DOD and Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Increase Oversight and Management Information on Hazing Incidents Involving Servicemembers
Published: 2016-02-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Initiations and rites of passage can instill esprit de corps and loyalty and are included in many traditions throughout DOD and the Coast Guard. However, at times these, and more ad hoc activities, have included cruel or abusive behavior that can undermine unit cohesion and operational effectiveness.
Congress included a provision in statute for GAO to report on DOD, including each of the military services, and Coast Guard policies to prevent, and efforts to track, incidents of hazing. This report addresses the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard, which falls under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), have (1) developed and implemented policies to address incidents of hazing, and (2) visibility over hazing incidents involving servicemembers. GAO reviewed hazing policies; assessed data on hazing incidents and requirements for and methods used to track them; assessed the results of organizational climate surveys that included questions on hazing; conducted focus groups with servicemembers during site visits to two installations selected based on available hazing and sexual assault data, among other factors; and interviewed cognizant officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD), including each of the military services, and the Coast Guard have issued policies to address hazing, but generally do not know the extent to which their policies have been implemented. The military services' and Coast Guard's policies define hazing similarly to DOD and include servicemember training requirements. The military service and Coast Guard policies also contain guidance, such as responsibilities for policy implementation and direction on avoiding hazing in service customs and traditions, beyond what is included in DOD's policy. However, DOD and the Coast Guard generally do not know the extent to which their policies have been implemented because most of the services and the Coast Guard have not conducted oversight through regular monitoring of policy implementation. The Marine Corps conducts inspections of command hazing policy on issues such as providing servicemembers with information on the hazing policy and complying with hazing incident reporting requirements. While these inspections provide Marine Corps headquarters officials with some information they can use to conduct oversight of hazing policy implementation, they do not necessarily cover all aspects of hazing policy implementation. Without routinely monitoring policy implementation, DOD, the Coast Guard, and the military services may not have the accountability needed to help ensure efforts to address hazing are implemented consistently.
DOD and the Coast Guard have limited visibility over hazing incidents involving servicemembers. Specifically, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps track data on reported incidents of hazing, but the data are not complete and consistent due to varying tracking methods that do not always include all reported incidents. For example, until October 2015, the Army only tracked cases investigated by criminal investigators or military police, while the Navy required reports on substantiated hazing cases and the Marine Corps required reports on both substantiated and unsubstantiated cases. The Air Force and Coast Guard do not require the collection of hazing incident data, and instead have taken an ad hoc approach to compiling relevant information to respond to requests for such data. In the absence of guidance on hazing data collection, DOD and the Coast Guard do not have an accurate picture of reported hazing incidents across the services. In addition, DOD and the Coast Guard have not evaluated the prevalence of hazing. An evaluation of prevalence would provide information on the extent of hazing beyond the limited data on reported incidents, and could be estimated based on survey responses, as DOD does in the case of sexual assault. Service officials said that currently, reported hazing incidents are the primary indicator of the extent of hazing. However, data obtained through other sources suggest that hazing may be more widespread in DOD and the Coast Guard than the current reported numbers. For example, GAO analysis of organizational climate survey results from 2014 for the military services and the Coast Guard found that about 12 percent of respondents in the junior enlisted ranks indicated their belief that such incidents occur in their units. Although these results do not measure the prevalence of hazing incidents, they yield insights into servicemember perceptions of hazing, and suggest that an evaluation of the extent of hazing is warranted. Without evaluating the prevalence of hazing within their organizations, DOD and the Coast Guard will be limited in their ability to effectively target their efforts to address hazing.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is making 12 recommendations, among them that DOD and the Coast Guard regularly monitor policy implementation, issue guidance on the collection and tracking of hazing incident data, and evaluate the prevalence of hazing. DOD and DHS concurred with all of GAO's recommendations and have begun taking actions to address them.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Initiations and rites of passage can be effective tools to instill esprit de  corps and loyalty among servicemembers and are included in many  traditions throughout the Department of Defense (DOD) and in the Coast  Guard. However, such traditional activities, as well as other, more ad hoc  activities, have at times included cruel or abusive behavior, and it has not  always been easy for servicemembers to draw a clear distinction between  legitimate traditions and patterns of misconduct. In recent years, the  military services, as well as the Coast Guard, have experienced high- profile hazing incidents. For example, seven members of the Coast Guard  were convicted at courts-martial for charges related to hazing behaviors  while on board the Coast Guard Cutter Venturous from 2007 through  2009. In 2011, while serving in Afghanistan, an Army private committed  suicide after reportedly being subjected to verbal and physical hazing and  a Lance Corporal in the Marine Corps committed suicide after fellow  Marines beat him during an alleged hazing incident for falling asleep on  watch.
Until December 2015, DOD defined hazing as any conduct whereby a  military member or members, regardless of service or rank, without  proper authority causes another military member or members, regardless  of service or rank, to suffer or be exposed to any activity which is cruel,  abusive, humiliating, oppressive, demeaning, or harmful. Soliciting or  coercing another to perpetrate any such activity was also considered  hazing, and the actions could be verbal or psychological in nature.  Furthermore, actual or implied consent did not eliminate the culpability of  the perpetrator. The military services and the Coast Guard have adopted  similar definitions of hazing. At the conclusion of this review, DOD  updated its definition of hazing to, among other things, distinguish  between hazing and bullying, as we discuss later in this report. According  to the updated definition, hazing involves bringing people into a group or  new status, whereas bullying may involve the singling out of an individual  for being different or weak.
The Carl Levin and Howard P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 included a provision for us to report  on the policies to prevent hazing, and systems initiated to track incidents  of hazing, in each of the armed services. For this report, we reviewed the  extent to which DOD, the military services, and the Coast Guard have (1)  developed and implemented policies to address hazing incidents, and (2)  visibility over hazing incidents involving servicemembers.
To address the first objective, we reviewed hazing policies and guidance  from DOD, the military services, and the Coast Guard. We interviewed  officials within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel  and Readiness, the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and  the Coast Guard who are responsible for the development and  implementation of hazing policies, as well as criminal investigators,  inspector general officials, and legal officials. In addition, we reviewed  training materials from the military services and the Coast Guard on the  prevention of hazing. We visited two installations—one for the Navy and  one for the Marine Corps—to obtain the perspectives of servicemembers,  commanders, and other officials responsible for implementing hazing  policies and responding to reported incidents, and we conducted nine  focus groups with servicemembers in enlisted pay grades E3-E5 (5 Navy  and 4 Marine Corps) at those installations. We also administered a  related survey to the focus group participants. These focus groups  provided insight into the effects of hazing policies at the local levels, but  were not generalizable across the military services. We compared the  extent to which DOD, the military services, and the Coast Guard have  monitored the implementation of hazing policies to the Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government criteria on management  control activities, including the policies, procedures, techniques, and  mechanisms that enforce management’s directives to achieve an entity’s  objectives. We also compared the extent to which policies and guidance  are sufficiently clear for servicemembers to determine when hazing has  occurred to the Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  criteria that state that management establishes standards of conduct,  which guide the directives, attitudes, and behaviors of the organization in  achieving the entity’s objectives.
To address the second objective, we reviewed DOD’s, the military  services’, and the Coast Guard’s hazing policies to determine the extent  to which they required tracking of hazing incidents and to identify the  processes, if any, that are used to collect and maintain hazing incident  data. We analyzed hazing incident data from December 2012 through  December 2014—to the extent they were available—for each of the  military services and the Coast Guard. Further, we interviewed officials  from the military services and the Coast Guard who are responsible for  collecting data on hazing incidents and any related adjudications. We also  interviewed officials within the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense  for Personnel and Readiness to determine the extent to which DOD had  provided the military services with guidance on tracking hazing incident  data, and we interviewed officials in the Coast Guard Office of Military  Personnel, Policy and Standards Division, to determine the extent to  which the Coast Guard had issued guidance on tracking hazing incident  data. We compared the military services’ and the Coast Guard’s methods  of data collection with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government criteria stating that information should be recorded and  communicated to management and others who need it in a form and  within a time frame that allows them to carry out their internal control and  other responsibilities. We found limitations in the reliability of the armed  services’ data on hazing incidents, which we discuss in the report.  However, we found that the data were sufficiently reliable for reporting  some aggregate numbers of incidents, alleged offenders, and alleged  victims, and in some cases for reporting demographic information on  alleged offenders and victims. We interviewed officials in the Office of the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and from each  of the military services to identify any DOD-wide or service-specific  initiatives that exist to evaluate the extent of hazing in the military. We  also interviewed Coast Guard officials to identify any steps that had been  taken to evaluate the extent of hazing in the Coast Guard. We obtained  and analyzed available data pertaining to perceptions of hazing and  demeaning behaviors from the results of command climate surveys  administered by each military service and by the Coast Guard in calendar  year 2014. We found some limitations in the reliability of these data,  which we discuss in the report. However, we found that the data were  sufficiently reliable to report some aggregate numbers on perceptions of  hazing across the armed services and in each armed service. Because of  the nature of the decentralized process used to administer and to collect  the results of the command climate surveys, the analysis cannot be  generalized to the entire population of active service members across the  armed forces or each service. Therefore, the analyses we present using  the command climate survey data are intended to demonstrate how the  survey data might be used to assess perceptions related to hazing. We  also reviewed a 2014 RAND Corporation study on sexual assault in the  military that also discussed hazing to identify the extent to which sexual  assault incidents may also result from or constitute hazing. We  compared the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard have evaluated  the prevalence of hazing with Standards for Internal Control in the  Federal Government criteria stating that management analyzes identified  risks to estimate their significance, which provides a basis for responding  to the risks, and with leading practices for program evaluations, which  state that evaluations can play a key role in planning and program  management by providing feedback on both program design and  execution.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to February 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  These 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. Further details on our scope  and methodology are presented in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Congressional Interest in Hazing and DOD and Coast Guard Reports to Congress
paragraphs: In light of the prominent hazing incidents previously noted, Congress, in  the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, directed that  each Secretary of a military department (and the Secretary of Homeland  Security in the case of the Coast Guard) submit a report on hazing in  each Armed Force under the jurisdiction of the Secretary. Specifically,  Congress specified that each Armed Force report include, among other  things, an evaluation of the hazing definition contained in an August 1997  Secretary of Defense policy memorandum on hazing, a discussion of their  respective policies for preventing and responding to incidents of hazing,  and a description of the methods implemented to track and report,  including report anonymously, incidents of hazing in the Armed Forces.
In response, each service provided reports to Congress in May and July  2013 addressing the requirements of the Act. For example, the Navy,  the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard concurred with DOD’s 1997  definition of hazing. To address all behaviors that involve mistreatment in  a single policy, the Army recommended revising the hazing definition to  include bullying. The Air Force recommended the hazing definition be  revised to better align with the hazing definitions used by the states  because DOD’s broader definition risked creating a perception that  hazing is a larger problem in the military than it actually is according to  the civilian understanding of hazing. The Coast Guard also noted in its  report to Congress that it developed its policy to reflect the provisions  contained in DOD’s hazing policy.
With respect to the feasibility of establishing a database to track, respond  to, and resolve incidents of hazing, the Army report stated that existing  databases and legal tracking systems are sufficient for tracking hazing  incidents. The Navy reported that although it has a tracking database in  use, a comprehensive database for all services may be beneficial in  combatting hazing. The Marine Corps report stated that the Marine Corps  currently uses a service-wide database for tracking and managing all  allegations of hazing. The Air Force report stated that it will examine the  costs and benefits of establishing a database to track, respond to, and  resolve hazing incidents once a common definition and data elements are  developed. The Coast Guard stated that existing systems provide  adequate management of hazing incidents.
Lastly, in response to the requirement to provide any recommended  changes to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or the Manual for  Courts-Martial, the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force reports  stated that they supported inserting a provision in the Manual for Courts- Martial discussion section of Article 92 of the UCMJ that would enable  incidents of hazing to be charged as violations of Article 92 (violation of or  failure to obey a lawful general order or regulation). All of the armed  services agreed that a separate enumerated offense of the UCMJ for  hazing would be duplicative.
In addition, in May 2012, the House Appropriations Committee Report  accompanying the DOD Appropriations Bill, 2013, expressing concern  about reports of hazing in the armed services, directed the Secretary of  Defense to provide a report to the Committee on the incidence of hazing,  harassment, and mistreatment of servicemembers, as well as a review of  the policies to prevent and respond to alleged hazing incidents. In  response to this requirement, and in addition to the service reports, in  September 2013, the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness provided a report to Congress that summarized the armed  service reports to Congress. In addition, the report noted that DOD  commissioned the RAND Corporation to conduct a study that would  include an assessment of the 1997 definition of hazing and subsequent  recommendation on a DOD definition of hazing, as well as an evaluation  of the feasibility of establishing a DOD-wide database to track hazing  incidents, common data elements, and requirements to include in the  revision of the 1997 policy memorandum for uniformity across the  services.
section_title: Hazing and Military Law
paragraphs: There is no specific article under the UCMJ that defines and prohibits  hazing. However, since at least 1950, hazing has been punishable under  various punitive articles included in the UCMJ such as Article 93, Cruelty  and Maltreatment. To constitute an offense under Article 93, the  accused must be cruel toward, or oppress, or maltreat a victim that is  subject to his or her orders. Depending on the individual facts and  circumstances of the case, hazing could also be charged under other  punitive articles, such as Article 128, Assault.
Commanders have multiple options to respond to allegations of hazing in  their units. After receiving a hazing complaint, commanders or other  authorities must promptly and thoroughly investigate the allegation,  according to the DOD policy. If the allegation is unsubstantiated, the case  is typically dropped. If the investigation substantiates the allegations, the  commander must take effective and appropriate action, which may  include adverse administrative action, non-judicial punishment, court- martial, or no action, among others. An allegation that is initially deemed  substantiated does not necessarily result in punishment for the offender  because a servicemember could be found not guilty at non-judicial  punishment or court-martial, among other reasons.
section_title: Prior GAO Work on Sexual Assault and Hazing
paragraphs: While we have not reported on hazing in the military since 1992, we  have issued multiple reports and made numerous recommendations  related to DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s efforts to prevent and respond to  the sometimes correlated issue of sexual assault. In particular, our March  2015 report on male servicemember victims of sexual assault reported  that hazing incidents may cross the line into sexual assault. We noted  that service officials and male servicemembers at several military  installations gave us examples of recent incidents involving both hazing  and sexual assault. We found that a series of hazing incidents may  escalate into a sexual assault and that service officials stated that training  on hazing-type activities and their relationship to sexual assault would be  particularly beneficial to males in that it might lead to increased reporting  and fewer inappropriate incidents. Among other things, we recommended  that DOD revise its sexual assault prevention and response training to  more comprehensively and directly address how certain behavior and  activities, such as hazing, can constitute sexual assault. DOD concurred  with this recommendation, but did not state what actions it planned to  take in response. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2016 subsequently included a provision requiring the Secretary of  Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the Military Departments,  to develop a plan for prevention and response to sexual assaults in which  the victim is a male servicemember. This plan is required to include  sexual assault prevention and response training to address the incidence  of male servicemembers who are sexually assaulted and how certain  behaviors and activities, such as hazing, can constitute a sexual  assault.
section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Have Issued Policies to Address Hazing but They Do Not Know the Extent to Which the Policies Have Been Implemented and Servicemembers Need Clarification on the Policies
paragraphs: Each of the military services has issued policies to address hazing  incidents among servicemembers consistent with DOD’s 1997 hazing  policy. However, DOD does not know the extent to which these policies  have been implemented because the military services, with the exception  of the Marine Corps, have not conducted oversight by regularly  monitoring policy implementation. The Coast Guard has issued a policy to  address hazing incidents, but it likewise has not conducted oversight by  regularly monitoring policy implementation. In addition, the military  services’ hazing policies are broad and servicemembers may not have  enough information to determine whether instances of training or  discipline may be considered hazing.
subsections: section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Have Issued Policies to Address Hazing Incidents
paragraphs: In August 1997, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum on  DOD’s policy that defined and provided examples of what did and did not  constitute prohibited hazing conduct. DOD’s policy also specified that  commanders and senior noncommissioned officers would promptly and  thoroughly investigate all reports of hazing and that they would take  appropriate and effective action on substantiated allegations. Further, it  required the Secretaries of the Military Departments to ensure that DOD’s  hazing policy was incorporated into entry-level enlisted and officer military  training, as well as professional military education. Coast Guard officials  told us that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not issued  any hazing-related policy applicable to the Coast Guard, and DHS  officials confirmed that no such policy had been issued, though as we  discuss further in this report, the Coast Guard issued policies that reflect  DOD’s 1997 hazing policy.
From 1997 through 2014, each of the military services issued or updated  applicable policies to reflect DOD’s position on hazing and its  requirements for addressing such incidents. The military services  updated their policies for various reasons, such as implementing tracking  requirements or defining and prohibiting bullying along with hazing. The  Coast Guard also issued a policy during this timeframe that, as noted in  its 2013 report to Congress on hazing, mirrors the policy developed by  DOD. Each of the services made their policies punitive so that a  violation of the military service regulation could also be charged under the  UCMJ as a violation of Article 92, Failure to obey an order or regulation.
More recently, in December 2015 DOD issued an updated hazing and  bullying memorandum and policy, which among other things included an  updated definition of hazing, defined bullying, and directed the secretaries  of the military departments to develop instructions to comply with the  memorandum. Figure 1 provides additional details on the timeline of  DOD, military service, and Coast Guard hazing policies and relevant  congressional actions since 1997.
The Coast Guard issued a policy in 1991 that required hazing awareness training.
Each of the military services’ policies (1) include the same or a similar  definition of hazing as the one developed by DOD, (2) require that  commanders investigate reported hazing incidents, and (3) direct that all  servicemembers receive training on the hazing policy. Though not  required, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps hazing policies  contain guidance and requirements that supplement several key  provisions in DOD’s policy. For example, in addition to the examples of  hazing included in DOD’s policy, the Army’s 2014 regulation update  explicitly prohibits hazing via social media or other electronic  communications, and makes a distinction between hazing and bullying,  which it also prohibits.
Further, the Army’s, the Navy’s, and the Marine Corps’ hazing policies  and guidance include requirements for commanders and senior  noncommissioned officers beyond the general investigative and  disciplinary responsibilities specified by DOD. Specifically, the Army’s  regulation requires its commanders to seek the counsel of their legal  advisor when taking actions pursuant to the hazing policy. Navy policy on  reporting hazing incidents directs all commands to submit reports of  substantiated hazing incidents for tracking by the Navy’s Office of Hazing  Prevention. The Marine Corps’ order requires commanding officers to  report both substantiated and unsubstantiated hazing incidents to Marine  Corps headquarters. In October 1997, the Air Force reissued the  Secretary of Defense’s memorandum and DOD’s hazing policy with a  cover letter from the Chief of Staff of the Air Force that underscored that  hazing is contrary to good order and discipline, that it would not be  tolerated, and that commanders and supervisors must stay engaged to  ensure that hazing does not occur within the Air Force.
Regarding training, the Army’s, the Navy’s, and the Marine Corps’ policies  supplement DOD’s requirement that the topic of hazing be incorporated  into entry-level enlisted and officer training and Professional Military  Education. Specifically, the Army’s hazing regulation requires that  commanders at a minimum conduct hazing awareness training on at least  an annual basis as part of the Army’s Equal Opportunity training  requirements. The Department of the Navy’s instruction requires that  hazing awareness training be incorporated into leadership training and  commander’s courses, and the Marine Corps’ order includes similar  requirements, adding that hazing awareness training also be included in  troop information programs and in unit orientation. By including the DOD  hazing policy, the Air Force memorandum includes the training  requirements specified by DOD, and an Air Education and Training  Command policy requires annual hazing awareness training within Air  Force training units.
In September 2011, the Coast Guard updated its Discipline and Conduct  Instruction to include its policy prohibiting hazing. As previously noted, the  Coast Guard’s instruction mirrors guidance set forth in a 1997 Secretary  of Defense Policy Memorandum, including DOD’s definition of hazing and  examples of what does and does not constitute prohibited hazing  conduct. Like DOD’s policy, the Coast Guard’s instruction also specifies  that commanders who receive complaints or information about hazing  must investigate and take prompt, effective action and are to incorporate  hazing awareness training into the annual unit training. While similar in  some respects, the Coast Guard’s hazing instruction contains guidance  and requirements that go beyond the policy issued by DOD. For example,  in addition to a requirement to investigate alleged incidents, the Coast  Guard’s policy identifies penalties that may result from hazing that,  depending on the circumstances, range from counseling to administrative  discharge procedures. Further, the Coast Guard’s instruction also  requires that a discussion about hazing be incorporated into existing  recruit, officer, and leadership training curricula.
The Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps hazing policies state that  servicemembers should report hazing complaints within the chain of  command, such as to their commander. The Army’s regulation also states  that servicemembers may report hazing complaints to law enforcement or  the inspector general. The Coast Guard’s hazing instruction states that  every military member—to include victims of or witnesses to actual or  attempted hazing—must report such incidents to the appropriate level  within the chain of command.
Headquarters officials from each military service and the Coast Guard  told us that servicemembers may report hazing complaints through  existing channels, such as the commander, law enforcement, inspector  general, or the equal opportunity office, among others. In some cases  these channels may be independent of or above the level of their  commands, such as an inspector general at a higher level than their own  command’s inspector general. In other cases, such as an equal  opportunity advisor in their own command, the reporting channel would  not be independent of the command. These officials said that in most  cases, there are means to report hazing complaints anonymously to  many of these channels, such as anonymous inspector general hotlines.
In addition, because hazing can be associated with rites of passage and  traditions, the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps—either in their  policies or through supplemental guidance—permit command-authorized  rituals, customs, and rites of passage that are not cruel or abusive, and  require commanders to ensure that these events do not include hazing.  The Army’s policy states that the chain of command will ensure that  traditional events are carried out in accordance with Army values, and  that the dignity and respect of all participants is maintained. A quick  reference legal handbook issued by the Department of the Navy provides  guidance to Navy and Marine Corps commanders for conducting  ceremonies and traditional events as part of its section on hazing  prevention. Although the Air Force instruction on standards does not  specifically address traditions and customs, according to officials in the  Air Force Personnel Directorate office, commanders are responsible for  ensuring the appropriateness of such observances.
During a site visit to Naval Base Coronado, we met with the commander  of the USS Carl Vinson, who issued local guidance that was more  specifically tailored to a particular event or ceremony under his command.  Prior to a recent ‘crossing the line’ ceremony—marking the first time a  sailor crosses the equator or the international dateline—the commander  of the USS Carl Vinson issued formal guidelines for conducting the  ceremony that designated oversight and safety responsibilities, listed  permissible and non-permissible activities, and noted that participation  was voluntary. Specifically, among other things the guidance stated that  servicemembers may perform a talent show, provided that it does not  include sexually suggestive props, costumes, skits, or gags. The  guidance also stated that servicemembers that do not wish to participate  in the events may opt out and that non-participants are not permitted to  observe the ceremony or any related activities.
The Coast Guard’s hazing instruction permits command-authorized  rituals, customs, and rites of passage that are not cruel or abusive, and  requires commanders to ensure that these events do not include hazing.  Specifically, the Coast Guard’s hazing instruction states that traditional  ceremonies, including Chief’s Initiations and equator, international  dateline, and Arctic and Antarctic Circle crossings, are authorized,  provided that commands comply with governing directives when  conducting such ceremonies. The instruction further states that  commanding officers shall ensure these events do not include  harassment of any kind that contains character degradation, sexual  overtones, bodily harm or otherwise uncivilized behavior.
In its 2013 report to Congress, DOD said that it would develop an update  to the 1997 policy memorandum on hazing, to be followed by an  instruction outlining its hazing policy. The Office of the Under Secretary of  Defense for Personnel and Readiness in 2013 formed a hazing working  group, led by the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity  (ODMEO), to update DOD’s hazing policy. The updated policy was issued  as a memorandum in December 2015. The updated policy distinguishes  between hazing and bullying and includes a hazing and bullying training  requirement, among other things. With the issuance of the memorandum,  the officials said they will begin working, through the hazing working  group, on a DOD instruction on hazing that will replace the updated  memorandum.
section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Do Not Know the Extent to Which Their Hazing Policies Have Been Implemented
paragraphs: DOD and the Coast Guard do not know the extent to which hazing  policies have been implemented because—with the exception of policy  compliance inspections conducted by the Marine Corps—DOD, the  military services and the Coast Guard do not conduct oversight by  regularly monitoring the implementation of their hazing policies.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management designs control activities that include the policies,  procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce management’s  directives to achieve an entity’s objectives. Although most service  policies designated implementation responsibilities, DOD, the military  services, and the Coast Guard generally do not know the extent or  consistency with which their policies have been implemented because— with the exception of the inspections conducted by the Marine Corps— they have not instituted headquarters-level mechanisms to regularly  monitor policy implementation, such as by collecting local command data  on hazing policy implementation or conducting site inspections to  determine the extent to which the policies have been implemented,  among other things.
DOD’s 2013 report to Congress on hazing stated that prevention of  hazing is under the purview of the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness. However, DOD has not conducted oversight  by regularly monitoring the implementation of its hazing policy by the  military services, and it has not required that the military services  regularly monitor the implementation of their hazing policies. Likewise, the  Coast Guard has not required regular headquarters-level monitoring of  the implementation of its hazing policy.
We reviewed each of the military services’ hazing policies and found that  the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps policies specify some  implementation responsibilities. Specifically, the Army’s hazing regulation  states that commanders and supervisors at all levels are responsible for  its enforcement. However, according to an official in the Army office that  developed the Army’s hazing policy, there is no service-wide effort to  oversee the implementation of the hazing regulation. The Navy’s  instruction designates commanders and supervisors as responsible for  ensuring that all ceremonies and initiations in their organizations comply  with the policy. The Navy’s instruction also identifies the Chief of Naval  Operations as being responsible for ensuring that the hazing policy is  implemented. However, officials in the Navy’s office that develops hazing  policy said there is no service-wide effort to specifically oversee  implementation of the hazing policy. The Marine Corps’ order  designates the Deputy Commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs,  the Commanding General, and the Marine Corps Combat Development  Command, as well as commanding officers, and officers-in-charge as  being responsible for policy implementation. In addition, the Marine Corps  reported conducting regular inspections of command implementation of  the Marine Corps hazing policy as a means of overseeing service-wide  implementation of its hazing policy. The Air Force’s hazing policy does  not contain specific designations of responsibility. However, the Air Force  policy memorandum states that commanders and supervisors must stay  engaged to make sure that hazing doesn’t occur in the Air Force and the  Air Force instruction on standards states that each airman in the chain of  command is obligated to prevent hazing. As with the Army and Navy, the  Air Force hazing policy memorandum does not include requirements to  regularly monitor policy implementation across the service.
The Coast Guard’s hazing instruction generally identifies training centers,  commanders, and Coast Guard personnel as being responsible for its  implementation. Specifically, the instruction specifies that training centers  are responsible for incorporating hazing awareness training into curricula  administered to different levels of personnel. In addition to their  investigative responsibilities, the instruction also states that commanding  officers and supervisors are responsible for ensuring that they administer  their units in an environment of professionalism and mutual respect that  does not tolerate hazing of individuals or groups. Lastly, the instruction  charges all Coast Guard personnel with the responsibility to help ensure  that hazing does not occur in any form at any level and that the  appropriate authorities are informed of any suspected policy violation.  However, the Coast Guard reported that it has not regularly monitored  hazing policy implementation.
An official in the Army’s Equal Opportunity office stated that although its  office has responsibility for hazing policy, the office has not been tasked  with, and thus has not developed, a mechanism to monitor  implementation of its policy. However, the official acknowledged that it  could be helpful to have more information on the extent to which elements  of such policies are being incorporated by its commands and at its  installations. The official added that ways to do this could include  collecting and reviewing data from commands on policy implementation,  or conducting inspections, though the official noted that inspections would  require additional resources. Officials in the Navy’s Office of Behavioral  Standards stated that the responsibility for compliance with the hazing  policy is delegated to the command level, with oversight by the immediate  superior in command, but our review found that the Navy did not have a  mechanism to facilitate headquarters-level monitoring of hazing policy  implementation.
In contrast, the Marine Corps Inspector General, in coordination with the  Marine Corps Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs, conducts service- wide inspections to determine, among other things, whether the  provisions of the Marine Corps’ hazing policy are being implemented  consistently and to ensure that commands are in compliance with the  requirements of the hazing policy. Marine Corps Inspector General  officials told us that the Marine Corps Inspector General has inspected  command programs to address hazing since June 1997, with the initial  issuance of the Marine Corps’ hazing order. Specifically, the Inspector  General checks command programs against a series of hazing-related  items, such as whether the command includes hazing policies and  procedures in its orientation and annual troop information program and  whether the command has complied with hazing incident reporting  requirements. These inspections do not necessarily cover all aspects of  hazing policy implementation. For example, Marine Corps Inspector  General officials told us they do not consistently review the content of  training materials, although they do review training rosters to verify that  servicemembers have received hazing training. However, the inspections  provide additional information to Marine Corps headquarters officials on  the implementation of hazing policy by commands. Marine Corps  Manpower and Reserve Affairs officials also told us that they will begin  consistently reviewing training content after they standardize the training.
Marine Corps Inspector General officials stated that at the local level,  command inspectors general complete compliance inspections every two  years, and the Marine Corps headquarters inspector general assesses  local command inspectors general every three years to ensure they are  effectively inspecting subordinate units. The Marine Corps headquarters  inspector general also inspects those commands that do not have their  own inspectors general every two years. According to the Office of the  Marine Corps Inspector General, commanders are required to provide the  Inspector General—within 30 days of its report—a plan for addressing  any findings of non-compliance with the hazing policy. Further, a Marine  Corps Manpower and Reserve Affairs official said that when commands  are found to be out of compliance with the policy, officials conducting the  inspections will assist them in taking steps to improve their hazing  prevention program. Marine Corps officials told us that in the past 24  months, 3 of 33 commands inspected by the Marine Corps Inspector  General were found to have non-mission-capable hazing prevention  programs. They added that not having a mission-capable program does  not necessarily indicate the existence of a hazing problem in the  command. A Marine Corps Inspector General official said that local  inspectors general may re-inspect commands within 60 days, and no  longer than the next inspection cycle, to ensure they have made changes  to comply with the hazing policy.
An official from the Air Force Personnel Directorate stated that oversight  is inherent in the requirement to comply with policy and that any violations  would be captured through the regular investigative, inspector general,  and equal opportunity processes, and potentially the military justice  process. The official also added that it is ultimately a commander’s  responsibility to ensure policy compliance. However, the Air Force has  not established a mechanism that monitors implementation to help ensure  commanders are consistently applying the policy. Similarly, officials from  the Coast Guard’s Office of Military Personnel, Policy and Standards  Division stated that they have not instituted a mechanism to monitor  implementation of the Coast Guard’s hazing policy.
During site visits to Naval Base Coronado and Marine Corps Base Camp  Pendleton, we conducted nine focus groups with enlisted  servicemembers and found that they were generally aware of some of the  requirements specified in DOD’s and their respective service’s policies on  hazing. For example, enlisted personnel in all nine focus groups  demonstrated an understanding that hazing is prohibited and generally  stated that they had received hazing awareness training. In addition,  during our site visit to Naval Base Coronado, servicemembers in one  focus group said that prior to a recent ceremony aboard the USS Carl  Vinson, the ship’s commander provided all personnel aboard with  command-specific guidance and training to raise their awareness of  hazing. At Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, we identified multiple  postings of hazing policy statements throughout various commands.
We are encouraged by the actions taken at these two installations and we  understand that there is a general expectation for commanders and other  leaders in the military services and in the Coast Guard to help ensure  compliance with policy. In addition, we note that the Marine Corps has  implemented a means of monitoring hazing policy implementation  throughout the service. However, without regular monitoring by DOD of  the implementation of its hazing policy by the services, and without  regular monitoring by all of the services of the implementation of their  hazing policies, DOD and the military services will be unable to effectively  identify issues and, when necessary, adjust their respective approaches  to addressing hazing. Likewise, without regular monitoring by the Coast  Guard of the implementation of its hazing policy, the Coast Guard will be  unable to effectively identify issues and make adjustments to its approach  to addressing hazing when necessary.
section_title: Military Servicemembers May Not Have Sufficient Information to Distinguish Hazing From Permitted Behavior
paragraphs: As previously noted, DOD and military service policies generally define  hazing and provide examples of prohibited conduct. However, based on  our review of these policies, meetings with officials, and focus groups with  servicemembers, we found that the military services may not have  provided servicemembers with sufficient information to determine whether  specific conduct or activities constitute hazing. According to the  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, management  establishes standards of conduct, which guide the directives, attitudes,  and behaviors of the organization in achieving the entity’s objectives.  Each of the military services has defined hazing and provided training on  the definition to servicemembers, but may not have provided sufficient  clarification to servicemembers to help them make distinctions between  hazing and generally accepted activities in the military, such as training  and extra military instruction.
To help servicemembers recognize an incident of hazing, DOD and  military service policies provide a definition of hazing and include  examples of rituals for servicemembers to illustrate various types of  prohibited conduct. As noted previously, from 1997 to December 2015  DOD defined hazing as any conduct whereby a servicemember, without  proper authority, causes another servicemember to suffer, or be exposed  to any activity which is, among other things, humiliating or demeaning.  According to this definition, hazing includes soliciting another to  perpetrate any such activity, and can be verbal or psychological in nature.  In addition, consent does not eliminate the culpability of the perpetrator.  DOD’s 1997 hazing policy also listed examples such as playing abusive  tricks; threatening violence or bodily harm; striking; branding; shaving;  painting; or forcing or requiring the consumption of food, alcohol, drugs,  or any other substance. The policy also noted that this was not an  inclusive list of examples. Likewise, DOD’s revised December 2015  hazing definition includes both physical and psychological acts, prohibits  soliciting others to perpetrate acts of hazing, states that consent does not  eliminate culpability, and gives a non-inclusive list of examples of hazing.
Headquarters-level officials from each military service stated that under  the hazing definition a great variety of behaviors could be perceived as  hazing. For example, Army officials said the definition encompasses a  wide range of possible behaviors. Likewise, Marine Corps officials said  that based on the definition included in its order, any activity can be  construed as hazing. At our site visits, servicemembers in each focus  group, as well as groups of non-commissioned officers, noted that  perception plays a significant role in deciding whether something is  hazing or not—that servicemembers may believe they have been hazed  because they feel demeaned, for example.
To distinguish hazing from other types of activities, DOD (in its 1997  hazing memorandum) and military service policies also provide examples  of things that are not considered to be hazing, including command- authorized mission or operational activities, the requisite training to  prepare for such missions or operations, administrative corrective  measures, extra military instruction, command-authorized physical  training, and other similar activities that are authorized by the chain of  command. However, as DOD noted in its 2013 report to Congress on  hazing, corrective military instruction has the potential to be perceived as  hazing. DOD noted that military training can be arduous, and stated that  hazing prevention education should distinguish between extra military  instruction and unlawful behavior. DOD also stated that the services  should deliberately incorporate discussion of extra military instruction,  including proper administration and oversight, in contrast with hazing as  part of prevention education. Conversely, a superior may haze  a subordinate, and servicemembers therefore need to be able to  recognize when conduct by a superior crosses the line into hazing.
To raise awareness of hazing, each service has developed training that  provides a general overview of prohibited conduct and the potential  consequences. However, the training materials we reviewed did not  provide servicemembers with information to enable them to identify less  obvious incidents of potential hazing, such as the inappropriate or  demeaning use of otherwise generally accepted corrective measures  such as extra military instruction. Conversely, the training materials that  we reviewed also did not include necessary information to help  servicemembers recognize an appropriate use of corrective measures.  Specifically, the training materials generally focused on clear examples of  hazing behaviors, and did not illustrate where accepted activities such as  training and discipline can cross the line into hazing. For example, the  Army administers hazing awareness training for use at all levels that  provides servicemembers with the definition of hazing and information  about the circumstances under which hazing may occur, as well as a list  of activities that are not considered hazing. However, our review found  that the Army’s training materials do not provide information to  servicemembers about how to make consistent determinations about  whether an activity should be considered hazing, such as in cases that  may resemble permitted activities.
Likewise, the Navy’s training is designed to empower sailors to recognize,  intervene, and stop various behaviors such as hazing that are not aligned  with the Navy’s ethos and core values. However, our review found that  the training focuses on intervening when an incident of hazing has  occurred and does not include information to help servicemembers  discern, for example, when a permissible activity is being used in an  impermissible manner. The Marine Corps’ hazing awareness training is  locally developed and examples of training materials we reviewed provide  an overview of the definition of hazing, examples of acts that could be  considered hazing similar to those delineated in the Marine Corps order  governing hazing, and a list of potential disciplinary actions that could  arise from a violation of the hazing order, among other things. However,  our review found that the training materials do not provide  servicemembers with information on activities that are not considered  hazing, such as extra military instruction, or the necessary information to  differentiate between permissible and non-permissible activities. In its  2013 report to Congress on Hazing in the Armed Forces, DOD similarly  identified that it can be difficult to distinguish between corrective  measures and hazing and noted that the services should incorporate a  discussion of extra military instruction, to include proper administration  and oversight, in contrast with hazing as part of prevention education.
During our site visits to Naval Base Coronado and Marine Corps Base  Camp Pendleton, three groups of non-commissioned officers reinforced  the suggestion that hazing definitions are not sufficiently clear to facilitate  a determination of which activities and conduct constitute hazing. The  non-commissioned officers we met with generally agreed that the broad  definition of hazing prevents them from effectively doing their jobs,  including disciplining servicemembers, taking corrective action, or  administering extra military instruction for fear of an allegation of hazing.  For example, non-commissioned officers during one site visit said that a  servicemember need only say “hazing” to prompt an investigation. During  another site visit, a non-commissioned officer described one hazing  complaint in which the complainant alleged hazing because the  complainant’s supervisor had required that the complainant work late to  catch up on administrative responsibilities. Although this complaint was  later found to be unsubstantiated, the allegation of hazing required that  resources be devoted to investigate the complaint. In addition, some  noncommissioned officers we met with stated that they were concerned  that the use of extra military instruction may result in an allegation of  hazing.
In our focus groups, enlisted servicemembers—over the course of both  site visits—provided a range of possible definitions for hazing that further  demonstrated the different interpretations of what constitutes prohibited  conduct. For example, some defined hazing only in physical terms,  whereas others recognized that hazing can be purely verbal or  psychological as well. Some servicemembers believed that an incident  would not be hazing if the servicemembers consented to involvement in  the activity, although DOD and service policies state that actual or implied  consent to acts of hazing does not eliminate the culpability of the  perpetrator. In addition, consistent with the concerns expressed by some  of the non-commissioned officers that we interviewed, servicemembers in  two focus groups stated that they may perceive extra military instruction  as hazing. By contrast, unit commanders and legal officials at one site  visit stated that they believe that the existing definition of hazing provides  supervisors with sufficient latitude to address misconduct.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management establishes expectations of competence for key roles, and  other roles at management’s discretion. Competence is the qualification  to carry out assigned responsibilities, and requires relevant knowledge,  skills, and abilities. It also states that management should internally  communicate the necessary quality information to achieve the entity’s  objectives. Without a more comprehensive understanding among  servicemembers of the conduct and activities that warrant an allegation of  hazing, servicemembers may not be able to effectively distinguish, and  thus effectively identify and address, prohibited conduct.
section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Have Limited Visibility Over Hazing Incidents
subsections: section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Do Not Have Complete and Consistent Data on Reported Hazing Incidents
paragraphs: The Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps track data on reported  incidents of hazing. However, the data collected and the methods used to  track them vary, and the data are therefore not complete and consistent.  The Air Force does not have a method of specifically tracking hazing  incidents, and the data it has generated on hazing incidents is also  therefore not necessarily complete, or consistent with the other military  services’ data. Likewise, the Coast Guard does not have a method of  specifically tracking hazing incidents, and the data it has generated on  hazing incidents is therefore not necessarily complete.
Although it is difficult to determine the total number of actual hazing  incidents, the military services’ data may not effectively characterize  reported incidents of hazing because, for the time period of data we  reviewed, DOD had not articulated a consistent methodology for tracking  hazing incidents, such as specifying and defining common data collection  requirements. As a result, there is an inconsistent and incomplete  accounting of hazing incidents both within and across these services.  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  information should be recorded and communicated to management and  others who need it in a form and within a time frame that allows them to  carry out their internal control and other responsibilities. In the absence  of DOD-level guidance on how to track and report hazing incidents, the  Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps developed differing policies on  hazing data collection and collected data on hazing incidents differently.  For example, until October 2015 the Army only collected data on cases  investigated by criminal investigators and military police, whereas the  Navy collected data on all substantiated hazing incidents reported to  commanders, and the Marine Corps collected data on both substantiated  and unsubstantiated incidents. The Air Force and the Coast Guard hazing  policies do not include a similar requirement to collect and track data on  hazing incidents. In the absence of DOD guidance, the Air Force has  taken an ad hoc approach to compiling relevant information to respond to  requests for data on hazing incidents, and in the absence of Coast Guard  guidance on tracking hazing incidents, the Coast Guard has also taken an  ad hoc approach to compiling hazing data. For example, the Air Force  queried its legal database for cases using variants of the word “hazing” to  provide information on hazing incidents to Congress in 2013. Table 1  illustrates some of the differences in the services’ collection of data on  hazing incidents and the total number of incidents for each service as  reflected in the data for the time period we reviewed. However, due to the  differences noted, data on reported incidents of hazing are not  comparable across the services.
Until September 2015, the Army’s primary tracking method for alleged  hazing incidents was a spreadsheet maintained by an official within the  Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, which included data on alleged  hazing incidents that were recorded in a database of cases investigated  by either military police or Criminal Investigation Command investigators,  according to officials in the Army’s Equal Opportunity office. However,  use of this database as the primary means of tracking hazing incidents  limited the Army’s visibility over reported hazing incidents because it did  not capture allegations handled by other Army offices, such as cases that  are investigated by the chain of command or by the office of the inspector  general. Data on hazing incidents through September 2015 are therefore  not complete or consistent with the data from the other military services.  Beginning in October 2015, the Army began to track hazing and bullying  incidents in its Equal Opportunity Office’s Equal Opportunity Reporting  System, but Army Equal Opportunity officials told us that they continue to  have difficulties obtaining all needed information on hazing cases due to  limitations in their ability to obtain information on hazing cases from  commanders.
The Navy requires that commands report all substantiated hazing  incidents by sending a report to the headquarters-level Office of  Behavioral Standards, where the information is entered into a  spreadsheet that contains service-wide data received on reported hazing  incidents. Officials in the Navy’s Office of Behavioral Standards told us  that they encourage commanders to also report unsubstantiated  incidents, but this is at the commanders’ discretion. The data on  unsubstantiated incidents are therefore not necessarily comparable with  those of services that require the collection and tracking of data on  unsubstantiated incidents. Furthermore, as a result of the different types  of data that are collected, reported numbers of hazing incidents may not  be consistently represented across the services.
Since May 2013, the Marine Corps has required that commanders  coordinate with their local Equal Opportunity Advisor to record  substantiated and unsubstantiated allegations of hazing in the Marine  Corps’ Discrimination and Sexual Harassment database. While the  Marine Corps’ tracking method is designed to capture all hazing  allegations of which a unit commander is aware, we found that the  methods used by the service to count cases, offenders, and victims have  not been consistent. For example, our analyses of these data identified  inconsistencies over time in the method of recording hazing cases.  Specifically, we found that in some instances, a reported hazing incident  involving multiple offenders or victims was counted as a separate case for  each offender-victim pair. In other instances, the incident was counted as  a single case even when it involved multiple offenders or victims. So, for  example, an incident involving 2 alleged offenders and 4 alleged victims  was counted as 8 incidents, and another with 3 alleged offenders and 3  alleged victims was counted as 9 incidents. On the other hand, we found  an example of a case with 4 alleged offenders and 1 alleged victim being  counted as a single case, and another with 2 alleged offenders and 2  alleged victims counted as a single case. The recording of incidents in the  Marine Corps is therefore not internally consistent or consistent with the  other military services.
As previously noted, the Air Force does not require that data be collected  or tracked on reported incidents of hazing, which has complicated its  ability to efficiently provide data on hazing incidents when they are  requested. To produce the congressionally-mandated report on hazing  incidents reported in fiscal year 2013, the Air Force performed a keyword  search of its legal database for variants of the word “hazing.” However,  given that the database is used and maintained by legal personnel, query  results only captured cases that came to the attention of a judge  advocate. Further, while the keyword search of its database identified  some incidents, the Air Force does not require that the term “hazing” or  any of its variants be included in the case narrative, even if the case  involved hazing. An official of the Air Force Legal Operations Agency told  us that judge advocates focus on the articles of the UCMJ, and  depending on the circumstances, they may or may not consider the  context of hazing to be relevant information to record in the file. Given  that “hazing” is not specifically delineated as an offense in the UCMJ,  documented incidents of hazing in the Air Force fall under various UCMJ  articles, such as Article 92 on Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation and  Article 128 on Assault, and may not identify the incident as hazing.  Consequently, Air Force officials stated that queries of the legal database  would not necessarily capture all reported hazing cases across the Air  Force. The Air Force’s data on hazing incidents are also therefore not  necessarily complete or consistent with the other military services’ data.
The Coast Guard also has not established a requirement to collect and  track data on reported incidents of hazing, which has complicated its  ability to efficiently provide data on hazing incidents when they are  requested. As with the Air Force, the Coast Guard’s current process of  compiling data on hazing cases has complicated its ability to efficiently  provide data on hazing incidents when they are requested, according to  Coast Guard officials. For example, to produce the congressionally- mandated report on hazing incidents reported in fiscal year 2013, the  Coast Guard queried its database of criminal investigations as well as its  database of courts-martials for variants of the term “hazing.” According to  Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard’s queries only captured cases that  explicitly used a variant of the term “hazing” in the case narrative and that  were investigated by the Coast Guard Investigative Service or had  resulted in a court-martial. As such, the Coast Guard’s data did not  capture, for example, any cases that may have been investigated by the  chain of command and deemed unsubstantiated or resolved through  administrative action or non-judicial punishment.
The military services’ and the Coast Guard’s available information on  hazing cases include some information on the dispositions of hazing  cases, which have been adjudicated in a variety of ways. Our review of  the data showed that this information was not always available or  updated, and the sources of the information were not always reliable. We  therefore found that data on hazing case dispositions were not sufficiently  reliable to report in aggregate. There were a wide range of dispositions,  from cases being found unsubstantiated to courts-martial. For example, in  one case, multiple servicemembers pled guilty at court-martial to hazing  and assault consummated by battery after being accused of attempted  penetrative sexual assault. In another hazing case involving taping to a  chair, the offender was punished through non-judicial punishment with  restriction, extra duty, and forfeiture of pay and the victim was given a  similar but lesser punishment for consenting to the hazing. In a third case,  a complainant alleged hazing after being told to work late, but an  investigation determined that the allegation was unsubstantiated.
ODMEO officials acknowledged that it is difficult to gauge the scope and  impact of hazing given the limited information that is currently available  and the inconsistent nature of the services’ data collection efforts. DOD’s  updated hazing policy includes requirements that are intended to promote  greater consistency in the services’ collection of data on reported hazing  incidents. Specifically, the revised policy includes a requirement for the  services to collect data on the number of substantiated and  unsubstantiated incidents of hazing and bullying, as well as the  demographics of the complainant and alleged offender in each case, a  description of the incident, and if applicable, disposition of the case.  ODMEO officials said they plan to provide a data collection template that  will provide a standard list of data elements and additional details on the  data to be collected and reported to ODMEO.
DOD’s updated hazing policy will help to improve the consistency of  hazing incident data collected by the services. However, it does not  appear that the policy will serve to make the services’ disparate data  collection efforts fully consistent because the policy does not clearly  define the scope of information or define the data to be collected. For  example, the policy requires the military services to track hazing  incidents, but does not identify how to count an incident relative to the  number of alleged offenders and alleged victims, and the services have  counted incidents differently for tracking purposes. ODMEO officials said  they are continuing to revise the data collection template, which could  provide further specificity to the data collection.
As a result of inconsistent and incomplete data, DOD and the Coast  Guard cannot provide an accurate picture of reported hazing incidents  either for the purposes of internal management or for external reporting.  Further, without a common basis to guide the collection of data, including  a standard list of data elements, decision makers in DOD, the Coast  Guard, and Congress will not be able to use these data to determine the  number of reported hazing incidents in DOD or the Coast Guard, or to  draw conclusions from the data.
section_title: DOD and the Coast Guard Do Not Know the Extent of Hazing In Their Organizations
paragraphs: To date, DOD and the Coast Guard do not know the extent of hazing in  their organizations because they have not conducted an evaluation of the  prevalence of hazing. In contrast to the limited data on reports of hazing  incidents, information on the prevalence of hazing would help DOD and  the Coast Guard to understand the extent of hazing beyond those  incidents that are reported.
The prevalence of hazing could be estimated based on survey responses,  as DOD does in the case of sexual assault. We believe such an  evaluation could form the baseline against which to measure the  effectiveness of their efforts to address hazing and would enhance  visibility over the prevalence of such misconduct. Standards for Internal  Control in the Federal Government states that it is important to establish a  baseline that can be used as criteria against which to assess progress  and to help identify any issues or deficiencies that may exist. ODMEO  officials said that their efforts to address hazing are in the early stages  and that following the issuance of the updated hazing policy, DOD may  begin to establish a baseline against which to evaluate appropriate  responses to hazing. However, to date DOD and the military services  have not evaluated the prevalence of hazing across their organizations in  order to determine the appropriate responses. The Coast Guard also has  not evaluated the prevalence of hazing within its service.
Officials in each of the military services and the Coast Guard told us that  reports of hazing incidents are currently the primary indicator used to  gauge the incidence of hazing. However, as previously noted, the data  that are currently collected on hazing incidents are neither complete or  consistent, and data obtained through other sources, such as surveys,  suggest that hazing may be more widespread in the military services and  the Coast Guard than the current numbers of reports indicate. In  particular, the RAND Corporation conducted a survey on sexual assault  and sexual harassment in the military for DOD in 2014, the results of  which indicate that the actual number of hazing incidents may exceed the  number of reported incidents tracked by the services. Based on our  analysis of RAND’s survey results, we estimate that in 2014, about  11,000 male servicemembers in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps,  and the Air Force were sexually assaulted. Of these, RAND estimated  that between 24 percent and 46 percent would describe their sexual  assaults as hazing (“things done to humiliate or ‘toughen up’ people prior  to accepting them in a group”). Officials from DOD and the Coast Guard  told us that hazing and sexual assault can occur as part of the same  incident, but it will be documented and addressed based on the more  egregious offense—in this case, sexual assault. We recognize that the  classification of an offense is key in that it directly corresponds to the  punitive actions that can be taken, but note that this further reinforces that  there may be a broader incidence of hazing than the data currently  collected by the military services and the Coast Guard indicate.
In addition to the results of RAND’s survey, we also obtained and  analyzed the results of organizational climate surveys for each of the  military services and the Coast Guard for calendar year 2014 and  determined that some servicemembers perceive that hazing occurs in  their units despite the policies in place prohibiting hazing. Commanders  throughout the military services and the Coast Guard are required—at  designated intervals—to administer organizational climate surveys to  members of their respective units. These surveys are designed to  evaluate various aspects of their unit’s climate, including, among other  things, sexual assault and sexual harassment, and were recently revised  to include questions that solicit servicemember perspectives on the  incidence of hazing. Specifically, in 2014, the Defense Equal Opportunity  Management Institute—the organization responsible for administering the  surveys—began including questions related to hazing and demeaning  behaviors in the organizational climate surveys it administers for  commands throughout the military services and the Coast Guard. Each  question asked whether respondents strongly disagreed, disagreed,  agreed, or strongly agreed with a statement intended to measure either  hazing or demeaning behaviors. Table 2 shows the statements in the  organizational climate surveys about hazing and demeaning behaviors.
These surveys do not measure the prevalence of hazing. Instead, they  measure the extent to which servicemembers perceive that hazing (and  demeaning behaviors) occurs in their units. In addition, the organizational  climate surveys were designed to be a tool for commanders to evaluate  their individual units as opposed to aggregate-level analyses; thus, the  data have limitations when used for aggregate-level analysis. The results  of these surveys are also not generalizable, in part because the Army  requires that command climate surveys be conducted more frequently  than is required by the other services. As such, Army responses are  overrepresented relative to the other military services when results are  aggregated. Finally, survey data may reflect other errors, such as  differences in how questions are interpreted. Since demographic  information is gathered through self-selection, breaking down the results  into specific subgroups may introduce additional error.
Despite these limitations, analysis of these data yields insight into  perceptions of hazing within and across the services. Table 3 shows the  results of our analysis of data from these organizational climate surveys  administered by the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute for  servicemembers in active-duty units in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air  Force, and Coast Guard for 2014 on hazing and demeaning behaviors.
As shown in table 3, about 12 percent of responses by enlisted  servicemembers in active-duty units at the E1-E3 pay grades agreed  with all three statements about hazing (noted in table 3, above) and about  18 percent of responses at these pay grades agreed with all three  statements about demeaning behaviors. These percentages dropped to  about 8 percent and 14 percent, respectively, at the E4-E6 levels, and  continued to drop, reaching about 1 percent for hazing and 2 percent for  demeaning behaviors for officers at the O4-O6 level. These responses  indicate that perceptions of the extent of hazing and demeaning  behaviors in the military services and in the Coast Guard may be different  between those at the lower and middle enlisted ranks and those with  responsibility for developing or enforcing policy.
The data also show that perceptions of hazing may differ by service. For  hazing, about 9 percent of Army responses agreed with all three  statements; about 5 percent of Navy responses agreed with all three  statements; about 11 percent of Marine Corps responses agreed with all  three statements; and about 2 percent of responses in the Air Force and  Coast Guard agreed with all three statements. Likewise, for demeaning  behaviors, about 14 percent of Army responses agreed with all three  statements; about 9 percent of Navy responses agreed with all three  statements; about 15 percent of Marine Corps responses agreed with all  three statements; and responses from the Air Force and Coast Guard  came in at about 5 percent in agreement with all three statements for  each service.
The results of such analyses indicate that sufficient numbers of  servicemembers perceive hazing to be occurring to warrant evaluation of  the prevalence of hazing. In addition, such survey data can provide  valuable insights that can be used by military leaders to help form a  baseline of information. For example, the services could use the results to  evaluate service-wide as well as command-specific perceptions of hazing,  compare how perceptions change over time, make comparisons with  incident rates, and perform other analyses to identify trends and areas  needing improvement.
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management analyzes identified risks to estimate their significance, which  provides a basis for responding to the risks. Management estimates the  significance of a risk by considering the magnitude of impact, likelihood of  occurrence, and the nature of the risk. In addition, according to leading  practices for program evaluations, evaluations can play a key role in  planning and program management by providing feedback on both  program design and execution. However, DOD and the military services  have not evaluated the extent of hazing in their organizations or the  magnitude of its impact or likelihood of occurrence, in order to effectively  target their responses to hazing. Likewise, the Coast Guard has not  evaluated the extent of hazing in the Coast Guard. Without doing so, the  services may be limited in their ability to further develop and target their  efforts in such a way as to have the maximum positive effect for the most  efficient use of resources.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Incidents of hazing in DOD and the Coast Guard can have effects that  extend beyond their victims and perpetrators, undermining unit cohesion  and potentially reducing operational effectiveness as a consequence. At  the service-wide level, high-profile hazing incidents can shape public  perceptions, potentially making recruitment and retention more  challenging. Both DOD and the Coast Guard have issued policies that  prohibit hazing. However, DOD issued its earlier hazing policy in 1997,  and despite several hazing incidents coming to public attention in recent  years, DOD and the Coast Guard do not regularly monitor implementation  of their hazing policies and do not know the extent of hazing in their  organizations. Without effective monitoring by DOD, the Coast Guard,  and each of the services, the offices with responsibility for addressing  hazing will not know whether hazing prevention policies and training are  being consistently implemented. In addition, servicemembers may not  sufficiently understand how to recognize and respond to hazing incidents.  As our discussions with groups of servicemembers and officials suggest,  there may be confusion that persists. Without providing additional  clarification to servicemembers, perhaps through revising and tailoring  training or providing more communication, servicemembers may be  limited in their ability to carry out their responsibilities, such as  recognizing hazing and enforcing discipline. At the same time, if they do  not fully understand the hazing policies, hazing victims may not be able to  recognize hazing when it occurs, including hazing by those in positions of  authority.
DOD’s and the Coast Guard’s efforts to reduce hazing would also benefit  from a better understanding of the extent of hazing incidents. Available  data do not provide a complete picture of the extent of reported hazing  incidents. Without consistent and complete tracking of hazing incidents  within and across the services, decision makers will not be able to identify  areas of concern and target resources appropriately. Achieving such  visibility over hazing incidents depends on better data, which will not be  available without guidance specifying that the services should track all  reported hazing incidents, with standardized and defined data elements  that will facilitate the accurate tracking of reported hazing incidents.  Concurrent with better data, DOD and the Coast Guard need to evaluate  the prevalence of hazing in their organizations, since the data on reported  incidents alone will not provide a picture of the full extent of hazing in the  armed forces. Without such an evaluation, decision makers will not be  positioned to appropriately tailor their response or to judge progress in  their efforts.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend that the Secretary of Defense take the following seven  actions:  To enhance and to promote more consistent oversight of efforts within the  department to address the incidence of hazing, direct the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to:  regularly monitor the implementation of DOD’s hazing policy by the  military services; and require that the Secretaries of the military departments regularly  monitor implementation of the hazing policies within each military  service.
To improve the ability of servicemembers to implement DOD and service  hazing policies, direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to establish a requirement for the Secretaries of the military  departments to provide additional clarification to servicemembers to  better inform them as to how to determine what is or is not hazing. This  could take the form of revised training or additional communications to  provide further guidance on hazing policies.
To promote greater consistency in and visibility over the military services’  collection of data on reported hazing incidents and the methods used to  track them, direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness, in coordination with the Secretaries of the military  departments, to issue DOD-level guidance on the prevention of hazing  that specifies data collection and tracking requirements, including  the scope of data to be collected and maintained by the military  services on reported incidents of hazing; a standard list of data elements that each service should collect on  reported hazing incidents; and definitions of the data elements to be collected to help ensure that  incidents are tracked consistently within and across the services.
To promote greater visibility over the extent of hazing in DOD to better  inform DOD and military service actions to address hazing, direct the  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, in  collaboration with the Secretaries of the Military Departments, to evaluate  prevalence of hazing in the military services.
We recommend that the Commandant of the Coast Guard take the  following five actions:  To enhance and to promote more consistent oversight of the Coast  Guard’s efforts to address the incidence of hazing, regularly monitor  hazing policy implementation.
To promote greater consistency in and visibility over the Coast Guard’s  collection of data on reported hazing incidents and the methods used to  track them, by issuing guidance on the prevention of hazing that specifies  data collection and tracking requirements, including  the scope of the data to be collected and maintained on reported  incidents of hazing; a standard list of data elements to be collected on reported hazing definitions of the data elements to be collected to help ensure that  incidents are tracked consistently within the Coast Guard.
To promote greater visibility over the extent of hazing in the Coast Guard  to better inform actions to address hazing, evaluate the prevalence of  hazing in the Coast Guard.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOD and DHS for review and  comment. Written comments from DOD and DHS are reprinted in their  entirety in appendixes IV and V. DOD and DHS concurred with each of  our recommendations and also provided technical comments, which we  incorporated in the report as appropriate.
In its written comments, DOD concurred with the seven recommendations  we directed to it, and made additional comments about ways in which its  newly issued December 2015 hazing policy memorandum takes actions  toward our recommendations. Among other things, the new hazing policy  assigns authority to the Under Secretary for Personnel and Readiness to  amend or supplement DOD hazing and bullying policy, requires training  on hazing and bullying for servicemembers, and requires tracking of  hazing incidents, but in itself does not fully address our  recommendations.
Regarding our recommendation for the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness to regularly monitor the implementation of  DOD’s hazing policy by the military services, DOD stated that its  December 23, 2015 updated hazing policy memorandum provides  comprehensive definitions of hazing and bullying, enterprise-wide  guidance on prevention training and education, as well as reporting and  tracking requirements. We agree that these are important steps to  address hazing in the armed services. However, the policy does not  specifically require the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and  Readiness to regularly monitor the implementation of DOD’s hazing  policy, and we continue to believe that the Under Secretary of Defense for  Personnel and Readiness should monitor the implementation of DOD’s  hazing policy to ensure its requirements are implemented throughout the  military services.
With respect to our recommendation to establish a requirement for the  secretaries of the military departments to provide additional clarification to  servicemembers to better inform them as to how to determine what is or  is not hazing, DOD stated that its December 2015 updated hazing policy  memorandum directs the military departments to develop training that  includes descriptions of the military departments' hazing and bullying  policies and differentiates between what is or is not hazing and bullying.  We are encouraged by DOD’s efforts to integrate the recommendation  into its policy requirements and believe the services will benefit by  incorporating these requirements into their hazing prevention activities.
Regarding our recommendations to issue DOD-level guidance that  specifies data collection and tracking requirements for hazing incidents,  including the scope of data to be collected and maintained by the military  services on reported incidents of hazing and a standard list of data  elements that each service should collect on reported hazing incidents,  DOD stated that its December 2015 updated hazing policy memorandum  provides guidance and requirements for tracking and reporting incidents  of hazing and bullying. We believe that the incident data tracking  requirements in this policy are an important step for DOD to improve its  data collection on hazing incidents. As noted in our report, the updated  policy memorandum will not fully address disparities in service-specific  data collection efforts until DOD and the services clearly define the scope  of information or define the data to be collected. For example, the hazing  policy requires the services to track hazing incidents, but does not identify  how to count an incident relative to the number of alleged offenders and  alleged victims, and the services have counted incidents differently for  tracking purposes. As we note in the report, DOD plans to provide a data  collection template to the services, and this could provide a vehicle for  fully addressing these recommendations.
In its written comments, DHS concurred with the five recommendations  we directed to the Coast Guard, and made additional comments about  steps the Coast Guard will take to address our recommendations.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland  Security, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness,  the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and the  Commandants of the Marine Corps and the Coast Guard. In addition, this  report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding 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 major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense (DOD) and  the Coast Guard have developed and implemented policies to address  hazing incidents, we reviewed DOD’s 1997 hazing memorandum, its  December 2015 updated hazing and bullying policy memorandum, and  the hazing policies of each military service and the Coast Guard. We  compared the policies, definitions of hazing, and oversight and training  requirements to determine similarities and differences. To better  understand the hazing policies and guidance from each service, including  the Coast Guard, we interviewed knowledgeable officials from the Office  of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the Office of the Under  Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Army Equal  Opportunity Office, the Navy Office of Behavioral Standards, the Marine  Corps Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs, the Air Force Personnel  Directorate, and the Coast Guard Office of Military Personnel, Policy and  Standards Division, as well as officials in other offices listed in table 4,  below. In addition, we reviewed the services’ hazing awareness training  requirements included in their respective policies and analyzed the  services’ training materials to determine how servicemembers are trained  on hazing awareness, prevention, and response. We also interviewed or  requested information from officials responsible for developing training  from the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Naval Education and  Training Command, Marine Corps Training and Education Command, Air  Force Personnel Directorate, and the Coast Guard Fleet Forces  Command and Leadership Development Center.
To better understand the reporting and response mechanisms employed  by DOD and the Coast Guard, as well as the approaches in each service  for responding to allegations of hazing as well as applications of the  Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), court-martial, non-judicial  punishment, and administrative action, we reviewed relevant policies and  interviewed cognizant officials from the Army Office of the Provost  Marshal General and Criminal Investigation Command, Naval Criminal  Investigative Service, Marine Corps Judge Advocate Division and  Inspector General, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, Security  Forces Directorate, Legal Operations Agency, and Inspector General, and  the Coast Guard Office of the Judge Advocate General and the Coast  Guard Investigative Service. To better understand how policy and training  is implemented at installations, and to obtain servicemember perspectives  on hazing and hazing awareness training, we conducted site visits to  Naval Base Coronado, California, and Marine Corps Base Camp  Pendleton, California. We selected these sites based upon reported  hazing data, media reports of hazing, data on male victims of sexual  assault, and geographic proximity to each other. During these site visits  we conducted nine focus groups with enlisted servicemembers in grades  E-3 through E-5 that included a self-administered pen and paper survey  of all participants. We selected these grades because available data on  reported hazing incidents indicated that these grades were most likely to  be victims or perpetrators of a hazing incident. In addition, we met with  groups of noncommissioned officers (grades E-6 through E-9),  commanding officers, inspectors general, equal opportunity advisors, staff  judges advocates, and chaplains to obtain perspectives of  servicemembers and other officials that may be involved in addressing  hazing. For further information about the focus group and survey  methodology, see appendix III. We compared the extent to which DOD  and each armed service has oversight mechanisms in place to monitor  the implementation of hazing policies to the Standards for Internal Control  in the Federal Government criteria on control activities, which include the  policies, procedures, techniques, and mechanisms that enforce  management’s directives to achieve an entity’s objectives. We also  compared the extent to which guidance to servicemembers provides  enough clarity to determine when hazing has occurred to the Standards  for Internal Control in the Federal Government criteria that state that  management establishes standards of conduct that guide the directives,  attitudes, and behaviors of the organization in achieving the entity’s  objectives, as well as Standards for Internal Control in the Federal  Government criteria that state that management establishes expectations  of competence for key roles, and other roles at management’s discretion  and that management should internally communicate the necessary  quality information to achieve the entity’s objectives.
To determine the extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard have  visibility over hazing incidents involving servicemembers, we reviewed the  DOD and Coast Guard hazing policies noted above to identify any  tracking requirements. To determine the number of reported hazing  incidents and the nature of these incidents, we reviewed available data on  reported hazing allegations from each service covering a two-year time  period. The Army, Navy, Air Force, and Coast Guard data covered the  period from December 2012 through December 2014. The Marine Corps  database for tracking hazing incidents began tracking in May 2013, so we  analyzed Marine Corps data from May 2013 through December 2014. We  reviewed the methods each service used to track hazing incident data by  interviewing officials from the Army Equal Opportunity Office and the  Army Criminal Investigation Command; the Navy Office of Behavioral  Standards; the Marine Corps Office of Manpower and Reserve Affairs;  the Air Force Personnel Directorate and Air Force Legal Operations  Agency; and the Coast Guard Office of Military Personnel, Policy and  Standards Division and the Coast Guard Investigative Service.
We found that the Army and Navy data were sufficiently reliable to report  the number of hazing cases, offenders, and victims, as well as  demographic and rank data on offenders and victims. However, due to  limitations in the methods of collection, the data reported do not  necessarily represent the full universe of reported hazing incidents in the  Army and Navy. We found that the Marine Corps data was not sufficiently  reliable to report accurate information on the total number of cases,  offenders, and victims, or demographic and rank data. The Marine Corps  did not record the number of hazing cases in an internally consistent  manner, resulting in duplicate records for cases, offenders, and victims,  and no consistent means for correcting for the duplication. We found that  the Air Force data were sufficiently reliable to report the number of cases  and offenders, but not to report demographic information for the offenders  or to report any information on the victims because it did not consistently  track and report demographic and rank information. We also found that  the Coast Guard data were sufficiently reliable to report the number of  cases, offenders, and victims, but not to report demographic and rank  information because it did not consistently track and report demographic  and rank information. In addition, due to limitations of the collection  methods, the data reported do not necessarily represent the full universe  of reported hazing incidents in the Air Force and Coast Guard. We found  that hazing data in all services were not sufficiently reliable to report  information on the disposition of hazing cases because they did not  consistently track and report this information, and because the source  data for these dispositions was not reliable. We also compared the  services’ methods of data collection with Standards for Internal Control in  the Federal Government criteria stating that information should be  recorded and communicated to management and others who need it in a  form and within a time frame that allows them to carry out their internal  control and other responsibilities.
We also reviewed the 2014 RAND Corporation military workplace study  commissioned by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and analyzed  data reported on that study on sexual assault and hazing. We also  interviewed officials of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management  Institute about command climate surveys and analyzed data obtained  from responses to command climate survey questions relating to hazing  and demeaning behaviors. We obtained survey data based on three  hazing questions and three demeaning behavior questions that were  asked of all survey respondents during calendar year 2014; in addition,  we obtained survey data for demographic and administrative variables  that we used to analyze the data across all of the command climate  surveys we obtained. The data we analyzed included responses by  active-duty servicemembers in all five armed services—Army, Navy,  Marine Corps, Air Force, and Coast Guard—during calendar year 2014.  We summarized the results for active-duty servicemembers by rank,  gender, race/ethnicity, and by service across all of the command climate  survey responses that were collected for the time period. Because of the  nature of the process used to administer and to collect the results of the  command climate surveys, the analysis cannot be generalized to the  entire population of active servicemembers across the armed forces or for  each service. For example, it is not possible to discern whether every unit  administered the command climate survey, nor whether any particular  unit administered the survey multiple times within the time period from  which we obtained data. Therefore, the analyses we present using the  command climate survey data are not intended to reflect precise  information about the prevalence of perceptions related to hazing, but  rather to demonstrate how the survey data might be used if the methods  allowed the ability to generalize to all servicemembers. We compared the  extent to which DOD and the Coast Guard have evaluated the prevalence  of hazing with Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government  criteria on evaluating risks, and with leading practices for program  evaluations.
In addition to these organizations, we also contacted the RAND  Corporation.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2015 to February 2016 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  These 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: Hazing Incident Data as Tracked by DOD and the Coast Guard
paragraphs: Not all of the military services or the Coast Guard track data on reported  hazing. Further, the data that are collected and the methods used to track  them vary by service because neither the Department of Defense (DOD)  or the Coast Guard has articulated a consistent methodology. As a result  of inconsistent and incomplete data, any data tracked and reported by the  armed services currently cannot be used to provide a complete and  accurate picture of hazing in the armed services, and the data from one  service cannot be compared to that of another service.
To the extent possible based on the availability of data, we obtained and  reviewed data on reported hazing cases from each military service  covering the period December 2012 to December 2014. For the Air Force  and Coast Guard, neither of which specifically tracked hazing cases, we  obtained information derived from legal and criminal investigative  databases, which were the methods these services used to report hazing  information to congressional committees in 2013. The following  information is derived from our analyses of these data.
subsections: section_title: Army hazing data
paragraphs: The Army specifies the use of its Equal Opportunity Reporting System  database to track hazing cases. However, the Army only began using its  equal opportunity database to track hazing cases in October 2015.  Previously hazing cases were tracked by Army Criminal Investigation  Command. Criminal Investigation Command tracked cases using its  database of cases investigated by Criminal Investigation Command and  by military police, so these data necessarily exclude cases that were not  investigated by Criminal Investigation Command or military police. Figure  2 shows our analysis of the Army’s hazing cases from December 2012  through December 2014.
NOTE: Data are from December 2012 through December 2014.These data only include allegations  investigated by military police or criminal investigators. We excluded from the above data one case  with one alleged offender and an unknown number of alleged victims due to the absence of a precise  number of victims. Enlisted grades begin at E1 (lowest grade), and officer grades begin at O1.
As shown in Figure 2, during this time period the Army identified a total of  17 alleged cases involving 93 alleged offenders and 47 alleged victims.  The majority of alleged offenders and alleged victims were either in  grades E4-E6 or E1-E3, and more alleged offenders were E4-E6 than E1- E3, while more alleged victims were E1-E3 than E4-E6. A majority of  alleged offenders and alleged victims were male. Most alleged victims  and alleged offenders were white, non-Hispanic, but the race and  ethnicity information for some alleged offenders and alleged victims was  unknown.
section_title: Navy hazing data
paragraphs: The Navy requires commanders to report substantiated hazing cases to  the Office of Behavioral Standards, which then tracks the cases in a  spreadsheet. Although Navy policy only requires substantiated cases to  be reported, officials in the Navy’s Office of Behavioral Standards told us  they encourage commanders to report both unsubstantiated and  substantiated cases, and the data include both, to the extent reported.  Figure 3 shows our analysis of this data from December 2012 through  December 2014.
NOTE: Data are from December 2012 through December 2014. These data include some  unsubstantiated cases; however, Navy policy only requires substantiated cases to be reported, so the  data may not include all unsubstantiated cases. Ten cases are excluded from the above data due to  the inclusion of an unknown number of alleged offenders or alleged victims. These cases included 5  known alleged offenders and 7 known alleged victims. From FY13 to FY14, the Navy switched its  method of recording race and ethnicity. In FY13, the Navy included “Hispanic” as one category  among other racial/ethnic categories; beginning in FY14, it began tracking race and ethnicity  separately. Beginning in FY14 the Navy data record some cases where it was unknown whether the  alleged victim or offender was Hispanic—82 alleged offenders and 65 alleged victims of unknown  ethnicity in total. Therefore, all racial/ethnic categories not specifically marked as Hispanic could  include Hispanics in the data above. Enlisted grades begin at E1 (lowest grade), and officer grades  begin at O1.
As shown in Figure 3, during this time period the Navy identified 63  alleged hazing cases, involving 127 alleged offenders and 97 alleged  victims. The majority of alleged offenders were in grades E4-E6, while the  majority of alleged victims were either E1-E3 or E4-E6. Alleged offenders  were overwhelmingly male, while alleged victims included a significant  minority of women. In terms of race and ethnicity, the greatest single  group of both alleged offenders and alleged victims was white, non- Hispanic.
section_title: Marine Corps hazing data
paragraphs: The Marine Corps uses its Discrimination and Sexual Harassment  database to track alleged hazing incidents, both substantiated and  unsubstantiated. We obtained and analyzed data from May 2013, when  the Marine Corps began using this tracking method, through December  2014. We found internal inconsistencies in the Marine Corps’ tracking  data, and for that reason found that the data were not reliable enough to  report detailed information about these alleged hazing cases. Specifically,  from May 2013 through December 2014, the Marine Corps recorded 303  alleged hazing cases for which there were 390 alleged victims and 437  alleged offenders. However, our analyses of these data identified  inconsistencies in the methods used to aggregate categories of  information collected on reported incidents of hazing. For example, we  found that in some instances, a reported hazing case involving two  alleged offenders and one alleged victim was counted as a single case,  whereas other instances that involved the same number of individuals  were classified as two cases—one for each alleged offender. Similarly,  we identified single reports of hazing that involved multiple alleged victims  and were classified as one case that, at other times, were documented as  separate cases relative to the number of alleged victims involved. We  determined that the Marine Corps’ data, for the time period requested,  were overstated by at least 100 reported hazing cases, at least 50 alleged  offenders, and at least 90 alleged victims.
section_title: Air Force hazing data
paragraphs: The Air Force has not established a system specifically to track hazing  cases. In its July 2013 report to congressional committees, Hazing in the  Armed Forces, the Air Force stated that hazing incidents in the service  are best tracked using its legal database by querying the text of the cases  for variants of the word “hazing.” Accordingly, we obtained information  on hazing cases from December 2012 through December 2014 from a  search performed in this database for variants of the word “hazing,” the  results of which were provided to us by the Air Force Legal Operations  Agency. This data showed 4 cases with 17 alleged offenders that were  reported from December 2012 through December 2014. However, these  data do not present a complete picture of hazing cases in the Air Force,  as they do not necessarily capture any cases that did not come to the  attention of a staff judge advocate. The case files did not generally  capture race or ethnicity data for alleged offenders and alleged victims;  did not systematically capture gender of alleged offenders and alleged  victims; generally did not capture the rank of alleged victims; and did not  systematically capture the number of alleged victims. Therefore, we are  not reporting rank or demographic data.
section_title: Coast Guard hazing data
paragraphs: The Coast Guard has not established a system specifically to track  hazing cases. In its 2013 report to congressional committees, Hazing in  the Coast Guard, the Coast Guard reported hazing incidents derived from  legal and criminal investigative sources. Accordingly, to obtain data on  Coast Guard hazing incidents, we used the Coast Guard’s Quarterly  Good Order and Discipline Reports, which contain a summary of  disciplinary and administrative actions taken against Coast Guard military  members or civilian employees, as well as Coast Guard Investigative  Service case files. For the Good Order and Discipline reports covering  disciplinary and administrative actions taken between October 2012 and  March 2015, only one case explicitly mentioned hazing. However, these  reports only include brief descriptions for certain types of cases, such as  courts-martial, and do not include any details of the alleged offense and  punishment for cases resulting in non-judicial punishment. In response to  our request to identify Coast Guard Investigative Service cases using  variants of the word “hazing” from December 2012 through December  2014, the Coast Guard identified six cases involving 14 known alleged  victims and 20 known alleged offenders (the number of both offenders  and victims in one case were unknown). These case files did not  consistently track and report the race, ethnicity, rank, and gender of the  offenders and victims; therefore we are not reporting rank or demographic  data. Due to the limitations of these methods of capturing reported hazing  cases, these data do not necessarily present a complete picture of the  number of reported hazing incidents in the Coast Guard. In addition,  Coast Guard officials told us that conducting this search for case file  information was time- and resource-consuming, and even with this  allocation of time and resources the results of the judicial and  investigative information sources may not yield complete information on  reported hazing cases in the Coast Guard.
section_title: Appendix III: Focus Group and Survey Methodology for Hazing Site Visits
paragraphs: To obtain servicemembers’ perspectives related to each of our objectives,  we conducted nine focus group meetings with active-duty  servicemembers in the grades E3-E5. Four of these meetings were held  at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, California, and five meetings  were held at U.S. Naval Base Coronado, California. We selected these  sites based upon reported hazing data, media reports of hazing, data on  male victims of sexual assault, and geographic proximity to each other.  To select specific servicemembers to participate in our focus groups, we  requested lists of servicemembers who were stationed at each location  and likely available to participate at the time of our visit. The  documentation included information about their rank, gender, and  occupation.
subsections: section_title: Focus Group Hazing Scenarios and Questions
paragraphs: (Navy)
Petty Officer Taylor is on his first deployment to the South Pacific. His  fellow shipmates have told him about an upcoming ceremony to celebrate  those crossing the equator for the first time. The day of the equator  crossing, all shipmates (“shellbacks and wogs”) dress up in costume. The  wogs, or those who are newly crossing the equator, rotate through  different stations, including tug-of-war and an obstacle course. One of the  shellbacks, or those who have already crossed the line, is dressed up as  King Neptune and asks the wogs to kiss his hands and feet. In addition,  all of the “wogs” are required to take a shot of tequila. After completing all  the stations and crossing the equator, Petty Officer Taylor is officially a  shellback.  (Marine Corps)
Lance Corporal Jones recently received a promotion to Corporal. To  congratulate him for the promotion, members of his unit take him to the  barracks and begin hitting him at the spot of his new rank.  (Navy)
After dinner, Petty Officer Sanchez talks with fellow sailors about playing  some pranks on other members of the ship. They see Seaman Williams  walking down the hall and bring him into a storage closet. There, they  tape his arms and legs to a chair and leave him alone in the closet to see  if he can escape.  (Marine Corps)
After dinner, Sergeant Sanchez talks with fellow marines about playing  some pranks on other members of the platoon. They see Corporal  Williams walking down the hall and bring him into a storage closet. There,  they tape his arms and legs to a chair and leave him alone in the closet to  see if he can escape.
These scenarios, providing examples of hazing, along with the following  set of questions, were the basis for the discussion with participants and  the context for responding to the survey questions that were administered  following the discussion.
Would you consider this example hazing?
Do activities like these two examples sound like they could ever  happen in the Marine Corps/Navy?
What about these activities is good?
What about these activities might be harmful?
Do you think activities like these are important for a Marine/Sailor to  become a part of the group or the unit?
Now that we’ve talked about hazing, what kind of training about  hazing have you received in the Marine Corps/Navy?
Are there any other topics about hazing that we haven’t covered?
To obtain additional perspectives on hazing, particularly regarding  sensitive information about personal experience with hazing,  servicemembers participating in each focus group completed a survey  following the discussion. The survey consisted of a self-administered pen  and paper questionnaire that was provided to each focus group  participant in a blank manila envelope without any identifying information.  The moderator provided the following verbal instructions:  I’d like you to take a few minutes to complete this survey before we  finish. Please do not put your name or any identifying information on  it. Take it out of the envelope, take your time and complete the  questions, and please place it back in the envelope. When you are  done, you can leave it with me/put it on the chair and then leave.
Because we did not select participants using a statistically representative  sampling method, the information provided from the surveys is  nongeneralizable and therefore cannot be projected across the  Department of Defense, a service, or any single installation we visited.  The questions and instructions are shown below with the results for the  closed-ended questions.
Survey of Navy and Marine Corps Focus Group Participants  Instructions: Please complete the entire survey below. Do not include  your name or other identifying information. Once finished, please place  the completed survey back in the envelope and return the envelope.
1.  Have you experienced hazing in the Navy/Marine Corps?
I’m not sure  Total  14 4  36 9  5 2  55 15  2. (If “Yes” or “I’m not sure” for 1) What happened?         (Please briefly describe the event(s))  3.
In the group discussion we talked about two examples that some would  consider hazing.
If these examples happened in your unit, would it be OK with the unit  leadership? (check one for each row)
Crossing the Line (Navy)/Pinning (Marine Corps)
I don’t know  4.  Some activities that are traditions in the Marine Corps/Navy are now considered  hazing. Is it important to continue any of these activities?
Please explain why or why not?  5.  Have you received hazing prevention training in the Navy/Marine Corps?   6.
Is there anything else you want us to know about hazing in the Navy/Marine  Corps?
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Kimberly Mayo, Assistant Director; Tracy Barnes; Cynthia Grant;  Simon Hirschfeld; Emily Hutz; Ronald La Due Lake; Alexander Ray;  Christine San; Monica Savoy; Amie Lesser; Spencer Tacktill; and Erik  Wilkins-McKee.