Military Personnel: DOD Is Expanding Combat Service Opportunities for Women, but Should Monitor Long-Term Integration Progress
Published: 2015-07-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since September 2001 more than 300,000 women have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more than 800 women have been wounded and more than 130 have died. A 1994 rule prohibited women from being assigned to many direct ground-combat units, but on January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rescinded the rule and directed the military services to open closed positions and occupations to women by January 1, 2016.
Senate Report 113-176 had a provision for GAO to review the services' progress in opening closed positions and occupations to women. This report assesses the (1) status of service efforts to open positions and occupations to women, including steps to identify and mitigate potential challenges; (2) extent the services' efforts to validate gender-neutral occupational standards are consistent with statutory and Joint Staff requirements; and (3) extent DOD is tracking, monitoring, and providing oversight of the services' integration plans. GAO analyzed statutes, DOD guidance, and service reports and plans, and interviewed DOD officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The military services and U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) have opened selected positions and occupations to women since January 2013, as shown in the table below, and are determining whether to open the remaining closed positions and occupations. The services and SOCOM also are conducting studies to identify and mitigate potential integration challenges in areas such as unit cohesion, women's health, and facilities. As of May 2015, the Secretary of the Navy was the only military department Secretary to recommend an exception to policy to keep positions closed to women on three classes of ships that are scheduled to be decommissioned, due in part to high retrofit costs.
The services and SOCOM are working to address statutory and Joint Staff requirements for validating gender-neutral occupational standards. GAO identified five elements required for standards validation. GAO compared these elements to the services' and SOCOM's planned methodologies and determined that their study plans contained steps that, if carried out as planned, potentially address all five elements. However, the services' and SOCOM's efforts are still underway; therefore, GAO could not assess the extent that the studies will follow the planned methodologies or report how the study results will be implemented.
The Department of Defense (DOD) has been tracking, monitoring, and providing oversight of the services' and SOCOM's integration efforts, but does not have plans to monitor the services' implementation progress after January 2016 in integrating women into newly opened positions and occupations. While DOD requires the services and SOCOM to submit quarterly progress reports, this requirement ends in January 2016. Without ongoing monitoring of integration progress, it will be difficult for DOD to help the services overcome potential obstacles. Further, when opening positions to women, DOD must analyze the implications for how it meets certain resource needs. In 2012, GAO assessed the military necessity of the Selective Service System and examined alternatives to its structure. GAO recommended in 2012 that DOD establish a process of periodically reevaluating its requirements in light of changing threats, operating environments, and strategic guidance. DOD has not taken action to do this, but agreed that a thorough assessment of the issue was merited, and should include a review of the statutes and policies surrounding the registration process and the potential to include the registration of women. GAO continues to believe that DOD should establish a process of periodically reevaluating DOD's requirements for the Selective Service System.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOD develop plans to monitor integration progress after January 2016. DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation. GAO previously recommended that DOD establish a process of periodically reevaluating DOD's requirements for the Selective Service System. DOD has not taken action but GAO continues to believe the recommendation is valid.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since September 2001, approximately 300,000 women have been  deployed for contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, where more  than 800 women have been wounded and more than 130 have died. A  1994 rule prevented women from serving in direct ground-combat  positions, but on January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense and the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rescinded the 1994 rule, and  directed the military services to meet milestones for the full integration of   After the Department of  women into these positions by January 1, 2016.
Defense (DOD) issued the 1994 rule, we reported on various issues  related to gender integration; see the list of related GAO products at the  end of this report.
Senate Report No. 113-176, which accompanied a proposed Senate bill  for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015, included  a provision for GAO to review the military services’ progress in opening  closed positions and occupations to women, and in developing and  validating gender-neutral occupational standards. We assessed (1) the  status of the services’ efforts to open previously closed positions and  occupations to women, including any steps to identify and mitigate  potential challenges; (2) the extent to which the services’ efforts to  validate gender-neutral occupational standards are consistent with  statutory requirements and Joint Staff guidance; and (3) the extent to  which DOD is tracking, monitoring, and providing oversight over the  military services’ plans to complete the integration of women into direct  combat positions by January 2016.
For purposes of this report, we use the terms military services or services when we are  referring to the Air Force, the Army, the Marine Corps, and the Navy. determine the reliability of the data provided by DOD, we obtained  information on how the data were collected, managed, and used through  interviews with and questionnaires to relevant officials and determined  that the data presented in our findings were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. We also obtained and analyzed documentation  and discussed with officials any potential challenges they have identified  and whether they took steps or designed possible approaches to  mitigating those challenges. For our second objective, we analyzed  documentation describing the services’ planned scope and methodology  for their ongoing efforts to validate gender-neutral occupational standards  and compared it to the requirements in the governing statutes and the  Joint Staff guidance for validating physically demanding occupational  standards. We also discussed these efforts with relevant officials. For  our third objective, we obtained and analyzed documentation and  discussed with officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)) and the Joint Staff the nature  and level of their tracking and monitoring, and their review of the military  services’ and SOCOM’s efforts to integrate women into combat positions.   internal control  We then compared these efforts to DOD guidance,standards, and statutory requirements. Appendix I provides a more  detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to July 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The role of women in the military has evolved from the Women’s Armed  Services Integration Act of 1948— which afforded women the  opportunity to serve in the military services—to January 2013, when the  Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  directed the services to open closed units and positions to women by  January 1, 2016. Figure 1 provides details about changes in military  service opportunities for women.
In January 1994, the Secretary of Defense issued the Direct Ground  Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, which allowed women to be  assigned to almost all positions, but excluded women from assignment to  units below the brigade level whose primary mission was to engage in  direct ground combat. The memorandum establishing the 1994 rule also  permitted restrictions on assignment of women in four other instances  where: (1) the service secretary attests that the costs of appropriate  berthing and privacy arrangements are prohibitive; (2) the units and  positions are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with  direct ground-combat units that are closed to women; (3) the units are  engaged in long-range reconnaissance operations and special operations  forces missions; and (4) job-related physical requirements would  necessarily exclude the vast majority of women service members. The  memorandum also permitted the services to propose further restrictions  on the assignment of women, together with justification for those  proposed restrictions.
In 2012, DOD issued a report to Congress reviewing the laws, policies,  and regulations restricting the service of female members in the armed  forces.  In this report, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the  Joint Chiefs of Staff rescinded the co-location assignment restriction that  had allowed the military services to prohibit the assignment of women to  units and positions physically collocated with direct ground-combat  units.department’s intent to open positions and occupations that had been  closed under this restriction. Specifically, the Army opened 6 enlisted  occupations (9,925 positions) and 3,214 positions in 80 units that had  been closed to women based on the co-location restriction. Additionally,   The report also contained notifications to Congress of the  the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy requested exceptions to policy and  DOD notified Congress of its intent to open positions and occupations at  the battalion level within active-duty direct combat units to inform future  recommendations on other positions with the potential to be opened in  the future. In its report, DOD explained that the experience gained by  assigning women to these positions would help the department assess  the suitability and relevance of the direct ground-combat prohibition and  inform future policy decisions.
In July 2013, DOD issued a subsequent report to Congress that  discussed the department’s implementation of these February 2012 policy  changes, the services’ progress regarding elimination of gender- restrictive policy, and the rescission of the ground-combat assignment   This report also included the total number of positions open and  rule.closed to women in each of the military services. At the time, the Navy  and the Air Force had the most positions open to women (91 and 99  percent, respectively), while the Army and the Marine Corps had fewer  open positions (68 and 69 percent, respectively). SOCOM also stated that  in July 2013, around 46 percent of its positions were open to women.
Figure 2 generally illustrates the process used to implement the  Secretary’s direction to open positions and occupations that have been  closed to women.
The military services traditionally have established two types of physical  performance requirements. First, the military services have established  general physical fitness standards to promote overall health and physical  fitness among military personnel. These fitness standards apply to active  and reserve servicemembers regardless of occupation and are not  required by statute to be gender neutral. These standards are not  intended to ensure performance in a particular occupation. Second, the  services set job-specific physical performance standards to ensure that  servicemembers are capable of performing the particular jobs to which  they have been assigned. These job-specific standards refer to  occupation-specific criteria that applicants must meet to enter or remain in  a particular career field or specialty, and by statute these occupational  performance standards must be gender neutral.
section_title: Services Have Opened Selected Positions and Occupations to Women, Are Determining Whether to Integrate Direct Ground-Combat Occupations, and Are Taking Steps to Identify and Mitigate Potential Challenges
paragraphs: The military services and SOCOM have opened selected positions and  occupations to women since January 2013, and are in the process of  determining whether to open the remaining direct ground-combat  positions and occupations. As an alternative to opening a position or  occupation, the Secretary of Defense permitted the services to  recommend an exception to policy to keep positions or occupations  closed to women; to date, the Navy is the only service to have  recommended an exception to policy. The services are also conducting  studies to identify integration challenges and ways to mitigate these  challenges in areas such as unit cohesion, women’s health, equipment,  facilities (e.g., separate restrooms and sleeping quarters), women’s  interest in serving in ground-combat positions, and international issues.  We also examined the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the  integration process.
subsections: section_title: Most Services and SOCOM Have Opened Selected Positions and Occupations to Women
paragraphs: In response to the January 2013 memorandum, most of the services— except for the Air Force—and SOCOM have opened selected positions  and occupations, and the openings to date largely involve closed  positions in open occupations.departments to submit detailed plans by May 15, 2013, to implement this  direction to open closed positions to women, and required the  implementation plans to be consistent with a set of guiding principles,  goals, and milestones for the integration process. The memorandum also  required the military departments to submit quarterly progress reports on   The memorandum directed the military  implementation.implementation plans, including goals and milestones, which were  subsequently reviewed by the Secretary of Defense in May 2013. The  services and SOCOM also provided quarterly progress reports on their  efforts to open closed positions and occupations to women, starting with  the third quarter of fiscal year 2013. In July 2014, OUSD(P&R) granted a  request by the Joint Chiefs to change the progress report cycle from  quarterly to biannual. However, an OUSD(P&R) official stated that the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff continued to receive quarterly  updates, and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness continued to provide the Secretary of Defense with verbal  quarterly updates.
All four services and SOCOM developed  As of March 2015, the services have opened positions and occupations to  women as shown in table 1.
The services are working on integration plans for these positions and  occupations that have been opened to women. For example, the Army is  actively recruiting women to fill recently opened positions across the  force, in order to place the best qualified soldiers, regardless of gender, in  positions. Further, the Navy is expanding assignment opportunities for  enlisted women to specific submarine classes and is participating in  surveys and questionnaires to assess integration success and gather  lessons learned.
section_title: Services and SOCOM Are Determining Whether to Open Remaining Closed Positions and Occupations
paragraphs: At the time of this report, the services and SOCOM were in the process of  determining whether to open the remaining closed positions and  occupations, and the timeframe for many of these recommendations was  postponed until September 2015. As of March 2015, the positions and  occupations that remain closed to women are shown in table 2.
As of April 2015, all of the military services and SOCOM were working on  efforts, such as the standards validation studies discussed below, to  inform their recommendations on whether to open the remaining closed  positions and occupations to women. The services’ implementation plans  included timelines for making recommendations on whether to open  positions and occupations to women or to request exceptions to keep  positions or occupations closed. Initially, these timelines were established  independently by each service and different services were scheduled to  make recommendations about similar occupations at different times. For  example, the Army was scheduled to make its recommendation about  armor occupations in July 2015, while the Marine Corps was scheduled to  make its recommendations about armor occupations in late 2014 and  early 2015. Subsequently, service officials have stated that some of those  recommendation timeframes have shifted to a later point to synchronize  with the Marine Corps recommendations that are now scheduled to occur  in late September and early October 2015, as shown in figure 3. One  reason provided by Air Force officials to support the timeline shifts was to  consider impacts of another services’ recommendation to open a closed  occupation or position, such as when there is no viable career path in an  occupation because the majority of positions serve with another services’  closed unit. Another reason expressed by Army officials was that the  service heads recognize the need for coordination when making  recommendations about similar occupations such as infantry. An  OUSD(P&R) official explained that there has always been a desire to  align the recommendation timelines, and that when service timelines  started to shift in 2014, the topic was extensively discussed in various  meetings.
section_title: Services and SOCOM Permitted to Recommend an Exception to Policy to Keep Positions Closed to Women
paragraphs: As an alternative to opening a position or occupation, the Secretary of  Defense has permitted the services to recommend that the Chairman of  the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretary of Defense approve an exception   As of May  to policy to keep positions or occupations closed to women.2015, the Secretary of the Navy was the only military department  Secretary to have recommended approval of an exception to policy. The  Secretary of the Navy has recommended keeping specific positions  closed to the assignment of enlisted women on three classes of ships  (frigates, mine countermeasure ships, and patrol coastal craft) that are  scheduled to be decommissioned. The rationale for keeping these ship  platforms closed to women is in part because they do not have  appropriate berthing and because planned decommissioning schedules  would mean that modifications would not be a judicious use of resources.  Navy officials stated that, while these closed platforms would cause some  positions to remain closed to enlisted women, it would not close any  occupations to women as there are alternative positions within those  occupations on different platforms that are open to women and which  provide equal professional opportunity.
As of May 2015, none of the other services have requested an exception  to keep positions or occupations closed to women or have stated that  they plan to request an exception, but the services have all retained the  right to request an exception later in the process if they believe there are  conditions under which it would be warranted.
section_title: Services Are Conducting Studies to Identify Potential Challenges to Integration and Ways to Mitigate These Challenges
paragraphs: The services and SOCOM are conducting studies focused on identifying  potential integration challenges and developing ways to mitigate these  challenges, as shown in figure 4. The studies address issues such as unit  cohesion, women’s health, equipment, facilities (e.g., separate restrooms  and sleeping quarters), women’s interest in serving in ground-combat  positions, and international issues. Most of these studies are ongoing, so  it is too early to determine the extent to which the services and SOCOM  will follow their planned methodologies for identifying challenges and  mitigation strategies, or how the services will implement the findings of  the studies. See appendix II for a listing of the studies that each service  and SOCOM are conducting in their efforts to integrate women.
A common challenge cited in integrating women into previously closed  positions and occupations is the potential impact on unit cohesion.  Some services are performing studies examining various elements that  contribute to unit cohesion. For example, SOCOM, the Army, and the  Marine Corps are conducting studies to gauge attitudes toward working  with women in integrated units. SOCOM is conducting three studies  related to unit cohesion, and SOCOM officials stated that the goal of  these studies is to identify potential obstacles and steps to undertake to  mitigate those obstacles in an effort to increase their chances of  successfully integrating women. For example, SOCOM tasked the RAND  Corporation to administer a survey to personnel in closed special  operations occupations to discover the attitudes of special operations  personnel on the integration of women, including barriers to successful  integration and actions to increase the likelihood of success. SOCOM  officials stated that initial steps to address concerns raised in the surveys  included the Commander of SOCOM holding discussions with his  subordinate commanders to provide them information to pass on to their  personnel as well as sending an email to all SOCOM personnel to  educate the force about what they are doing to validate the standards for  special operations positions and why they are validating the standards,  and to explain the Joint Staff’s guiding principles that govern the  integration effort. The first two of the three studies have been completed,  and the RAND study is expected to be completed by July 2015.
The Army Research Institute is conducting activities such as surveys,  interviews, and focus groups with male and female soldiers assigned to  units with newly opened positions and occupations. According to an Army  Research Institute official, the institute found that opinions expressed by  male soldiers in units assessed at different times since 2012 were less  negative a year after female soldiers’ integration, and showed a general  shift to more neutral and positive perceptions. The official stated that  information from these activities is regularly provided to the Army. These  activities will likely be conducted until 2018 as additional occupations are  opened, according to an Army Research Institute official. As part of its  efforts to identify the potential impacts of integration on unit performance,  unit cohesion, and unit members’ individual interactions, the Marine  Corps also is conducting a study through the RAND Corporation. The  tasks in this study include a review of literature on integration of women in  ground combat and other physically demanding occupations, analysis to  identify issues most likely to arise with gender integration of Marine Corps  infantry as well as initiatives that might be taken to address them, and  development of an approach for monitoring implementation of gender  integration of the Marine Corps infantry. This study was scheduled to be  completed in March 2015.
subsections: section_title: Women’s Health and Injury Issues
paragraphs: The Marine Corps, the Army, and the Air Force are assessing specific  health effects on women when operating in a combat environment.  Service officials stated that as women enter direct combat positions, the  military will need to make accommodations to address specific health and  medical concerns to prevent health problems and to maintain military  readiness. For example, the Marine Corps is studying injury prevention  and performance enhancement for its training program, including  identifying risk factors for injury. This study is scheduled to be completed  in August 2015. In addition, according to an Army official, the Army has  created a group to review research and data on physical and mental  health issues, load carriage, attrition, and performance. Further, the Air  Force verified the availability of appropriate medical and psychological  support at training locations, and evaluated the medical retention  standards for its closed occupations and determined that the existing  medical standards were appropriate for both male and female airmen.
section_title: Equipment, Gear, and Uniforms
paragraphs: According to officials from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in  the Services, proper combat equipment is essential to overall military  readiness; women suffer injuries and do not perform up to their full  potential when wearing ill-fitting equipment and combat gear designed for  men’s bodies. The Marine Corps is conducting a study to identify how  adapting equipment design, gear weight, physical fitness composition, or  standard operating procedures may support successful completion of  required tasks. Marine Corps officials explained that these adaptations  could potentially remove impediments to success and thereby enable  successful integration. For example, the study may be able to identify  alternative methods for loading rounds in armored vehicles so that the  task does not require as much upper-body strength. This study is  scheduled to be completed by June 30, 2015. Further, according to an  Army official, the Army has recently redesigned protective gear items and  uniforms with specific fits for female soldiers. In addition, the Air Force  has identified training locations that will need female-sized equipment and  other equipment such as footgear, clothing, and swimsuits. In June 2015,  the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics  issued guidance directing that the Secretaries of the military departments  ensure that combat equipment for female servicemembers is properly designed and fitted, and meets standards for wear and survivability.
section_title: Facilities Modifications
paragraphs: These studies are not being conducted by SOCOM, but instead are being conducted by  the services’ special operations components: Army Special Operations Command, Naval  Special Warfare Command, Marine Corps Special Operations Command, and Air Force  Special Operations Command. rooms for women. Further, all four of the special operations components  conducted assessments that determined whether any facilities changes  were needed to integrate women.
section_title: Women’s Interest in Serving in Ground-Combat Positions
paragraphs: All services are studying the propensity (i.e., interest or tendency) of  women to serve in selected closed positions and occupations. Officials  from the services noted concerns that large numbers of women may not  be interested in serving in currently closed ground-combat positions and  occupations. Officials from all of the services stated that the integration of  women into previously closed positions and occupations would be an  asset in finding the best person for the job, and that outreach and  recruitment of women for the officer corps is critical to ensuring that our  nation’s military has the strongest possible leaders. For example, the  Marine Corps conducted a study using surveys, market research,  available literature and other information to determine the interest of men  and women in both the Marine Corps overall and in ground-combat  specialties to better understand potential changes in the recruiting market  due to the opening of ground-combat arms specialties and units. This   The Army has joined other  study was completed in November 2014. services in creating advertising campaigns to increase women’s interest  in selected positions and occupations.
section_title: International Issues
paragraphs: SOCOM, the Marine Corps, and the Army are conducting or have  conducted international studies analyzing various integration issues.  Army Special Operations Command is studying the roles of women to  determine how local forces and communities may react to female special  forces soldiers. One of the tasks of this study is to provide insights on  how the roles of women in different regions and countries may affect the  response of local forces and communities to females as Army special  forces soldiers. This study is scheduled to be completed before SOCOM  is expected to submit its recommendations to the department in  September 2015. The Marine Corps also worked with RAND to study  other countries with gender-integrated militaries and the practices those  countries used for their integration processes. This study was completed  in March 2015. According to an Army official, the Army has worked with  the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command on international  comparisons with other countries with integrated armies. This effort was  part of the Army’s gender-integration study, which is scheduled to be  completed in September 2015.
section_title: Sexual Assault and Harassment in the Gender-Integration Process
paragraphs: In addition to the challenges reviewed by the services in their studies, we  examined the issue of sexual assault and harassment in the integration  process. This issue was raised in materials from the Defense Advisory  Committee on Women in the Services as a continuing concern related to  tracking servicemembers who committed a sex-related offense.  According to officials from all services and DOD’s Sexual Assault and  Prevention Response Office—which has authority, accountability, and  oversight of the department’s sexual assault prevention and response  program—sexual assault and harassment are not inhibitors to the  integration of women into previously closed positions and occupations.  Officials from all of the services consistently noted that prevention of  sexual assault and harassment is a department-wide effort and is not a  specific focus of integration efforts. They noted that they consider it to be  more of a leadership challenge than an integration challenge. DOD  officials said that sexual assault and harassment is not a function of  integration and is not gender specific only for women; it affects men and  women, and exists in male-only units. In March 2015, we reported that  based on survey data, it is estimated that in 2014, about 9,000 to 13,000  male active-duty servicemembers were sexually assaulted, and we also  estimated that a much lower percentage of men report their sexual  assaults compared to women.
section_title: Services and SOCOM Have Studies Underway to Validate Gender- Neutral Occupational Standards
paragraphs: The military services and SOCOM are working to address statutory  requirements and Joint Staff guidance for validating physically demanding  occupational standards by initiating several studies. We identified five  elements that the services and SOCOM must address as part of the  standards validation process. We compared the five elements to the  services’ and SOCOM’s planned steps and methodologies in their studies  and determined that their study plans contained steps that, if carried out  as planned, potentially address all five elements, as summarized in figure  5. However, the studies had not yet been completed at the time of our  review; therefore, we could not assess the extent to which the studies will  follow the planned steps and methodologies or report how results of the  studies will be implemented. See appendix II for a complete listing of the  planned studies that each service and SOCOM are conducting in their  efforts to integrate women.
subsections: section_title: Ensure Gender-Neutral Evaluation (Statutory Requirement)
paragraphs: The statutory requirements for validating gender-neutral occupational  standards direct that any military career designator open to both men  and women may not have different standards on the basis of gender.
The statute further states that for military career designators where  specific physical requirements for muscular strength and endurance and  cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties, those  requirements must be applied on a gender-neutral basis. To address this  requirement, according to service and SOCOM officials and their  respective plans, officials will develop one set of occupational standards  for each position that will be applicable to both men and women. One  example of this type of effort is the Marine Corps’ Ground Combat  Element Integrated Task Force, which is to provide the Marine Corps the  opportunity to review and refine gender-neutral occupational standards as  it evaluates the performance of men and women in integrated units. All of  the services’ efforts are to be completed by the end of September 2015.
section_title: Ensure Standards Reflect Job Tasks (Statutory Requirement)
paragraphs: By statute, the Secretary of Defense must ensure that the gender-neutral  occupational standards accurately predict performance of the actual,  regular, and recurring job tasks of a military occupation, and are applied  equitably to measure individual capabilities. The services’ and  SOCOM’s plans for studies to validate operationally relevant and gender- neutral occupational standards involve identifying the physically  demanding tasks required for the specific occupation under study. To  address this requirement, all of the services’ and SOCOM’s plans that we  reviewed are taking steps to identify the physically demanding tasks  required for each occupation. For example, the Army and the Air Force  have undertaken detailed job analyses to identify and define the critical  physically demanding tasks and the physical abilities needed to perform  them. By observing performance of the tasks and surveying subject- matter experts to confirm the specific tasks required for each occupation,  the planned approach intends to confirm that the appropriate tasks have  been identified and described. Additionally, the Marine Corps’ Ground  Combat Element Integrated Task Force plans to quantify tasks,  conditions, and standards for job tasks that have previously been  qualitative. In March 2015, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness provided implementing guidance for this statutory  requirement, and directed the Secretaries of each military department to  provide a written report regarding their validation of individual  occupational standards by September 30, 2015, and to require each  military department’s Inspector General to implement a compliance  inspection program to assess whether the services’ occupational  standards and implementing methodologies are in compliance with  statutory requirements.
section_title: Validate Performance Standards (Joint Staff Guidance)
paragraphs: Joint Staff guidance directs the services to validate their occupational  performance standards. One of the Chairman’s guiding principles stated  that the services must validate occupational performance standards, both  physical and mental, for all military occupational specialties, specifically  those that remain closed to women. To address this requirement, all of  the services and SOCOM are conducting studies to validate the  occupational standards for the positions that have been closed to women.  The Army’s Training and Doctrine Command and Research Institute of  Environmental Medicine are planning to complete by September 2015 the  development and validation of gender-neutral occupational testing  procedures for entry into the seven military occupational specialties that  are closed to women. The Marine Corps opened certain entry-level  training schools that previously were closed to women, such as Infantry  Training Battalion and Infantry Officer Training, to obtain data on the  physical and cognitive/academic demands on female volunteers in these  schools. According to Marine Corps officials, this effort will be completed  in June 2015. Another Marine Corps effort, projected for completion in  June 2015 with a final report by August 2015, is the Ground Combat  Element Integrated Task Force. This effort is expected to train female  Marine volunteers in skills and tasks performed in closed occupations  skills while a dedicated research team observes their performance in both  entry-level training and operational environments. Both of these efforts  are expected to assist the Marine Corps in validating its standards. In July  2014, the Navy Manpower Analysis Center reviewed all Navy positions to  identify those that are physically demanding, and independently reviewed  and updated occupational standards for all positions to ensure gender  neutrality. The Air Force Air Education and Training Command is planning  to complete by July 2015 a study that analyzes and validates physical  tests and standards on Battlefield Airmen career fields. A second Air  Force study is expected to revalidate physical and mental occupational  entry standards across specialties; this study is expected to be completed  in September 2015. The special operations components—the Army  Special Operations Command, Naval Special Warfare Command, Marine  Corps Special Operations Command, and Air Force Special Operations  Command—are validating standards for those military occupational  specialties that deploy with SOCOM; this is expected to be completed by  the end of July 2015.
section_title: Ensure Eligibility Reflects Job Tasks (Joint Staff Guidance)
paragraphs: The Chairman’s guiding principles also require that eligibility for training  and development within designated occupational fields consist of  qualitative and quantifiable standards reflecting the knowledge, skills, and  abilities necessary for each occupation. To address this requirement, the  services and SOCOM have planned studies that aim to validate and  select tests to ensure the tests are measuring what they intend to.  Further, these plans aim to ensure that scores or results from a test can  be used to select individuals for a particular occupation or task. For  example, the Air Force is designing physical task simulations, such as  climbing a ladder (to simulate entering and exiting a helicopter, according  to officials) and lifting and holding objects at different heights (to simulate  holding an item to bolt onto an airframe, according to officials). These  planned measures of performance are intended to ensure that  simulations are good approximations of job tasks. Air Force officials  explained that the Air Force’s planned approach is to use the  operationally-relevant, occupationally-specific critical tasks it identifies as  the anchor to develop appropriate physical tests and standards to  evaluate the ability to successfully perform operational requirements. This  study is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2015.
section_title: Integrate While Preserving Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (Joint Staff Guidance)
paragraphs: Another Chairman’s guiding principle requires the services to take action  to ensure the success of the warfighting forces by preserving unit  readiness, cohesion, and morale. To address this requirement, the  services and SOCOM are taking steps to ensure that the integration of  women maintains readiness. For example, officials from each of the  services stated that the standards-validation efforts will ensure that  service members in newly opened occupations are able to perform the  mission and thus maintain readiness, operational capability, and combat  effectiveness. By observing performance of the tasks and surveying  subject-matter experts to confirm that specific tasks are required for each  occupation, the services and special operations components plan to  confirm those specific tasks that are required for each occupation.  Further, as discussed earlier, the Army, Marine Corps, and SOCOM are  conducting studies to determine the potential effect of integration on unit  cohesion.the Services, a common challenge cited in integrating women into  previously closed positions and occupations is the potential effect on unit  cohesion. Unit cohesion contributes to strong morale and commitment to  a mission. By taking steps to identify and address challenges related to  unit cohesion, these services are working to ensure that readiness is  maintained throughout the integration process.
section_title: DOD Is Providing Oversight of Integration Efforts, but Has Not Developed Plans to Monitor Long-Term Progress in Integrating Women into Combat Positions
paragraphs: DOD has been tracking, monitoring, and providing oversight over the  services’ and SOCOM’s efforts to integrate women into ground-combat  positions, but has not developed plans to monitor long-term integration  progress. Service requests for an exception to policy to keep positions  closed to women receive attention from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs  of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff  manage the statutorily required congressional notification process, which  is part of a longer process before women can begin serving in newly  opened positions and occupations.
subsections: section_title: OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff Have Taken Actions to Oversee Services’ and SOCOM’s Integration Efforts
paragraphs: To oversee the services’ and SOCOM’s efforts to integrate women into  combat positions, OUSD(P&R) and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of  Staff have issued guidance, commissioned studies, and facilitated  coordination and communication through regular meetings among the  services and SOCOM. The Secretary of Defense’s memorandum  rescinding the 1994 rule directed the military departments to submit  implementation plans and quarterly progress reports to the Chairman of  the Joint Chiefs of Staff and to the Under Secretary of Defense for   Further, Standards for Internal Control in the  Personnel and Readiness.Federal Government states that ongoing monitoring should be performed  continually in the course of normal operations, and should include regular  management and supervisory activities, separate evaluations, and  policies and procedures to ensure that findings of reviews are promptly  resolved.
DOD, memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,  Elimination of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule (Feb. 27,  2013); DOD, memorandum from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Women in the  Service Implementation Plan (Jan. 9, 2013). standards.reports as part of its normal oversight process, OUSD(P&R) has  discussed with the services topics such as past and upcoming  milestones, recommendation timelines, and the status and progress of  ongoing studies. A Joint Staff official explained that the reports are  reviewed to ensure progress is being made in accordance with the  services’ implementation plans. After the reports are reviewed by  OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff, the Chairman provides these reports to the  Secretary of Defense.
An OUSD(P&R) official stated that when reviewing these  Further, to help in its oversight of the services’ and SOCOM’s standards  validation efforts, OUSD(P&R) tasked the RAND Corporation to conduct a  study concerning validation of gender-neutral occupational standards  within the services and SOCOM; an OUSD(P&R) official stated that the  study will provide an independent analysis of the services’ efforts to  validate standards. The first objective of the RAND study is to describe  best-practice methodologies for establishing gender-neutral standards for  physically demanding jobs, tailored to address the needs of the military.
The second objective is to review and evaluate the methodologies used  by the services to set gender-neutral standards. In September 2013,  RAND issued a draft report addressing the first objective; an OUSD(P&R)  official stated that OUSD(P&R) provided a draft of this report to all of the  services. In June 2015, RAND officials said that a draft of the second  report, which will cover both objectives, is forthcoming.
Moreover, OUSD(P&R) has regular quarterly meetings with the services  to discuss topics such as developing the quarterly reports and how others  are handling any issues with integration. The Joint Staff also has a  meeting process with two different levels of meetings devoted solely to  integration efforts: (1) a Joint Chiefs of Staff (four-star level) group, and  (2) an Operations Deputies (three-star level) group. A Joint Staff official  explained that these meetings provide a forum for the services to share  implementation updates, discuss potential barriers, and highlight issues.
RAND’s draft report identified as best practices a six-step process for establishing  requirements for physically demanding occupations. These six steps are: (1) identify  physical demands; (2) identify potential screening tests; (3) validate and select tests; (4)  establish minimum scores; (5) implement screening; and (6) confirm tests are working as  intended.
The meetings occur at least once every quarter, but can occur more often  if needed. OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff officials stated that there are also  frequent communications by other means for the same purposes. For  example, in September 2014, SOCOM hosted a workshop for all of the  services to review the standards validation process for special operations  and the services. SOCOM officials stated that the purpose of this  workshop was to ensure that all the services were using similar  processes, that no one was working at cross purposes, and that there  was no duplication of effort. Officials stated that a follow-up workshop was  held in May 2015.
section_title: Requests for Exceptions to Policy Receive High- Level Management Attention
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  directed that any recommendation for an exception to policy to keep an  occupation or position closed to women must be personally approved first  by the Chairman and then by the Secretary of Defense. The  memorandum states that this approval authority may not be delegated.  OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff officials explained that before such requests  are submitted to the Chairman, they are first reviewed for sufficiency by  OUSD(P&R) and the Joint Staff. When reviewing any requests for an  exception to policy to keep positions closed to women, the Secretary of  Defense’s January 2013 memorandum states that “xceptions must be  narrowly tailored and based on a rigorous analysis of factual data  regarding the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for the position.”According to OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff officials, if an exception to policy  is requested, they will request all related supporting data and studies and  review the request considering all of the factors involved. They stated that  once they are satisfied that the Secretary’s criteria have been met, they  will present the request to the Chairman and then the Secretary to  determine whether the request meets the criteria for an exception.  According to OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff officials, they made a conscious  decision not to provide or develop specific additional criteria or a format  for exception to policy requests—beyond the guidance in the Secretary’s  memorandum—because they did not want it to appear that there was a  checklist for requesting an exception to policy.
When OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff first reviewed the Navy’s July 2014  exception to policy request for the three different ship classes, they jointly  requested additional information from the Navy, such as actual  modification costs to enable the ships to provide berths for women, officer  assignment information, and information on the professional development  impact if women do not serve on those ships. An OUSD(P&R) official  explained that OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff worked with the Navy so the  Navy would better understand the additional analytical rigor being  requested, and they established a deadline for the Navy to provide the  requested information in February 2015. The Navy submitted the  requested information, and as of April 2015, OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff  officials said the exception to policy request was under review by the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who will then forward his  recommendation to the Secretary of Defense.
SOCOM’s status as an operational command results in a slightly different  process for any exception requests for positions associated with SOCOM.  SOCOM officials explained that for any positions associated with  SOCOM—whether there is a recommendation to open a position or a  request for an exception to policy to keep a position closed to women— there are two recommendations provided. One recommendation comes  from the position’s parent department Secretary. The second  recommendation comes from the SOCOM Commander, and since  SOCOM is not a military service that recommendation is then reviewed  and approved by the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special  Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict, who serves a military department  secretary function for SOCOM. The officials stated that to date there have  not been differences between the recommendations from the services  and from SOCOM. SOCOM officials explained that there is regular  collaboration with the services about recommendations, but that in the  event that there was a difference in the two recommendations, the  Secretary of Defense would make the decision.
section_title: OUSD(P&R) Has Not Developed Plans to Monitor the Services’ Progress in Integrating Women into Newly Opened Positions and Occupations after January 2016
paragraphs: As of May 2015, OUSD(P&R) had not developed plans for a mechanism  or process to monitor the services’ progress in their efforts to integrate  newly opened positions and occupations after January 1, 2016. As noted  earlier, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states  that ongoing monitoring should be performed continually in the course of  normal operations. An OUSD(P&R) official stated that OUSD(P&R) will  continue to provide oversight as part of its normal responsibilities, and  make associated changes in applicable DOD guidance. Further, as  discussed earlier, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness issued guidance that directed each military department to  report on its validation of occupational standards, and to implement an  inspection program to assess whether the services’ occupational  standards comply with statutory requirements.an OUSD(P&R) official, that office does not envision undertaking a formal  role in the implementation of the services’ recommendations to open  closed positions following January 2016.
Further, a Joint Staff official stated that an initial Joint Staff meeting would  be held after the January 1, 2016 announcement, and it would be  determined at that time whether any additional meetings would be held.  OUSD(P&R)’s requirement for the services to submit quarterly progress  reports ends in January 2016, and the services have varying plans to  monitor implementation after that date. For example, Army officials stated  that they have developed an implementation and follow-up plan for  beyond 2016 that is being reviewed by senior leaders. Marine Corps  officials explained that they have long-term research that will track  integration of females, to help understand and shape institutional and  individual success, while Navy officials explained that they had not  developed any plans to monitor implementation after 2016 and were  waiting for direction from OUSD(P&R). However, OUSD(P&R) and Joint  Staff officials did not identify any plans to provide such direction for the  services to monitor implementation.
After the decisions have been made to open positions and occupations to  women, there is a lengthy implementation process before women will be  able to serve in the newly opened occupations. Officials from all of the  services and SOCOM stated that before women can serve in newly  opened positions and occupations they must first be recruited,  accessioned, trained, tested, and assigned. As an example of the time  involved in just one part of the implementation process, according to  OUSD(P&R) officials, the general training timelines can vary by service  and the position and occupation, but typically may require less than half a  year to almost two years to complete the training part of the  implementation process. Without ongoing monitoring of the services’ and  SOCOM’s implementation progress in integrating previously closed  positions and occupations, it will be difficult for DOD to have visibility over  the extent to which the services and SOCOM are overcoming potential  obstacles to integration and DOD will not have information for  congressional decision makers about the department’s integration  progress.
section_title: OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff Manage Congressional Notification Process
paragraphs: OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff manage the congressional notification  process when positions and occupations are being opened to women. By  statute, the Secretary of Defense must provide Congress with a report  prior to implementing any proposed changes that would result in opening  or closing any category of unit or position, or military career designator to  women. As part of the process for opening formerly closed positions  and occupations, an OUSD(P&R) official explained that OUSD(P&R)  analyzes information provided by the military department secretaries and  the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low- Intensity Conflictspecialties (if applicable), that all appropriate additional skill identifiers are  included, and that the correct number of positions to be opened is  reflected. OUSD(P&R) officials then create a packet to send to Congress  after they prebrief the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. A  Joint Staff official stated that Joint Staff also reviews the notifications, and  provides comments on the briefings given to Congress.   and verifies items such as the correct occupational  In the congressional notifications of the department’s intent to open  positions and occupations to women, DOD is required to provide a  detailed legal analysis regarding the legal implications of the proposed  change with respect to the constitutionality of the application of the 1948  Military Selective Service Act to males only. This act empowers the  President to require the registration of every male citizen and resident  alien between the ages of 18 and 26. In 1981, the Supreme Court  upheld the constitutionality of the male-only registration requirement.  Currently, women serve voluntarily in the U.S. armed forces, but are not  required to register with the Selective Service and would not be subject to  a draft. DOD’s legal analyses in the congressional notifications submitted  since January 2013 have not found that opening the positions and  occupations to women would affect the constitutionality of the act.  Officials from OUSD(P&R), the services, and the Defense Advisory  Committee on Women in the Services have stated that if DOD decides to  open ground-combat occupations such as infantry, artillery, and armor,  DOD’s required legal analysis could raise concerns about the  constitutionality of the act. DOD’s legal analysis in the March 2015  congressional notification to open the Army combat engineer occupation  stated that “ver time, however, the opening of additional combat  positions to women may further alter the factual backdrop to the Court’s  decision in Rostker. Should the constitutionality of the [Military Selective  Service Act] be challenged at a later date, the reasoning behind the  exclusion of women from registration may need to be reexamined.” An  OUSD(P&R) official explained that even if DOD’s legal analysis raises  constitutionality concerns about the act, DOD could still submit the  notification to Congress and take actions to implement opening those  positions to women after completion of the waiting period.
After a notification is provided to Congress, the Secretary of Defense is  prohibited from implementing any proposed changes until “after the end  of a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any  day on which either house of Congress is not in session) following the  date on which the report is received.” This waiting period allows  Congress time to take any legislative actions that it deems necessary  based on the notification and report provided by DOD. However, the  congressional calendar has resulted in an average time period of about  90 calendar days before planned changes could be implemented; three of  the twelve congressional notifications DOD submitted between April 2013   After the waiting period has  and July 2014 have taken almost 5 months.passed, OUSD(P&R) notifies the appropriate elements within a service so  that they can begin implementing actions to open the positions. Since the  services are allowed to take actions to open positions only after the  waiting period is over, Army and Navy officials said that the delays and  unpredictability associated with the waiting period pose challenges in  beginning the recruiting, accession, and training processes, and aligning  assignments to newly opened positions with service promotion cycles. An  OUSD(P&R) official stated that in 2014 DOD was requested to provide  drafting assistance on a legislative proposal for a change that would have  modified the waiting period from 30 days of continuous session of  Congress to 60 calendar days, but said that Congress did not act at that  time.
In 2012, we assessed the military necessity of the Selective Service  System and examined alternatives to its current structure. We found  that because of its reliance and emphasis on the All Volunteer Force,  DOD had not reevaluated requirements for the Selective Service System  since 1994, even though the national security environment had changed  significantly since that time. The registration system in fiscal year 2014  had an annual budget of $22.9 million;system provides a low-cost insurance policy in case a draft is ever  necessary. In our 2012 report, we recommended that DOD (1) evaluate  DOD’s requirements for the Selective Service System in light of recent  strategic guidance and report the results to Congress; and (2) establish a  process of periodically reevaluating DOD’s requirements for the Selective  Service System in light of changing threats, operating environments, and  strategic guidance.
DOD officials stated that the  In responding to these recommendations, DOD stated in February 2013  that there was no longer an immediate military necessity for the Selective  Service System, but there was a national necessity because the  registration process provides the structure for mobilization that would  allow the services to rapidly increase in size if needed. DOD’s  assessment was limited to a reevaluation of mission and military  necessity for the Selective Service System. Regarding the second  recommendation, DOD had not taken action as of June 2015, but agreed  that a thorough assessment of the issue was merited, and should include  a review of the statutes and policies surrounding the current registration  process and the potential to include the registration of women. However,  DOD officials stated that such a review should be part of a broader  national discussion and should not be determined only by DOD. As we noted in our 2012 report, a reevaluation of the department’s personnel  needs for the Selective Service System in light of current national security  plans would better position Congress to make an informed decision about  the necessity of the Selective Service System or any other alternatives  that might substitute for it. For example, a 2013 Congressional Research  Service report noted the Selective Service issue could become moot by  terminating Selective Service registration or expanding registration  requirements to include women. We agree that this is a broader issue.  DOD is the agency that would use the Selective Service System in the  event a draft was needed. Thus, we continue to believe that our 2012  recommendation has merit—that DOD should take the lead in conducting  an evaluation of requirements for the Selective Service System and  should establish a process of periodically reevaluating DOD’s  requirements for the Selective Service System in light of changing  threats, operating environments, and strategic guidance.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff  have ordered that women, to the extent possible, be integrated into direct  ground-combat positions and occupations by January 2016. Although  OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff have been tracking, monitoring, and  providing oversight of the services’ and SOCOM’s integration efforts, they  do not have plans to monitor the services’ implementation progress after  January 2016, as newly opened positions are integrated. Without ongoing  monitoring of the services’ and SOCOM’s progress in integrating  previously closed positions and occupations after January 2016, it will be  difficult for DOD to have visibility over the extent that the services and  SOCOM are overcoming potential obstacles to integration and DOD may  not be able to provide current information for congressional decision  makers about the department’s progress. Further, DOD has not  established a process to reevaluate its requirements for the Selective  Service System that could enable it to take into account these changes in  expanding combat service opportunities for women. If DOD conducted a  comprehensive reevaluation of the department’s personnel needs for the  Selective Service System, the analysis would better position Congress to  make an informed decision about the necessity of the Selective Service  System or any other alternatives that might substitute for it.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure successful integration of combat positions that have been  opened to women, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct  the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to develop  plans for monitoring after January 2016 the services’ implementation of  their integration efforts and progress in opening positions to women,  including an approach for taking any needed action.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD for review and comment. In  written comments, which are reprinted in their entirety in appendix III,  DOD concurred with our recommendation. DOD noted that they  recognize the importance of monitoring long-term implementation  progress of expanding combat service opportunities for women. DOD  also provided technical comments, which we have incorporated in the  report where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,  and the Secretaries of the military departments. The report also is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: This report assesses the Department of Defense’s (DOD) efforts to  expand combat service opportunities for women. Our scope included  efforts of the four military services in DOD and U.S. Special Operations  Command (SOCOM) since January 2013, when the Secretary of Defense  eliminated the prohibition on women serving in combat positions. We did  not include the Coast Guard in our review. Table 3 contains a list of the  agencies we contacted during our review.
To determine the status of service efforts to open previously closed  positions and occupations and the extent potential challenges have been  identified and mitigated, we analyzed documentation and spoke with  officials to identify the positions and occupations that have been opened  to women, that remain closed, timeframes for making decisions, whether  any services planned to keep any positions or occupations closed to  women, and any steps taken to identify potential challenges and develop  approaches to overcome any such challenges. Specifically, we reviewed  guidance provided to the services from the Secretary of Defense, the  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness to determine what the services  were required to do as part of their efforts to determine whether to open  closed positions and occupations to women. We determined that the  services were required to, among other things, develop implementation  plans, follow five guiding principles when opening positions and  occupations to women, and create and submit quarterly progress reports  starting in the third quarter of fiscal year 2013. At the department level,  the military departments were required to submit detailed implementation  plans consistent with the guiding principles and goals and milestones  provided by the Chairman.
To determine whether the services and SOCOM met these requirements,  we obtained and analyzed the services’ and SOCOM’s respective  implementation plans, quarterly progress reports, congressional  notifications, and Navy exception to policy documents, and discussed  these documents with officials from the services, SOCOM, and the Office  of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness  (OUSD(P&R)). To determine if the services and SOCOM met all of the  implementation plan requirements, we analyzed the services’ and  SOCOM’s implementation plans for required components—such as  timelines and timeframes for opening positions and occupations to  women, milestones for development of gender-neutral occupational  standards, and consistency with the guiding principles. To determine if  the services and SOCOM met all of the quarterly progress report  requirements, we analyzed the quarterly and bi-annual reports for  required components—such as updates on assessments and progress on  positions that are slated for opening or currently being evaluated, analysis  of any request for an exception to policy, discussion regarding the  development status of gender-neutral standards, assessments of newly  opened positions, identification of any limiting factors, and  recommendations for additional openings. We analyzed how some of the  timeframes changed through quarterly report progress updates and  interviews with service officials, by comparing them to the original ones  set in the implementation plans. To determine what positions and  occupations had been opened to women since January 2013, we  analyzed the congressional notifications that DOD had provided to  Congress from January 2013 through March 2015, and discussed this  data with officials from the services and OUSD(P&R).
To determine what positions and occupations remain closed to women  and to determine the services’ and SOCOM’s timeframes for making  decisions about whether to open these positions and occupations to  women, we analyzed the services’ and SOCOM’s implementation plans,  and quarterly and biannual progress reports and interviewed officials from  the services, SOCOM, and OUSD(P&R). In addition, we requested and  obtained data from the services and SOCOM on the total number of  positions and occupations closed to women as of March 2015, as well as  the total number of positions and occupations in each service and in  SOCOM. We analyzed the reliability of this data by obtaining information  on how the data were collected, managed, and used through interviews  with and questionnaires to relevant officials and by reviewing supporting  documentation. To corroborate this data, we cross-referenced it with  documentation on closed positions and occupations provided by  OUSD(P&R), as well as similar data provided by the services and  SOCOM in their progress reports. This data was also verified by officials  from OUSD(P&R), the services, and SOCOM. Although we found some  discrepancies in some of the data regarding the number of closed  positions reported by the services, which officials explained were due in  part to changes in force structure, we determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable to report on the general number and percentage of  positions and occupations that are closed to women in each of the  services and in SOCOM.
To determine any steps that DOD and the services took to identify  potential challenges and develop approaches to overcome any such  challenges, we analyzed service and SOCOM implementation plans,  quarterly reports, and studies and study documentation. We also  interviewed officials at OUSD(P&R), Joint Staff, Defense Advisory  Committee on Women in the Services, Sexual Assault Prevention and  Response Office, and within each of the services and SOCOM, and  discussed potential challenges they have identified and approaches to  mitigating these challenges. In inquiring about challenges, we asked  about challenges in general, as well as specific issues that we had  identified in the services’ implementation plans, reports by the Defense  Advisory Committee on Women in the Services, and prior GAO work as  potential areas of study. The specific issues that we asked about were the  Military Selective Service Act, women’s health, sexual harassment and  assault, unit cohesion, facilities issues (e.g., berthing, privacy), promotion  and retention, and equipment.
To determine the extent to which service efforts to validate gender-neutral  occupational standards are consistent with statutory requirements and  Joint Staff guidance, we identified requirements from statutes and Joint  Staff guidance and compared these requirements against service plans  for studies. To identify the requirements for validating gender-neutral  occupational standards, we reviewed relevant laws as well as guidance  issued by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Specifically, to identify  statutory requirements, we reviewed the National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 1994 and the Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck”  McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for 2015. To identify Joint  Staff guidance, we reviewed the Chairman’s January 2013 memorandum  that laid out guiding principles for the services to follow in integrating   From these laws and guidance, we identified five specific  women.elements the services must follow in validating their gender-neutral  occupational standards. Two elements are from statutory requirements:  (1) ensure gender-neutral evaluation and (2) ensure standards reflect job  tasks. Three elements are from Joint Staff guidance: (1) validate  performance standards; (2) ensure eligibility reflects job tasks, and (3)  integrate while preserving readiness, cohesion, and morale. To determine  if the services are following these requirements and guidance, we  obtained plans for studies from each of the military services and SOCOM.  These plans included descriptions of scope, methodology, and  timeframes for completion. We then compared these plans against the  requirements we identified to determine if these planned studies met the  requirements for validating gender-neutral occupational standards. Two  analysts independently reviewed and assessed the plans to determine  whether they contain the two statutory elements provided by the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994, as amended, and the  Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization  Act for Fiscal Year 2015 and the three elements provided by the  Chairman’s memorandum. The analysts then compared their results to  identify any disagreements and reached agreement on all items through  discussion. However, the results from these studies are not yet  completed; therefore, we could not assess the extent to which the  completed studies will follow the planned steps and methodologies or  report how results of the studies will be implemented. We also  interviewed and discussed these requirements and studies with DOD and  service officials, particularly officials involved in conducting these studies.
To determine the extent to which DOD is tracking, monitoring, and  providing oversight over the military services’ plans to complete the  integration of women in direct combat positions by January 2016, we  obtained and analyzed documentation and discussed with officials from  OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff the nature and level of their tracking and  monitoring, and their review of the military services’ and SOCOM’s efforts  to integrate women into combat positions. Specifically, we assessed  OUSD(P&R) and Joint Staff’s review of the military services’ and  SOCOM’s implementation plans, and quarterly and biannual progress  reports. We then compared these efforts to DOD guidance and internal  control standards.with OUSD(P&R) officials a study being performed by the RAND  Corporation for OUSD(P&R) as part of their oversight of the services’ and  SOCOM’s efforts to validate gender-neutral occupational standards, and  we met with RAND officials to discuss their work on this study. We also  obtained and analyzed documentation related to the Navy’s request for  an exception to policy to keep positions closed on three classes of ships,  and we discussed with P&R, Joint Staff, and Navy officials the process  and criteria used to review this request.
10 U.S.C. § 652. the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services,Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related  Issues to identify changes in statutes and military guidance that have  increased opportunities for women to serve in combat roles over the past  several decades. We determined changes that have occurred in DOD’s  workforce and environment over the past several decades and assessed  the extent that these changes could have an effect on the utility of the  Military Selective Service Act in meeting the department’s needs.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2014 to July 2015  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary of Service and SOCOM Studies that Will Inform Integration Recommendations and Implementation Efforts
subsections: section_title: Organization Conducting Study Study Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness RAND Corporation
paragraphs: Online surveys with additional Active and National  Guard Brigade Combat Teams.
Provide assessment of potential issues associated  with gender integration in newly opened  occupations and currently closed occupations to  be opened.
section_title: Organization Conducting Study Study U.S. Marine Corps
section_title: Organization Conducting Study Study Center for Naval Analyses
paragraphs: Study Purpose  Review the integration of women into Marine  Corps aviation occupations and past studies on  the performance of female Marines in aviation and  logistics.
Determine participants’ experiences regarding  gender integration in newly-integrated ground  combat units particularly with respect to potential  effects on readiness, morale, and unit cohesion.
Determine potential impact of integrating women  into Marine Corps military occupational  specialties, with a particular focus on the infantry.
Create a systematic and sustained injury  prevention and performance enhancement  training program.
section_title: Department of the Navy
section_title: Organization Conducting Study Study Department of the Air Force
paragraphs: Examine if changing the gender component of  small, elite teams would affect team dynamics in a  way that would compromise the ability of the team  to meet a mission objective.
Assess the range of potential obstacles to  effective integration of women into Special  Operations Forces, focusing on the unit- and  team-level.
Assess how indigenous definitions of women’s  roles could affect the response of local forces and  communities to female Army Special Forces  soldiers.
Identify impacts, evaluate psychological and social  considerations, and review gender neutral  standards that may be impacted by opening all  Army Special Operations Command occupations  and positions to women.
Identify impacts, evaluate psychological and social  considerations, and review gender neutral  standards that may be impacted by opening all  Marine Corps Forces Special Operations  Command occupations and positions to women.
Identify impacts, evaluate psychological and social  considerations, and review gender neutral  standards that may be impacted by opening all  Naval Special Warfare occupations and positions  to women.
Identify impacts, evaluate psychological and social  considerations, and review gender neutral  standards that may be impacted by opening all Air  Force Special Operations Command occupations  and positions to women.
In 2012, DOD approved an exception to the Direct Ground Combat Assignment Rule Policy for the  Army, and enabled the Army to assign women to enlisted and officer positions at the battalion level in  open occupations in nine Brigade Combat Teams.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kimberly C. Seay (Assistant  Director), Thomas Beall, Margaret A. Best, Renee S. Brown, Adam  Hatton, Aaron D. Karty, Amie Lesser, Richard Powelson, Michael Silver,  Alexander Welsh, and Michael Willems made major contributions to this  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Military Personnel: DOD Has Taken Steps to Meet the Health Needs of  Deployed Servicewomen, but Actions Are Needed to Enhance Care for  Sexual Assault Victims. GAO-13-182. Washington, D.C.: January 29,  2013.
National Security: DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the  Selective Service System. GAO-12-623. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2012.
Gender Issues: Trends in the Occupational Distribution of Military  Women. GAO/NSIAD-99-212. Washington, D.C.: September 14, 1999.
Gender Issues: Perceptions of Readiness in Selected Units.  GAO/NSIAD-99-120. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999.
Gender Issues: Information to Assess Servicemembers’ Perceptions of  Gender Inequities Is Incomplete. GAO/NSIAD-99-27. Washington, D.C.:  November 18, 1998.
Gender Issues: Improved Guidance and Oversight Are Needed to Ensure  Validity and Equity of Fitness Standards. GAO/NSIAD-99-9. Washington,  D.C.: November 17, 1998.
Gender Issues: Information on DOD’s Assignment Policy and Direct  Ground Combat Definition. GAO/NSIAD-99-7. Washington, D.C.: October  19, 1998.
Gender Issues: Changes Would Be Needed to Expand Selective Service  Registration to Women. GAO/NSIAD-98-199. Washington, D.C.: June 30,  1998.
Gender Issues: Analysis of Methodologies in Reports to the Secretaries  of Defense and the Army. GAO/NSIAD-98-125. Washington, D.C.: March  16, 1998.
Selective Service: Cost and Implications of Two Alternatives to the  Present System. GAO/NSIAD-97-225. Washington, D.C.: September 10,  1997.
Gender Integration in Basic Training: The Services Are Using a Variety of  Approaches. GAO/T-NSIAD-97-174. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 1997.
Physically Demanding Jobs: Services Have Little Data on Ability of  Personnel to Perform. GAO/NSIAD-96-169. Washington, D.C.: July 9,  1996.
Basic Training: Services Are Using a Variety of Approaches to Gender  Integration. GAO/NSIAD-96-153. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 1996.
Women in the Military: Deployment in the Persian Gulf War.  GAO/NSIAD-93-93. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 1993.
Women in the Military: Air Force Revises Job Availability but Entry  Screening Needs Review. GAO/NSIAD-91-199. Washington, D.C.:  August 30, 1991.
Women in the Military: More Military Jobs Can Be Opened Under Current  Statutes. GAO/NSIAD-88-222. September 7, 1988.
Women in the Military: Impact of Proposed Legislation to Open More  Combat Support Positions and Units to Women. GAO/NSIAD-88-197BR.  Washington, D.C.: July 15, 1988.
Combat Exclusion Laws for Women in the Military. GAO/T-NSIAD-88-8.  Washington, D.C.: November 19, 1987.