U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

82–465 2013

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–50] 

WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JULY 24, 2013 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

JOHN CHAPLA, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

COLIN BOSSE, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2013 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Women in Service Reviews ....................................... 1 

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 ....................................................................................... 25 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 

WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Beyler, Juliet, Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, U.S. 

Department of Defense ........................................................................................ 3 

Bromberg, LTG Howard B., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff G–1, U.S. Army ......... 4 

Grosso, Brig Gen Gina M., USAF, Director of Force Management Policy, 

Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air 

Force ...................................................................................................................... 7 

Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant, Manpower 

and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps ............................................................ 5 

Sacolick, MG Bennet, USA, Director, Force Management and Development, 

U.S. Special Operations Command ..................................................................... 5 

Sweredoski, RADM Barbara, USN, Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel Plans 

and Policy, U.S. Navy .......................................................................................... 7 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Beyler, Juliet ..................................................................................................... 31 

Bromberg, LTG Howard B. .............................................................................. 37 

Davis, Hon. Susan A. ....................................................................................... 30 

Grosso, Brig Gen Gina M. ................................................................................ 67 

Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr. ........................................................................ 45 

Sacolick, MG Bennet ........................................................................................ 51 

Sweredoski, RADM Barbara ............................................................................ 56 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 29 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness ... 75 

Statement of Women In International Security, by Combat Integration 

Initiative Project Directors Ellen Haring, Anne Coughlin, and Chantal 

de Jonge Oudraat .......................................................................................... 98 
Page

IV 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Ms. Bordallo ...................................................................................................... 107 

Mrs. Davis ......................................................................................................... 107 

Ms. Shea-Porter ................................................................................................ 110 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 107 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Fleming ....................................................................................................... 116 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 113 
(1) 

WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 24, 2013. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:11 p.m., in room 

2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. The hearing will come to order. Everyone is welcomed to this Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on Women 

in Service Reviews. 

The subcommittee today will focus on the implementation plans 

that the military services and the United States Special Operations 

Command have developed to expand the assigned opportunities for 

women. Over the last decade, women have served exceptionally in 

many positions in combat. The decision by the Secretary of Defense 

in January to rescind the direct ground combat exclusion policy has 

established a new dynamic. All positions are open to women unless 

the military services are granted an exception to policy. 

In June the Secretary of Defense released those implementation 

plans, which envision full implementation of the new policy by January 2016. Between now and then the military services and the 

U.S. Special Operations Command will develop the substantive 

basis for implementation. As is clear from the plans, implementation of the new policy will be incremental, with previously closed 

units and occupational specialties being opened as gender-neutral 

performance standards are validated, other issues related to the inclusion are addressed, and congressional notifications are completed. Implementation of decisions about Army and Marine Corps 

direct ground combat units, infantry, armor, and artillery, as well 

as specialties controlled by the Special Operations Command, will 

take place later in the process. The Secretary of Defense has made 

clear that standards will not be lowered, that they will be applied 

on a gender-neutral basis. This is a key commitment to the success 

of inclusion efforts. 

Our witnesses today include Ms. Juliet Beyler, Director, Officer 

and Enlisted Personnel Management, U.S. Department of Defense. 

We would like to welcome you to your first appearance before 

this subcommittee. 

Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy Chief of Staff 

G–1, U.S. Army. Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead Jr., Dep-
2 

uty Commander, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine 

Corps; Major General Bennet Sacolick, the Director of Force Management and Development, U.S. Special Operations Command. 

And again your first appearance, you are welcome. 

Rear Admiral Barbara Sweredoski,and we want to thank you for 

your first appearance, Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel Plans 

and Policy, U.S. Navy. And finally Brigadier General Gina M. 

Grosso, Director of Force Management Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff 

for Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force. 

And indeed your first appearance. Thank you for being here. 

Mrs. Davis, did you have any opening remarks? 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I also wanted to welcome all of our distinguished panelists and 

presenters today. Thank you very much for being here. 

We all are aware that in January, Secretary of Defense Panetta 

announced that the direct ground combat policy that prohibited 

women from serving in ground combat units was being rescinded, 

and as part of that announcement the Services were to provide the 

Secretary with plans on how they would proceed to implement 

women into ground combat units and positions. And those plans 

were to be provided by the Secretary by May 15th and focused on 

how the Services would open all positions to women by January 1, 

2016. 

I am very pleased that the Secretary rescinded the policy to 

allow women to serve in all units and positions, including ground 

combat. Women have served with distinction, including under combat conditions in today’s All-Volunteer Force, and the conflicts in 

Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that future conflicts put all 

those who serve on the battlefield under the same threat. 

Opening positions in units to women to ensure that the best 

qualified are chosen not based solely on gender but on capabilities 

and experience will help to ensure that our military remains the 

best in the world. Establishing criteria based on the functions and 

responsibilities of each position will help to ensure that the most 

qualified will serve. 

Women want to ensure that they have equal opportunities to 

serve and excel into higher leadership positions and not be held 

back because they are prohibited from serving in specific fields. 

They do not want the rules and requirements to be different because they are women. What they want, is a fair and open opportunity. The elimination of the ground combat policy is the first step 

towards that equality. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having an open 

and productive dialogue on the issues and challenges of the Services, especially Special Operations Command, may have in this effort. Thank you all very much for being here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 30.] 
3 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ranking Member Davis. 

I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Dr. John Fleming, 

Loretta Sanchez, and Duncan Hunter be allowed to ask questions 

during the hearing. Without objection, so ordered. 

Further, I ask unanimous consent that the following statements 

be entered into the record: the written statement of Women In 

International Security and the written statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

pages 98 and 75, respectively.] 

Mr. WILSON. Ms. Beyler, we will begin with your testimony, followed by the witnesses as introduced. As a reminder to the witnesses, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We have your 

written statements, all of which will be included in the record. 

Then each subcommittee member and visiting member will have an 

opportunity for 5 minutes of questions, with time monitored by professional staffer John Chapla. 

We now begin with Ms. Beyler. 

STATEMENT OF JULIET BEYLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICER AND 

ENLISTED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF DEFENSE 

Ms. BEYLER. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

As previously mentioned, last month we released each Service 

and SOCOM’s [U.S. Special Operations Command] plans for how 

they will manage the integration of women into previously closed 

units and occupations. Our goal is to ensure the mission is met 

with fully qualified and capable people regardless of gender. 

To that end, on January 24 of this year, then-Secretary Panetta 

and Chairman Dempsey announced the rescission of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and directed 

development of plans describing how each Service and SOCOM intends to execute the guidance to, one, review and validate all occupational standards to ensure that they are occupationally and operationally relevant and applied gender-neutrally by September of 

2015; two, complete all studies by September of 2015; and, three, 

ensure full implementation by January 1, 2016. Each military Department Secretary, along with the SOCOM Commander, submitted their plans, which were then reviewed by both Secretary 

Hagel and Chairman Dempsey. 

I will let my colleagues talk to the specifics of their plans, but 

here are a few things that they each have in common. Each plan 

manages positions in two general categories: currently open occupations, which were previously restricted based on the unit of assignment, so, for example, a supply sergeant in an infantry battalion; 

and, secondly, currently closed occupations such as infantry and 

tanks. 

Each Service and SOCOM is working with research agencies to 

review and validate their occupational standards. Each is conducting thorough doctrine, training, education, facilities, and policy 

analyses to ensure deliberate and responsible implementation, and 
4 

each has identified decision points by which they will make final 

determinations to open occupations and positions, or request an exception to policy to keep the position or occupation closed. Exceptions must be personally approved by both the Secretary of Defense 

and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 

The Department is proceeding in a measured, deliberate, and responsible manner to implement changes that enable service members to serve in any capacity based on their ability and qualifications. Over time, these incremental changes will enhance the readiness and combat effectiveness of our forces. Standards will be uncompromising, established for the task of defending our Nation, 

and rooted in carefully analyzed requirements. Secretary Hagel is 

committed to this process and will work closely with the Chairman 

of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to monitor and guide this effort. 

Implementation through 2016 will be an evolutionary process. 

We are committed to opening positions and occupations when and 

how it makes sense, while preserving unit readiness, cohesion, and 

the quality of the All-Volunteer Force. We recognize there will be 

challenges, but we will learn much from each step. By addressing 

issues head-on, capitalizing on lessons learned, and through open 

communication with Congress, we will institutionalize these important changes, integrating women into occupations and units in a 

climate where they can succeed and flourish. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Beyler can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Beyler. 

And we proceed to General Bromberg. 

STATEMENT OF LTG HOWARD B. BROMBERG, USA, DEPUTY 

CHIEF OF STAFF G–1, U.S. ARMY 

General BROMBERG. Chairman Wilson, Representative Davis, 

and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the 

opportunity today to discuss Women in Service Review plan that is 

incorporated in the Army’s ‘‘Soldier of 2020’’ Plan. The ‘‘Soldier 

2020’’ Plan implements and reflects upon the effort to have greater 

opportunities for women to ensure that we have the best soldiers 

for the future of our Army. 

Our goal is to integrate women leaders and soldiers into recently 

opened positions and units as expeditiously as possible. We will not 

sacrifice warfighting capability, the trust of Congress, or that of the 

American people as we seek to enhance force readiness and capability. We will select the best qualified soldiers regardless of gender 

for each job within the Army profession, ensuring our future force 

capability and readiness. 

We are currently validating occupational standards, both physical and mental, for all specialties, focusing first on those currently 

closed to female soldiers. As we continue this process, we may require adjustments to our recruiting efforts, assignment process, 

and other personnel policies. Further, we will continually assess 

trends and indicators as we assimilate female leaders and soldiers 

into the previously closed units. 
5 

The process of evaluating a soldier’s capabilities continues 

throughout his or her career. The Army assesses general recruits’ 

physical capabilities very early in basic combat training. All Army 

courses that award occupational specialties have associated physical requirements. Initial military training physical requirements 

are based on the tasks new soldiers must be trained on in order 

to meet the minimum requirements to be awarded their specific occupation. These differ from the physical requirements associated 

with fully trained soldiers. Soldiers typically meet their full physical potential throughout subsequent individual and collective 

trainings when they are assigned in the operational force. 

The Army of the future will require more mental agility, teamwork, and resilience from all soldiers. The ‘‘Soldiers 2020’’ Implementation Plan reflects our efforts to ensure we maintain the 

world’s premier land power, ready and capable to defend this great 

Nation at home and abroad. I assure the members of this committee that your Army’s senior leaders remain focused on creating 

a climate of trust and respect in which every person is able to 

thrive and achieve their full potential and enjoy viable career paths 

regardless of gender. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I thank you again 

for your steadfast and generous support of the outstanding men 

and women of the United States Army and look forward to your 

questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of General Bromberg can be found in 

the Appendix on page 37.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General Bromberg. 

And we now proceed to General Milstead. 

STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, JR., USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, 

U.S. MARINE CORPS 

General MILSTEAD. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it 

is my privilege to appear before you today. 

The commandant and all of our Marine Corps leadership are 

dedicated to taking care of all of our marines. Our deliberate approach to increasing career opportunities for our females is an example of this. You have been provided the Marine Corps’ implementation plan and my written statement, both of which provide 

the details on our road ahead. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Milstead can be found in the 

Appendix on page 45.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General Milstead. 

We now proceed to General Sacolick. 

STATEMENT OF MG BENNET SACOLICK, USA, DIRECTOR, 

FORCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. SPECIAL 

OPERATIONS COMMAND 

General SACOLICK. I would like to begin by stating SOCOM fully 

supports the decision to eliminate the Direct Combat Assignment 

Rule. Women have been attached to our combat units for several 

years as part of our cultural support teams, civil affairs, military 
6 

information support teams, intelligence support, and a host of other 

occupational specialties, and they have performed magnificently. 

The question for SOCOM and the focus of our analysis is whether we can combine women into the special operation units whose 

occupation often requires deploying in small self-contained teams 

for long periods of time in austere, geographically isolated locations. Many of these units deploy in close proximity to or behind 

enemy lines, and they live and work in very close quarters with 

each other. Can we achieve this level of integration while preserving our unit readiness, cohesion, and morale? 

We have tasked our subordinate component commands to review 

their organization, training, education, and leader development 

programs, inclusive of providing the recommendation on how to 

generate a sufficient number of qualified officers and senior NCOs 

[Non-Commissioned Officers] to facilitate and complement integration. These reviews will include an evaluation of all performance 

standards. 

I want to take a moment to talk about standards. We have always maintained that our SOF [Special Operations Forces] standards are occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and genderneutral. They are just the standards. Our review will be a good opportunity to verify this assumption. We will look at every single 

task in each of our entry level qualification courses to ensure they 

are decisively tied to an operational requirement. 

We will also look at the social aspects of integration on the effective functioning of small teams. Our concern about integration generally centers upon the impact of unit cohesion. These concerns include both social cohesion, referring to the extent team members 

feel emotionally bonded with each other, and task cohesion, referring to the mutual commitment among the individual team members in achieving the group objective. 

We have also tasked RAND Corporation to provide a nonbiased 

third-party analysis of our qualification core standards, as well as 

assist us in designing a comprehensive survey for every single SOF 

operator in order to assist in first identifying and then eliminating 

barriers to integration. 

Our implementation plan has only a handful of significant milestones. Our assessment phase will be accomplished by July 2014. 

We will then have an opportunity to analyze and develop a strategy, and by July 2015 Commander of SOCOM will provide his recommendation, in conjunction with the service chiefs, to the Secretary of Defense for a January 1, 2016, implementation. 

In conclusion, I just want to reiterate, we are absolutely not predisposed to any particular course of action. Our only concern is 

generating qualified SOF operators to support our country without 

regard to gender. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of General Sacolick can be found in the 

Appendix on page 51.] 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, General Sacolick. 

We now proceed with Admiral Sweredoski. 
7 

STATEMENT OF RADM BARBARA SWEREDOSKI, USN, RESERVE 

DEPUTY, MILITARY PERSONNEL PLANS AND POLICY, U.S. 

NAVY 

Admiral SWEREDOSKI. Thank you. Chairman Wilson, Ranking 

Member Davis, and distinguished members of the committee, 

thank you for holding this hearing and for affording me the opportunity to testify on Navy’s Women in Service implementation plan. 

Navy’s plan is a continuation of our efforts over the past 19 years 

to steadily expand opportunities for women. Talented female officers, sailors, and civilians are a key component of our All-Volunteer 

total force. Our goal is to continue to ensure all men and women 

in the Department of the Navy have the opportunity to succeed and 

are set up for success with viable career paths while preserving our 

warfighting capability. 

Navy’s implementation plan addresses all positions currently 

closed to the assignment of women. Navy expects to have no closed 

occupations, very limited number of closed positions, and equal professional opportunity for females in every officer designator and enlisted rating by 2016. Navy’s implementation plan addresses assignment opportunities for women in the Coastal Riverine Force, 

submarines, and surface ships. Our plan also outlines a coordination with the Marine Corps for Navy personnel serving support of 

the ground combat element, and with U.S. Special Operations Command, to proceed in a deliberate, measured, responsible way to assign women to currently closed special operations positions as assessments are completed. 

Navy will open positions as expeditiously as possible while maintaining our high standards to preserve the quality of the force, as 

well as considering good order and judicious use of fiscal resources. 

Navy remains committed to working with Congress and thanks the 

members of the Personnel Subcommittee for your continuous and 

unwavering commitment to support our women and men. Thank 

you once again for holding this important meeting. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Sweredoski can be found in 

the Appendix on page 56.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Admiral Sweredoski. 

We now proceed to General Grosso. 

STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN GINA M. GROSSO, USAF, DIRECTOR 

OF FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF 

FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR 

FORCE 

General GROSSO. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me 

today to testify before you on behalf of the Secretary of the Air 

Force on this critical readiness issue. 

The Air Force is dedicated to continue the gender integration efforts initiated in 1993 when we lifted restrictions against women 

flying fighter aircraft and began assigning them to frontline combat 

aviation units. Today more than 99 percent of the nearly 500,000 

Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve positions 

are open to both men and women. In accordance with Office of the 

Secretary of Defense guidance, the Air Force is working to open the 

remaining 4,600 positions across seven career fields that are affili-
8 

ated with special operations and long-range reconnaissance ground 

combat units. 

To meet this objective, the Air Force has partnered with our 

Army and Special Operations Command counterparts to develop a 

comprehensive plan complete with detailed tasks and timelines 

which ensures we will complete the necessary steps to open all remaining positions by January 1, 2016. To support this timeline, the 

Air Force is accelerating current studies to validate physical tests 

and standards for each of the closed career fields. Additionally, the 

Air Force is addressing critical assignment restrictions in the areas 

of health and welfare, training, assignment classification, and career development. Although these tasks are significant, we do not 

anticipate any major obstacles to opening all closed positions by 

2016. 

Ultimately the initiative to eliminate all remaining gender-based 

assignment restrictions will improve our readiness and the Air 

Force’s ability to recruit and retain a qualified and diverse force. 

I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of General Grosso can be found in the 

Appendix on page 67.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, General Grosso. 

We will now proceed to each member of the subcommittee and 

other visiting Members of Congress who may attend. We will have 

a 5-minute rule maintained by Mr. John Chapla. 

And the first question, for both General Bromberg and General 

Milstead, and this would be that both of your Services appear to 

be developing gender-neutral performance standards to be tested in 

the accession phase. That is somewhere between the recruiting station and the last day of the military occupational producing school. 

There is a problem with testing in the accession phase, however, 

related to the low physical ability of people seeking to enter the 

Services. 

In deciding when in the accession phase to test and what standards to apply, how are you addressing the fundamental challenge? 

Testing early in the accession process would require the adoption 

of proxy tests and standards that are below those required for qualification for military occupational specialty, and testing late in the 

accession phase, say during the military occupational specialty 

qualification training, could incur the costs necessary to allow the 

service member the time to develop the capacity to accomplish the 

test without significantly increased attrition. 

General Bromberg or General Milstead? 

General BROMBERG. Thank you for this question, sir. 

I think that is exactly the point we are at right now in developing these and examining these tests. We haven’t decided yet 

where we are going to do the testing. And as we know, there is certain levels of performance upon acceptance in the military, there is 

a certain level of performance when you complete basic training, 

and then a certain level of performance as you go throughout your 

career. 

So the first thing we are doing, that is why we are validating our 

tasks today, to make sure we clearly understand the tasks that we 

want performed, and then going through a scientific process using 

the Army’s Research and Environmental Command to really iden-
9 

tify those tasks and how they are performed. And then from that 

we will develop a very simple battery of tests that they are not 

going to represent the exact task, but the type of skills and the 

physiological capabilities that an individual would need, and then 

from that we will discern where we want to apply those tests. 

So I think we have more to see, more to develop, but that is exactly why we want this very incremental and scientific approach to 

doing that, so we have to pick the right place to do it, at the right 

time. It is definitely gender-neutral, but it also related to the tasks 

that the individual has to do, not just as a soldier, but also for that 

specific military occupational specialty. 

General MILSTEAD. I think it is important, first, to say that there 

is two separate pieces to this. There is that initial physical capability that you have to demonstrate to join the Army, the Marine 

Corps, the Services. I mean, you have to be physically, you know, 

have to meet physical standards. Okay, that aside, then we are 

talking about whether you have the physical capabilities to successfully complete that MOS [Military Occupational Specialty]. 

In the Marine Corps we have 335 military occupational specialties, MOSs, and each one of these has anywhere from a minimum 

of one, mostly more performance-based tasks. Now, these performance-based tasks have been developed without any regard to gender, and within those performance-based tasks our Training Command has been able to identify somewhere close to 250 physically 

demanding tasks. These are physically demanding things like, you 

know, lifting a tank round, lifting a tow bar, these sorts of things 

that require some physical fitness to them. These, again, have been 

developed without any regard to gender. 

So presently if you complete the MOS school and those physical 

tasks, then you get the MOS. What we want to do, as we begin this 

implementation plan, is to see if we can’t come up with some predictive capability somewhere earlier in the process that we can test 

people that will give us a predictive analysis, a predictive capability of whether that person has demonstrated that they may or 

may not have the capability to go on down that route and successfully make that MOS instead of just waiting until they graduate. 

Granted, today some fall out along the way, but we want to make 

sure that that is the exception and not the norm. 

Mr. WILSON. I would like to thank both generals for your response. And having gone through such tests myself, I think you are 

both approaching this in a very positive manner. 

And I want to thank Ms. Beyler. You, in effect, referenced this, 

too. And I just appreciate the thoughtfulness of all of you as how 

this is being approached. 

I now proceed to Mrs. Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again to all of you 

for being here. 

I know that it is easy for us to understand some of the physical 

performance standards that we are talking about and the ability to 

maintain those consistently. I wonder if you could speak also, 

though, to mental performance standards and how you are going 

to be looking at those for specific positions. Do you see anything 

that is more specific to certain roles or in general, and how would 
10 

we move forward with those standards? Perhaps how is that different from today as well, which it may not be. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am. That is a great question. I think 

we are all realizing that the mental agility required of today’s tasks 

are much more than we realized in the past. And so within each 

military occupational specialty that is an area we are examining. 

It is a new area for us. We are certainly not as conversant as we 

should be at this point, but it is something we have to take on, not 

just in terms of your ability to perform that task in a complex and 

stressful environment, but are there indicators we can look from. 

The behavioral health area, as you know, is one of our most challenged areas wherever we go. 

So we are going to take that on in this, not just physical standards, but how can we get after that area. I think this will be an 

area that will come much later for us than the physical standards 

because we know much more about the physical standards, but 

clearly what we want to see is how can people develop further, 

whether it be resilience, whether it be the ability to handle stress 

in adverse environments and perform under those environments. 

So more to follow on that, ma’am. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 107.] 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

Anybody else want to comment on that? Some thoughts or discussions that you have already had? 

General MILSTEAD. Well, I would just offer that you have heard 

several of us use ‘‘deliberate, measured, and responsible.’’ That is 

the way to go with this: deliberately, in a measured manner, and 

do it responsibly. 

And the social and psychological factors need to be studied equally as important as the physical. And we are doing that in the Marine Corps. We have our exception to policy that we have had almost a year now where we have got 48 officers and staff noncommissioned officers down in 19 units. This month we are collecting the feedback from that, from both them and their commanders. We have got the Center for Naval Analyses is involved, 

and we have got a fleetwide survey. 

So we are all looking at those sorts of things, recognizing that 

there is the psychological piece is equally important to this as the 

physical. 

Mrs. DAVIS. And maybe in the next responses, would you like to 

discuss what are the cultural issues that you are talking about? I 

know it has been mentioned in several different ways. 

General BROMBERG. I would just start by saying that, particularly for units where women have never served before, we have to 

look at the impacts on the small teams and the environments to 

make sure we understand the cultural aspects of that as we go forward. I think in units where women have served already before, we 

already have a data call, we already have some history, and we 

know from our previous experience what we have learned. But in 

those units as we expand, I think it is worth a look. 

We want to continually assess, as we are doing all the time, 

every evolution like today. As we open up more positions to brigade 

combat teams, we continue to assess and find out the reactions of 
11 

the males in the unit, as well as the females in that unit. I think 

that is a huge piece, just to make sure everybody is set for success. 

That is the goal here, is to create the environment for success. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Would you all like to comment on that? 

General SACOLICK. It kind of reminds me of the statement, the 

whole is greater than the sum of the parts, when you talk about 

real small teams that often deploy. And I don’t even want to use 

the term decentralized environments, but entirely alone by themselves. In many respects they may be the only American forces in 

a particular country, and just the dynamics associated on that 

team. And I don’t want to say I have seen average teams do extraordinary things, but we have taken 12 basically normal individuals, and they perform magnificently together as a team. And so 

I don’t want to do anything that affects that dynamic. That is why 

unit cohesion has been and continues to be so important. I don’t 

know if that is going to be an issue at this point or not, but we 

are looking at it. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Any other comments? All right. Thank you. 

I think the other consideration that we have, and maybe we will 

get to that, is just some of the budgetary constraints that you have 

right now and how do you feel that those might impact us moving 

forward. 

Thank you all so much for being here. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. 

We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all for being here to discuss this topic. And I don’t 

envy you. As you know, there is not universal acceptance of this 

concept, although probably more so now today than there was 5, 

10, or 15 years ago. And no matter what decisions you come up 

with, you are still going to have a very dissatisfied segment of the 

population, so in that regard you could probably join Congress because you would be in the same boat as we are. 

You know, there will be claims that as you reevaluate some of 

the physical standards in an essence to make sure that they are 

crosswalked to specific tasks, that a standard that exists today may 

actually be lessened because of the scientific basis of reviewing it. 

And then you are going to have somebody turn around and say, 

you see, they lowered the standard because they are trying to let 

females into this MOS or into this AOC [Area Of Concentration]. 

How are you going to answer that? 

Ms. BEYLER. Sir, thank you for the question. 

The Services will probably speak to that individually, but what 

I would say across the Department is exactly, we are not going to 

lower standards, but it is not a matter of lowering or raising the 

standard. That is why all of the Services and SOCOM have been 

tasked to validate the standard in light of everything we have 

learned since 2001 and all the changing technology. The key is to 

validate the standard to make sure that it is the right standard for 

the occupation. So, again, it is not a matter of raising or lowering 

standards, but it is a matter of validating to ensure that the standard is right and then applying that across the board neutrally. 

Dr. HECK. Well, I understand that that is the process you are 

going through, but invariably you may find a standard that 
12 

through the validation process is going to be made lower, easier, 

less than what is currently in place, and you are going to have 

somebody turn around and try to change that scientific validation 

into an argument of, you are artificially lowering a standard. So 

how are you prepared? How are you going to address that criticism 

because it is going to come? 

General BROMBERG. Sir, I think the simplest way for us to address that is by a factual basis of how we are doing our testing. 

If we can show that this is the standard, and I am absolutely confident we will be, as we go through the validation of the tasks. We 

have had standards in place in some military occupations for years 

that we haven’t gone back and looked at. So it is not just about the 

male or female because we are going to eliminate males in some 

cases. And so some people will say, well, how did you do that? Well, 

as General Grosso said, it is a fact, a standard is a standard, a 

tank round, 55 rounds, if that is the type of round it is, it weighs 

that, you have to turn a certain way, and I think our factual basis 

supported by scientific evidence will clearly lay that out for us. 

And I think the advantage from the Army perspective, this is 

about where we want to be with the high-quality force. And I know 

it is going to come, and we are just going to have to lay the facts 

out, and facts are stubborn. 

Dr. HECK. And I am sure you have looked at the experience of 

the fire service where we experienced this same thing in a civilian 

occupation where when females were allowed to compete for frontline firefighters and they had to complete all the same physical 

standards, they rose to the task and they did it, and now we have 

females that are rising through the ranks in the fire service because they were able to meet the standards. 

And, General Sacolick, you know, I think of all the entities, I 

think SOCOM is going to come under the most scrutiny by the general public. And you referenced measuring the social effects of integration. How are you going to do that? How do you measure the 

social effects of integration? 

General SACOLICK. First, let me just spend a moment to address 

your last question because the criticism of our current qualification 

courses is relentless, and it is ongoing. I mean, we constantly have 

got to make adjustments to our standards, of our Special Forces 

Qualification Course, BUD/S [Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL 

School]. The conditions on today’s battlefields routinely change, and 

we have constantly got to look at that. 

My previous job as the Commander of the Special Warfare Center, I ran the Special Forces Qualification Course, and I was looking at 80-percent attrition, and I had to analyze every single test 

to ensure that they made sense, to reduce male attrition. So the 

criticism is ongoing, the course is never as hard as somebody remembers it to be, and we deal with it often. 

Social implications, it is a tough one. I think the survey will be 

telling. Too often we hear those operators that speak the loudest 

that don’t represent the majority of the silent professionals. So we 

are looking at it, and it is in the process of designing a very good, 

reliable, accurate survey that can truly get the opinion of those 

quiet professionals and how they feel about the integration of the 

female on their teams. I think that will be telling. 
13 

Dr. HECK. Well, and I hope that all the Services are going to undertake that because obviously the physical standards are something that is going to be objectively able to be measured, whereas 

the social implications are something that are going to be very subjective and probably open to the greatest amount of scrutiny and 

criticism and probably receive the greatest amount of pushback. 

I appreciate what you are trying to do, I support where the Services are going, where DOD [Department of Defense] is trying to go 

on this, and I am sure Congress stands ready to assist you in any 

way possible. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Heck. 

We proceed with Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank all of you for being here today. I, like many, 

was so pleased when Secretary Panetta announced that DOD was 

mapping out how to integrate women into combat roles. This announcement really recognized our current reality that women are 

already serving in combat. I know on multiple trips to Afghanistan, 

as we have sought on our Mother’s Day CODEL [Congressional 

Delegation] to meet with women, we have met many who have 

been serving in combat and certainly in harm’s way, and we know 

that more than a hundred have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

I also think this announcement is helping us to build a stronger 

Armed Forces because we as a country cannot combat the threats 

of the future by excluding the potential talents and skills offered 

by half the U.S. population. 

So that is why I am so glad all of you are here today to talk 

about your plans. And while not my question, just a comment. As 

you look on the challenges of integration, of how to, especially in 

SOCOM, how to preserve the readiness and the sort of cohesiveness of the unit, that, yes, I think it is particularly important not 

just to look at women and the skill set that they bring into it, but 

to also look at sort of the optimal profile of the men so that you 

have success, you can go forward with great success. 

But my question is for all of you. I recently met a woman who 

was an Olympic athlete. She told me that while men and women 

can often meet the same athletic standards, they sometimes need 

a different way of training to meet those standards. So are the 

Services considering this factor when designing training for service 

members so that they can meet these gender-neutral goals? 

And this was reinforced to me by somebody I happened to meet 

who was part of the process of working on developing these standards, but her comment was that, yes, you want the standards to 

be gender-neutral, but you may need to train to these standards in 

different ways in order for women to have success. So I am wondering, and this is for all of you, if you all are looking at that as 

well. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am, thank you for the question. We 

are looking at that, and we are not looking at it just for the integration of women, we are looking at it for the total soldier, because 

just as you have the 110-pound male who may lack some type of 

physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both 

need to be trained differently. 
14 

We are trying to expand our understanding of how we train. For 

example, if you need more upper body strength to climb through 

a window or more lower back strength based upon the military occupational specialty, do we change the way we train? And also for 

injury recovery, we know that you can recover faster by doing certain types of exercises than doing other types of exercises. We are 

going to wrap that all together, and I will be happy to provide you 

more information on that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 107.] 

Ms. TSONGAS. And I appreciate that. But I do think even in that 

context you may also need to look at, yes, how you get that man 

to that place, but how you get a woman to that place, and they may 

be slightly different. 

General Milstead. 

General MILSTEAD. Well, I think an excellent example of what 

you are talking about is our gender-separated boot camp. We don’t 

start teaching MOSs there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to 

being a United States Marine. 

And we have it separated for that reason, because we feel that 

this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different, they need to be nurtured different, they need to be— 

they just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same 

place, they are United States Marines, and that is the point, then, 

when we begin their MOS training, and that is indeed gendermixed. 

So, you know, like the Army, I will take that for the record and 

come back to you on the specifics, but we are doing that when it 

comes to our recruit training. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 107.] 

Ms. TSONGAS. I would appreciate your followup on that. 

General SACOLICK. Ma’am, I will offer, we are not doing that very 

well. I am a career special forces officer. I had six surgeries, and 

I am still broke. We need to do it better across the board. We are 

starting to invest serious time, effort, and money in our human 

performance program so we can train smarter. And we haven’t, like 

I said, been very good at that, but we have recognized that, and 

we are looking at that very hard. 

We have some good empirical data, though, because we have female in our formations already, our civil affairs, our MISO [Military Information Support Operations], they trained in the same facilities as their special forces soldiers at Fort Bragg, and often together. So we do have some evidence that allows us to prepare 

those women, but we are not there yet, ma’am. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you. 

And I am running out of time, but I do think in the long run we 

want to maximize our success at this, and to put in place a training 

regimen that is ill suited to maximizing the success of women is 

not really the outcome any of us want to see. So thank you, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. 
15 

And we proceed now to Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The question I have, and I have thought about this since I saw 

this meeting coming up today, is have you analyzed that the potential risks of sexual assault are greater by placing women in roles 

where mostly men serve? We have been battling this, this whole 

Congress, and many of my colleagues have been battling this issue 

for years, and we have worked in a real bipartisan way to actually 

do something about it as much as we can in this Congress. 

But when you are talking, sir, about social integration, and Dr. 

Heck was asking about social integration, I am sitting here thinking the whole time, have you analyzed what is going to happen 

with these isolated, oftentimes—when you made the comment, sir, 

about, you know, sometimes they are the only Americans in the 

country, they are in covert missions, they are in special operations, 

close quarters, isolation. And we hear stories now about those 

things that we are trying to address. Where are you on preparing 

for that and what is in place? 

Ms. BEYLER. Yes, ma’am. So Secretary Hagel has made it clear 

that there is no place in the Department for sexual assault, and we 

view this effort no different than any other. It requires leadership 

at all levels, bottom line, to ensure that sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned, or ignored in any way. And as mentioned previously, we think that expanding opportunities for women can only 

strengthen the All-Volunteer Force. As we go forward, the more we 

treat service men and women equally, the more likely they are to 

treat each other with respect. So again, this is no different than 

any other effort across the Department with regard to the issue of 

sexual assault. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. But I guess with all due respect, this issue of 

sexual assault has really exposed a broken system in the military. 

So my question is, I mean, have you researched it? Is there analysis of it? Is there a plan? Because what is happening now doesn’t 

work. I mean, you know, the debate here is raging, and you are sitting here as the professionals about ready to embark on a whole 

new frontier here. And so my question is, I mean, is there research? Is there analysis? Is there a plan? Is there something more 

than the military is currently doing? Because it doesn’t work. 

General BROMBERG. Ma’am, as far as expanded roles of women 

in the Service, in the Army, that is part of our cultural examination that is ongoing as we speak. It is part of the continual assessment. The whole piece on the cultural side, not just for sexual assault, but inclusive of that, with a clear focus on sexual assault is 

being examined in detail. We are going to look at it not just in the 

broad context, we are going to zero in on it in each one of these 

career fields. 

Because some of these career fields, for example, engineers, 

women serve today in everything but one piece of engineer. So 

there are many women leaders and cadre throughout this organization. So if you open up that piece of the engineer force, we are 

going to examine the effect on that company and that squad, and 

we will make a very conscious decision as we move forward to see 

what we either have to do to change ourselves—and I commit to 
16 

you that to change ourselves is one piece of it—but also then to 

how to also train and inform and enforce as we go forward. But 

that is part of our second piece as we are looking at the physical 

piece and the cultural piece. 

General MILSTEAD. And we are working very hard to eradicate 

this from the Service. And we have to be careful that what we do 

with this implementation does not go counter to that, and that 

raises the issue on, as you open up these additional MOSs and they 

remain the bar, the standard remains what the standard is, and 

yet you get numbers of female marines that qualify, well, no, we 

don’t plan on dropping a single marine in here or a single marine 

here. 

Our exception to policy program that we are doing right now, we 

have them in a minimum of two to three per unit. So we have got 

to, we are looking at that, and we are working at what is the right 

number, how can you ensure? You are going to have to have the 

leadership, you are going to have to already have officer and staff 

NCO female leadership in these units. So it is going to be a crawlwalk-run process, but we are looking at that to make sure that this 

effort doesn’t go counter to the other effort that we are all working 

so hard on, on sexual. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Right. And what is the ratio,it might be in your 

documents, I apologize for not finding it, but what is the ratio of 

men to women, say, in the Marines? 

General MILSTEAD. In the Marine Corps, 7 percent of the Marine 

Corps are women. And I just leave you with that 7 percent is just 

as important to the commandant as the other 93. 

Mrs. WALORSKI. Sure, I appreciate it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Walorski. 

And we now proceed to Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of 

Guam. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the witnesses today for your testimonies 

and your interest in women in the military. 

I know we have covered this earlier, but I would like to address 

Lieutenant General Bromberg about the physical assessment demands for women in the military. Are they all the same, General, 

in all the Services, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Are 

they pretty much the requirements, physical requirements? 

General BROMBERG. Ma’am, I think they are generally, for acceptance into the military they are generally about the same. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. 

General BROMBERG. But when we get into the military occupational specialties, I think you will find variety, even with a specialty that appears the same because of how we all fight differently 

on the battlefield. Communication specialist requirements in an infantry unit would be different from an Air Force communications 

specialist. 

Ms. BORDALLO. A followup question, General, then. What percentage of women are not really, you know, they are not able to 

stand up to the training requirements? Are there a lot of dropouts 

or? 
17 

General BROMBERG. Ma’am, I can’t give you that right now. I will 

take that for the record. I know what our attrition is based 

upon—— 

Ms. BORDALLO. Right, yeah. 

General BROMBERG [continuing]. Males versus females, but I 

don’t have that with me right now. But I can get you that. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 107.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. And that goes for the other, does anybody have 

any information on that? Do you have quite a few women that are 

not able to—well, and the men, too, but I mean we are here for the 

women right now. 

General MILSTEAD. We can take that for the record and get you 

attrition figures on both male and female. I mean, it is a matter 

of record that the female attrition rate percentage in boot camp is 

higher. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is right. 

General MILSTEAD. But we can get you those figures for the Marine Corps on throughout the process. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 108.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. Very good. And I would also like it for the Marines, Army, Navy, and the Air Force. If I could have that. I realize 

that there are men also that drop out, but I do know the ratio is 

higher for women, and this is something maybe we should take a 

look at. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

pages 108–109.] 

Ms. BORDALLO. My other question is to Major General Sacolick. 

Can you address any concerns you may have with the integration 

of women in small, isolated career fields that typically operate in 

remote locations? Do you feel there are any operational risks that 

may be introduced if women were allowed to serve in special op 

roles? And what are the second and third levels of concern that we 

may not have addressed previously that warrant additional attention? 

General SACOLICK. Ma’am, I don’t know if concern is a strong 

word. It is something I want to look at, and it goes to unit cohesion. My personal feeling is if we can do this and we can do it right 

and we can integrate women into those small units that are operating in those environments, it will provide just a new dynamic, 

powerful enhancement to our capabilities. And this is the assumption we are proceeding. I just want to look at everything so we do 

it right. 

So I don’t know if it is a concern or not at this point. I stated 

before I am less concerned with the physicality of our MOSs and 

more concerned with the interaction at the team level. And we are 

just looking at it. So I don’t know if it is a valid concern or not at 

this point, ma’am. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of New 

Hampshire. 
18 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you very much. 

I am holding in my hand from the Office of the Chief of Staff 

Army, the general officer announcement for December 13, 2012. I 

am not sure how to interpret it, but there are—well, let me just 

read it. 

‘‘Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has announced that the 

President has nominated the following Army competitive category 

colonels for promotion to the rank of brigadier general.’’ There are 

34 names on it, and none of them are women, and I am not really 

sure how to interpret that. Can you do that for me, please? 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am. Clearly, I understand your concern, and I would like to follow up with a more detailed answer to 

you. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 110.] 

General BROMBERG. And clearly that is not something that we 

are proud of in terms of the lack of women on that list, and it is 

something we will work for as we improve. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. 

And would you like to comment also? 

Ms. BEYLER. Again, ma’am, I don’t have the details with regard 

to that specific case, but I can tell you that that is one of the reasons we view this effort that we are doing now, expanding opportunities for women, can only help to enhance leadership and maybe 

increase leadership at the highest levels of the Department. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And I agree, but I do find it ironic that the 

rules and everything came out in January, and this is December 

12th, and it seems like, you know, if somebody would have looked 

at this list and said maybe one. But I don’t know. I mean, there 

may be perfectly good reasons, but I really would appreciate it if 

you would get back to me and let me know what that is. I just 

thought that was curious. 

General BROMBERG. We will follow up in great detail on that. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

And the other comment is that, you know that the women’s uniforms have not really been wonderful for women, and as we ask 

them to do more and know that they want to do more, there is a 

thing about the uniforms. And I am hoping that they are going to 

be addressing that, that problem that you have. So would either or 

anybody like to comment on that as well? 

Ms. BEYLER. I guess what I would say is that each of the Services and SOCOM, as we mentioned, are doing thorough—we call it 

the DOTMLPF [Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities] analysis doctrine, everything through training and facilities and logistics as well. And 

so I would imagine that—I will let the Services if they want to 

speak more specifically to it—but again the idea is to do a fullblown analysis and to consider everything that may impact this effort. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am, we are continually looking at 

that, and I think the most recent example is we modified the body 

armor for females. That was just recently rolled out, and there is 

several other examples. And, again, we will follow up with that. 
19 

But we have also made changes to the combat uniform as well. 

Continual process will go on with that. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay, thank you. 

And I do have one last question. On that review board for the 

promotions, does that have to be unanimous? How does that work? 

Do you know? 

General BROMBERG. Ma’am, that is a centralized selection board, 

and it would probably be best if we came and gave you full detail 

about how we do selection board. Voting members, blind votes, 

complete file review. I am sure all the Services have a similar process. But it is a very orderly, approved process that we go through. 

Total records are reviewed of those officers that are eligible, votes 

are made. And there are also sometimes some requirements for 

maybe a specific career field, such as maybe by law there is a requirement to have an acquisition officer or a lawyer or something 

of that nature. Those boards are very tight. And we are happy to 

come lay that out for you in great detail. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. But does it have to be unanimous? 

General BROMBERG. It goes by a point system, and then there is 

only so many that can be promoted. So you have to look at the 

board as a—it is not necessarily a unanimous vote, everbody has 

a blind vote, and when you total the score up, you have an order 

of merit list 1 through N, and then if you only can pick 10, it is 

the top 10 people on the list. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Okay. So for the record, the number of women 

on that board, two. There were quite a few people on the board who 

voted, and there were only two of them were women. So I just 

wanted to also point that out. And I appreciate your getting back 

to me. 

General BROMBERG. Yes, ma’am, we will get back in great detail. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 110.] 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mrs. Shea-Porter. 

We now conclude with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of California. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for allowing me to sit in on this. Obviously this is an issue that I have 

been working for a long, long time, sitting here for 17 years on this 

committee. So I am excited that the Chiefs of Staff and that our 

former Secretary deemed that this was a good thing for the military and that we should move forward. And obviously I am one of 

those Members that wants to see it move forward. 

And one of the reasons I think it is important that our women 

be allowed to be in combat if they can perform in combat is that 

if they are not doing the number one job of the military, which is 

combat, then they are probably not going to be wearing stars on 

their shoulders. And I think looking at the new set of Army generals reflects that combat is an important issue when people are 

looking—combat performance is an important issue when people 

are looking at moving up in these organizations, in all of these 

Services. 
20 

And I do believe that one of the things that Ms. Shea-Porter said 

that, you know, the fact that there were only two women on the 

panel makes a big difference. The more women we would have on 

there, the more likely we are—I know when I have seen, and I 

have looked at studies that, you know, people tend to hire in their 

own image. And if there is not enough women, well then we are 

probably not going to have enough women up in the flag officers 

level. So real excited to get this done. 

Here is my question. I am trying to get my ideas around how you 

populate leadership. I understand that most of you have come to 

the conclusion that you don’t need whatever critical mass is, but 

that you need a certain amount of women in the fight together and 

not isolated, let’s say. 

So if women have traditionally not had that combat role and they 

are more senior—and I understand that you are trying to populate 

senior with younger to sort of move a group through—what is the 

process that you will use? What are the metrics? How will you 

choose the women who are already in the military who will be 

those senior role models, mentors to the people, to the women also 

being selected to come in to be the initial wave, if you will, of 

women in combat roles? How will you all do that? 

General BROMBERG. Ma’am I think the first step is that there is 

many levels here. First of all, in many of the combat units there 

is positions that are already open to women today as we removed 

the collocation rule from last year. So there will be a cadre that are 

being assigned today in these first brigade combat teams, maybe it 

is a signal officer, an intelligence officer or signal NCO. So we will 

start moving those individuals in today to start that process, and 

then we will later on bring in the privates, as we have mentioned 

earlier. 

Then I think for the combat MOSs, as we make the decision to 

go forward, as we do with all MOSs, you have to look at what point 

within a career that somebody can transfer in. So maybe there is 

a first lieutenant who is a logistics officer that wants to be an 

armor officer, an artillery officer. Then we will open that up at the 

right time in their career, send them to training, and then send 

them to the unit. The advantage they will have is they will have 

experience as an officer earlier already, and then we will give them 

the training, the technical training they need to go with that skill 

set that is in place now. The same for noncommissioned officers. 

The tipping point is, for males or females, there is a certain point 

where you really aren’t successful no matter who you are if you 

transfer in too late, because you miss developmental opportunities 

that are essential to you being successful later on. 

So those are the two methods that we will use as we go forward. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And so do you think that that will be a problem, 

because there is something to be said about practice makes perfect 

and, you know, having had those maneuvers, and all of a sudden 

you are coming in 3 years behind your peer group. Do you see some 

problems with that? How early on will you populate into the leadership to try to move that? 

And if it is fairly early, how long before we see those types of 

leaders mature through the pipeline? I mean, how long is this 

going to take, I guess? I mean, you know, I am interested in that, 
21 

too, because yesterday’s too long, you know, it is not fast enough 

for me. 

General MILSTEAD. Well, since you are looking at me—— 

Ms. SANCHEZ. I am looking at y’all. I mean, I know you are 

thinking about these things. 

General MILSTEAD. We are. We are thinking about this. As General Bromberg said, you know, the easiest way to get at this initially is, you know, we have those closed MOSs. For instance, let’s 

just use tanks. You know, we don’t have women tankers right now. 

But in a tank battalion, we can take women that are in an open 

MOS, logistics, administration, those sorts of things, intelligence, 

and move them into the tanks. And that is where we have some 

of ours now in our exception to policy. Build up a cadre that are 

there. And then if we determine that tanks is indeed a unit we 

want to open to women, then when we start sending those young 

women in there, we have got some leadership in there. 

Now, this is not going to be overnight. This is going to take some 

time. And you are right, this has to be done smart. And I am not 

articulate enough to tell you how right now, but you hit on something. If you come into something 3 years behind your peers, your 

name is never going to end up on that list. You are behind the 

power curve. 

And so how do we do that? In this whole endeavor, we want to 

set up our women for success, not for failure. And that is the tough 

piece, and that is the piece we are working very hard on. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Great. Anybody else want to say anything to that? 

Okay. If you will indulge me just 1 second, because this is a very 

important question I think you are all going to get, is if we open 

up combat to women, these MOSs, and women can succeed in 

them, will all women—if we decide we want that particular woman 

to go over there into that MOS combat thing, is she going to have 

to do it or is this going to be by choice, or over time how do you 

see that playing itself out? 

And thank you for indulging me on this, because I think it is a 

very—everybody’s asking me this question. Who can answer that? 

What do you think? 

General MILSTEAD. Well, for us, I will just use our exception to 

policy. Those 48 women officers and staff, noncommissioned officers 

that we have in those 19 units now, that was done through normal 

assignment process. That was involuntary. That is why they call 

them orders: You go there. And that is the way it is going to have 

to be. It is going to have to be the same, because it is not voluntary 

for the males, so it needs to be the same for all. And that is the 

way you will do it. That is the way you will have a level playing 

field and everybody will feel like they are being treated equally. 

General BROMBERG. So two answers, ma’am. You volunteer to 

come into the military to begin with, that is the voluntary step, 

and then you select your MOS based upon your qualifications and 

what is available for that particular year, and you go in there. 

Once you are in that MOS, you are going to be assigned wherever 

the Army needs you regardless of gender. That is how we do it 

today and that is how we will continue to do it. 

As far as reclassification, we have plenty of people to reclassify. 

I think there will be plenty of people. If they are interested in that 
22 

MOS, they will be able to volunteer and reclassify in there. And I 

think we will continue that process. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. And I guess the corollary to that is, if I am a 

woman coming into the military new as a private or what have you 

and I am choosing my MOS and I definitely know I don’t want to 

be in a combat unit, can I choose an MOS and know that for—pretty much that for the rest of my career if I decide to spend it in 

there, I am going to be a supply officer versus infantry, frontlinetype of a person? 

General BROMBERG. Once you enter the military and you are in 

that specialty, that is normally the specialty you stay with. And we 

have been blessed for years with our volunteer force, so we haven’t 

had to make those harsh decisions. But we have had, as you have 

seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do remission people, and we will 

continue to remission people as the case is needed. But we generally don’t change those MOSs unless we really force people into 

a varied situation we haven’t had to face in the last several years. 

But those, once you are in, as General Milstead said, you are in, 

you have that MOS, you can be ordered into something else or 

some other position if you need to. I don’t see that happening in 

the near term, though. I think we will be fine with that. 

Ms. SANCHEZ. Right. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. And we have a concluding 

question with Mrs. Davis of California. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Just quickly, and you don’t necessarily have to answer to this. But how early, I guess, in an individual’s education 

do we want to think about how to inspire and how to help people 

to think about the options that they might have in the future? And 

I am referring to JROTC [Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps], 

partnering with sports and athletics, and how women particularly 

begin to think about what kinds of activities they could be involved 

in. 

We often say with women in politics, but even in other fields, you 

can’t be what you can’t see. And I think that there is an element 

of this. And a lot of young men, of course, learn through JRTC 

what their options might be. And I don’t know whether we know 

anything more today about how we provide that pipeline from 

JRTC for women going into the Service as in other specialties. 

And, of course, going back and looking at, just as you said, 

women who are already part of a support team that have moved 

into more than support today in Afghanistan and Iraq, you know, 

is there anything that we know about what helped them to get to 

where they are and anything that we should learn from that. 

Thank you. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Ms. Davis. 

And Ms. Shea-Porter had a concluding question. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

I just want to urge all of you to make sure that when you move 

these women into these combat roles, that we don’t make the mistake of isolating them. We have seen women that are just alone. 

And, you know, I have talked about the band of brothers, and there 

is no such thing as a band of sister. We should be thinking the 

same way to help provide them the supports. 
23 

And I also would like to thank all of you for working so hard on 

this. I do appreciate it. And I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Shea-Porter. 

As we conclude, I want to thank each of you for your service and 

your obvious dedication. I particularly am grateful. I represent Fort 

Jackson with the new recruits, I have represented Parris Island. I 

have seen the young people, the opportunities where they come in, 

I have gone to the graduations. It is just heartwarming to see opportunity provided, people transformed. It is awesome to see young 

people speaking with their family members, saying, it is me, it 

really is me.’’ 

So thank you for what you do. And I just look at military service, 

as a veteran, as the proud dad of four people serving in the military today, it is a great opportunity. Thank you. 

And at this time, we shall be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

JULY 24, 2013 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 24, 2013 

(29) 

Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson 

Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel 

Hearing on 

Women in Service Reviews 

July 24, 2013 

Over the last decade women have served exceptionally in many 

positions in combat. The decision by the Secretary of Defense in 

January to rescind the direct ground combat exclusion policy has 

established a new dynamic—all positions are open to women, unless the military services are granted an exception to policy. In 

June, the Secretary of Defense released those implementation 

plans, which envision full implementation of the new policy by January 2016. Between now and then, the military services and U.S. 

Special Operations Command will develop the substantive basis for 

implementation. As is clear from the plans, implementation of the 

new policy will be incremental, with previously closed units and occupational specialties being opened as gender-neutral performance 

standards are validated, other issues related to the integration are 

addressed, and congressional notifications are completed. Implementation of decisions about Army and Marine Corps direct ground 

combat units (infantry, armor, artillery), as well as specialties controlled by the Special Operations Command, will take place later 

in the process. The Secretary of Defense has made clear that standards will not be lowered, and that they will be applied on a genderneutral basis. That’s a key commitment to the success of inclusion 

efforts. 
30 

Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis 

Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military 

Personnel 

Hearing on 

Women in Service Reviews 

July 24, 2013 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to welcome our witnesses. 

Thank you all for being here with us. 

In January, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta announced that 

the direct ground combat policy that prohibited women from serving in ground combat units was being rescinded. As part of that announcement, the Services were to provide the Secretary with plans 

on how they would proceed to implement women into ground combat units and positions. The plans were to be provided to the Secretary by May 15th, and focused on how the Services would open 

all positions to women by January 1, 2016. 

I am very pleased that the Secretary rescinded the policy to 

allow women to serve in all units and positions, including ground 

combat. Women have served with distinction, including under combat conditions, in today’s All-Volunteer Force, and the conflicts in 

Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that future conflicts put all 

those who serve on the battlefield under the same threat. Opening 

positions and units to women to ensure that the best qualified are 

chosen, not based solely on gender, but on capabilities and experience will help to ensure that our military remains the best in the 

world. 

Establishing criteria based on the functions and responsibilities 

of each position will help to ensure that the most qualified will 

serve. Women want to ensure that they have equal opportunities 

to serve and excel into higher leadership positions and not be held 

back because they are prohibited from serving in specific fields. 

They do not want the rules and requirements to be different because they are women. What they want is a fair and open opportunity. The elimination of the ground combat policy is the first step 

toward that equality. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having an open 

and productive dialogue on the issues and challenges that the Services, especially Special Operations Command, may have in this effort. Thank you again for being here today. 
31 

PREPARED STATEMENT 

OF 

MS. JULIET BEYLER 

DIRECTOR, OFFICER AND ENLISTED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT 

OFFICE OF THE UNDERSECRETARY FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

JULY 24, 2013 
32 

INTRODUCTION 

Chainnan Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the Subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Department's plan to implement the recent decision 

to rescind the 1994 Direct Ground Combat definition and Assignment Rule (DGCAR) and 

continue our efforts to eliminate all remaining gender-based barriers to military service. 

Following the submission of the Department's February 2012 report to Congress on the 

Review of Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the 

U.S. Anned Forces, former Secretary of Defense Panetta, in a memorandum to the Services, 

reiterated his commitment to remove all barriers preventing Service members from rising to the 

highest level of responsibility that their talents and capabilities warrant. This memorandum 

directed the Services to report in six months on their progress toward further reduction of 

gender-restrictive policies and to provide their assessment of the remaining barriers to full 

implementation of the Secretary's vision of allowing all Service members to serve in any 

capacity, based solely on their ability and qualifications. 

Throughout 2012, the Services conducted studies, surveys, and interviews to determine the 

impact of the recent policy changes and the potential impacts of lifting the remaining genderrestrictive policies. The Services made their review of occupational standards a priority, 

dedicating resources toward the revalidation of job related occupational tasks and the 

development of physical assessment tests to guide the classification and retention of personnel 

into occupations and positions for which their ability and qualifications warrant. This work 

infomled the Services regarding the best "way forward" for full implementation of the 

Secretary's vision. 

RESCISSION OF THE DIRECT GROUND COMBAT RULE 

In late 2012, after nearly two years ofreview and assessment, the Joint Chiefs detennined the 

time had come to rescind the remaining elements of the 1994 DGCAR which prohibited the 

assignment of women into direct ground combat units below the brigade level and permitted 

further restrictions: 

• where the Service Secretary attests that the costs of appropriate berthing and privacy 

arrangements are prohibitive; 

• where units are engaged in long range reconnaissance operations and Special Operations 

Forces missions; and 
33 

• where job-related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of 

women Service members. 

On January 9, 2013, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously recommended to the Secretary of 

Defense that the Department move forward with the full intent to integrate women into 

occupational fields to the maximum extent possible. Understanding that successful 

implementation would take time, the Joint Chiefs recommended several interim goals and 

milestones and developed five guiding principles to drive implementation. The guiding 

principles are: 

• Ensure the success of our Nation's warfighting forces by preserving unit readiness, 

cohesion, and morale; 

• Ensure all Service men and women are given the opportunity to succeed and are setup for 

success with viable career paths; 

• Retain the trust and confidence of the American people to defend this Nation by 

promoting policies that maintain the best quality and most qualified people; 

• Validate occupational performance standards, both physical and mental, for all military 

occupational specialties; and, 

• Ensure that a sufficient cadre of midgrade/scnior women enlisted and officers are 

assigned to commands at the point of introduction to ensure success in the long run. 

On January 24, 2013, fonner Secretary of Defense Panetta and the Chaim1an of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff (CJCS) eliminated the 1994 DGCDAR. 

IMPLEMENT A TION PLANS 

In May 2013, each Military Department Secretary and the Commander, United States Special 

Operations Command (USSOCOM) submitted their plans detailing how they would achieve full 

implementation by January 1,2016. Those plans were reviewed by both the Secretary of 

Defense and the CJCS. Each plan is as unique as the Services themselves; however, the 

implementation plans have several main items in common. Each plan describes how the 

Services and USSOCOM will: 

• Manage the incremental opening of their positions in two general categories: 

o Currently open occupations which were previously restricted based on the unit of 

assignment (e.g. supply sergeant in an infantry company) and 

o Currently closed occupations (e.g. infantryman, tank crewman). 

2 
34 

• Work with scientific and research agencies to review and validate occupational standards 

to ensure they are current, operationally valid, and applied on a gender-neutral basis. 

• Conduct thorough doctrine, training, education, facilities, and policy analyses to ensure 

deliberate and responsible implementation. 

Each Service and USSOCOM has identified decision points by which they will make final 

determinations to open occupations and positions, or to request an exception to policy to keep a 

position or occupation closed. Requests for exceptions to policy must be narrowly tailored and 

based on rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills, and abilities needed 

for the position. Further, any exception must be personally approved by both the Secretary of 

Defense and the CJCS. 

The Department will continue to integrate women into positions and occupations within the 

Armed Forces, to the fullest extent possible, over the next 2Yz years. By January 1,2016, the 

Services and USSOCOM will be on a path to opening all positions to women, or will have 

requested an exception to policy to keep specific occupations or positions closed. The 

Department will continue to infoffil Congress of incremental changes to Service assignment 

policy, and will implement changes only after the required congressional notification period has 

expired. 

UNDERST ANDING THE CHALLENGES 

The Department is proceeding in a measured, deliberate, and responsible manner to 

implement changes that enable Service members to serve in any capacity based on their ability 

and qualifications, unconstrained by gender-restrictive policies. Ovcr time, these incremental 

changes will enhance the readincss and combat effectiveness of our forces. The standards will 

be uncompromising, established for the task of defending our Nation, and rooted in carefully 

analyzed requirements. Secretary Hagel is committed to this process and to creating an 

environment across the Department that will allow for full implementation consistent with the 

Joint Chief.~' guiding principles. He will continue to work closely with the C.JCS to monitor and 

guide this effort. 

We fully recognize there are, and will be, formidable obstacles to the full integration of 

women into traditionally closed military units and occupations - be they cultural, physical, or 

psychological; but, overcoming obstacles is nothing new to our military. Today's challenge is 

3 
35 

historic in both scope and effort; and we are determined to meet that challenge, opening positions 

and occupations when and how it makes sense while continuing to preserve unit readiness, 

cohesion, and the quality of the All-Volunteer Force. As the Joint Chiefs' stated in their January 

9, 2013 memorandum, "to implement these initiatives successfully and without sacrificing our 

warfighting capability or the trust of the American people, we will need time to get it right." 

Implementation over the next several years, through 2016, will be an evolutionary process. 

There is no doubt that we willleam much with each new step. However, by addressing issues 

head-on, capitalizing on lessons leamed across the Department, and through open 

communication with Congress, we will institutionalize these important changes, integrating 

women into occupational fields and units in a climate where they can succeed and flourishwhile ensuring our total military force remains at the peak of readiness. 

CONCLUSION 

The Department greatly appreciates the interest and assistance of the Anned Services 

Committees in achieving this vision to the benefit of all the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and 

Marines in the service of our great Nation. The Department will continue to provide Congress 

with the requisite notification prior to opening additional positions or units of assignment in 

accordance with Title 10 U.S.c., Sec. 652, and will continue to provide the Committees with 

additional information and notifications as requested. Thank you for the opportunity to speak 

with you today on these important matters, and I look forward to your questions. 

4 
36 

Juliet 8eyler 

Director, Officer and Enlisted 

Personnel Management 

Ms. Juliet Seyler serves as the Director of Officer & Enlisted 

Personnel Management, a component of the Office of the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel 

Policy. She develops and oversees Department of Defense 

lifecycle policies and programs relating to overall 

management of the officer and enlisted force. She also serves 

as the focal point and Special Assistant to the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness for all 

general and flag officer matters. 

Prior to assuming this position, Ms. Seyler served as a Senior 

Policy Advisor in the office of U.S. Senator Jim Webb of Virginia from 2008 

to 2011 where she was responsible for liaison to the Senate Committees 

on Armed Services and Veterans Affairs, and for oversight of defense, 

veterans affairs, homeland security, intelligence, and appropriations issues. 

A native of Chicago, Ms. Seyler enlisted in the United States Marine Corps 

in 1984 and served as an enlisted Korean Cryptologic Linguist and 

Intelligence Analyst for ten years prior to receiving her commission as a 

Combat Engineer Officer through the Marine Corps Enlisted 

Commissioning Education Program. Over the course of her 23-year Marine 

Corps career; she completed numerous deployments around the world, 

commanding three times and served two combat tours in Iraq as both a 

Commanding Officer and Engineer Sattalion Operations Officer. 

Ms. Seyler graduated magna cum laude from the University of Illinois at 

Urbana-Champaign with a degree in Economics and completed a graduate 

certificate program in non-profit executive management with Georgetown 

University. She is married to U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel (retired) 

Thomas A. Seagrist and they live with their two australian shepherds. 
37 

RECORD VERSION 

STATEMENT BY 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL HOWARD B. BROMBERG 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, PERSONNEL 

UNITED STATES ARMY 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FIRST SESSION, 113TH CONGRESS 

ON WOMEN IN SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

24 JULY 2013 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 
38 

Introduction 

Chairman Wilson, Representative Davis and distinguished members of the Committee, I 

thank you for this opportunity to discuss the Women in Service Review plan that is 

incorporated in the Army's "Soldier 2020" Implementation Plan. The "Soldier 2020" 

Implementation Plan reflects the effort to have greater opportunities for women and to 

ensure we have the best Soldiers in our future Army. 

I am privileged to represent the more than one million courageous men and women in 

uniform who have deployed to combat over the past ten-plus years. I appreciate the 

opportunity to share with you and the American public, our integrated, incremental and 

scientific plan for expanding opportunities for all Soldiers to serve regardless of gender. 

would like to take this opportunity to thank the members of this committee for your 

steadfast support and shared commitment in this endeavor. 

Soldier 2020 

The Army is committed to providing the most ready all-volunteer force, which sustains its 

capability to defend this great nation at home and abroad. Our goal is to integrate 

women leaders and Soldiers into recently opened positions and units as expeditiously as 

possible. We will not sacrifice warfighting capability, the trust of the Congress, or that of 

the American people as we seek to enhance force readiness and capability. The Army's 

"Soldier 2020" campaign will aid leadership in selecting the best-qualified Soldiers, 

regardless of gender, for each job within the Army profession; ensuring future force 

capability and readiness. 

As we move forward in validating performance standards, both physical and mental, for 

all occupations, focusing first on those currently closed to female Soldiers, we may 

require an adjustment to our recruiting efforts, assignment processes and personnel 

policies. Further, we will continually assess trends and indicators as we assimilate 

female leaders and Soldiers into heretofore "closed units". 

In order to effectively and efficiently accomplish this task, the Army's campaign is driven 

by four lines of effort. The first line of effort is to open "closed" positions and military 

2 
39 

occupational specialties previously restricted to women based on the Direct Ground 

Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (DGCAR). The second and third lines of effort 

will validate occupational standards to ensure they are gender neutral and conduct the 

Army's gender integration study. In the fourth line of effort, the Army will coordinate with 

United States Special Operations Command (USSOCOM), United States Army Special 

Operations Command (USASOC) and the sister Services to develop a plan for 

integration of women in special operations and long range reconnaissance. 

Underscoring the Army's commitment to the Soldier 2020 effort are several key guiding 

principles. Those principles will ensure our men and women are given every opportunity 

to succeed and are postured for viable and fulfilling career paths. Equally important is 

maintaining the trust and confidence of the American people in their Army's capability to 

defend the Nation by promoting policies to maintain the best quality and most qualified 

people. 

The Army will expand opportunities for female leaders and Soldiers in currently open 

occupations throughout the Army to previously closed units and positions over the next 

two years. The progression of opening career fields will be both deliberate and 

incremental; the Army will take a two-pronged approach to increasing opportunities for 

women. First, we will assign women to positions that were closed based on the DGCAR, 

and second, we will make a decision to open occupations previously closed to women or 

request an exception to policy to keep occupations closed. 

Assignment of Women to Previously Closed Units - Based on DGCAR 

We have begun our effort to notify Congress this year to open additional positions in 133 

currently open Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) across Active, Reserve and 

National Guard components; this equates to more than 30,000 positions that were 

closed to women due to DGCAR. We anticipate 12,946 Active Army; 21,217 Army 

National Guard; and 2,762 Army Reserve positions will open to females. We will assign 

female non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and officers first. After completing an 

assessment of the integration of NCOs and officers, then female privates through 

sergeants can be assigned in these units. Within the Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs), 

3 
40 

we will assign first to maneuver battalion headquarters. After completing an assessment 

of the integration in these headquarters we will assign female NCOs and officers first in 

the companies, followed by assessment and assignment of female privates through 

sergeants to these units. This will ensure success by building cadre of female mentors 

for our most junior female Soldiers. 

Expanding Occupational Specialty Opportunities 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) is one of several commands supporting the 

Army's plan to integrate women into previously closed occupations and units. TRADOC 

is leading two major efforts supporting the Soldier 2020 effort: (1) Review and validation 

of physical occupational physical requirements; and (2) Execution of an institutional and 

cultural study. TRADOC began scientific validation of occupational standards last year, 

focusing first on closed occupations. The purpose of TRADOC's efforts is to ensure 

success - both at the organization level and with individual Soldiers. 

The Army currently assesses general recruit physical capabilities early in basic combat 

training. Our long term goal is to have a predictive test, similar to the Armed Services 

Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB), but for physical occupational standards. Our 

current phased approach will ensure we develop and implement a tool that will enable 

men and women to enter specialties that meet their physical capabilities. This effort 

spans five phases through the end of 2015: TRADOC is currently in Phase I. Phase II is 

scheduled to begin in August 2013. All Soldiers, regardless of gender or grade, must 

meet specified physical standards to be awarded course completion and the award of a 

specialty. We also have a goal of validating physical occupational requirements based 

on a Soldier's progression through a specialty. These differ from the physical 

requirements associated with newly trained Soldiers. Soldiers typically meet their full 

physical potential through subsequent individual and collective training in the operational 

force. 

• Phase I: Initial tasks I physical requirements for each occupation identified and 

validated. 

4 
41 

• Phase II: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine (USARIEM) 

independently and scientifically evaluates and validates initial data (begins in 

August 2013). 

• Phase III: USARIEM verifies and refines tasks I requirements through focus 

groups and job analysis questionnaires for all Soldiers in an occupation. 

• Phase IV: USARIEM develops task simulations that simulate the most demanding 

physical tasks for each occupational specialty. Predictive tests will be identified 

that will minimize "skill" and focus on physical capability requirements; predictive 

tests vetted and evaluated for accuracy and validity. 

Once scientific studies are complete, the Army will develop and test a predictive physical 

occupational ability test. This test will enable Army leaders to recommend where 

prospective applicants may best serve based on their abilities and capabilities. Our 

intent is to place Soldiers in occupational fields where they are best suited to succeed 

physically. We also think this will reduce injuries while increasing Soldiers' job 

satisfaction. We are still in the assessment and evaluation phase of this study. We will 

complete further research to determine when to administer this test. 

Once these occupational accession standards are validated, we will apply them gender 

neutrally as we open occupations in a deliberate manner according to a centralized plan 

that accounts for the cultural and institutional factors. TRADOC has initiated the Gender 

Integration Study that is identifying cultural and institutional issues that can impact the 

successful integration of women into new opportunities. We anticipate that once all 

studies and assessments have been completed, we may be able to open approximately 

193,000 closed positions within 14 occupational specialties. Specifically, those closed 

positions represent approximately 117,000 Active Army; 71,592 Army National Guard; 

and 5,405 Army Reserve positions. Our planned decision points for closed occupations 

begins with combat engineer in spring 2014, followed by field artillery specialtiescannon crewmember, field artillery automated tactical data system specialist and fire 

support specialist remain in spring 2015, followed by armor and infantry in the late 

summer of 2015. 

5 
42 

The second and equally important facet to effectively expanding occupational specialty 

opportunities to women is the execution of an institutional and cultural study, TRADOC 

Analysis Center (TRAC) is conducting a study of institutional and cultural factors 

associated with integration of women into previously closed occupations and units, The 

gender integration study draws upon literature review, surveys, focus groups, interviews, 

and process mapping to identify potential factors affecting integration, TRAC is also 

engaging Soldiers and leaders throughout the Army to ensure that their perspectives are 

evaluated, This study was initiated in January 2013, 

The TRAC study process involves critical reviews by academia and retired senior Army 

leaders and collaboration with sister analytical agencies, The study has a dual focus -

both institutional and operational. The analysis will study current policy, processes, and 

procedures within the institutional Army that may pertain to integration, Concurrently, 

focus groups and interview sessions with operational unit leaders will identify factors 

important to the force, The study will then evaluate potential strategies for 

implementation within the Army, 

Achieving Successful Integration 

The key to women and men achieving their maximum capability is successful integration 

at all levels, The Army has developed a deliberate and focused approach to achieve that 

endstate, The process of assigning women in open occupational specialties in formerly 

closed units is to build a foundation of leaders before we open any closed occupation, , 

This will ensure we have sufficient women to serve as mentors as more junior females 

complete the training and are awarded these previously closed specialties, For example, 

combat engineers, 12B, will be first in the validation process, as a good portion of the 

branch is already gender-integrated and maintains a large population of women officers 

and non-commissioned officers, All MOSs from 12C, Bridge Crewmember, through 

12W, Carpentry and Masonry Specialist, (Engineer specialties) are already open to 

women, and many have similar tasks and capabilities as combat engineers, Male and 

female Soldiers already conduct integrated training for engineer specialties, completing 

many of the same physical requirements, Field artillery will be next, as this branch also 

6 
43 

has women, but fewer than the engineers. Field artillery also already has women cadre, 

who will shape the cultural environment to help ensure success. 

As the Army opens an occupation, women will attend the basic officer leadership course 

and be assigned to the units prior to more junior females, who will attend advanced 

individual training before assignment. Female lieutenants will be encouraged to request 

branch transfer to enter these career fields. Female sergeants and staff sergeants will 

be encouraged to request reclassification into newly opened occupations assuming they 

meet the physical requirements. 

Closing Comments 

The Army of the Future will require more mental agility, teamwork and resilience from all 

Soldiers. The 'Soldier 2020' Implementation Plan reflects our effort to ensure we 

maintain the world's premiere landpower, ready and capable to defend this great nation 

at home and abroad. I assure the members of this committee that your Army's senior 

leaders remain focused on creating a climate of trust and respect in which every person 

is able to thrive and achieve their full potential and enjoy viable career paths, regardless 

of gender. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I thank you again for your steadfast and 

generous support of the outstanding men and women of the United States Army, Army 

Civilians and their Families. I look forward to your questions. 

7 
44 

Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg 

u.s. Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 

Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg became the U.S. 

Army's 46th Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 on July 21,2012. He 

is responsible for developing, managing, and executing 

manpower and personnel plans, programs, and policies for 

the total Army. Prior to this assignment, he served as the 

Deputy Commanding General/Chief of Staff, U.S. Army 

Forces Command. 

Lieutenant General Bromberg hails from California and was 

commissioned as an Air Defense Artillery officer in the U.S. 

Army upon graduation from the University of California at 

Davis in 1977. He holds a bachelor's degree in Agricultural 

Economics and Management. Throughout his career, 

Lieutenant General Bromberg has served in Army units in 

the United States, Germany, Korea and Southwest Asia. He 

has commanded at every level in the air defense community 

from platoon to installation. 

Lieutenant General Bromberg's command assignments include Commanding General, Fort 

Bliss, Texas; Commanding General, 32d Army Air Missile Defense Command, Fort Bliss, 

Texas, while serving in Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, Saudi 

Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq; Commander 11th Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Third Army; 

Commander 1st Battalion, 43d Air Defense Artillery, Eighth Army, Republic of Korea; 

Commander, A Battery, 6th Battalion, 52d Air Defense Artillery, Germany. 

Lieutenant General Bromberg's principal staff assignments include Chief of Staff, U.S. Strategic 

Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska; Deputy Director, Force Protection/Director, Joint 

Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization, J-8, The Joint Staff, Washington, DC; Director of 

Enlisted Personnel Management Directorate, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, 

Alexandria, VA.; Operations Officer (S-3)/Executive Officer (XO), 2d Battalion, 43d Air Defense 

Artillery, Germany and Operation DESERT SHIELD/STORM, Saudi Arabia; Operations Officer, 

Defense Branch, J-3, The Joint Staff, Washington DC; Chief, HAWK Operational Readiness 

Evaluation Team, 32d Army Air Missile Defense Command, Germany; and Platoon Leader, D 

Battery, 6th Battalion, 52d Air Defense Artillery, Germany. 

Lieutenant General Bromberg's decorations and awards include the Distinguished Service 

Medal (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), Defense Superior Service Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), 

the Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters), Bronze Star, Purple Heart, Defense 

Meritorious Service Medal, Meritorious Service Medal (with three Oak Leaf Clusters), Army 

Commendation Medal (with two Oak Leaf Clusters), Joint Service Achievement Medal, Army 

Achievement Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster), Parachutist Badge, Joint Chiefs of Staff 

Identification Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge. 

Lieutenant General Bromberg is married. He and his wife have two daughters. 
45 

NOT PUBLIC UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

STATEMENT 

OF 

LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, .fR. 

DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR MANPOWER & RESERVE AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

CONCERNING 

WOMEN IN SERVICE RESTRICTIONS REVIEW IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

ON 

JULY 24, 2013 

NOT PUBLIC UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
46 

Introduction 

Chainnan Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, on behalf of your Marine Corps, I would like to thank you for inviting me here 

today to discuss the issue of women in the service. We are grateful for your continued, active 

engagement in ensuring all Marines have equal opportunity to excel to their fullest potential. 

Your Marines are our most precious commodity. We strive to treat all equally, without 

preference to one's gender, race, religious beliefs, or national origin. Previous policies restricted 

one segment of our Marine Corps, the female Marines. Those policies have been rescinded by 

the Secretary of Defense. As tempting as it may sound to some, opening all military 

occupational specialties and positions across the Marine Corps immediately could have hannful 

unintended consequences. We must carefully review the requirements for each specialty and 

position. 

If we assign Marines, either male or female, where they are not capable ofperfonning the 

required tasks, the unit's readiness could suffer. Similarly, the Marine would not be set up for 

success and may succumb to physical injuries or may face administrative repercussions due to 

inability to perfonn. None of these scenarios would enhance our Nation's security. We must 

place our Marines in positions where they can succeed and contribute to the common goal. 

Our Implementation Plan takes a deliberate, measured, and responsible approach. We 

will validate our occupational perfonnance standards and develop a screening mechanism to 

assist in detennining which occupational specialties are best suited for individual Marines 

desiring to serve in the Ground Combat Elcment. As our Corps moves forward with this two 

pillar process, our focus will remain on combat readiness and generating combat-ready units. 
47 

Pillar One: Opening Closed Military Occupational Specialties 

The Marine Corps has 335 Primary Military Occupational Specialties, of which 31 are 

closed to female Marines. We have validated the occupational standards for each primary MOS, 

ensuring that the standards are task-based without regard to gender. Although the Physical 

Fitness Test, Combat Fitness Test. and Obstacle Course have gender-normed scoring, they are 

not tied to occupational standards. 

As you may be aware, we opened our Infantry Officer Course to volunteer female 

officers graduating from The Basic School. Since April 2012, 194 female student lieutenants 

have been afforded the opportunity to voluntarily participate in this research elIort and six have 

participated. None of the six have successfully completed the course. 

We will review all available data, both internal and external to the Marine Corps. 

Lessons learned from other nations conducting similar efforts to integrate females into combat 

arms will be incorporated when formulating our recommendations. Based on decision rendcred 

from our recommendations, we will set the conditions for successful integration as warranted. 

We will ensure there is mid to senior level female leadership at those units which were 

previously closed to females. This female cadre will serve in their open military occupational 

specialties. We will also provide education to the female Marines as well as to the members of 

the newly opened units where female Marines will be assigned. Recruiters will be trained on 

how to administer the physical screening test. Additionally we will ensure there arc appropriate 

facilities at any newly opened MOS schools and units to ensure adequate privacy for all Marines. 

When conditions are set for opcning military occupational specialties, we will then open 

those approved specialtics in a sequence that continues to enhance combat readiness and 

2 
48 

generate combat-ready units. Although it is too early to determine which additional specialties 

may be opened, our implementation'plan lays out a proposed sequence. 

Pillar Two: Opening Closed Units 

We began this effort last year with an "Exception to Policy" under the now rescinded 

1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule. We opened 371 positions to 

female officers and staff noncommissioned officers in 19 units associated with the ground 

combat element. We recently opened another 36 positions in three additional units. Our 

implementation plan lays out a proposed timeline to open more positions in these units as well as 

open additional closed units. Currently, we have 48 female Marines assigned to these positions. 

Periodically, we receive assessments from these Marines on challenges faced as well as 

assessments from the Commanders and Senior Enlisted Advisors from these units. 

Conclusion 

The Commandant and the entire Marine Corps are dedicated to maintaining the highest 

levels of combat readiness and capitalizing upon every opportunity to enhance our warfighting 

capabilities and the contributions of every Marine; irs simply the right thing to do. Taking care 

of Marines is fundamental to our ethos and serves as the foundation of our resolve to do 

whatever it takes to provide the opportunity for every Marine to realize his or her potential. The 

talent pool from which we select our finest warfighters will consist of all qualified individuals, 

regardless of gender. 

Thank you again for your concern on this very important issue. 
49 

Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead, Jr. 

Deputy Commandant, Manpower & Reserve Affairs/Commanding 

General, Marine Corps Recruiting Command 

Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead, Jr., was born at Fort Sam 

Houston, Texas, on 10 November 1951, the son of a career Air 

Force Officer. He graduated with a B.A. in English from the 

University of Houston in 1974 and was commissioned a Second 

Lieutenant in March 1975. Upon graduation from the Basic 

School, he reported to NAS Pensacola, Florida, and was 

designated a Naval Aviator in September 1976. 

Assigned to Marine Aircraft Group 39 at Camp Pendleton, 

Second Lieutenant Milstead joined HMA-169 flying the AH-I 

Cobra helicopter. In June 1981, Captain Milstead was transferred 

to Separate Brigade Platoon, 2nd ANGLICO at Camp Pendleton 

where he served two years as the S-3 Officer. While assigned to 

2nd ANGLICO, he attended both the U.S. Army Pathfinder 

School and U.S. Army Airborne Course. 

In July 1986, Major Milstead was transferred to Quantico, Virginia, to attend the Marine Corps 

Command and Staff College. Graduating with honors, he was reassigned to The Basic SchooL In 

September 1990, he reported to MAG-36 on Okinawa as the S-3A/Plans Officer. During this 

tour, he deployed to Turkey and Northern Iraq as the Executive Officer ofSPMAGTF 1-91 

during Operation Provide Comfort. 

Transferred to 3d MAW (FWD) at El Toro in June 1992, Lieutenant Colonel Milstead served as 

the Plans Officer and later as the 3d MAW Liaison Officer to MARFOR Somalia during 

Operation Restore Hope. He returned to MAG-39 in May 1993 and was assigned to HMLA-169 

as the Executive Officer. He became the Commanding Officer of the HMLA-169 Vipers on 22 

November 1994. 

Relinquishing commalld in June 1996, he was transferred to Washington, DC to attend the 

National War College. Graduating with a Master of Science in National Security Strategy, 

Colonel Milstead was assigned to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, as the Head of the Aviation 

Weapons Systems Requirements Branch (APW) in the Department of Aviation. In July 1999, he 

was reassigned within the Pentagon for joint duty in the Office of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Strategic and Tactical Systems, Land 

Warfare. 

In May 2001, Colonel Milstead assumed command of Marine Aircraft Group 29 at New River, 

North Carolina. During this command tour, the MAG-29 War Eagles deployed and participated 

in combat operations during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He relinquished command in August 

2003, and was reassigned to Camp Lejeune as Chief of Staff, 4th Marine Expeditionary Brigade 

(Anti-Terrorism). In September, 2004 Colonel Milstead was reassigned to 2d Marine Aircraft 
50 

Wing at Cherry Point as Commander, 2d MAW (Fwd) for deployment to Iraq. He was promoted 

to Brigadier General in Iraq on 17 February, 2005. 2d MAW (Fwd) returned to Cherry Point in 

February 2006. From March until June 2006, he served as the Commanding General, 2d Marine 

Aircraft Wing, prior to transferring to Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps for assignment as the 

Director, Marine Corps Public Affairs. In May 2008, he was transferred to Quantico, Virginia 

and served as the Commanding General, Marine Corps Recruiting Command. In December 

2010, Lieutenant General Milstead was appointed to his present grade and assumed the duties as 

Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Quantico, VA. 

Lieutenant General Milstead's personal decorations include the Defense Superior Service Medal, 

Legion of Merit with two gold stars in lieu of second and third awards with the Combat V, 

Meritorious Service Medal, Air Medal with 6 Strike/Flight A wards, Joint Service Commendation 

Medal, and the Navy Commendation Medal. Lieutenant General Milstead is happily married. He 

and his wife have four children and t~o grandchildren. 
51 

PREPARED STATEMENT 

OF 

MAJOR GENERAL BENNET SACOLICK 

DIRECTOR, FORCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT 

U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

JULY 24, 2013 
52 

Admiral McRaven fully supports the decision to eliminate the Direct Ground Combat Definition 

and Assignment Rule. Women have been attached to our combat units for several years as 

members of Cultural Support Teams, Civil Affairs, Military Infom1ation Support Teams, 

Intelligence Support, and a host of other occupational specialties. They have performed 

magnificently! 

The question for USSOCOM and focus of our analysis is whether we can combine women into 

those Special Operations units whose occupation often requires deploying in small self-contained 

teams for long periods of time in austere, geographically isolated locations. Many of these units 

deploy in close proximity to or behind enemy lines as they live and work in very close quarters 

with each other. Can we achieve this level of integration while preserving our unit readiness, 

cohesion, and morale? 

The scope of our analysis will focus on the special operators in eight SOF-specific occupational 

specialties ultimately providing a single, consistent procedure for execution throughout the 

USSOCOM enterprise. Once the studies are complete and the facts and data are collected, the 

USSOCOM Commander, in conjunction with the Service Chiefs will make a recommendation 

via the Chairman to the Secretary of Defense. 

The eight SOF-specific occupational spccialties are: 

• Army Special Forces as well as the Infantry positions assigned to the Ranger Regiment 

• Navy SEALs and Special Warfare Combatant-craft Crewmen 

• Marine Critical Skills Operators 

• Air Force Special Tactics Officers, Combat Controllers, and Special Operations Weather 

Personnel. 

We will also examine 46 additional occupational specialties that are not SOF-specific, but are 

assigned to our formations. This analysis will require close coordination with the Services 

before a decision is made. 
53 

Our assessment will focus on three independent, yet mutually supporting efforts: 

Our subordinate Components, U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Navy Special Warfare 

Command, Air Force Special Operations Command, and Marine Corps Forces Special 

Operations Command, are in the process of conducting thorough reviews focusing on 

Organization, Training, Education and Leader Development programs, inclusive ofa 

recommendation to generate sufficient numbers of qualified Officers and Senior NCOs to 

facilitate and compliment integration. These reviews will include an evaluation of all 

perfonnancc standards. 

In the Special Operations community, we maintain that our SOF standards have always been 

occupationally specific, operationally relevant and gender-neutral. They are just "the standard." 

Our review will be a good opportunity to verify this assumption. We will look at every single 

task in each of our entry-level qualification courses to ensure they are decisively tied to an 

operational requirement. 

We commissioned RAND to survey the social-behavioral aspects of integration and the potential 

consequences of integration on the effective functioning of small teams. Our concerns about 

integration generally center upon the impact on unit cohesion. These concerns include both 

social cohesion, which refers to the extent team members feel emotionally bonded with each 

other, and task cohesion, which refers to the mutual commitment among the individual team 

members in achieving the group objective. Unit cohesion is strongly linked to high performing 

Special Operations Teams. 

We have also tasked RAND to provide a non-biased third party analysis of our qualification 

course standards as well as assistance in designing a comprehensive survey for every single SOF 

operator in order to assist us in first identifying and then eliminating barriers to integration. 

Our implementation plan has only a handful of significant milestones. Our assessment phase 

will be accomplished by July, 2014. By that date, the Component reviews and RAND studies 

will be complete. We will then spend the following year examining those results and develop 

2 
54 

our strategy. By July 2015, Commander of SOCOM will provide his recommendation, in 

conjunction with the Service Chiefs, to the Secretary of Defense for a January I, 2016 

implementation. Over the next two years, we will continue to work with the Services to 

incrementally open enabler and support positions. 

I want to reiterate that we are not predisposed to any particular course of action, and at this time 

absolutely no decisions have been made regarding integration. We are, however, committed to 

maintaining the highest standards and delivering the most qualified SOF operators in support of 

our Nation, regardless of gender. 

3 
55 

tJ.$.,ARMY JOHN F. KENNEDY 

SPECIAL WARFARE C'ENTEOR AND SCHOOL 

BENNET S. SACOLICK 

Commanding General 

Assumed command on August 17, 2010 

Major General Bennet S. Sacolick assumed 

command of the U.S. Army John F. Kennedy 

Special Warfare Center and School on August 17, 

2010. Sacolick enlisted in the United States Army 

in 1981 and was assigned to 2nd Ranger Battalion prior to attending Officer Candidate School. 

He was commissioned as an Infantry Officer in 

June 1982. His military education is consistent 

with that of a career Special Porces officer and 

includes a master's degree from Central Michigan University and an Army Fellowship at the Central Intelligence Agency. 

MG Sacolick has commanded special-operations forces at the detachment, troop, 

squadron, group and task-force level. He has had various staff assignments to indude chief of current operations at the Joint Special Operations Command and the 

Deputy Director for Defense at the CIA's Counter Terrorism Center. He has completed tours with 1st Battalion, 509th Airborne Battalion Combat Team in Vicenza, 

Italy; 3rd Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) in Panama; Military 

Advisor in EI Salvador; and more than 12 years in 1st Special Forces Operational 

Detachment - Delta, culminating as both the unit and task force commander during Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

MG Sacolick has participated in combat operations in El Salvador, Peru, Colombia and named operations: Just Cause, Desert Storm, Task Force Ranger, Joint 

Endeavor, Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. 

VERITAS ET LIBERTAS -

US.A,jFK$WGS OFfICE OlO STRATEGIC COMMUNICATIQ!\j • 3004 ARDeNNES STReET. STOP A. rORT BR!\'GG. NORHi Ci\ROLtI'M 28310 . (910) 396·9394 
56 

STATEMENT OF 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL 

RELEASED BY THE HOUSE 

ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

REAR ADMIRAL BARBARA W. SWEREDOSKI 

RESERVE DEPUTY 

MILITARY PERSONNEL PLANS AND POLICY 

BEFORE THE 

MILITARY PERSONNEL SUBCOMMITTEE 

OF THE 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 

ON 

WOMEN IN SERVICE IMPLEMENTATION 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION 

UNTIL RELEASED BY THE 

24 JULY 2013 

HOUSE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE 
57 

Chainnan Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the Committee, 

thank you for holding this hearing and for affording me the opportunity to testify on how the Navy 

is implementing the women in service plan. 

Navy's plan is a continuation of our efforts over the past 19 years to steadily expand 

opportunities for women. Talented female Officers, Sailors, and Civilians are a key component of 

our All-Volunteer Total Force, and they are an invaluable asset to the strength of our Navy. In 

1994, following the repeal of the combat exclusion law, women began serving on combatant ships 

and in combatant aircraft. In the past two years, we have started assigning women oflicers to 

submarines. We have also been assigning women to elements of our Coastal Riverine Forces for 

the past four years. Navy is fully committed to equal professional opportunities tor all unitonned 

personnel. Currently, over 88% of all Navy billets are open to females, a result of deliberate and 

steady review and expansion of opportunities for females. After submitting our intent to the Oflice 

of the Secretary of Defense for Congressional notification, Navy will continue our expansion of 

opportunity in a thoughtful and deliberate manner. Our goal is to continue to ensure all men and 

women in the Department of the Navy have the opportunity to succeed and are set up tor success 

with viable career paths while preserving our warfighting capability. 

Navy's Implementation Plan 

Navy is committed to removing barriers that prevent service members from serving in any 

capacity based on their abilities and qualifications, and not constrained by gender restrictive 

policies. Navy will open positions as expeditiously as possible while maintaining our high 

standards to preserve the quality of the force as well as considering good order and judicious use of 

fiscal resources. Navy's implementation plan addressed all positions currently closed to the 

assignment of women. Navy expects to have no closed occupations, very limited numbers of closed 

2 
58 

positions, and equal professional opportunity for females in every officer designator and enlisted 

rating by 2016. 

Opening positions to a wider pool of skilled personnel maximizes military capabilities, 

provides a greater pool of qualified members from which to draw, and reduces the operational 

tempo for those currently deploying. This approach will ensure we continue to maintain a high 

state of readiness and preserve the quality of our All-Volunteer Force. The 000 and Navy's goal is 

to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of 

gender. 

Servicewomen are currently assigned to billets commensurate with their capabilities to the 

maximum extent practicable and allowable. Regardless of mission, women are permanently 

assigned to nearly all types of ships, aviation squadrons, at10at staffs, Naval Construction Force 

units, and certain submarine platforms. lfwe find that the assignment of women to specific 

positions or occupational specialties is in cont1ict with 000' s guiding principles, exceptions to 

policy will be requested, which will prohibit their assignment to certain jobs. Navy works to ensure 

senior women are assigned to platforms before assigning junior women in order to provide 

leadership, mentorship, and support. 

We have been successful in recruiting women into the Navy. Among recruits with no prior 

military service: over 21 % have been women in each of the last five years, and over 23 % since 

fiscal year 2011. Since 2009, more women have entered the naval service each year; we are on 

track to recruit about 9,600 women this fiscal year, nearly 1,300 more women than last fiscal year 

and more than any year in the last decade. Regardless of gender, Navy weighs Force needs and an 

applicant's interest and aptitUde when assigning a career field. As we open new career fields and 

recruit higher numbers of women into the Navy, we are taking into account overall female 
59 

propensity to serve in the military, which is lower than male propensity to serve, and the percentage 

of women in the civilian job market in each individual career field. 

Navy continues to restrict positions currently closed to the assignment of women based on 

privacy and berthing requirements until appropriate arrangements can be made to accommodate 

these requirements. Navy will continue to assign women to afloat units as technical changes and 

modifications for reasonable female privacy and appropriate female berthing arrangements are 

completed, as female officer and enlisted leadership assignments can be implemented, and as ships' 

schedules permit. 

Specifically, our implementation plan addresses the Coastal Riverine Force, Navy Positions 

assigned to Marine Corps Ground Combat Elements, Special Operations occupations, and females 

serving on submarines and surface ships. 

Riverines 

Navy intends to submit to the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Congressional 

notification, our intent to open Coastal Riverine Force small craft to female officers and enlisted. 

These small craft have a primary mission of engaging in direct ground combat. Upon approval, 

there will be no restrictions to the assignment of females in the Coastal Riverine Force. 

Women have historically been members of Maritime Expeditionary Security Force (MESF) 

boat crews, deployed to the Arabian Gulf conducting force protection missions (harbor defense, 

high value asset escort). The Coastal Riverine Foree is predominantly composed of former MESF 

personnel following the merger with the Coastal Riverine Foree in June 2012. Physically and 

mentally, there is no difference in the perfonnance level required to be a crew member on a boat 

conducting harbor defense overseas or a riverine mission. Women have consistently demonstrated 

4 
60 

the ability to be successful boat crew members in the MESF, and are equally capable of serving on 

boats conducting riverine missions. 

Women are restricted from assignment to Riverine boat crews, which consist of Riverine 

Command Boat, Riverine Assault Boat, Riverine Patrol Boat, and the embarked Riverine Security 

Teams. Women are permitted to be detailed to all other billets within the Coastal Riverine Force. 

Following the requisite Congressional notification process, and women's assignment to the 

Coastal Riverine Force, women will be able to fill any Coastal Riverine Force boat crew position. 

These positions are outlined in Appendix A, Table 1. 

Officers assigned to the Coastal Rivcrine Force are responsible for leading and managing 

platoon and company size Coastal Riverine elements. Platoons in the Coastal Riverine Force are 

comprised of approximately 65 personnel, and companies are approximately 125 personnel. 

Officers are also responsible for conducting mission planning and execution. Specific enlisted 

ratings and occupations open to the assignment of women in the Coastal Riverine Force are outlined 

in Appendix A, Table 2. 

Navy will continue to review and validate occupational standards. Integrating women into 

the currently restricted boat crews will not create new occupations (ratings). The ratings that will 

be part of the boat crews are already open to womcn. 

Marine Corps Ground Combat Elements 

As coordinated with the Marine Corps, Navy intends to assign females to Ground Combat 

Elements as positions are opened by the Marine Corps. Navy personnel will adhere to Marine 

Corps occupational standards where applicable. Navy personnel include medical officers, 

chaplains, and surface warfare officers, submarine officers, and aviators serving as Naval Gunfire 

Liaison Officers; enlisted hospital corpsmen; and religious personnel. As positions are opened, 
61 

Navy is participating in surveys and participant questionnaires published through the Marine Corps 

to assess integration success and gather lessons learned. 

United States Special Operations Command 

As coordinated with US Special Operations Command, Navy and Navy Special Warfare 

Command intend to follow the US Special Operations Command-developed integrated timeline for 

(he potential integration of females into Special Operations, with Congressional notification for 

Naval Special Warfare integration planned for July 2015. US Special Operations Command will 

conduct specific research and analysis on the impact of integrating women into small, elite teams 

that operate in remote, austere environments. They will also contract for an independent, nonbiased analysis. These assessments will be completed no later than July I, 2014. Navy will 

continue to partner with USSOCOM and other Services to proceed with a deliberate, measured, 

responsible way to assign women to currently closed positions across Services and Joint positions 

as assessments are completed. 

CUlTently, female officers are restricted from Sea, Air, Land (SEAL) Officer, Limited Duty 

Officer, and Chief Warrants Officer occupations and female enlisted are restricted from the Special 

Warfare Boat Operator and Special Warfare Operator occupations due to Special Operations Forces 

missions. 

Submarines 

In order to maintain the best submarine force in the world, the Navy has opened 

opportunities to women officers on all submarine types. The integration of women has increased 

the talent pool and therefore, the ability to sustain submarine readiness. Mixed-gender officer 

crews serve on today's OHIO Class submarines, and the OHIO Replacement SSBN is being 

designed to support both officer and enlisted mix-gender crews. The Navy will decide no later than 

6 
62 

March 2015 whether, in addition to service on Virginia class submarines, women of1icers will be 

assigned to Los Angeles and Seawolf class submarines. 

Additionally, on May 10,2013, the Navy, through Commander, Submarine Force stood up a 

task force to provide Flag level oversight for continuing the implementation of mixed-gender crews 

aboard SSBNs, SSGNs, and VIRGINIA Class SSNs. Specifically, the Enlisted Women in 

Submarines Task Force (EWSTF) will detennine how the Submarine Force can best integrate 

enlisted females. Female enlisted have been restricted from occupations on submarines due to the 

prohibitive costs of appropriate berthing and privacy, restricting women from the occupations listed 

in Appendix A, Table 3. The task force is charged with developing a comprehensive plan of actions 

and milestones by January 2014 and a detailed plan no later than March 2015 for CNO review. In 

line with Navy's integration policy requiring the assignment of senior, warfare qualified officers 

prior to junior of1icers and enlisted, the task force will focus only on platforms already integrated 

with female of1icers, including future integration of Virginia class submarines. The task force will 

adhere to the Guiding Principles set forth by the Chainnan, Joint Chiefs of StatT in the Secretary of 

Defense's 24 Jan 13 Memorandum. Additionally, all servicemen and women will be given the 

opportunity to succeed through viable career paths; equitable policies that maintain the best quality 

and more qualified Sailors in the Submarine Force will be promoted; and each ship's readiness, 

cohesion, and morale will be preserved. 

Surface Ships 

Women of1icers and enlisted currently serve on virtually every surface ship class in the 

Navy and we will continue to expand opportunity as new ships and ship classes are commissioned. 

Navy will decide no later than June 2014 whether to expand assignment opportunity for enlisted 

women to Frigates (FFGs), Mine Countenneasure Ships (MCMs), and Patrol Craft (PCs) due to 

7 
63 

decommissioning schedules pending Congressional approval. All but one FFG is due to 

decommission by 2016. MCMs are due to decommission by FY 2024, and will be replaced by the 

Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) with Mine Warfare Mission Module. The LCS platform is open to the 

assignment of officer and enlisted women. PCs are due to decommission by 2024. 

Conclusion 

Navy remains committed to working with Congress and thanks the members of the 

personnel subcommittee for your continuous and unwavering commitment to support our women 

and men. Navy's deliberate approach to reducing gender-based barriers to women's service will 

provide the time necessary to continue to integrate women so they can succeed and flourish. To 

maintain our warfighting edge, it is essential that all of our people be diverse in experience, 

background, and ideas. Assignment of women to currently closed positions enhances our ability to 

fight and win today, while building on the ability (0 win tomorrow. Thank you, once again, for 

holding this important hearing. 

8 
64 

APPENDIX A 

Table 1. Positions in the Coastal Riverine Force that would open to the assignment of enlisted 

women following Congressional Notification. 

Position Description 

Boat Captain In charge of the safe navigation and tactical employment 

of the craft 

Engineer Responsible for monitoring and conducting rcpair of boat 

engines and associated propulsion equipment 

Communications Technician Responsible for operation and repair of electronic gear on 

the boat 

Gunner Responsible for operating any of a variety of Crew 

Served Weapons at fixed mounts on deck, or remotely 

operated weapons from a console in the boat cabin 

Coxswain Designated helmsman responsible for physically driving 

the boat 

Navigators Responsible for safely navigating the boat 

Intelligence Analyst Responsible for collection, analysis and dissemination of 

intelligence in support of missions and force protection 

I Medic Trained medical personnel responsible for providing 

medical care during missions 

Table 2. Ratings and occupations that would open to the assignment of women in the Coastal 

Riverine Force following Congressional Notification. 

Rating Description 

Boatswain's Mate Responsible for the maintenance, preservation and 

operation of boats 

Electronic Technician Responsible for the maintenance and operation of 

electronic equipment (e.g. radios, radars, navigations 

systems, etc) 

Engincman Responsible for the maintenance, repair and opcration of 

engines on boats 

Gunner's Mate Responsible for maintenance of, accountability of, and 

operation of weapons, and manages and accounts lor 

ammunition inventory and movement 

Quartermaster Responsible for the safe navigation of the boat in harbors, 

rivers and open ocean 

Master-at-Arms Responsible for providing force protection and security 

9 
65 

of military units 

Information Systems Technician Responsible for maintenance, operation and repair of 

communications systems and handling of cryptographic 

material 

Operations Specialist Responsible for operational planning of missions and 

operatcs unmanned air systems assigned to the Coastal 

Riverine Force 

Construction Mechanic Responsible for managing and maintaining a unit's 

inventory of Civil Engineering Support Equipment (e.g. 

vehicles, trailers, generators, Air Conditioning Systems 

(HV AC), etc.) 

Equipment Operator Operate and maintain a variety of vehicles 

Intelligence Specialist Responsible for performing collection, analysis and 

dissemination of intcll igence in support of mission 

tasking and force protection 

Hospital Corpsman Responsible for providing medical treatment to injured 

personnel, managing medical records, providing routine 

and emergency care 

Table 3. Ratings closed to the assignment ofwomcn on submarines due to the prohibitive costs of 

appropriate berthing and privacy. 

Rating 

Submarine Electronics Technician (Nuclear) 

Submarine Electronics Technician (Navigation) _.-

Submarine Electronics Technician (Communications) 

Submarine Machinist's Mate (Nuclear) 

Submarine Machinist's Mate (Auxiliary) fAuxiliaryman] 

Submarine Machinist's Mates (Weapons) [Torpedomanl 

Submarine Culinary Specialist 

Submarine Logistics Specialist 

Information Systems Technician Submarines 

Missile Technician 

Sonar Technician Submarines 

Fire Control Technician 

Submarine Yeoman 

Submarine Electrician's Mate (Nuclcar) 

Submarine Engineering Laboratory Technicians 

10 
66 

United States Navy 

Biography • 

Rear Admiral Barbara Sweredoski 

Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel Plans & Policy N13R 

Rear Adm. Sweredoski is a native of Pavilion, N.Y. She is a 1985 

graduate of the University of Rochester, receiving her commission 

through the Navy Reserve Officers Training Corps program. She has 

her Professional in Human Resources (PHR) Certification, has 

completed the Joint Professional Military Education (JPME) Phase I 

program and is a graduate of Reserve Component programs at 

National Delense University and Naval War College. 

Sweredoski's first assignment was to the Office of the Chief of Naval 

Operations (OPNAV) at the Pentagon as an action officer in the Navy 

Space Systems Division, Plans and Policy Branch where she helped 

develop the first Navy Space Policy, monitored the Space Systems 

Subspecialty Program and was a liaison to the Navy and Marine Corps 

Astronauts. 

Following her OPNAV tour, she was assigned a department head tour 

at the U.S. Naval Observatory, home of the vice president of the 

United States. As the director, Administration/Security, she was 

responsible for the physical security of the base working hand-in-hand with the U.S. Secret Service 

providing protection to the vice president. 

After completing her tour of duty at the U.S. Naval Observatory in 1991, Sweredoski resigned from active 

duty and immediately affiliated with the Navy Reserve (NR). Her first Reserve assignment was as the 

exercise coordinator and administrative officer for NR Personnel Mobilization Team 906 out of 

Washington, D.C. 

Her other Navy Reserve tours include: NR Military Sealift Command Det. 105, Southwest Asia; NR 

Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, Det. 205; Mobilization liaison officer for Navy & Marine 

Corps Reserve Center Pittsbur9h; NR Navy Command Center Det. 106 and NR Naval Inspector General 

Det. 106 in Washington, D.C. Command tours include commanding officer, Personnel Mobilization Team 

C, Gulfport, Miss., and commanding officer NR CNO Management Analysis Unit directly reporting to 

Director Navy Staff (DNS). 

Sweredoski recently served as the executive officer of NR NATO Allied Command Transformation 

Detachment Norfolk in Norfolk, Va. She proudly served with Navy Command Center 106 shipmates who 

were awarded a Meritorious Unit Commendation for actions during, and after, the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist 

attacks on the Pentagon and World Trade Center. She served a three-year assignment on the Secretary 

of the Navy's National Navy Reserve Policy Board. and as a member of the Human Resources Executive 

Board. 

Her awards include the Defense Meritorious Service Medal (1 award), Navy Meritorious Service Medal (4 

awards), Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and the Navy and Marine Corps Achievement 

Medal (4 awards). In addition, she was the recipient of the 2003 Naval Reserve Readiness Command 

Mid-Atlantic Peer Leadership Award. 
67 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

PRESENTATION TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SUBJECT: WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEW (WISR) IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 

STATEMENT OF: BRIGADIER GENERAL GINA M. GROSSO 

DIRECTOR OF FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY 

DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF MANPOWER, PERSONNEL 

AND SERVICES UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNTIL RELEASED 

BY THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENT ATlVES 

JULY 24, 2013 
68 

The Air Force initiated gender integration efforts in 1993, when it lifted restrictions 

against women flying fighter aircraft and immediately began assigning them to front-line combat 

aviation units. Today, after more than twenty years of continuous progress, more than 99 percent 

of the nearly 500,000 active duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve positions are open 

to both men and women. We are working hard to open the few positions that remain closed due 

to their affiliation with special operations and long range reconnaissance ground combat units in 

accordance with Office of the Secretary of Defense guidance. The Air Force has approximately 

4,600 positions closed to women in the following seven career fields: combat control, special 

operations weather (officer and enlisted), pararescue, special tactics, tactical air control, and 

combat rescue. In close coordination with our Army and U.S. Special Operations Command 

(USSOCOM) counterparts, we have developed a comprehensive plan, completc with detailed 

tasks and timelines, that ensures we will complete the necessary steps to open all remaining 

positions by the January 1, 2016 deadline, while remaining consistent with guiding principles 

established by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense. 

A necessary first step in removing gender barriers to our closed specialties, is validating 

performance standards for these physically demanding career fields to ensure that all associated 

physical tests and standards are both gender neutral (as required by Public Law 103-160) and 

occupationally relevant. To that end, we have directed our experts in Air Education and Training 

Command to accelerate work that has been underway for over a year to validate physical tests 

and standards for each of the closed specialties. This study is headed by the Air Force's Chief 

Exercise Physiologist, who is working in close cooperation with subject malter experts in our 

closed career fields, our Major Commands, U.S. Special Operations Command, RAND, and the 

U.S. Army to validate occupationally-relevant, operationally-specific, gender-neutral standards. 

1 
69 

We fully expect these physical standard reviews, operational assessments, and all other 

prerequisites to be in place no-later-than January 2016. 

In addition to a heavy emphasis on validating our occupational standards, we are also 

addressing a number of other critical issues that are important stepping stones to removing 

assignment restrictions for women seeking to join units engaged in direct ground combat such as 

health and welfare, training, assignment classification. and career development. Although these 

tasks are significant, in the end, we do not anticipate any major obstacles to opening all seven 

career fields by 2016, which we will in consultation with our USSOCOM and Army partners. 

Ultimately, the initiative to eliminate all remaining gender-based assignment restrictions will 

improve our readiness and the Air Force's ability to recruit and retain a qualified and diverse 

force. 

2 
70 

BIOGRAPHY 

UNiTED STATES AiR FORCE 

BRIGADIER GENERAL GINA M. GROSSO 

Brig. Gen. Gina M. Grosso is the Director of Force 

Management Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff for 

Manpower, Personnel and Services, Headquarters 

u.s. Air Force, Washington, D.C. She is responsible for 

establishing force management policies for more than 

675,000 Air Force military and civilian personnel. 

These policies guide the accession, assignment, 

evaluation, skills analysis and management, 

promotion, readiness, retraining, separation and 

retirement of the Air Force's human capital. Her 

office also oversees aspects of total force 

management to include contingency, mobilization, 

training management, and rated force policy. 

General Grosso entered the Air Force in 1986 as a 

Reserve Officer Training Corps distinguished 

graduate from Carnegie-Mellon University, 

Pittsburgh, Pa. She has held several command and 

staff positions throughout her career. As a staff 

officer, she served as an operations analyst 

personnel programs analyst, Air Staff and Office of 

the Secretary of Defense action officer, Major 

Command Director of Manpower and Personnel, and Director of the Air Force Colonel Management Office. 

Her command tours include a Headquarters Squadron Section, Military Personnel Flight, Mission Support 

Squadron, command ofthc Air Force's sole Basic Military Training Group, and as Joint Base and 87th Air Base 

Wing commander at JOint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst, NJ. 

EDUCATION 

1986 Bachelor of Science degree in applied mathematics and industrial management, Carnegie-Mellon 

University, Pittsburgh, Pa. 

1992 Masters Degree in business administration, College ofWUliam and Mary, Williamsburg, Va. 

1993 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

1997 Air Command and Staff College, Seminar 

1999 Masters Degree in National Security and Strategic Studies, Naval Command and Staff College, Newport, 

R.l. 

2000 Air War College, Seminar 2004 Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard 

University, Boston, Mass. 

ASSIGNMENTS 

1. October 1986 - October 1988, Operations Analyst, followed by Commander, Headquarters Squadron 

Section, 554th Range Group, Nellis AFB, Nev. 

2. November 1988 - April 1992, Personnel Programs and Force Programs Analyst, Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Personnel, Headquarters Tactical Air Command, Langley AFB, Va. 

3. May 1992 May 1993, Executive Officer, Directorate of Personnel, Headquarters Air Combat Command, 

Langley AFB, Va. 

4. May 1993 - July 1993, Student, Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala. 

5. August 1993 May 1995, Commander, Military Personnel Flight, 6th Mission Support Squadron, MacDiII 

AFB, Fla. 

6. June 1995 - January 1997, Chief, Personnel Policy, followed by Deputy Chief, Support Division, Air Force 

Colonel Matters Office, Pentagon, Washington D.C. 

7. January 1997 - July 1998, Member, Chief of Staff of the Air Force Operations Group, Headquarters Air 

Force, Pentagon, Washington D.C. 
71 

8. July 1998 - July 1999, Student, Naval Command and Staff College, Newport, R.l. 

9, July 1999 - July 2001, Commander, 51st Mission Support Squadron, Osan Air Base, South Korea 

10. July 2001 - May 2002, Assistant Director, Enlisted Plans and Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the 

Pentagon, Washington D.C. 

11. May 2002 July 2003, Military Assistant, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel 

Policy, Pentagon, Washington D.C. 

12. July 2003 - July 2004, Fellow, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Boston, 

Mass. 

13. July 2004 - July 2006, Commander, 737th Training Group, Lackland AFB, Texas 

14. July 2006 - July 2007, Director, Manpower and Personnel, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam AFB, 

Hawaii 

15. July 2007 - March 2009, Director, Air Force Colonels Management Office, the Pentagon, Washington, 

D.C. 

16. March 2009 - June 2011, Commander, Joint Base and 87th Air Base Wing, Joint Base McGuire-DixLakehurst, N.J. 

17. June 2011 - 6 Aug 2012, Director, Manpower, Organization and Resources, the Pentagon, Washington, 

D.C. 

18. 6 Aug 2012 - Present, Director, Force Management Policy, the Pentagon, Washington, D.C. 

SUMMARY OF JOINT ASSIGNMENTS 

1. July 2001- May 2002, Assistant Director, Enlisted Plans and Policy, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

Pentagon, Washington D.C., as a lieutenant colonel 

2. May 2002 - July 2003, Military Assistant, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel 

Policy, Pentagon, Washington D.C., as a lieutenant colonel 

3. March 2009 - June 2010, Commander, Joint Base and 87th Air Base Wing, Joint Base 

McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst. N.J., as a colonel and brigadier general 

MAJOR AWARDS AND DECORATIONS 

Defense Superior Service Medal 

Legion of Merit with two oak leaf cluster 

Meritorious Service Medal with three oak leaf clusters 

Army Commendation Medal 

Air Force Commendation Medal 

Joint Service Achievement Medal 

Air Force Achievement Medal with one oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with one oak leaf cluster 

Air Force Organizational Excellence Award with three oak leaf clusters 

National Defense Service Medal with bronze star 

Global War on Terrorism Medal 

Korean Defense Service Medal 

Humanitarian Service Medal 

OTHER ACHIEVEMENTS 

Tactical Air Command, Deputy Chief of Staff, Personnel, 1990 CGO of the Year 

Tactical Air Command, 1991 Junior Personnel Manager of the Year 

Distinguished Graduate, Squadron Officer School, 1993 

6th Air Base Wing Lance P. Sijan Leadership Award, Junior Officer Category for 1995 

Headquarters Air Force, Senior Personnel Manager of the Year for 1996 

EFFECTIVE DATES OF PROMOTION 

Second Lieutenant Oct. 2, 1986 

First Lieutenant July 17, 1988 

Captain July 17, 1990 

Major Aug. 1. 1996 

Lieutenant Colonel July 1. 1999 

Colonel Aug. 1,2003 

Brigadier General April 1, 2011 

(Current as of August 2012) 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JULY 24, 2013 

(75) 

House Armed Services Committee 

Subcommittee on Personnel 

Hearing on Women in Service Review 

Statement of Elaine Donnelly 

President, Center for Military Readiness 

Wednesday - July 24, 2013 

2212 Rayburn Office Building 

2:00 PM 
76 

Index 

Introduction 3 

A. Sound Policy for Women (and Men) in the Military 5 

1. Clarify the Definition of "Direct Ground Combat" 5 

2. Codify women's exemptions from direct ground combat assignments 6 

3. Differentiate Gender-Specific (Gender-Normed) Training From 

"Gender-Neutral" Training 

4. Review All Research Data Generated by the Women in Service 

9 

Reviews Since Jan. 2012 9 

5. Preserve Women's Exemption from Selective Service 10 

B. The Need for Congressional Oversight and Questions About 

Women in Land Combat 11 

1. Question "Critical Mass" and "Diversity Metrics" Goals Set by the MLDC 12 

2. Question the Extension of Sexual Assaults and Misconduct 

Into the Combat Arms 14 

3. Question Expected Defense Department Costs for Implementing Gender 

Integration Plans 15 

4. Seek Independent Analysis of the Results of Social Change in the Military 17 

5. Question Claims About the Militaries of Other Countries 18 

Conclusion 18 

Appendix - The Experience of Other Allied Countries 20 

• Great Britain 20 

• Australia 20 

• Canada and Other Countries 22 

2 
77 

House Armed Services Committee - Subcommittee on Personnel 

Hearing on Women in Service Review 

Wednesday, July 24, 2013 - 2:00 PM - 2212 Rayburn Office Building 

Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness 

The Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that specializes in 

military/social issues, appreciates this opportunity to submit for the record this statement on 

the various plans being implemented to assign women to direct ground combat units. I am a 

former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the 

Armed Forces, and of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). 

On January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that he was unilaterally 

revoking all remaining Defense Department regulations exempting women from assignment to 

direct ground combat battalions such as the infantry. Secretary Panetta directed the military 

service chiefs to provide by the following May reports on how to implement his mandate to 

gender-integrate currently all-male fighting units by 2016. 

There are many reasons why the services are hesitating and delaying implementation of plans 

to gender-integrate direct ground combat units that currently are all-male. To state the 

obvious, this is an unnecessary, bad idea that cannot be justified in terms of military necessity. 

The Pentagon's peremptory announcements have not provided any empirical evidence, based 

on actual experience and not theory, to support assertions that this is "the right thing to do." 

Forty-five individual leaders and organizations affiliated with the Military Culture Coalition 

(MCC) signed a joint letter expressing concern about unprecedented policy changes announced 

in January, which was delivered to the Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee on 

April 1, 2013. 1 Signers of the MCC letter asked the committee to intervene before the 

administration's incremental plans resulted in women being involuntarily assigned into "tip of 

the spear" direct ground combat units such as Army/Marine infantry, armor, and artillery and -

with inevitably-"adjusted" standards - Special Operations Forces and Navy SEALs. 

The MCC letter also expressed concern because, according to legal experts, a change in female 

military personnel's eligibility for direct ground combat likely would result in federal court 

decisions favoring litigation challenging young women's exemption from Selective Service and a 

1 Military Culture Coalition letter to HASC Chairman Howard p, McKeon, April 1, 2013, available at 

http:// cmriink,org/ datal sites/8S/CM RDocu ments/Cha irman McKeon Ltr ·040113, pdf 

3 
78 

possible future draft. In Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), the Supreme Court upheld the 

constitutionality of male-only Selective Service registration primarily because women were not 

eligible for direct ground combat. 2 

Any decision to change policies regarding women in land combat and concomitant eligibility for 

Selective Service should be made not by federal courts, but by Congress, the branch of 

government authorized by the U. S. Constitution to make policy for the military. (Art. 1, Sect. 8). 

The administration's pretense of implementing women-in-combat plans incrementally, 

between now and January, 2016, is an affront to Congress because it pointedly excludes elected 

members of the House and Senate from the decision-making process on Selective Service and 

other major issues. 

MCC-affiliated organizations were disappointed that during the May mark-up of the National 

Defense Authorization Act for 2014, the committee missed opportunities to establish sound 

policy for both women and men in the military. As far as we know nothing has been said or 

done to intervene on behalf of military women who do not wish to be treated like men in the 

combat arms, and on behalf of civilian women who should not be made subject to Selective 

Service obligations without an accountable vote of Congress. 

The Women in Service Reviews released so far are premised on unsupported assumptions 

about physical differences that are not likely to change, with little discussion of complicated, 

unresolved issues involving human sexuality that are also unlikely to change. The plan of action 

is moving in only one direction, in compliance with recommendations ofthe largely-civilian, 

Defense Department-endorsed Military leadership Diversity Commission (MlDC). 3 

Pentagon authorities continue to speak for radical changes from only one perspective, as 

directed by the President of the United States, and all subordinate military departments 

working on the Women in Service Reviews are subject to unusual constraints that have 

withheld specific research results from Congress, military personnel, and the American people. 

The administration's unilateral plan of action is an affront not just to Congress, but to the 

majority of women and men in the combat arms whose views have not been heard or 

respected. To truly honor and respect military women, Congress should take responsibility for 

this issue. The Executive Branch is making irreversible decisions that will inevitably compromise 

standards, reduce the effectiveness of sustained combat operations, increase the incidence of 

2 CMR Policy Analysis: Registration of Women for Selective Service and a Possible Future Draft 

http://cmrlink.org!data!sites!85!CMRDocuments!CMR]0IicyAnalysis-May20l3.pdf 

3 From Representation to Inciusion, Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military, Final Report, March 15, 

2011, available at http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did~11390. Instead of being blind to racial and gender differences, 

the MLDC report recommends race and gender consciousness, It repeatedly pushes for "diversity metrics," which 

are supposed to enforce race- and gender-conscious "inclusion"that goes beyond EO, and "needs to become the 

norm. II See Executive Summary, p., xvii and p. 18. 

4 
79 

violence against women, and put both men and women at great risk, especially in the combat 

arms. Instead of watching passively, Congress should take a leadership role in advocating for 

sound policies that strengthen and improve the All-Volunteer Force. 

A. Sound Policy for Women (and Men) in the Military 

Respect for women in our military is greater than ever, and rightly so. They have served in 

unprecedented roles "in harm's way" with great courage and personal sacrifice. Uniformed 

women, including those in the enlisted ranks who don't want to be treated like men, deserve 

more than flattery and unrealistic expectations. 

Iii reviewing this issue, Congress should assign highest priority to military necessity - not selfinterested careerism, political illusions, or ideology that denies differences between men and 

women. The following are suggestions and background to mandate and implement Sound 

Policy for Women in the Military: 

1. Clarify the Definition of "Direct Ground Combat" 

National discussions about this issue have been hampered by confusion about what "combat" 

means. The first step in achieving sound policy is to use clear and accurate definitions. In the 

recent wars, military women have been exposed to danger and injury. More than 140 have 

given their lives in the wars since 9/11. 4 

As the Pentagon has acknowledged, however, women have not served in direct ground combat 

(OGe) units that are at issue today. These are the fighting units that attack the enemy with 

deliberate offensive action. OGC missions go beyond the experience of being "in harm's way" 

in a war zone what could be called "incident-related" or "contingent" combat. 5 

For example, women who have driven in convoys threatened by lED attacks have experienced 

incident-related combat, for which they needed to be prepared. Female engagement teams 

4 CMR: Grim Total of Military Women Killed in War. 

http://www.cmriink.org/articles/print/35891 ?author=O&image=O&domain=O 

5 USMC Close Combat Manual MCRP 3-02B. available at http://www.combatical.cam/p/averview-of-closecombat.html. provides this definition: "Close combat is the physical confrontation between two or more 

opponents. It involves armed and unarmed and lethal and nonlethal fighting techniques that range from enforced 

compliance to deadly force. The purpose of close combat is to execute armed and unarmed techniques to produce 

both lethal and nonlethal results. Unarmed techniques include hand-to-hand combat and defense against handheld weapons. Armed techniques include techniques applied with a rifle. bayonet, knife, baton. or any weapon of 

opportunity." The Presidential Commission reported this definition. quoting MCO BOO.8P, in CF 1.9. p. C-34: "For 

assignment purposes, direct combat action is defined as seeking out, reconnoitering, or engaging in offensive 

action." The other services provided similar definitions that distinguished deliberate offensive action from the 

experience of being "in harm's wayH in a war zone. 

5 
80 

(FETs) also have performed security and intelligence missions, working with women and 

children in ways that men cannot. 

Conditions in the Middle East have changed since front-line Infantry and Special Operations 

Forces liberated Baghdad in 2003 and Fallujah in 2004. Nevertheless, the missions of direct 

ground combat (DGC) units, which attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action, have not 

changed. Threats from potential adversaries such as North Korea and other belligerent states 

still require readiness to fight in harsh conditions on the ground. 

All military communities that may be involved in incident-related combat deserve the best 

training and recognition for their service "in harm's way." Combat arms units that attack the 

enemy, however, have different missions and requirements, including physical strength beyond 

the capabilities of most women. Congress should support both communities by codifying clear 

definitions and reality-based principles that would improve the All-Volunteer Force. 

2. Codify women's exemptions from direct ground combat assignments 

As stated in the Appendix to this paper, there is no evidence in modern military history or 

anywhere in the world that gender-integrating these units would constitute sound policy for 

women or men in the combat arms. Direct ground combat fighting units include Army and 

Marine Infantry, Armor and Artillery forces, plus Special Operations Forces and Navy SEAL 

battalions. All require high levels of physical strength in harsh conditions, and strong team 

cohesion based on mutual trust for survival and mission accomplishment. 

To quote the late Lt. Gen. Victor "Brute" Krulak, a visionary Marine, "Congress should draw the 

line at the point of the bayonet." Tough "gender-neutral" training for combat arms battalions 

has only been possible because DGC-designated units are all-male. 

Instead of allowing the Obama Administration's gender-based "diversity" agenda to radically 

change training and assignment practices in the combat arms, Congress should codify women's 

exemptions from assignment to these units, while specifying that changes may not be made 

without express permission from Congress. Such an approach would recognize lessons learned 

since September 11, 2001, as well as realities of ground combat mission requirements that have 

not changed. 

3. Differentiate Gender-Specific (Gender-Normedl Training From "Gender-Neutral" Training 

Some military officials have used the misleading phrase "gender-neutral," which suggests 

identical training for both men and women. The Congressional Research Service has recognized 

that the phrase "gender-neutral physical standards" raises questions depending on how it is 

defined: 

6 
81 

"A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the 

same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the 

services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the 

same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually 

accomplished by either." 6 

A misleading vocabulary of gender-neutrality is still being used to disguise the existence of 

gender-specific (gender-normed) training that uses different requirements or scoring systems 

for men and women. A case in point is the 14-page document released by the U.s. Marine 

Corps on June 18, which includes equivocation and contradictory language in the fine-printed 

footnotes and other official documents: 7 

• Footnote #3 on page 2 defines "Gender-Neutral Standard" as "Performance-based, not 

specific to gender; used to measure results." This applies in heavy lift/carry events in 

which all trainees must perform the same task in the same amount oftime. 

• Contradictions begin in footnote #4, which claims that the Marines Physical Fitness Test 

(PFT), starting in calendar year (CY) 2014, "will be comprised of three gender-neutral 

events designed to measure general physical fitness (dead-hang pull-ups, crunches, and 

a 3 mile run.)" Then the note admits that the PFT is "gender-normed far score in order 

to account for physiological differences between genders. Example: A male Marine must 

run 18:00 or faster to achieve the maximum score on the 3-mile run; a female Marine 

must run 21:00 or faster to achieve the maximum score on the 3-mile run." 

• In a November 2012 ALMAR message announcing the new PFT tests, Gen. James Amos 

set forth requirements for earning a 100% score on the PFT that are clearly genderspecific, not gender-neutral. In order to get a 100% score of the PFT, women will have 

to do eight pull-ups but men will have to do twenty. 8 

6 David F. Burrelli, Congressional Research Service, 7-5700, R42075, "Women in Combat: Issues for Congress" May 

9,2013, p. 11, available at: htlp://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R42075.pdf. 

7 Report presented by Col. John Aytes, USMC, June 18, p. 2, available at: 

http://www.defense.gov/news/MarineCorpsWISRlmplementationPlan.pdf.Lt. Gen. Richard P. Mills, Deputy 

Commandant, Combat Development and Integration, said that gender-specific differences in the requirements for 

male and female PFTtrainees "are gender neutral. H Contradicting that statement, he added, "The scoring is 

gender norm (sic) because there are physical differences between males and females." The misleading statement 

is comparable to saying that men and women who work out in the same gym on the same machines are doing 

gender-neutral exercises, even though weights and resistance levels are different "because there are physical 

differences between males and females." See USMC Base Quantico report by lance Cpl. Tabitha Bartley, titled 

"Bye Bye Flexed Arm Hang," Dec. 3, 2012. http://www.dvidshub.net/news/98555/bye-bye-flex-arm-hang#.UetlqLD_nk 

8 AlMARS Active Number 046/12, "Change to the Physical Fitness Test," 12 November, 2012, signed by Gen. James 

Amos, USMC, Nov. 27, 2012. 

7 
82 

• Footnote #5 includes the same double-speak, simultaneously describing the Combat 

Fitness Test (CFT) as having three "gender-neutral events" to measure fitness. The 

events, however, are admittedly "gender-normed for score in order to account for 

physialogical differences between genders." 

• Footnote #6 does not use the phrase "gender-neutral," but it admits that women are 

allowed to use "a step" on certain obstacles in order to account for height differences 

between average men and women. The note continues, "Times required to pass the 

event are adjusted to accaunt for physiological differences between genders." 

These and similar gender-specific requirements on physical tests help to reduce injuries among 

women, and they can be justified in basic and entry-level training on that basis. The 

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces called for genderspecific standards in basic, pre-commissioning, and entry-level training, but not in preparation 

for military occupational specialties that require great physical strength and endurance. 9 

The commission's recommendation regarding entry-level training remains valid, provided that 

a) the program does not supply personnel to physically-demanding occupational specialties; 

and b) women are exempt from direct ground combat. 

Absent clarification, indications are that training standards are likely to be changed, in subtle 

ways, without notice to Congress. For example, the services could: 

a) Omit or phase out without notice the toughest physical tests in infantry and Special 

Operations Forces training. Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey has already 

signaled this would happen when he said in January that all standards will be 

"questioned" if they are "too high" for women to "make it." Regardless of what is said 

today, successors to current military leaders will be selected to implement the 

Administration's gender diversity agenda. 10 

b) Use gender-specific requirements or scoring systems that treat men and women 

differently by recognizing "equal effort" rather than equal performance. Genderhttp://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/M essagesD isplay /tabid/13286/ Article/134672/ change -to-the-physicalfitness-test.aspx . 

9 Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, November 15, 1992, 

Recommendation Issues F and G, p. 53. 

10 For example, a Marine briefing presented to the DACOWITS in September 2011 indicated that hundreds of men 

and women would be tested on six "common tasks" comparing physical abilities. In 2012, however, the six tests 

were reduced to three, the most difficult ones omitted without explanation. See CMR, "Seven Reasons Why 

Women-in-Combat 'Diversity' Will Degrade Tough Training Standards" April 21, 2013, available at: 

http://www.cmrlink.org/articies/print/36488?author=0&image=0&domain=O. 

8 
83 

normed standards can be justified in entry-level military training, but not in "tip of the 

spear" combat arms battalions that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action. 

c) Accept into Navy SEAL and Army Ranger teams less prepared men who would otherwise 

wash out. Over time this process would degrade tough, male-oriented standards - just 

to accept a few women under "equal" standards that would be reduced to 

minimum levels. 

The scenario marked (c), which is likely to be adopted in order to achieve "gender diversity 

metrics," would make standards "equal" but lower than they are right now. Gender-normed 

double standards would leave men less prepared for the intense demands of close combat on 

land, putting lives and missions at greater risk. Standards in elite fighting teams also would be 

affected if they are compelled to retain men who would otherwise be assigned elsewhere. 

Truthfully acknowledging gender-specific standards in early stages of training, which is not 

considered preparation for direct ground combat, would reduce resentment caused by 

perceptions of double standards. Conversely, if women's combat exemptions are not codified, 

all gender-normed training programs or scoring systems, including separate obstacle courses 

with lower bars or special "assists" for women, should be eliminated. 11 

4. Review All Research Data Generated by the Women in Service Reviews Since Jan. 2012 

In response to the January 2012 policy changes announced by Secretary Panetta, Gen. James 

Amos, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, announced an extensive, mUlti-phased research 

project called the Assignment of Women to Ground Combat Units Research Plan. 12 The project 

was designed to (a) Monitor and analyze the results of certain exceptions to current policies; (b) 

Survey the opinions of Marines on current policies regarding women in combat; (c) Compare 

the physical capabilities of men and women performing common tasks; (d) Test female 

volunteers on the Infantry Officer Course (laC) at Quantico, VA; and (e) Review the 

r.equirements of closed military occupational specialties (MOSs). 

For unexplained or unsatisfactory reasons, however, the Marines have withheld most of the 

non-personal data and results of research done in 2012, even from members of this committee. 

With the exception of an inadequate summary of survey results obtained by the AP, and 

infrequent news reports about three pairs of female Marine officers who (along with a 

11 Photos of the Marine Officer Candidate.$chool (OCS) obstacle course at Quantico, VA, are available at: 

http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/OCS_ObstacleCourse-Quantico.pdf 

12 Gen. James Amos, USMC, AlMAR, April 23, 2012, Assignment of Women to Ground Combat Units, available at 

http://www.marines.mil/News/Messages/MessagesDisplay/tabid/13286/Article/109426/assignment-of-womento-ground-combat-units.aspx. This project was analyzed in detail in the CMR Special Report: Defense Department 

"Diversity" Push for Women in land Combat. January 2013, available at: 

http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/CMR%20Special%20Report%20-%20January2013.pdf. 

9 
84 

significant portion of men) were not able to succeed on the Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, 

VA, non-personal data resulting from research done by the Marine Corps and other branches of 

the service has not been released for independent review. 

The services claim to have learned a great deal about the results of "Exceptions to Policy" or 

ETPs allowed since January 2012. According to news reports, however, it appears. that the 

primary evaluators of ETP have been military women themselves, and the primary criteria is 

whether women are satisfied, not combat readiness and effectiveness. 13 

This guarded process does not live up to promises of a careful, measured, and responsible 

approach to this issue. Indeed, practices that interfere with responsible congressional oversight 

and independent, public review call into question the soundness of assertions that ordering 

women into land combat battalions is "the right thing to do." 

5. Preserve Women's Exemption from Selective Service 

During his January 2013 news conference, then-Defense Secretary Panetta dismissed a question 

about Selective Service, admitting that he did not even know the person who heads the 

Selective Service Administration. 14 On April 11, 2013, the Pentagon's report to this committee 

acknowledged a turning point when circumstances would change to an extent that litigation to 

include women in Selective Service obligations and a possible future draft likely would succeed 

in court. 15 

Women in Service Review reports released on June 18, however, did not mention the issue. 

Nor did the Pentagon briefers acknowledge or express concern about the issue during their 

news conference on that day. 

The landmark Supreme Court ruling, Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), recognized the purpose of 

Selective Service registration: to prepare for the contingency of a future draft of combat troops. 

13 Dan Lamothe, Marine Corps Times, "Fit to Fight? Corps Rolls Our New Plan to Test Women's Suitability for 

Combat Jobs," July I, 2013, and Thomas Brennan, Jacksonville Daily News, "Secretary of Defense Holds Closed 

Discussion With Female Marines," July 19, 2013. Also see Virginian Pilot, Camp Lejeune, "Four Women Undergo 

Warfare Training in N.C.. 19 May, 2013, available at: http://hamptonroads.com/print/677945. 

14 CMR, "Stealth Attack on Military Women," February 21, 2013, available at: 

http://www.cmrlink.org/articies/print/36560?author=0&image=0&domain=O. 

15 The last paragraph states, "The positions covered by this notification are not positions with a primary mission to 

engage in direct ground combat. As positions in combat specialties, such as infantry, still remain closed, the 

rationale in the Rostker decision should still apply - over 230,000 positions remain closed to women, and 

consequently, men and women are not similarly situated for purposes of the Military Service Act." Absent a law or 

regulation that exempts women from the infantry and other DGC units, a federal court could decide that the 

situation described in this April 11 memo no longer applies. 

10 
85 

Because women historically have been exempt from combat, the Court upheld their Selective 

Service exemption because "Men and women ... are not similarly situated for purposes af a draft 

or registration for a draft." That status has now been changed unilaterally, with nothing 

tangible in law or policy standing in the way of women being subject to Selective Service 

obligations on the same basis as men. 

On April 13, 2013, the National Coalition for Men (NCM) filed a lawsuit in a California U.S. 

District Court, challenging the legality of male-only Selective Service registration. Citing the 

policy changes announced by Secretary Panetta, the NCM asked the court to "end the sexbased discrimination in its military draft registration program and to treat men ond women 

equally." Even if the court dismisses this premature case, the administration is unlikely to 

defend the law over time. Both President Barack Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel 

are on the record in favor of equal Selective Service obligations for women. 

Courts are not predictable, but unless Congress restores women's combat exemptions, federal 

courts are likely to overturn the Rostker precedent. Even if Congress tries to affirm men-only 

registration, the defining fact that men and women are now "similarly situated" with regard to 

combat still would remain. 

Instead of allowing federal courts to decide the issue, Congress should act to establish sound 

policy. Although many expect that there will not be a time when a draft will be needed, a 

future national emergency beyond the capacity of the All-Volunteer Force would be 

complicated even more if women are subject to Selective Service obligations. 

B. The Need for Congressional Oversight and Questions About Women in land Combat 

At the June 18 Pentagon news conference, military officials announced near-total capitulation 

to feminist advocates of what has been called a "gender-free military," under orders from 

President Barack Obama. An Army public affairs officers' email indicated that the surrender 

ceremony was originally scheduled to take place at Fort Benning, the storied Home of the 

Infantry, on June 6, the Anniversary of D-Day. Someone must have realized that the optics of 

that date would be all wrong, so the announcement was postponed until June 18. 

On that day there was almost no mention of the brutal realities of modern war - past, present, 

or future. Instead, the discussion seemed centered on Amazon Warrior Myths. The meme 

assumes without evidence that women are interchangeable with men in direct ground combat 

training and in actual wartime operations, and that issues involving human sexuality can be 

successfully mitigated in the combat arms, despite decades of experience to the contrary in 

other armed forces communities. 

On June 18, Maj. Gen. Bennet Sacolick, Force Management Director for the Special Operations 

Command, expressed primary concern about "social, cultural, and behavioral" issues, 

particularly "the men and their reaction to women in their formations." He offered no solution 

11 
86 

for the problem, except for an unserious remark that was an affront to his own troops, "The 

days of Rambo are over." 

Should the military substitute the image of bare-headed 61 Jane Demi Moore for the barechested Rambo, Sylvester Stallone? Neither image reflects reality or the professionalism of the 

Delta Force or Navy SEALs. 

Thomas Sowell showed far more wisdom in a column titled "Sex and the Military," which 

criticized the notion that the issue centers on "whether women can do the same tasks as men 

with equal efficiency." Wrote Sowell, "The real question is whether either sex functions as well 

with the other sex around. " 16 

For decades, military officials have repeatedly recommended that direct ground combat units 

remain all-male, and with good reason. With a whimper and not a bang, however, members of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff have changed course, without explaining how gender-integration would 

improve the readiness of infantry battalions. It is up to members of this committee to go 

beyond perfunctory, essentially one-way Defense-Department-centered hearings. 

Tough questions need to be asked about Defense Department policies regarding women in the 

military, inquiring about the assumptions behind the following issues and likely consequences 

of unprecedented policies that will impose new burdens on women and men in the military. 

For example, members of Congress should: 

1. Question "Critical Mass" and "Diversity Metrics" Goals Set by the MLDC 

Former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen often described "diversity" as a strategic 

imperative." 17 In January 2012, administration officials endorsed goals of the Military 

Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDe), which is pushing women into direct ground combat in 

order to achieve gender-based "diversity metrics," another name for "quotas." The 2011 MLDC 

Report admitted plans for non-remedial "diversity management," enforced by a "Chief Diversity 

Officer" (CDO) reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense, to promote "diversity metrics" and 

to hold all officers accountable for achieving them." 18 

16 Thomas Sowell, "Sex and the Military," Townhall, June 12, 2013, available at: 

http://www.combatical.com/p/overview-of-close-combat.html 

17 John K. Kruzel, Armed Forces Information Services, "Mike Mullen Speaks About Diversity in the Military," Oct. 8, 

2009, available at: http://thesop.org/story/military/2009/10/08/mike-mullen-speaks-about-diversity-in-themilitary.php. 

18 MLDC Report, Executive Summary, pp. xvii and xviii, and pp. 97-106. 

12 
87 

This concept is a radical departure from the military's honorable tradition of recognizing 

individual merit - the key to successful racial integration in the military. None of this is 

necessary to promote women's careers, since Defense Department reports have consistently 

shown for years that women are promoted at rates equal to or faster than men. 19 

On January 24, 2013, Gen. Martin Dempsey called for a "critical mass" or "significant cadre" of 

women in previously-all-male units - a phrase usually interpreted to mean 10-15 percent. To 

assign even half that number into direct ground combat units, commanders will have to 

incrementally modify male-oriented programs of instruction to accommodate women. 20 

The MLDC was authorized by Congress in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2009, but 

there is no reason to believe that Congress was authorizing the full range of recommendations 

made in the MLDC's 2011 report, including the recommendation for women in land combat. 

The MLDC charter, subsequent authorizations and funding should be revoked, and Congress 

should insist the Defense Department enforce Section 543 of current law mandating that the 

"Armed Forces [and] the Secretary of Defense ... (2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or 

ceiling except as specifically authorized by law[.]" 

Efforts to achieve the goal of a "critical mass" of women in formerly all-male DGC battalions 

would have the inevitable effect of modifying and lowering standards over time, making ground 

combat training programs less effective in preparing both men and women for the 

contingencies of war. During this process Congress will not be informed of changes made, or 

have the opportunity to intervene. 

Extensive tests in the United Kingdom as well as the United States, over the past thirty years, 

have indicated that efforts to prepare significant numbers of women for potential 

infantry/Special Operations Forces assignments would steeply increase debilitating injuries in 

training as well as during deployments. 21 The only solution will be gender-normed standards 

19 Defense Department Report to Congress on the Review of Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service 

of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces, February, 2012, pp. 3-4: "The Department reviewed all available 

information from the Military Services and did not find any indication of females having less than equitable 

opportunities to compete and excel under current assignment policy. /I 

20 Memo from General Martin E. Dempsey, CJCS, Subject: "Women in the Service Implementation Plan," 9 January 

2013, available at: http:j jcmrlink.orgjdatajsitesj85jCMRDocumentsjDempseyLetter.pdl 

21 If the Marines actually try to implement a system of identical treatment in physical training, serious injuries 

among women are likely to skyrocket. This is what happened when the British Army conducted an 18-month test 

of "gender-free" training in 1997-98, in which the British attempted to train men and women with identical 

"gender~freen standards. This experiment with ttgender-free" training was expected to make the case for women 

in land combat, but due to the high level of female injuries, together with other factors, British military authorities 

reached the opposite conclusion, and decided to restore "gender-fair" (narmed) training. 

The 2002 Gemmel Report, published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, concluded: "Despite reducing 

the number of women selected, the gender-free policy led to higher losses from overuse injuries. This study 

13 
88 

with different requirements or scoring systems, or equal-but-Iowered standards - far less 

demanding than male-oriented standards are right now. 

In the end, attempts to keep standards the same in tough training for the combat arms would 

be futile, due to feminist pressure. High standards perceived as "barriers" to women's careers 

are unlikely to withstand questions such as that put forth by Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, 

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "If a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn't 

make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain .. . why is it that high? Daes 

it really have to be that high?" Since the stated goal is to achieve "diversity metrics" and 

"success" for women, the answer will be "No." 

2. Question the Extention of Sexual Assaults and Misconduct Into the Combat Arms 

In January Gen. Dempsey made the unsupported claim that assigning women to DGC units 

would reduce sexual assaults. This argument is a peculiar throwback to feminist arguments 

made in the Navy's post-Tailhook scandal period. The remedy for alcohol-fueled misconduct 

by male and female aviators partying at a Las Vegas convention was thought to be genderintegration in naval aviation. 22 

Twenty-two years later, the Tailhook theory has been discredited. Women are as close to the 

fight as they can be, and respect for them is higher than ever. Rates of sexual misconduct and 

abuse, however, are soaring with no end in sight. 23 

Some commentators have suggested that the problem won't be stopped until the military, 

including direct ground combat units, achieve a "critical mass" of 33% women in the ranks. 24 

confirms and quantifies the excess risk for women when they undertake the some arduous training as male recruits, 

and highlights the conflict between health and safety legislation and equal opportunities legislation." See Ian M. 

M. Gemmell, JR SocMed 2002 Jan. 95{1}:23-27. PMClD: PMC 1279143, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 

Jan. 2002. Iniuries Among Female Army Recruits: A Conflict of Legislation, Abstract, p. 1, available at 

http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/gemmell-JRSocMed2002.pdf. There is no reason to believe that American 

women are stronger than their British counterparts. The November 1997 US Army Research Institute of 

Environmental Medicine report, referred to as the Natick Study, did not meet expectations of its sponsors. 

"Colonel W. Hays Parks, USMC Reserve {Ret.}, U.S. Naval Institute Magazine Proceedings, Sept. 1994, pp. 89-103, 

and Elaine Donnelly, National Review, "The Tailhook Scandals," Mar. 7, 1994. 

23 Since the first annual report of the Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office {SAPRO} in 2004, confirmed 

assaults involving military personnel have risen from 1,275 to 2,949, an increase of 129%. 

24 Army Col. Ellen Harding, and Anne Coughlin, Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School of Law, 

Christian Science Monitor, "To Prevent Sexual Assault in Military, Add More Women," July 8 & 15, 2013, p. 36. The 

authors suggest that the 33% "critical mass" goal also should apply in high-ranking positions. Following their 

recommendations, some members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should surrender their stars and allow qualified 

women to take their place. 

14 
89 

Pressures to achieve this dubious goal will ensure involuntary assignments of women to the 

combat arms in numbers sufficient to achieve "diversity metric" goals. 

Given what is known about human relationships in war, it is far more likely that sexual 

misconduct and assaults will increase when chronic problems evident in all other communities 

are extended into direct ground combat battalions. The cause will not be women - it will be 

poor judgment and flawed leadership among White House and Pentagon officials who are 

putting gender politics above the best interests of national security and the troops they lead. 

3. Question Expected Defense Department Costs for Implementing Gender-Integration Plans 

On June 18, spokesmen for all branches of the services announced they will review and validate 

335 primary military occupational specialties (PMOS) by December 2013. 2S This will be only the 

beginning of efforts to square the circle of physical differences with actual assignments that 

treat men and women as interchangeable in all combat roles. Bureaucratic talk of "phases," 

"pillars," and "lines of effort" seem detached from reality, since physical differences between 

men and women do not fit expectations of gender-neutrality in a "New Gender Order." 

More than thirty years of tests and studies in the U.S. and Britain have repeatedly confirmed 

physiological differences that would disadvantage women in training for the combat arms. 

None of the studies concluded that average women might achieve "equality" in tough infantry 

training, much less in actual combat operations. 26 

In a September 201i briefing before the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Armed 

Services, a Marine Colonel informed the DACOWITS that on average, women have 47% lower 

lifting strength, 40% lower muscle strength, 20% lower aerobic capacity (important for 

endurance), and 26% slower road march speed. In addition, both female attrition/injury rates 

during entry level training and discharge (break) rates were twice those of men, and nondeployability rates were three times higher. 27 

25 Report presented by Col. John Aytes, USMC, June 18, pp. 2-3. 

26 An Information Paper titled "Physical Suitability of Women for Assignment to Combat and Heavy Work Military 

Occupational Specialties," prepared by William J. Gregor, Ph.D., Professor of Social Sciences at the School of 

Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, KS, lists some of the studies done by military leaders in several 

countries. Available at: http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/Gregor-lnfo-Paper-20120508.pdf. 

27 Power-Point Presentation to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) 22 Sept. 

2011, p. 7, available at: 

http://dacowits.defense.gov/Reports/2011/Documents/DACOWITS%20September%202011%20Committee%20Me 

eting/16%20USMC%20WISR%20DACOWITS%20Brief.pdf. 

15 
90 

In a letter to HASC Chairman Howard P. McKeon, Rear Adm. Hugh P. Scott, MC, USN (Ret.) 

wrote that although intense training can make women stronger, underlying physical and 

physiological factors would be detrimental to the safety of women and to the operational 

effectiveness of the unit. 28 

Nevertheless, the services have pledged to expend considerable time and money following 

orders to "make it work." Before they do, Congress should ask tough, specific questions about 

expected expenditures that will detract from funding for other necessities to support mission 

readiness. For example: 

a) The U.S. Marine Corps stated on June 18 that it will develop a system of "physical screening 

tests" for use at the local recruiting station or in basic training. If this cannot be done at local 

recruit centers or in basic training, "the Corps will rely on the successful completion of MOS 

school to determine the awarding of the MOS." 

This system sounds like a revival of the Military Entrance Physical Capacity Test (MEPSCATJ, 

which was established and dismantled decades ago due to opposition from the Defense 

Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) in 1982. Adding more burdens on 

recruiting stations, and introducing practices that assign women to PMOSs for which they are 

not suited, could become a costly fiasco wasting limited resources and time. 29 

b) The Marines plan to implement plans for "Integration Education" - presumably to modify 

attitudes and behavior of men who joined the Marine Corps to defend America, not to be reeducated and socially engineered. 

c) According to a January 24 memo issued by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, the 

Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOq Analysis Center is leading a study that will examine 

the institutional and cultural barriers related to the process of gender-integration in previously 

all-male units, "in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers." General Robert W. 

Cone, who heads TRADOC, has said, "'Besides physical ability, Army officials will look at 

"traditional impediments" - the attitudes regarding the acceptance of women into previously 

male-only jobs .... The Army will take "praactive measures to mitigate resistance to women going 

into these specialties," the general said. Apparently forgetting the need for men in the military, 

the general added, "We want the right environment for women." 30 

28 June 22, 2012, letter titled "Physical and Physiological Issues Associated with the Assignment of Women to 

Direct Ground Combat Units" available at: http://cmrlink.org/data/sites/85/CMRDocuments/hscott-mckeonwicc.pdf 

29 Brian Mitchell, Flirting With Disaster, Regnery Publishing, 1998, p. 109. 

30 David Vargun, Army News Service, "Army Training Commander Promises Fair Standards for Combat Jobs," Jan. 

25, 2013, available at: http://www.defense.gov/News/NewsArticie.aspx?ID=119105. 

16 
91 

d) General Max Thurman, who came up with the famous Army recruiting slogan "Be All You Can 

Be," used to say that ours is "not an all-volunteer Army, but an all-recruited Army." 31 There are 

no indications that recruiting rates would improve if female soldiers were involuntarily assigned 

to infantry battalions. 32 Nor are there any indicators that active-duty men or women would be 

more likely to remain in the military if women were ordered into the combat arms on what 

could only be an involuntary basis. 

The Women in the Service Restrictions Review (WISRR) survey done by the Marine Corps in 

2012 was less useful than it could have been because it repeatedly asked questions about a 

non-existent voluntary women-in-combat policy that would not be workable, desirable, or 

necessary. 33 Detailed results of the 2012 survey have been withheld from the public, but the 5-

page summary obtained by the AP did not include any indication that women or men in the 

military would be more likely to stay in the armed forces if policies changed. 34 

Before plans are allowed to proceed, Congress should insist on detailed findings from surveys of 

active-duty troops already done on this subject, and additional surveys to measure the 

propensity to serve of both male and female potential recruits. 

4. Seek Independent Analysis of the Results of Social Change in the Military 

Since 1991-1992, when the Persian Gulf War deployed an unprecedented number of military 

women to the Middle East and the las Vegas Tailhook scandal rocked the Navy, decades of 

31 Quoted by Christopher L. Kolokowski, Letter to Naval Institute Proceedings magazine, "Winning the Battle, 

Losing the War," Sept. 2012, p. 83. 

32 The December 2010 Youth Poll 20 Report of the Defense Department Joint Advertising Market Research & 

Studies IJAMRS) found that the propensity of young women to serve in the military is only about a third that of 

men. See Report No. 2011-05, Sept. 2011, Table 3-4, Propensity by Race, Ethnicity, and Gender, p. 3-7, available at: 

http://www.jamrs.org/reports.php. In a presentation to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the 

Services (DACOWITS) on 22 Sept. 2011, Marine Col. John Nettles showed findings indicating that if women could 

serve in combat roles, 29% of potential female recruits said they would be less likely to join the military, compared 

to 12% of women who said they would be more likely to join. See p. 8 in slide presentation available at: 

http://dacowits.defense.gov/Reports/2011/Documents/DACOWITS%20September%202011%20Committee%20Me 

eting/16%20USMC%20WISR%20DACOWITS%20Brief.pdf. 

33 The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces investigated the 

"voluntary" option for women in combat and reported as follows: "In an all-volunteer force, if combat positions 

are opened to women and men are involuntarily assigned to those combat positions, then women should also be 

involuntarily assigned to those same positions. Different assignment policies would have a deleterious effect on 

morale, as women would have the privilege of volunteering for combat, but not the burden of being involuntarily 

assigned." Commission finding (CF) 4.13, p. C-127. 

34 CMR: Marine Survey Fails to Show Support for Women in Land Combat Units, Feb. 2, 2013, available at: 

http://www .cmrl ink. org/ articles/ pri nt/36504 ?author~O&i mage~O&d omain~O 

17 
92 

social change in the military have occurred without serious review. The last full committee 

hearing on the subject occurred in the House Armed Services Committee in 1979, 34 years ago. 

There have been numerous hearings on problems like sexual misconduct in the military, but no 

open hearings inviting independent military and civilian experts to present formal testimony 

about misguided policies that may be contributing to that problem. 

The Department of Defense has already signaled that it is not interested in an independent, 

objective review. Instead, the RAND Corporation, known for producing several rubber stamp 

reports supporting the cause of women in combat, has been directed to produce a report that 

is supposed to be "non-biased" but, according to pattern, surely will be the opposite. 35 

The House and Senate Armed Services Committees should conduct extensive hearings and an 

objective review of both historic data and research findings compiled in 2012, which will give 

insight into scores of issues not mentioned in this analysis. 

Members also should ask questions of Special Operations Forces commanders to obtain more 

information on why Lt. Gen. Sacolick expressed more concern about "social, cultural, and 

behavioral" issues than he did about physical ones. 

Proponents of further change should bear the burden of proof in showing how such changes 

would benefit both military women and men, while strengthening combat arms in the AIIVolunteer Force. 

5. Question Claims About the Militaries of Other Countries 

During the June 18 Pentagon briefing, Marine Col. Jon Aytes said the Marines are researching 

the experiences of other nations with women in combat, such as Israel, Australia, Canada, and 

the United Kingdom, suggesting that the U.K. has "taken many years to do what we're doing in 

a relatively short time." Actually, the British Ministry of Defence formally decided twice to keep 

the combat arms all-male. 

Israel conscripts its soldiers, but it does not deploy or assign women to direct ground combat 

missions far from home. Canada and Australia are valued allies, but they do not have elite 

fighting forces comparable to ours. Any review of this subject should consider the policies of 

potential adversaries, not allies alone. More information is available in the Appendix. 

Conclusion 

The issue today is not women being in war zones, where they have been, without question, 

serving with great courage "in harm's way." The issue now is assignment of women to direct 

35 CMR: Rubber Stamp RAND Report Promotes Women in Combat. Oct. 1, 2007, available at: 

http://cmrli n k. org/ articles/print/34501 ?author~O&image~O&domain~O. 

18 
93 

ground combat units, such as infantry battalions and Special Operations Forces that seek out 

and attack the enemy under fire. Any decision to change assignment policies should be based on 

the needs of the military and national security, not media pressure or the ideological goals of 

mostly-civilian "diversity" advocates. 

A female Marine gunnery sergeant who spoke to the 1992 Presidential Commission was asked 

whether women should be in the infantry. "Not if it's not good for the Corps, Ma'am." The gunnery 

sergeant's concise reply, repeated today, sets a standard that should be applied in all policy matters 

affecting our women and men in the military. 

******* 

The Center for Military Readiness is an independent public policy organization that specializes in 

military/social issues. More information on the topics in this statement are available at 

www.cmrlink.org. 

19 
94 

Appendix - The Experience of Other Allied Countries 

Great Britain 

In May 2002, the British Ministry of Defence issued a report that explained the rationale for 

the decision to retain women's exemption from direct ground combat, concluding that "only 

0.1 percent of female applicants and 1 percent of trained female soldiers" would reach the 

required standards to meet the demands of direct ground combat roles. 36 The report 

continued: 

"The military viewpoint was that under the conditions of a high intensity close-quarter 

battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance 

and, in such an enviranment, the consequences of failure can have far-reaching and 

grave consequences. To admit women would, therefore, involve a risk with no gains in 

terms of combat effectiveness to offset it.... 

"[Tlthe Secretary of State for Defence concluded that the case for lifting the current 

restrictions on women serving in combat roles has not been made for any of the units 

in question. Taking the risk that the inc/usion of women in close combat teams could 

adversely affect those units in the extraordinary circumstances of high intensity close 

combat cannot be justified." 

Eight years later, the British reviewed the issue again, and came to the same conclusion. Among 

other things, the 2010 U.K. Ministry of Defence Report on the Review of the Exclusion of 

Women From Ground Close-Combat Roles reaffirmed that "[Women's] capability in almost all 

areas is not in doubt. .. But these situations are not those typical of the small tactical teams in the 

combat arms which are required deliberotely to close with and kill the enemy." 37 

If the United Kingdom was able to apply sound principles to this issue not once, but twice, the 

American Department of Defense should be able to apply sound principles and do the same. 

36 Women in the Armed Forces Directorate of Service Personnel Policy Service Conditions, Ministry of Defence, 

May 2002, available at http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/l0B34976-75F9-47EO-B376-

AED4B09FB3B3/0/women_aCsummary.pdf. 

37 UK Ministry of Defence Report on the Review of the Exclusion of Women From Ground Close-Combat Roles2010, November 10, 2010, p. 5, Point #18 and #19, available at 

http://cmrlink.org/CMRDocuments/RptOnReviewOfExclusOfWomenFromGrndClose-CombatRoles-Nov2010.pdf. 

20 
95 

The Australian push to assign female soldiers to land combat units was the direct result of a sex 

scandal at the nation's military academy. In April 2011, amid the fallout from a series of military 

scandals at home and abroad, Defense Minister Stephen Smith proposed that all military 

positions be opened to women, including the infantry and Special Operations forces. 38 

The Australian Human Rights Commission's Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Elizabeth 

Broderick, seized the opportunity to produce a report recommending that sexual harassment 

and abuse be remedied by ordering gender "diversity" for women in all-male combat units. 39 

Broderick's report, titled Review Into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, 

is full of attractive photos of smiling women in uniform and a list of 21 recommendations. 

This report (and a second one that the Australian Department of Defence recently presented to 

the DACOWITS) primarily promote combat assignments as the best way to reduce problems 

with sexual harassment and assault and to promote women's careers. 40 Neither report offers a 

solid rationale for the five-year plan in terms of military necessity, other than "the Army is going 

to do this." 

Due to a lack of interest among Australian women - not a single one volunteered for the new 

positions - Human Rights Commissioner Broderick recommended that women be offered a "try 

before you buy" 12-month sign-up option. Ms. Broderick also recommended that "occupational 

segregation" be countered with programs to recruit a "critical mass" of women, and to offer 

them flexible "workplace" schedules. 41 

Far from being "ahead" of the United States, Australian leaders are implementing flawed 

priorities for the wrong reasons, adopting the full range of "remedies" that have not worked to 

38 Matt Siegel, New York Times, "Australia Says It Will Open Combat Roles to Women," Sept. 27, 2011, available at 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/world/asia/australia-will-allow·women-to·serve-in-frontline· 

combat.html? _r~l&pagewanted~print. "In the most notorious case, a male cadet at the elite Australian Defense 

Force Academy was caught streaming video of himself having sex with a female cadet to his friends via Skype 

without her knowledge." Also see: BBC News ASia, "New Sex Scandals Hit Australia's Military Forces," 15 Jan. 2012, 

available at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worid-asia-16524952?print~true. 

39 Elizabeth Broderick, Review Into the Treatment of Women in the Australian Defence Force, Australian Human 

Rights Commission,20l2, formerly available at http://www.humanrights.gov.au/defencereview/ADF _report/' 

40 Australian Government Department of Defence, Brief to DACOWITS 27 Sept. 2012, "Changes to How Women Are 

Employed in the Australian Defence Force," available at: 

http://dacowits.defense.gov/Reports/20l2/Documents/DACOWITS%20September%202012%20Committee%20Me 

eting/September%20Meeting%20Binder.pdf. 

41 Misha Shubert, Sydney Morning Herald: "Women To 'Try Before They Buy' Combat Roles," Aug. 26, 2012, 

available at http://www.smh.com.au/action/printArticle?id~3584203. 

21 
96 

mitigate social problems in our own military. Australia is a valued ally, but it should not become 

a role model for radical cultural change in America's armed forces. 

Canada & Other Countries 

In February 2013 National Public Radio prepared a useful summary showing that most of the 

smaller countries that "allow" women to serve in close combat units are not directly involved in 

aggressive combat actions comparable to those led by the United States.42 The 1992 

Presidential Commission interviewed representatives of several NATO allies, and produced 

similar findings. 

Circumstances varied widely, but the Presidential Commission reported, "Historically, those 

nations thot have experienced or actually placed women in close combat situatians, (Soviet 

Union, Germany, and Israel) [did so] during times of grave threats to their national survival. 

After the crisis passed, each nation adopted policies which excluded the employment of women 

in cam bat. ,,43 (In 2001, Germany complied with an order of the European Court of Justice to 

eliminate restrictions on women in their military.) 

In Israel, which has conscription and exists under constant threats, most able-bodied citizens, 

including women, serve in the military. Women who train men for combat positions are 

considered "combat multipliers," not combat soldiers. Some women have been deployed to 

patrol the border, but these missions do not involve direct ground combat against the enemy. 

In establishing equal opportunity as the primary consideration in formulating military personnel 

policies, representatives of countries such as Denmark and the Dutch Armed Forces clearly 

stated that their primary concern was equal opportunity, not combat effectiveness. 44 After 

meeting with a Canadian delegation, the Presidential Commission reported, "In a 1989 decision 

by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunol, all combat positions in the Canadian Forces (CF), 

except submarines, were opened to women. The primary cansideration was equal opportunity. 

No attempts were made to consider the impact on operational readiness or unit effectiveness. 

No credence was given to a military study (SWINTER), ongoing during the time of the decision, 

which indicated difficulties would be anticipated. ,,4S 

42 Joshua Keating, National Public Radio, "Foreign Policy - Women on the Front Lines, " February 13, 2012, available 

at http://www.npr.org!2012!02!13!146802589!foreign-policy-women-on-the-front-lines. 

43 Presidential Commission Report, CF 1.104A, 1.105, 1.106, 1.125, 1.129, pp. C-61 through C-67, and Canadian 

Trip Report, 28-31 July and International Trip Report, 16-25 September, pp. C-21 through C-31. 

44 Presidential Commission Report, CF 1.104A, 1.105, 1.106, 1.125, 1.129, pp. C-61 through C-67, and Canadian 

Trip Report, 28-31 July and International Trip Report, 16-25 September, pp. C-21 through C-31. 

45 Ibid, CF 1.129, p. C-67. 

22 
97 

Countries that have decided previously or in recent years to assign women to combat positions 

in the ground, naval, and air forces have done so primarily for reasons of "equal opportunity," 

(now called "diversity") rather than military necessity. 

Unlike Denmark, the Netherlands, Canada, and other allied nations, the American Armed Forces 

cannot afford to make similar tradeoffs, elevating "equal opportunity" above military necessity. 

This is especially so when potential adversaries in a dangerous world are not operating under 

the same "diversity" rules. 

23 
98 

combat 

ell Integration 

Initiative 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF WOMEN IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY 

FOR A HEARING ON 

WOMEN IN THE SERVICES 

Submitted to the Subcommittee on Personnel of the u.s. House Committee on Armed Services 

Women 

July 24, 2013 

WIIS Washington Office 

Combat Integration Initiative Project Directors 

Ellen Haring, Anne Coughlin and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat 

InTf'rn;",",n", Security, 1111 

WIIS \\'nnw" In Inh"'nalilmul 

Sp('urily 

NE, Washington, D.C. 20013 
99 

combat 

ell Integration 

Initiative 

Combat Integration Initiative 

On January 24, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) announced its decision to eliminate the ground 

combat exclusion policy and begin the process of opening 238,000 direct ground combat positions to 

women. With this historic development, the u.s. joins a growing list of countries in which all military 

positions are open to women on an equal basis to men. 1 

To support the successful and expeditious integration of women into the newly opened combat 

positions, Women In International Security (WIIS) and the Stockholm International Peace Research (SIPRI) 

North America have teamed up to establish the Combat Integration Initiative (CII). 

The Combat Integration Initiative (CII) is a working group composed of veterans, servicemembers, 

lawyers, scholars, and members of civil society who are committed to the full integration of women 

across all branches and occupational specialties of the Armed Services. 

Background 

Since 2001, nearly 300,000 female service members have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. More 

than 900 women have been wounded in those theaters, and more than 150 have died. 2 As of February 

2013, 16,407 female service members were deployed in contingency operations around the world. As 

DOD recognized in its January 2013 decision, constructs such as 'direct ground combat' or 'forward 

deployed' are irrational and arbitrary in the context of contemporary military operations. Today, the 

effect, if not purpose, is to discriminate against women. For example, women involved in convoy escort 

operations, or those serving on female engagement teams are as likely to come under fire as the men 

who serve in direct ground combat units. 

That said, implementation of the new policy will require sustained efforts at multiple levels. Indeed, 

previous experiences with integration policies have shown that as women assume new roles and 

responsibilities they encounter a multitude of challenges. For example, when women first integrated 

aviation units they met structural barriers that prevented them from accomplishing their assigned duties. 

Early Navy female helicopter pilots were restricted to land based operations since women were excluded 

from Navy ships. These contradictory policies reduced the women's effectiveness and created resentment 

among male colleagues who had to shoulder additional duties. Similarly, when combat restrictions were 

removed in the early 1990s, female fighter pilots encountered strong and often debilitating cultural 

resistance to their employment in combat cockpits. 

As the military opens up the new positions, it must take into account lessons learned from previous 

experiences, which establish that many potential problems can be overcome through good planning, 

training, mentoring and monitoring. Successful implementation of the policy will depend on four critical 

conditions: 

1 Women serve in dose combat specialties in Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, the 

Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden. 

2 David F. Burelli, Women In Combot: Issues for Congress, CRS, May 9, 2013, p.ii (Summary) 

Women in International Security, 1111 NE, D.C. 
100 

combat 

elI Integration 

Initiative 

1. Communicating policy changes clearly and ensuring consistency and follow through. Past 

experiences demonstrate the need for transparent and comprehensive implementation of the 

steps required to achieve integration. For example, in February 2012, DOD made a policy change 

that was intended to open 14,000 new positions to women. Under the new policy, women in 

open specialties were to be permanently assigned and no longer temporarily attached to ground 

combat units. However, it took almost 18 months to fully notify Congress of the changes. Worse 

still, the notification imposed ceilings on the number of women who could be assigned to certain 

units. As a result, many in and outside of the military services became confused as to the stated 

and practical requirements imposed on the services. This confusion led to uneven implementation 

and unfair practices. 

2. Establishing gender-neutral occupational standards. DOD has pledged to develop genderneutral occupationally driven standards that are based on precise job requirements and not on 

culturally constructed notions of the ideal warrior. It is crucial that the services use objective and 

rigorous methods to gather the data to formulate these standards. Fortunately, other countries 

have developed such methods, so that we need not reinvent the methodological wheel. For 

example, the Canadian Defense Forces now employ quantitative monitoring of soldiers during 

combat operations. The CDF arrived at this methodology over a period of years and after many 

mistakes, which we need not repeat. 

3. Training leaders and addressing unit culture. Early integration efforts establish that unit leaders 

can make all the difference in how new groups are accepted and assimilated. A robust and 

effective training program for leaders is critical to creating and fostering a productive integration 

climate. This type of training should be provided to all combat units that are newly opened to 

women and DOD senior leaders must make clear that integration is a top priority. 

4. Understanding the role of critical mass and mentors. DOD plans to integrate mid-grade women 

into the leadership chain of combat units in order to establish a mentoring mechanism before 

junior women. However, the low numbers of women currently serving in mid-grade positions 

may make this approach impracticable. More to the point, it is critical that we begin to define 

and provide mentoring that itself is free of gender bias. The lack of female leaders/mentors 

should not close off certain units for women. Certainly, we have seen that men make good 

mentors too and with the right training and mentoring they can successfully guide junior women 

as they join all-male units. The Swedish military piloted the use of "gender coaches" in 2005, and 

they found that these coaches had a significant impact on the leadership and training of men and 

women in combat specialties. 

Implementation Monitoring 

Each of the military departments and the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) submitted their 

proposed plans for eliminating the remaining restrictions imposed by the now rescinded direct ground 

Women in International Security, l1l1 Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20013 
101 

combat 

elI Integration 

Initiative 

combat assignment rule in writing to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in June, 2013. 3 On 

June 27, 2013, CII teams reviewed the plans for their clarity, specificity, and transparency; their analysis 

is presented below. 

General Observations: As required by OSD's order rescinding the direct ground combat assignment 

rule, each branch has submitted a separate plan for opening to women career fields that formerly were 

closed. In its review, Cli studied each plan, and, in sections below, we offer commentary and questions 

about each of the plans as a standalone effort. However, it also is essential to study the plans as a whole 

and to compare, even closely cross-reference, their provisions for consistency. In a number of crucial 

instances, decisions made in one plan will affect decisions made by others. Thus, there will be a need to 

identify and reconcile potential conflicts between the plans to ensure that they support, rather than 

undercut, each other. To pick just one salient example, it is clear that SOCOM's policies will directly 

affect each of the service's implementation plans because all of the services' special operations forces 

(SOF) will have to work for SOCOM at varying points in their careers in order to ensure career 

progression. Likewise, it seems to be the case that the standards for employment in some Navy 

specialties may conflict with Marine Corps policies and implementation timelines. At this point, it is not 

clear how these conflicts will be managed. In order to avoid confusion and unnecessary duplication of 

effort down the road, OSD must recognize this problem up front and develop a process for identifying 

and resolving these inherent conflicts. 

Each plan contains provisions that explicitly rely on the "guiding principles" invoked by the Chairman of 

the Joint Chiefs of Staff in his memorandum of January 9, 2013, entitled "Women in the Service 

Implementation Plan." As tends to be the case with general guidelines, some of the terms used in the 

Chairman's "guiding principles" are abstract and/or not clearly defined. In more than one instance in the 

implementation plans, some of these crucial terms have been given different and potentially conflicting 

interpretations by different departments. We highlight some of the significant points of difference here, 

together with additional general remarks. 

First, the Chairman stated that the implementation plans should ensure "that a sufficient cadre of 

midgrade/senior women enlisted and officers are assigned to commands at the point of introduction to 

ensure success in the long run." This directive raises some important questions. 

(a) What constitutes "a sufficient cadre" of midgrade and senior women? The Chairman does not define 

that term, and the implementation plans contain varying interpretations of the requirement. 

(b) What happens in the short term if there is no "sufficient cadre" of mid-level and senior women 

available "at the point of introduction"? Most crUCially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications 

for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

3 All of the implementation plans as well as the General Dempsey's Memorandum regarding Women in the Service 

Implementation Plan of 9 January 2013 are available for review at: http://wiisglobal.org/wordpressl/combatintegration~initiative/dod-implementation-plans-and-ann ouncementsl 

Women in International Security, 1111 Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20013 
102 

combat 

ell Integration 

Initiative 

(c) The answer to the prior question depends, in turn, on the reason for imposing the cadre requirement 

in the first place. Why does "success in the long run" depend on having a sufficient cadre of senior 

women in place before junior women arrive? We fear that the cadre requirement itself may prove to be 

one of the "unnecessary gender-based barriers to service" that the Chairman declares must be 

eliminated. That is, the requirement seems to rest on the assumption that men either are unwilling or 

cannot be trained to support the introduction of small numbers of well-qualified women into their 

ranks. This premise is belied by the experiences of many servicewomen and veterans in CII, including 

those of us who served as combat pilots when no "cadre" existed and those of us who deployed to Iraq 

and Afghanistan as parts of small teams of women accompanying large, all-male units of ground combat 

troops. At a minimum, therefore, the cadre requirement must be closely monitored so that it does not 

make it impossible for women to enter some of the formerly closed occupational fields at all. 

Second, the Chairman directed the services to develop, validate, and implement gender- neutral 

"occupational performance standards, both physical and mental, for all military occupational specialties 

(MOSs), specifically those that remain closed to women." Once again, the implementation plans take 

inconsistent positions with respect to this crucial directive. Some plans propose to satisfy this 

requirement by conducting rigorous research. Other plans assert that there is no need to follow this 

directive because the branch in question already has in place valid, gender-neutral occupational 

standards. For example, SOCOM and the Marine Corps assert that their standards are already gender 

neutral because they are task based. However, at this juncture, it is critical for each department to 

follow the Chairman's directive carefully, to take a fresh look at all standards to assess their 

occupational relevance, and to develop and validate new standards as necessary. To say the least, a 

decision to rely on the current standards creates a significant risk that the branches will reinforce 

unnecessary gender-based obstacles to service. It is likely that traditional, invalid, and outmoded 

notions of warrior competencies have heavily influenced the current standards. If that is the case, the 

current standards are unlikely to satisfy the Chairman's mandate, and a decision to keep them in place 

could result in not only criticism but also potential legal challenges. 

Third, the Chairman's memo established several clear benchmarks for the timing of integration. The 

dates are: 

1. 15 May 2013: Implementation Plans due (completed and released to the public on 17 June 

2013) 

2. September 2015: Gender neutral occupational standards set 

3. December 2015: All studies complete 

4. January 2016: All positions open unless an exception to policy is requested 

5. Quarterly update reports are due NTL 10 days after the end of each quarter: 10 July 2013, 10 

OCT 2013,10 Jan 2014,10 APR 2014,10 JUL 2014,10 OCT 2014,10 JAN 2015, 10 APR 2015,10 

JUL 2015,10 OCT 2015 

By contrast, the timelines provided in the plans themselves are unclear and difficult to decipher. Indeed, 

the various plans present varying timelines, with some steps being completed in advance of set 

deadlines, others coming after deadlines, and still others impossible to pin down with any precision. This 

Women in International Security, 1111 Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20013 
103 

Co1Ubat 

elI Integration 

Initiative 

lack of clarity creates confusion, as well as the potential for inconsistent results, which will impair 

military readiness. 

Finally, none of the plans details a mechanism or process for obtaining external input to support the 

necessary studies for data collection, the creation of best practices, and so forth. Likewise, none of the 

plans identifies any mechanism for communicating to the force or to the public the results of the 

studies, research, and decisions made along the road to integration. SoliCiting external input and 

engaging in strategic communications could reduce the risks of methodological errors, limit the spread 

of misinformation, facilitate getting buy-in from the force by increasing servicemember confidence in 

the process, and ease Congress' oversight duties. 

About CII: Cli's mission is to support the full integration of women across all branches and occupational 

specialties of the Armed Services. 

CII will have achieved its mission when all military occupational specialties are based upon specific, 

consistent, and validated standards and are open to all applicants without regard to gender. 

Project Directors: 

Dr. Chantal de longe Oudraat, Executive Director SIPRI North America and President pro tempore WIIS 

Colonel Ellen Haring, United States Army Reserve 

Professor Anne Coughlin, University of Virginia School of Law 

Lead Project Officer: Masha Keller, SIPRI NA cii@wiisglobal.org 

For more information contact: 

SIPRI NA/WIIS http://wiisglobal.org(wordpress1!combat-integration-initiative/ 

111119th Street NW 12th floor 

Washington DC 20035 

Tel 202-552 5401 

Women in International Security, 1111 Street, NE, Washington, D.C. 20013 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JULY 24, 2013 

(107) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS 

General BROMBERG. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is currently developing and validating gender-neutral physical standards for the currently closed 

occupations. The Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is used by all 

services for cognitive evaluation. The ASVAB is a multiple-aptitude battery that 

measures developed abilities and helps predict future academic and occupational 

success in the military. [See page 10.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

General BROMBERG. U.S. Army Training Doctrine Command (TRADOC) trains 

Soldiers to meet the occupational requirements of their unique specialty. This will 

not change. Different Soldiers may use different techniques to accomplish tasks, 

however, many tasks are very prescriptive in the manner they are performed due 

to the equipment used. For example, vehicle mechanics must often perform maintenance tasks in a specific sequence. TRADOC has conducted gender integrated training successfully for many years and has no plans to return to gender segregated 

training. Training the males and females differently (separately), contradicts the intent of integrating the Army and can be perceived as training to different standards 

or inequitable treatment of Soldiers. [See page 14.] 

General MILSTEAD. Our entry level training ensures Marines are screened and 

provided with the requisite training and skills to successfully meet the needs of the 

total force and the rigors of combat. The Marine Corps does this by first transforming civilians into ‘‘Basically Trained Marines’’ at Recruit Training; second by 

training all Marines in the basic combat skills necessary to perform the duties of 

a provisional rifleman at Marine Combat Training (MCT); and third by providing 

them the basic knowledge and skills at the MOS Schools required to perform the 

duties of their assigned Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). 

Male and female recruits train separately in Recruit Training in order to foster 

the transformation from civilian to Marine. This approach allows young female recruits the environment needed to focus and build self-confidence without distractions, embrace service core values, refine skills, and adjust to military life. It also 

provides a setting with confidentiality to address prior service sexual assault or harassment incidents and most importantly provides young female recruits a structured 

environment with strong female role models (drill instructors) to emulate. We feel 

this approach is necessary and beneficial to both female and male recruits and sets 

the foundation necessary for both male and female recruits to succeed as Marines 

during the rest of their entry level training and time in the Corps. 

After completing Recruit Training, female and male Marines assigned to an open 

MOS attend Marine Combat Training (MCT) at the School of Infantry (SOI)-East 

at Camp Lejeune, NC. Marines train side-by-side at MCT and learn the basic combat skills necessary to perform the duties of a Provisional Rifleman. Once they graduate from MCT, Marines train together at open MOS schools. As we open closed 

MOS schools to female Marines, male and female Marines will train together. As 

female Marines are integrated into the student population in previously closed MOS 

Schools, we will use their pre- and post-graduation performance data with our System Approach to Training (SAT) process to continually evaluate and improve their 

curriculums. This is the same process we follow for male Marines who attend these 

MOS schools. Following this process, the Marine Corps is confident we will continue 

to improve the quality of our formal Programs of Instruction, continue to advance 

mastery for both men and women and continue to meet the MOS/billet training requirements of the total force. [See page 14.] 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO 

General BROMBERG. During the period of 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2013, the overall active duty discharge rate from Basic Combat Training was 7.9%; for females 

it was 14.5% and for males it was 6.2%. During the year prior, 1 August 2011 to 
108 

31 July 2012, the overall active duty discharge rate from Basic Combat Training 

was 7.1%; for females it was 12.7% and for males it was 5.6%. [See page 17.] 

General MILSTEAD. Entry level training attrition rates, by gender, for FY08 thru 

FY11 are annotated on the below table. It should be noted that after entry level 

training, the attrition rates for male and female Marines who do not complete their 

initial contract are similar with the female attrition rate at 5.2% and the male attrition rate at 5.1%. [See page 17.] 

Entry Level Training Attrition Rates 

% of Attrition due to 

medical/psychological 

Male Female Male Female 

Recruit Training 9.0% 15.7% 43.0% 50.0% 

Marine Combat Training 1.5% 1.7% 24.0% 49.0% 

Officer Candidate School 19.6% 42.0% 27.0% 40.0% 

The Basic School 5.6% 11.0% 4.0% 14.0% 

General SACOLICK. USSOCOM is still in the assessment phase of its Women in 

Service implementation effort, and therefore is still trying to ascertain what concerns are warranted regarding the integration of women into Special Operations 

Forces (SOF). Certain factors from a social cohesion and task cohesion stand point 

will be studied over the coming months to identify potential obstacles. For social cohesion, we will be looking at the human interactions that occur when people are 

placed in remote locations, in close proximity to one another, and forced to rely extensively, perhaps exclusively, on the other members of a small team in order to 

succeed in their tasks, and perhaps for their safety and well-being. We already know 

from our experience with our current force that these factors lead to the team members developing close bonds. Task cohesion factors of concern are: different reactions 

to stress, performance expectations, and the ability to engage in teamwork. These 

factors are going to be studied to gain a better understanding of the magnitude, nature, and scope of the potential concerns of SOF personnel. This will help us anticipate challenges that may arise and allow for a seamless transition. [See page 17.] 

General SWEREDOSKI. Attrition rates at Navy Recruit Training Command: 

Males Females Total 

Fiscal Year 10 8.0% 13.0% 9.0% 

Fiscal Year 11 8.3% 14.6% 9.7% 

Fiscal Year 12 9.6% 14.4% 10.5% 

Fiscal Year 13 (YTD) 8.0% 11.3% 8.8% 

Note: Fiscal Year 13 Year to Date (YTD) attrition is from October 1, 2012 through 

July 31, 2013. [See page 17.] 

General GROSSO. The following tables reflect Air Force attrition rates. 

ACRONYMS 

AD: Active Duty 

BMT: Basic Military Training 

BOT: Basic Officer Training 

COT: Commissioned Officer Training 

IST: Initial Skills Training 

OTS: Officer Training School 

ROTC: Reserve Officers’ Training Corps 

AD Enlisted BMT Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition 

FY12 Female 5,339 407 7.62% 

Male 23,475 1,229 5.24% 

Total 28,814 1,636 5.68% 
109 

AD Enlisted IST Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition 

FY12 Female 4,921 305 6.20% 

Male 23,301 1,414 6.07% 

Total 28,222 1,719 6.09% 

Active Duty (AD)

Officers Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition 

AY12 AF Academy Female 980 49 5.00% 

Male 3,561 237 6.66% 

Total 4,541 286 6.30% 

FY12 ROTC Female 471 48 10.20% 

Male 1,576 233 14.80% 

Total 2,047 281 13.72% 

FY12 OTS/BOT Female 69 2 2.90% 

Male 495 44 8.89% 

Total 564 46 8.16% 

FY12 COT Female 570 1 0.18% 

Male 666 4 0.60% 

Total 1,236 5 0.00% 

Total AD Officers Female 2,090 100 4.78% 

Male 6,298 518 8.22% 

Total 8,388 618 7.37% 

AD Officer IST

(not rated) Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition 

FY12 Female 445 12 2.70% 

Male 1,381 44 3.19% 

Total 1,826 56 3.07% 

AD Rated Officer IST Female 180 8 4.40% 

AY12 Male 2,868 94 3.30% 

Total 3,048 102 3.35% 

Total AD Officers IST Female 625 20 3.20% 

AY12/FY12 Male 4,249 138 3.25% 

Total 4,874 158 3.24% 

[See page 17.] 
110 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER 

General BROMBERG. The Fiscal Year 2012 Brigadier General, Army Competitive 

Category Promotion Selection Board was conducted in compliance with law and regulation. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 617, the board 

carefully considered the record of each officer whose name was furnished to the 

board. The board found that, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the 

board, the officers recommended for promotion by the board were best qualified for 

promotion to meet the needs of the Department of the Army. The board membership, approved by the Secretary of the Army, complied with Title 10, United States 

Code, Section 612 and consisted of 19 general officers. The officers who were selected by the Fiscal Year 2012 Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board were the best qualified for promotion and it is an anomaly 

that, of the best qualified officers, none in this case happened to be female. The Department of the Army has reviewed the results of every Brigadier General, Army 

Competitive Category board for which we have record and, with the exception of the 

Fiscal Year 2012 board, find no previous board where no female was selected. In 

fact from 1989 until 2011, females have been selected at a higher rate (2.24) than 

males (2.16). [See page 18.] 

General BROMBERG. The goal of a Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category 

Promotion Selection Board is to recommend the ‘‘best qualified’’ colonels for promotion to brigadier general who will make the greatest contribution to the Army 

and Department of Defense, regardless of ethnicity and gender. Board members are 

directed by the Secretary of the Army to consider all eligible colonels in the considered population. 

In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 616(b), the Secretary of 

the Army establishes the maximum number of officers that the selection board may 

recommend for promotion from the officers being considered. Pursuant to Title 10, 

United States Code, section 622, this number is determined based on the number 

of positions needed to accomplish mission objectives, the estimated number of officers needed to fill vacancies in such positions, and the number of officers authorized 

by the Secretary of the Army to serve on active duty in that grade. Once the board 

has convened, the board members are briefed on the board process and the details 

contained in the Secretary of the Army’s Memorandum of Instruction (i.e., number 

to be selected, specific requirements by skill set and other direction for the conduct 

of the board). 

The board process for a Brigadier General Promotion Selection Board is as follows: Each board member considers every eligible colonel in the considered population and votes to determine if the officer’s performance record and qualifications 

merit further consideration. Based on this vote, an order of merit list is established. 

After the order of merit list is established, the board votes to determine the number 

of officers who will be further considered. The board then further considers those 

officers. During this phase of the board, board members may discuss their own personal knowledge and evaluation of the professional qualifications of eligible officers. 

Board members may not discuss or disclose the opinion of any person not a member 

of the board concerning an officer being considered unless that opinion is contained 

in material provided to the board. After discussion of the officers under consideration, the board members conduct a blind vote of each officer under consideration 

by designating a score for each officer. Each officer’s collective score is tallied and 

that total score is used to establish an order of merit list. Using the order of merit 

list, the ‘‘best qualified’’ officers are determined based on selection requirements established by the Secretary of the Army. [See page 19.] 
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JULY 24, 2013 

(113) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. Currently, women are being allowed to serve in previously closed 

units in open specialties in some units. This practice is being inconsistently applied 

across the Services. For example, women in the Army are being assigned down to 

the battalion level in open specialties but not to the company level in combat arms 

units. In the USMC, women are still prohibited from being assigned to the battalion 

level in most combat arms units. Will OSD establish a policy on women serving in 

previously closed combat units in currently open MOSs? Can women who serve in 

an open MOS be assigned to combat units at all levels, and if not, why not, and 

when will that change? 

Ms. BEYLER. The Services and USSOCOM are required to open positions and 

units in a manner consistent with the Joint Chiefs’ Guiding Principles. They are 

further required to meet interim milestones and goals. Due to differing force structures and operational requirements, the Services and USSOCOM have been given 

authority to implement rescission of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule as they determine necessary, consistent with the direction set out in 

the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum of January 9, 2013. Integration of women into newly opened positions and units will occur as expeditiously as 

possible, considering good order and judicious use of fiscal resources, but must be 

completed no later than January 1, 2016. Any recommendation to keep an occupational specialty or unit closed to women must be personally approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then the Secretary of Defense. This approval 

may not be delegated. Exceptions must be narrowly tailored, and based on a rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills, and abilities for the 

position. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Will OSD require each Service to brief OSD and Congress on how 

it is developing its gender-neutral occupational standards? Who is leading this effort 

within each branch, and what methods are they using to develop these standards? 

Will OSD also ask them to provide a briefing on their use of social science or ‘‘cultural’’ studies in the development of gender-neutral occupational standards? 

Ms. BEYLER. Yes, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Chiefs are monitoring the progress the Services and USSOCOM are making toward integration of 

women into previously closed occupations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, 

the Services, and USSOCOM will provide periodic updates to Congress. 

Each Service and USSOCOM are working with various scientific and research 

agencies (U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Center for 

Naval Analyses, Air Education and Training Command, and RAND) to review and 

validate occupational standards to ensure they are current and operationally valid 

and are applied on a gender-neutral basis. Each Service and USSOCOM are conducting thorough doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy analysis to ensure deliberate and responsible 

implementation. This analysis also addresses the social science or cultural impacts 

as needed. However, at this time it is too early to draw any conclusions. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Will the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) require the service 

branches to recognize and build upon the combat experience that current servicewomen gained in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will servicewomen who were attached to 

or otherwise served alongside combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq be eligible for 

leadership positions requiring combat specialties? Will the service branches develop 

a plan to enable such women to cross-train and compete for leadership positions in 

combat units? Could OSD build upon the already-existing ‘‘cadre’’ of women with 

OIF/OEF combat experience by encouraging women who were attached to combat 

units, served in FET/CST/Lioness and so on to branch transfer or cross-train for 

newly opening leadership positions within previously closed units and even new 

MOSs? Could OSD ask the service branches to do a review and training to ensure 

that promotion boards, briefers, and those in charge of assembling the ‘‘cadre’’ are 

trained to recognize the often-hidden combat service of women who deployed with 

FET, attached to combat units, and so on? Could OSD send a memo to outline the 

criteria for assembling this cadre? 
114 

Ms. BEYLER. The Department believes the Services should explore all means to 

build upon the combat experience women have gained in Afghanistan and Iraq. 

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs guiding principle in regard to ‘‘cadres’’ seeks 

to provide mid-to-senior grade female leadership for women assigned to previously 

closed positions. Achieving sufficient numbers may require an adjustment to recruiting efforts, assignment processes, and personnel policies. Assimilation of women into 

heretofore ‘‘closed units’’ will be informed by continual in-stride assessments and incremental opening efforts. Each Service will develop criteria for sufficient cadres for 

each unique occupational skill as positions are opened. Additionally, as effective 

gender integration strategies are identified, through formal analysis the Department 

will ensure the data, lessons learned and best practices are shared across the Services. While assignment strategies are evolving, sufficient cadres may include senior 

female personnel that are co-located, but not necessarily in the same occupational 

skill. 

Leadership can be developed in a number of ways. One strategy is to place midto-senior level female leadership in the same organization, or co-located with junior 

service members assigned to previously closed positions. The Services will leverage 

a number of strategies, based in research, analysis and lessons learned, to set service members up for success in newly opened positions. A lack of MOS-qualified female mentors is not a reason to keep a position closed. No specified number of 

women required for assignment exists. In some cases, one qualified female may be 

sufficient. To entertain a pre-conceived ‘‘critical mass’’ suggests there is a quota, 

which would be a disservice to women entering these occupations. Since each Service is unique in organizational structure and mission, we believe the Services are 

in the best position to determine how to build a sufficient cadre to assimilate women 

into previously closed positions and occupations. 

Regarding promotion boards, the Secretaries of the Military Departments convene 

and provide guidance to officer promotion selection boards. Each of the Secretaries 

gives guidance to these boards to recommend the best qualified officers for promotion regardless of their gender. This guidance also includes wording on the importance of combat, combat related, combat support activities, and nation-building 

experience in our future leaders. 

Ms. TSONGAS. What happens in the short term if there is no ‘‘sufficient cadre’’ of 

mid-level and senior women available ‘‘at the point of introduction’’? Most crucially, 

will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from 

serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

Ms. BEYLER. Cadre is one of the five Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Guiding Principles and but one of many other considerations the Services will factor in 

as they implement the rescission of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule. The National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 1994, 

Section 543, specifically provides that the Department may not use a gender quota, 

goal or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law, with regard to qualifications 

of members of the Armed Forces, and for continuance of members in open occupational career fields. 

Cadre requirements will vary depending on the needs of the Services, the units, 

and the occupations. We do not envision that cadre alone will bar a woman from 

serving in a specific position. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Will the Army expand on its rationale for not opening Ranger 

School in the early phase of its plan? It is well recognized that Ranger School is 

a prestigious leadership training course now available only to men in a range of occupational specialties. 

General BROMBERG. While the Army has many courses and programs designed to 

provide leader development and training, the primary purpose of the Ranger Course 

is to provide Ranger Qualified Soldiers to meet Army Ranger authorization requirements. The training is voluntary and completion of the course is not required for 

service in any of the Army’s basic Career Management Fields (CMF). Approximately 

eighty percent of the requirements for Ranger Qualified Soldiers are in the Infantry 

or Special Forces Career Management Fields; occupations currently closed to females. Therefore, the Army plans to open the Ranger Course with the opening the 

Infantry Career Management Field or as expeditiously as possible afterwards in coordination with USSOCOM. We will proceed in this deliberate manner to ensure we 

can capture lessons learned from the opening of the basic career management fields. 

This deliberate and informed approach is essential to ensure we comprehend the impacts on small unit missions normally associated with infantry/ranger squads and 

platoons, both the physical and cultural aspects of integration of it as we go 

forward. 
115 

Ms. TSONGAS. What happens in the short term if there is no ‘‘sufficient cadre’’ of 

mid-level and senior women available ‘‘at the point of introduction’’? Most crucially, 

will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from 

serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

General BROMBERG. The lack of Military Occupational Specialty qualified female 

mentors is not a criterion to keep a position closed and women will not be barred 

from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient. 

Sufficient cadre can be developed in a number of ways. One strategy is to place 

mid-to-senior level female leadership in the same organization, or co-located with 

junior service members assigned to previously closed positions. Assimilation of 

women into heretofore ‘‘closed units’’ and ‘‘elite positions’’ is evolving. The Army will 

leverage a number of strategies, based on research, analysis and lessons learned, 

to set service members up for success in newly opened positions. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Based on its plan, does the possibility exist that the Marine Corps 

will close previously open units and MOSs? 

General MILSTEAD. All units and MOSs that were open under the 1994 Direct 

Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule will remain open to women. 

Ms. TSONGAS. The Marine Corps plan indicates that observation of the performance of a handful of women volunteers, less than 10, in the Infantry Officer Course 

(IOC) is being factored into the decision on whether to open previously closed MOSs. 

What is the purpose of allowing entry-level women to volunteer for the IOC course? 

What research organization is conducting this study and what is their research 

methodology? Have the physical tests in the IOC been validated as part of an occupational standards review for infantry officers? And, if so, can you describe the validation process including how the IOC tasks test the validated infantry officer occupational standards? 

General MILSTEAD. To achieve a statistically significant sample based on the current female officer population, the Marine Corps requires 92 female officer volunteers for IOC. Their documented performance at IOC will provide data to leadership 

to make an informed recommendation on the Infantry Officer MOS (0302). Marine 

Corps’ Training and Education Command is conducting this research under the 

Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). Women are not selected to attend 

IOC but must volunteer, per HRPP policy guidelines. Female lieutenants from each 

Basic Officer Course (BOC) are presented with two separate Informed Consent 

briefs and opportunities to volunteer; one at the beginning of their BOC and a second brief, prior to BOC graduation, to ‘reconfirm’ their voluntary status. 

The occupational standards for the Infantry Officer MOS have been reviewed and 

validated. The validated Program of Instruction (POI) for IOC trains to, and tests 

for, the Infantry Officer occupational standards. 

All Programs of Instruction and Training and Readiness Manuals routinely undergo an established cyclical review to validate and update MOS performance standards. The IOC Program of Instruction (POI) was reviewed and signed in June 2012 

by Training and Education Command (TECOM) as part of an established cyclical 

review (every three years) that all POIs and Training and Readiness (T&R) Manuals undergo. 

Ms. TSONGAS. The Marine Corps has military occupations that are similar to 

other branches, particularly the Army. In fact the occupations are so similar that 

Marines attend MOS schools that are run by the other branches, for example Marines attend the armor school at Fort Knox, Kentucky, or the Artillery school at Fort 

Sill, Oklahoma, or the combat diver course at the Navy Diver and Salvage Training 

Center in Panama City, Florida. 

However, the Marine integration plan for these similar occupational specialties is 

strikingly dissimilar to the other Services. For example, the Marine plan specifically 

states (on page 4) that the Marines will not open maintainer MOSs until the operator MOSs become open, and cites as an example that the 2417 MOS (Light Armored Vehicle Repair/Technician) will only open if the 0313 MOS (Light Armored 

Vehicle Crewman) is opened. This is in direct contrast to the Army. The Army has 

already graduated 5 women from their Bradley Fighting Vehicle course as Bradley 

Fighting Vehicle System Maintainers (19M) even though the job of a Bradley crew 

member (19D) remains closed. 

What rationale would allow the Marine Corps to keep women out of jobs that are 

the same or virtually the same as jobs the other Services have opened or will open? 

And how would the Marines maintain the interoperability with the other Services 

that is so critical to the accomplishment of their mission? 

General MILSTEAD. In the Marine Corps, the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) maintainers physically deploy with the vehicles and are in the fight with the rest of the 

vehicle crew. In a crisis response mission, the maintainers are forward and engaged 
116 

in the initial fight along with the combat vehicle they support. Our other combat 

vehicle maintainers (AAV, Tanks) similarly deploy. Our plan is to consider both the 

operators and maintainers for each combat vehicle at the same time, when determining if the occupation should open for females. Interoperability with the other 

Services will not be impacted by the gender of the operator or maintainer. 

Ms. TSONGAS. What happens in the short term if there is no ‘‘sufficient cadre’’ of 

mid-level and senior women available ‘‘at the point of introduction’’? Most crucially, 

will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from 

serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

General MILSTEAD. Every unit within the USMC, to include those previously 

closed, currently has open MOS positions in which both male and female Marines 

could potentially serve. Female Marines filling these open MOS billets would comprise the requisite ‘‘cadre’’ both at the schoolhouses and the units to which female 

Marines qualified in an MOS that has previously been closed would be assigned. It 

will take generational growth to generate female Marine leadership in previously 

closed MOS positions. 

Ms. TSONGAS. What happens in the short term if there is no ‘‘sufficient cadre’’ of 

mid-level and senior women available ‘‘at the point of introduction’’? Most crucially, 

will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from 

serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

General SACOLICK. USSOCOM will closely examine the Secretary of Defense requirement to have cadre at the point of introduction. We are studying several 

courses of action that meet the intent of Secretary of Defense while providing professional development opportunities for both the women entering previously closed 

positions and occupations and those who will serve as cadre. USSOCOM’s expectation is lack of sufficient cadre will not be sufficient basis for an exception to policy. 

Ms. TSONGAS. What happens in the short term if there is no ‘‘sufficient cadre’’ of 

mid-level and senior women available ‘‘at the point of introduction’’? Most crucially, 

will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from 

serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

General SWEREDOSKI. Navy execution plans will ensure women who satisfy all 

other qualifications for elite positions will not be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient. 

The Navy will assign female officers and enlisted personnel already qualified 

within their specialty to newly opened platforms and units before lower ranking enlisted women are integrated. Navy’s integration policy ensures an experienced or 

warfare qualified female officer shall be on board prior to integration of junior officer or enlisted women, and a minimum of one female Chief Petty Officer shall be 

on board prior to junior enlisted women. The experienced or warfare qualified female officer and female Chief Petty Officer shall be voluntarily assigned through 

routine assignment policy. 

Ms. TSONGAS. What happens in the short term if there is no ‘‘sufficient cadre’’ of 

mid-level and senior women available ‘‘at the point of introduction’’? Most crucially, 

will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from 

serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? 

General GROSSO. The Air Force through its normal assignment process will ensure there is female leadership presence (enlisted and officer) in support cadre, 

training pipelines and operational units. While assignment strategies are evolving, 

sufficient cadre may include senior female personnel that are co-located, but not 

necessarily in the same occupational skill (i.e. First Sergeant, Medical Technician, 

etc.). 

If there are women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions, they will 

not be barred from serving in those positions. A lack of qualified female mentors 

is not criterion to keep a position closed. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING 

Dr. FLEMING. With the DOD essentially eliminating the definition of combat on 

which the Court relied in making its decision—a lawsuit has already been filed in 

the lower courts—I want to know what timeline the DOD sees on this as it moves 

forward in implementation. 

Ms. BEYLER. [The information was not available at the time of printing.] 

Dr. FLEMING. A) Is it the official policy of the Pentagon and the Administration 

that women should be included in the selective service, i.e. subject to the draft, to 

serve in combat arms? If so, how will that impact readiness? B) Can you explain 

how the Department is going to review this as it considers the applicability of the 
117 

1981 Supreme Court decision? Are there a certain number of positions that need 

to be opened or is it more the type of positions to be opened that would make 

women similarly situated and therefore potentially required to register under the 

Selective Service Act, and therefore, to be drafted? 

Ms. BEYLER. The Department believes there would be merit in an assessment of 

the Military Selective Service Act, to include a thorough review of the statutes and 

polices surrounding the current registration process and the registration of women. 

The Department believes such a review involves a much broader National discussion 

and should not be solely conducted by DOD. The Department stands ready to assist 

in any such review. 

Dr. FLEMING. In February 2012, the DOD released a report to Congress on the 

Women in Services Review. I understand a lot of work was done at the service level 

on this report and would like to review the specific data collected by the Services 

in completing the review, such as the experience gained by the Marine Corps from 

assigning women to certain positions. In fact, there was language passed this year 

in the House NDAA that would require the DOD to present these findings. Does 

the Department have plans to provide Congress with the data collected at the service level? Will you provide the Committee with that data? 

Ms. BEYLER. The Department conducted an internal administrative review to 

identify the laws, policies and regulations that restrict the service of female members of the Armed Forces. In addition to the administrative review to identify restrictive laws, policy and regulations, the Department consulted with the RAND 

Corporation, which conducted research to assess the equitable opportunity for 

women to compete and excel in the Armed Forces. Although the reports weren’t publically available at the time of the Department’s delivery of the 2012 Report to Congress, RAND subsequently released its report entitled, ‘‘The Extent of Restrictions 

on the Service of Active Component Military Women’’ and ‘‘A New Look at Gender 

and Minority Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military,’’ which are 

now both publically available. 

Æ