During our review, DOD Directive 1350.2, dated December 23, 1988, was the basis for the military EO program. Although DOD recently revised its directive, it still requires DOD components, including the military departments, joint commands, and defense agencies, to create and sustain environments free from discrimination. The military EO program applies only to military personnel. DOD civilians are covered by a separate program—the Equal Employment Opportunity Program. Military personnel do not have access to mediation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and federal courts have held that they may not sue for discrimination under the provisions of title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Concurrent with our review, a House National Security Committee task force conducted focus group sessions with servicemembers at 19 installations to determine their views on EO. The task force issued its report in December 1994. In addition, the Defense Equal Opportunity Council (DEOC), a DOD group chartered to advise the Secretary of Defense concerning EO matters, reviewed the services’ discrimination complaint systems. DEOC issued its report in May 1995. In August 1995, DOD revised DOD Directive 1350.2 to incorporate many of DEOC’s recommendations. According to DOD, the new directive requires the services to strengthen their procedures for processing sexual harassment and discrimination complaints. Under DOD Directive 1350.2, the services, joint commands, and defense agencies are required to develop complaint systems that ensure fair, impartial, and prompt resolution of discrimination complaints. Service regulations provide further guidance on EO complaint handling as well as other aspects of the EO programs. Prior to our review, the Air Force and the Army had made major changes in their complaint processes. During our review, we identified many differences among the services’ complaint procedures. The following are three examples: Deadlines for filing complaints. Air Force personnel have 6 months to file a complaint, Army and Marine Corps personnel must file within 60 days, and Navy personnel must file a complaint within 45 days of an EO incident. Avenues for filing complaints. All four services encourage complainants to use the chain of command to resolve a complaint before resorting to other measures. Only the Air Force encourages its members to seek assistance outside the chain of command. This alternative is the base Social Actions Office, which is staffed by EO specialists. In the other services, complaints filed with EO specialists or others outside the chain of command are usually referred back to the chain of command for resolution. Complaint documentation. The Air Force, the Army, and the Navy (starting in Nov. 1994) use complaint forms that guide and document the complaint process, from the filing of the complaint to the end of the investigation. Each form is different. The Marine Corps’ form is not EO specific, but is used to request a meeting with the commander for any reason. In its May 1995 report, DEOC stated that differences in the complaint processes reflected differences in the services’ missions, organization, and culture. “While general principles and standards can often be shared across Service lines, the simple substitution of one Service’s complaints process for another is both undesirable and unworkable,” DEOC asserted. In its focus group sessions with servicemembers, the House National Security Committee task force heard widespread reports that complaint systems did not serve members well. The task force identified a number of factors that an effective system should incorporate, including options for raising complaints outside the chain of command, strong support for the system from top leadership, and adherence to established timelines for investigating complaints and providing detailed feedback to complainants. At the time of our review, none of the six joint service commands and defense agencies we visited had written procedures for resolving EO complaints outside the chain of command. In addition, because the services’ definitions of discrimination and procedures for resolving EO complaints vary, handling EO complaints involving members of different services could be difficult without written guidance for doing so. According to DEOC, defense agencies were beginning to develop specific procedures for processing EO complaints. For the most part, the focus group discussions revealed that the servicemembers were familiar with their respective service’s procedures for filing an EO complaint. One notable exception was in the Navy. Participants in these focus groups, particularly among the lower-ranked enlisted members, did not indicate they knew how to pursue a complaint beyond their chain of command. Although most commands we visited adhered to their service requirements for addressing and resolving EO complaints, a few did not. Most often, commands could not document that they had followed up to ensure complainants had not been subjected to reprisal. For example: At four Air Force bases we visited, 17 complaints filed during fiscal years 1993 and 1994 appeared to require follow-up, but 4 of these did not have the necessary documentation showing that follow-up reviews were done. At one Army installation, 30 EO complaints filed during fiscal year 1994 appeared to require follow-up, but none of these had the necessary documentation showing that a follow-up review was done. Two Marine Corps installations we visited could not provide evidence that they had procedures to detect and prevent reprisals. None of the three subordinate commands we visited at one Navy fleet had established procedures to detect and deter reprisals, as required since 1989. Both the House task force and DEOC focused on reprisal as a key issue. The task force found that for a complaint system to be effective, the chain of command must demonstrate a commitment to protecting complainants from reprisal. DEOC made several recommendations aimed at preventing reprisal, including adopting a standard definition of reprisal, establishing specific reprisal prevention procedures, and improving training for leaders. Our focus group discussions, especially among the lower-ranked enlisted members, indicated that a fear of reprisal and a lack of faith in the chain of command were concerns and were cited by the groups as reasons they would be reluctant to file an EO complaint. Senior commanders in all four services are assigned personnel who have received extensive training in EO from the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. These specialists are usually enlisted personnel ranging in grade from E-6 through E-9, though the Air Force and the Army also use some officers as EO specialists. At the commands we visited, the organizational placement and duties of EO specialists varied widely, having an impact on their ability to support the commander’s EO program. Based on our focus groups, Marine Corps and Navy participants often did not know who their respective EO specialist was or what the EO specialist did. DOD Directive 1350.2 requires that EO specialists be placed in the organization where they can effectively communicate EO issues with and gain support of their leaders. According to DEOC, the placement of EO specialists on the commander’s staff signals the commander’s support of the EO program and enables EO specialists to keep the commander informed of important EO issues. At the commands we visited, EO staff were assigned to various levels of the command structure. While some were on the staff of the senior installation commander, others worked at lower levels within the organization and often had to go through one or more layers of command to communicate with the senior commander. Some EO specialists who lacked direct access to the commander were dissatisfied with the visibility given the EO program. Others said they had adequate access despite the multiple layers of command between them and the commander. The DOD Inspector General, in a 1994 report, also noted that several EO specialists it interviewed indicated they did not have the direct access to commanders their responsibilities required. Air Force EO specialists, as stated earlier, work in the base Social Actions Office. In 1993, the Air Force moved the Social Actions Office organizationally up the chain of command, from the mission support squadron to the senior installation (wing) commander’s staff. According to the Chief of Social Actions at one base, the move increased the office’s importance and visibility. The Army and the Navy generally assign EO specialists to senior commanders. The Army, in addition, assigns EO specialists to garrison commanders, who are responsible for managing the infrastructure of a base and supporting tenant commands. At several commands we visited, however, EO specialists were not placed on the command staff, but reported to an official lower in the chain of command. Some of the EO specialists in these commands said their organizational placement limited their access to the commander and, consequently, limited the effectiveness of their support to the EO program. The Navy’s Inspector General has reported that EO specialists lack the support and confidence of their superiors and are underused as program experts. In the Marine Corps, EO specialists are assigned to commanding generals and commanding officers of independent installations and stations. However, at one Marine Corps base we visited, the senior officer did not have an EO specialist assigned. According to Marine Corps officials, the Marine Corps EO program is only 2 years old and not all EO positions are filled. More specialists are being trained, and all EO positions should be filled by January 1997. The number of servicemembers EO specialists serve varies considerably from service to service, with Navy and Marine Corps specialists serving the largest populations. The Air Force bases we visited, for instance, had 1 specialist for approximately every 1,000 servicemembers. At one Army command, 12 EO specialists, including an officer, served 20,000 servicemembers, a ratio of 1 specialist to about 1,700 servicemembers. In contrast, at 2 Marine Corps installations we visited, 1 EO specialist served about 38,000 servicemembers, whereas another served 8,000. Similarly, 1 Navy fleet EO specialist and 29 EO specialists at subordinate Navy commands we visited collectively served about 149,000 servicemembers, a ratio of 1 specialist to 4,100 servicemembers. In addition, some Navy commands did not have an EO specialist assigned.