of physically demanding tasks, or other data

collection efforts, could be used as a first step in identifying occupations

in which servicemembers have difficulty and can identify occupations that

are candidates for reengineering to reduce the physical demands placed

on servicemembers. For example, the Army Research Laboratory has a

pilot reengineering project underway that attempts to identify

opportunities to reengineer selected occupations to reduce the physical

demands and enhance job sustainment, safety, and personnel utilization.

6

According to servicemembers we spoke with, one or more other servicemembers would work

together to complete a task that was too demanding for one person to do. Servicemembers we spoke

with considered this approach realistic as long as sufficient numbers of personnel were available to

lend assistance.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

In addition, the Air Force has a number of reengineering studies

underway.

Systematic data collection on physically demanding tasks could be used to

develop occupation-specific physical strength training. For example, the

Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) has commissioned the

Army’s Research Institute of Environmental Medicine to develop a

database of physically demanding tasks in Army occupations. TRADOC is

considering using the database to establish specific physical strength

training to help servicemembers meet the physical demands of their jobs.

According to DOD, current training consists of classroom training that

tends to be less physically oriented than on-the-job training. Once in their

duty assignments, servicemembers continue their on-the-job training.

According to DOD, training standards are based on tasks, duties, and

knowledge required to perform in an occupation and men and women are

held to the same standards.

The Air Force

Strength Aptitude Test

Program May Not Be

Valid

The Air Force is the only service that uses strength aptitude testing as a

prerequisite for entry into specific military occupations. Air Force recruits

take the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) and must

pass a physical given at a military entrance processing station. If they pass

the physical, recruits then take the strength aptitude test, and their scores

are recorded in their medical records. Finally, recruits meet with an Air

Force counselor who matches them to a military occupation based on the

ASVAB and strength aptitude test scores, their interests, and the needs of

the Air Force. However, Army, Navy, and independent research raises

questions about the predictive validity of the test currently used by the Air

Force, and we found several problems with implementation of the Air

Force testing program.

Research Questions the

Validity of Test Results

Obtained With the

Incremental Lifting

Machine

Since 1982, at least nine studies have been published or presented that

raise questions about the validity of the incremental lifting machine test as

a predictor of performance in military occupations, particularly if the test

is relied upon as the sole measure of predicted performance.

• A 1982 study sponsored by the Air Force reported that the incremental

lifting machine was the best single predictor of task performance. The

result was based upon transformation of the combined male and female

scores that minimized the differences in those scores but resulted in giving

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

the appearance of improving the predictive power of the incremental

lifting machine beyond the experimental results.7

• A 1984 study done for the Army8 found that the incremental lifting

machine was a good predictor of a set of Army simulated occupational

tasks, accounting for 67 percent of the explanation of scores on the tasks.

However, the study misstated the relationship because it combined

significantly different male and female lifting scores to determine the

predictive power of the incremental lifting machine scores. When we

examined the reported scores by gender, the correlation of the

incremental lifting machine with each simulated task was considerably

lower for male and female scores than reported for the aggregated score.

• A 1985 Navy study9 stated that combining male and female incremental

lifting machine scores would involve making an assumption that male and

female scores are evenly distributed throughout the entire group, a

tenuous assumption according to the text. By using separate male and

female scores, the study compared 7 strength test measures, including

3 different incremental lifting machine lifts, with 19 shipboard tasks and

concluded that “some of the best correlates of shipboard performance are

the armpull, ergometer, and body weight,” which are 3 nonincremental

lifting machine measures.

• A 1985 study conducted by the Army’s Research Institute of

Environmental Medicine found that women tended to be shorter than men

and thus were required to spend relatively more time lifting with their

upper body than males and consequently scored lower in tests using the

incremental lifting machine (given that women tend to have less upper

body strength than men, according to this and other research). On the

other hand, the study found that an alternate strength test that focused

more on the use of the lower body produced female scores that were

closer to those of males in the study population.10

• An ARI study in 199311 concluded that variables such as job performance

and the Army’s physical readiness test were not strongly related to scores

on the incremental lifting machine. According to the study, the Army

should not place great confidence in the use of a single lifting test as a

7

Ayoub et al., Establishing Physical Criteria for Assigning Personnel to U.S. Air Force Jobs, 1982.

8

Myers et al., Validation of the Military Entrance Physical Strength Capacity Test, January 1984.

9

Robertson et al., Documentation of Muscularly Demanding Job Tasks and Validation of an

Occupational Strength Test Battery, November 1985.

10Teves et al., Performance on Selected Candidate Screening Test Procedures Before and After Army

Basic and Advanced Individual Training, U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine,

June 1985.

11Elizabeth J. Brady and Michael G. Rumsey, Physical Performance in Army Enlisted MOS Revisited,

Presentation to the Military Testing Association, November 1993.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

selection measure of physical fitness and should consider a more

comprehensive approach to physical screening.

• A Canadian research team produced four sequential studies since 199012

and concluded that gender differences in incremental lifting machine

scores and box-lifting tasks were heightened by an incremental lifting

machine test protocol prohibiting subjects from moving their feet or

shifting their weight to achieve a more comfortable lifting posture. When

subjects were allowed to lift in their most comfortable method, they could

lift heavier boxes. For female subjects, the incremental lifting machine

score became less related to their box-lifting scores as the constraints

were relaxed.

Recruits Are Not Tested to

Their Full Potential

Many recruits that took the strength aptitude test at a military entrance

processing station scored lower during their initial tests than they did

when retested during basic military training. For example, our analysis of

data provided by the Air Force showed that between December 1995 and

February 1996, 244 females were retested during the second week of basic

military training and lifted an average of nearly 18 pounds more than they

did initially; the 211 males’ average increase was nearly 15 pounds. Of the

455 recruits who retested, 3 lifted 10 percent more, and all but 10 lifted

from about 11 percent to 120-percent more or an average of 23.3 percent

more (10 lifted less). A study conducted by the Air Force concluded that

servicemembers who engaged in physical training programs of about 

9 weeks increased arm strength by just 6 percent.13 According to Air Force

officials, nearly all of another approximately 3,900 recruits retested at

basic military training between April 1994 and November 1995 also scored

higher, although individual scores were not readily available.

According to the researcher who oversees the strength aptitude program,

some increases in test scores are attributable to increased motivation on

the part of the recruit at basic training or by permitting recruits to adopt a

lifting technique not in accordance with the test protocol. However, the

researcher concluded that neither increased motivation nor a change in

the test protocol can explain the magnitude of the increase we found.

12J. Stevenson et al., “The Effect of Lifting Protocol on Comparisons with Isoinertial Lifting

Performance,” Ergonomics, 1990; J. Stevenson et al., “Dynamic Analysis of Isoinertial Lifting

Technique,” Ergonomics, 1990; J. Stevenson et al., “Development of Factor-Score-Based Models to

Explain and Predict Maximal Box-Lifting Performance,” Ergonomics, 1995; and J. Stevenson et al.,

“Gender Differences in Performance of a Selection Test Using the Incremental Lifting Machine,”

Applied Ergonomics, 1996.

13McDaniel et al., Weight Lift Capabilities of Air Force Basic Trainees, May 1983.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

Because nearly all of those who retook the strength aptitude test scored

higher, we question the validity of the scores of recruits who were not

given an opportunity to retake the test. With the exception of those who

initially lifted 110 pounds (the maximum weight requirement for any Air

Force occupation), the Air Force cannot ensure that everyone else has

also been tested to their full potential.

Physical Strength

Standards for Most Air

Force Specialties Have Not

Been Updated

According to the researcher who oversees the strength aptitude program,

occupational specialty strength standards must be kept current to

maintain the program’s validity. However, since 1986, the Air Force has

updated the strength standards for only 12 specialties. In addition, 16 more

were being resurveyed at the time of our report. For the remaining Air

Force specialties, strength standards are based on data gathered between

1978 and 1982. According to the researcher, unless something in the job

changes, the strength standard is still current. We were unable to evaluate

whether changes may have been made in any of the remaining 227 Air

Force specialties because the original data is stored on computer tape in a

format not readable by computers now in use in the Air Force. We were

told that a contractor might be able to convert the data to readable form,

but the task could be costly and potentially time-consuming.

According to a 1995 Air Force Aerospace Armstrong Medical Laboratory

memorandum, the strength requirement should be resurveyed whenever

two or more occupations with different strength standards are merged.

However, since October 1993, the Air Force has merged or split 

11 occupations within differing strength categories. In addition, the

researcher who oversees the strength aptitude program has identified

another 11 specialties that also need to be resurveyed. As a result, the Air

Force has not determined the current strength requirement for 22 merged,

split, or changed occupations. The Air Force will run the risk of denying

servicemembers’ entry into occupations based on invalid or outdated

strength requirements in those merged occupations that have not been

resurveyed.

Recommendations Because the services have little systemically collected data on the ability

of servicemembers to meet the physical demands of occupational tasks,

we recommend that the Secretary of Defense require the services to assess

whether a significant problem exists in physically demanding occupations

and identify solutions, if needed. Such solutions could include redesigning

job tasks to reduce the physical demands, providing additional training, or

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

establishing valid performance standards to enhance job sustainment,

safety, and personnel utilization.

Given the questions concerning the validity of the strength aptitude test

and the implementation problems we found, we recommend that the

Secretary of the Air Force reassess the use of the strength aptitude test as

a means of predicting future performance in physically demanding

occupations.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with our

findings and recommendations. In response to our first recommendation,

DOD stated that it will direct the services to (1) collect data systematically

on job performance difficulties and (2) focus on physically demanding

occupations with a history of strength-related injuries and occupations

recently opened to women. We are concerned, however, that such a

narrow focus will not identify all occupations where problems exist. First,

because supervisory personnel told us they may assign persons having

difficulty to lighter tasks, occupations where servicemembers are having

difficulty may not necessarily lead to a higher incidence of strength-related

injuries. Working around a problem may prevent injuries, thus limiting the

usefulness of medical data for DOD’s purpose. Second, if DOD focuses only

on occupations recently opened to women, it may overlook

strength-related performance problems in occupations open only to men.

DOD needs to review all physically demanding occupations and use

appropriate data in its study.

In its response to our second recommendation, DOD stated that it will

(1) make every effort to comply with generally accepted professional

standards for test development and implementation and (2) direct the Air

Force to continue its “periodic validation efforts.” However, while the Air

Force may have attempted to validate the strength aptitude test

periodically, our review did not disclose any study that demonstrated that

the incremental lifting machine test had predictive validity.

DOD’s comments are reprinted in appendix I. DOD also provided several

technical corrections that we have incorporated into the text of our report

as appropriate.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

Scope and

Methodology

We reviewed DOD’s 1995 report to Congress on gender-neutral performance

standards; service orders, regulations, and manuals; and research studies

undertaken within the services and by independent researchers. We

interviewed officials and obtained documents from the Office of the

Secretary of Defense (Accessions Policy) and met with officials from the

Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services in Washington,

D.C.

To complete our work with the Army, we interviewed officials and

obtained documents from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army

(Manpower and Reserve Affairs), Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for

Personnel, Personnel Command, Training and Doctrine Command,

Combined Arms Support Command, Army Transportation Center, Army

Research Institute, Army Research Laboratory, and Army Research

Institute of Environmental Medicine.

To complete our review of the Navy, we met with officials from the Office

of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower and Reserve Affairs);

Bureau of Naval Personnel, including the Special Assistant for Women’s

Policy; the Commander in Chief, Atlantic Fleet; the Naval Manpower

Analysis Center; and the Center for Naval Education and Training.

To complete our Air Force work, we met with officials of the Headquarters

of the Air Force (Directorate of Military Personnel Policy), the Air Force

Personnel Center, the Air Force Recruiting Service, the Air Force

Education and Training Command, the Armstrong Aerospace Medical

Research Laboratory, the Occupational Measurements Squadron, and the

Military Entrance Processing Command, which administers the strength

aptitude test for the Air Force. We also interviewed officials and observed

Air Force recruits taking the strength aptitude test at the Military Entrance

Processing Stations in Baltimore, Maryland, and Richmond, Virginia.

To complete our Marine Corps work, we met with officials of the Office of

Accessions Policy and Combat Development Command.

To assess whether the services have a system for identifying demanding

tasks that exceed servicemembers’ physical capabilities to perform them

and identify difficult tasks, we observed activities and met over 400 service

personnel employed as instructors, students, operational unit

commanders, and enlisted personnel at Forts Eustis and Lee in Virginia;

Fort Bragg, Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point, Camp Lejeune, and

Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina; Lackland Air Force

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
B-272083 

Base in Texas; Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri; Naval Air Station Memphis

in Tennessee; and aboard the aircraft carrier USS John C. Stennis. As

agreed with your office, we concentrated on the occupational areas of

bridge engineer, food service specialist, aviation ordnance, and motor

transport.

We conducted our work from November 1995 to June 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We will send copies of this report to the Secretaries of Defense, the Army,

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

Executive Director, Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the

Services; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will

also be made available to others upon request.

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II. If you have

any questions about this report, please contact me on (202) 512-5140.

Sincerely yours,

Mark E. Gebicke

Director, Military Operations and

 Capabilities Issues

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Sharon A. Cekala

William E. Beusse

Brian J. Lepore

Martin E. Scire

Arthur L. James, Jr.

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Ernie E. Jackson

Norfolk Field Office Lawrence E. Dixon

Janine M. Cantin

Sharon L. Reid

Paul A. Gvoth, Jr.

(703116) Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-169 Physically Demanding Jobs
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

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

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100