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 In this report, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rescinded the co-location assignment restriction that had allowed the military services to prohibit the assignment of women to units and positions physically collocated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

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