Women in the Armed Forces

Order Code IB79045

Women in the Armed Forces

Updated November 20, 1991

(Archived)

by

Ellen C. Collier

Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division

Congressional Research Service « The Library of @

CONTENTS

SUMMARY

ISSUE DEFINITION

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Should the Armed Forces Expand Recruitment of Women?

Should Congress Change Legal Restrictions Against Women in Combat?

Military Women in Saudi Arabia and other Combat Actions

Should Women Be Included in Draft Registration?

What Would Be the Effect of the Equal Rights Amendment?

LEGISLATION

CHRONOLOGY

Table

Active Duty Enlisted Women End Strengths

Active Duty Officer Women End Strengths

Distribution of Active Duty Women by Rank

and Percentage of Total Personnel in Each Rank

aa) ,

1B79045 11-20-91

Women in the Armed Forces

SUMMARY

The number of women in the armed forces steadily increased from less than 2%

at the end of FY1972 to 11% in September 1990. The percentages vary among the

services from less than 5% for the Marines to more than 13% for the Air Force.

Parallel with the increase in the number of women in the armed forces has been a

gradual removal of restrictions against women in the military services and the kind of

jobs they could hold. For several years one issue has been whether to continue to

expand the proportion of women in the armed forces. The perception of need for

military women could change if a planned reduction in the armed forces occurred in

response to world events and an adequate pool of qualified males.

The major issue for several years has been whether to remove the principal

remaining restriction, the ban against women in combat. Past legislation has

prohibited the assignment of women to vessels and aircraft assigned combat missions

in the Navy and aircraft assigned combat missions in the Air Force. The Defense

Authorization bill for FY1992 and FY1993 as passed by both Chambers and agreed in

conference, H.R. 2100, would repeal the ban against women in Air Force and Navy

combat aircraft and establish a commission to study future policy. While there is no

legislative prohibition for the Army, Army policy imposes restrictions on combat

assignments. Thus, women are not allowed in many combat operations yet serve in

combat support units in areas subject to attack.

US. military actions in Grenada, Libya, the Persian Gulf, and Panama revealed

numerous inconsistencies in policy and practical problems in having a growing number

of persons in the Armed Forces prohibited from combat posts but representing a

substantial part of the forces and serving in combat support units. The deployment of

several thousand women to Saudi Arabia provided the most extensive experience to

date.

Some observers contend that additional military jobs could be opened to women

even without changing the combat ban. Others contend that adding more women to

non-combat posts reduces the number of rotation slots available for men in combat

units. In either event, since the main mission of the armed forces is to deter war by

being prepared to wage one if it occurs, there is a limit to the extent to which the

armed forces can increase the number and expand the assignments of women as long

as there are restrictions on assigning women to combat posts.

Opinion in the United States is deeply divided on the fundamental issues involved:

Would national security in the future be jeopardized or strengthened by increasing the

proportion of women in the armed forces and allowing them in combat? Should women

have equal opportunities and responsibilities in national defense, or do role and

physical differences and the protection of future generations justify continuation of the

combat ban? Current law requiring draft registration of males only and proposals for

an Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution have raised these same issues.

1B79045 11-20-91

ISSUE DEFINITION

What role women should have in the armed forces is a question that has

confronted Congress in several interrelated forms.

One aspect is whether or how much to expand the number of women in the

services. Difficulties in obtaining enough qualified males for the All-Volunteer Force

led to increasing recruitment of women during the 1970s and 1980s until women now

comprise more than 10% of the armed forces. A planned reduction of armed forces, in

response to a changing world situation and budget pressures, and the availability of

enough qualified males could change the perception of need for military women.

A second aspect is whether women should be excluded from combat positions by

law. The Department of Defense in 1979 recommended repeal of the law prohibiting

the use of women on aircraft and naval vessels assigned combat missions; subsequently

the Reagan Administration opposed repeal. The Defense authorization bills passed by

the House and Senate in 1991 would repeal the ban against women serving on combat

aircraft in the Air Force and Navy. Policy on assignment of women to combat, except

combat ships, would be left to the Air Force and Navy as it is currently to the Army.

A Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces would be established

to study policy for the future. The deployments to Saudi Arabia illustrated that women

in the Armed Forces may be exposed to danger even though they are excluded from

combat positions, and that families may suffer if a sole parent or both parents are sent

to a combat zone.

Draft registration is another aspect of the question of the role of women in the

military which has confronted Congress in several interrelated forms. The Supreme

Court has upheld the right of Congress to determine whether women should be

registered for the draft, and Congress has voted to register only males.

The two basic issues involve national security and the role of women in American

society. Would national security at some point be jeopardized by an increasing number

of women in the armed forces, or would it be enhanced by enlarging the pool of

qualified people available? Should women have equal rights, opportunities, and

responsibilities in national defense? Or do role and physical differences between the

sexes and the protection of future generations require special efforts to limit the role

of women in the armed forces?

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Two major factors led to the expansion of the role of women in the armed forces.

First, after the end of the draft and the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force in

December 1973, the military services had difficulty in recruiting and retaining enough

qualified males, thereby turning attention to recruiting women. Second, the movement

for equal rights for women led to demands for equal opportunity in all fields, including

national defense.

Women were recruited in increasing numbers and assigned to a wider variety of

occupations as one method of meeting shortfalls in enlistments by qualified men. The

CRS-2

IB79045 11-20-91

number of women in the armed forces steadily increased from less than 2% at the end

of FY1972 to 11% (223,154) in September 1990. (The percentages varied among

services: Army, 11.4% (83,152); Navy, 10.0% (57,102); Marines, 4.7% (9,319); Air

Force, 13.9% (73,581). See tables at the end.)

Parallel with the increase in the numbers of women in the military services was

a gradual removal of restrictions against them. During World War II, women served

in the various services under temporary arrangements and inconsistent policies. The

Armed Forces Integration Act of 1948 (62 Stat. 356-75) gave women a permanent place

in the military services by authorizing women in the regular Army, Navy, Air Force and

Marine Corps. However, it limited the number of enlisted women to 2% of enlisted

strength, the number of female officers (excluding nurses) to 10% of enlisted female

strength, and the rank a female officer could achieve to Lieutenant Colonel (or

Commander in the Navy).

During the 1960s and 1970s, the movement for equal opportunity for women gave

new momentum to efforts to eliminate discriminatory treatment of women in the armed

forces. Changes were brought about by policy directives from the services, court

decisions, and legislation. In 1967, P.L. 90-130 repealed the limitation of 2% for female

enlisted strength. In 1969, by administrative action, the Reserve Officers Training

Corps (ROTC) was opened to women for the Air Force, and for the Army and Navy in

1972. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in Frontiero v. Richardson (411 U.S. 677) that

spouses of female members of the armed forces were to be considered "dependents" in

the same way as spouses of male members of the armed forces. In 1974 the age

requirement for enlistment of women without parental consent was made the same as

for men (P.L. 93-920). In 1976 women were admitted to the three major service

academies: Military, Naval, and Air Force (P.L. 94-106); women had already been

admitted to the U.S. Coast Guard and Merchant Marine Academies by administrative

action.

In 1978, two major steps were taken. Congress passed legislation (P.L. 95-485)

abolishing the Women’s Army Corps as a separate unit and modifying Section 6015 of

Title 10 of the U.S. Code which had precluded women from serving on Navy ships.

Under the modification, women could be assigned to serve permanent duty on vessels

not expected to be assigned combat missions, and up to 6 months temporary duty on

other Navy ships. An act passed in 1980 (P.L. 96-513) equalized the treatment of male

and female commissioned officers. By 1982 there were no restrictions on the number

or occupations of women in the Coast Guard. However, women were still prohibited

from being assigned to ships or aircraft engaged in combat missions and, under Section

8549, to Air Force planes in combat missions.

Moreover, the percentage of women in the higher officer and enlisted ranks

continued to be lower than the percentage of women in service. (See tables at the end

of this section.) The disparity was much greater if medical officers, which includes

nurses, were excluded. The Department of Defense has explained that the clustering

of women in the middle to lower officer grades is a reflection of women entering in the

lower ranks in large numbers beginning in 1972, and that with time the distribution

of women officers should begin to approximate that of men.

On Feb. 2, 1984, General John W. Vessey, Jr., Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, said "the greatest change that has come about in United States forces in the time

CRS-3

IB79045 11-20-91

that I’ve been in the military service has been the extensive use of women and that a

male institution had been turned into a coeducation institution in a very short period,

and it has been a traumatic exercise for us."

Should the Armed Forces Expand Recruitment of Women?

One issue is whether to expand the number of women in the armed forces. In

anticipation of greater difficulty in recruiting enough qualified men during the 1980s

because of declining birthrates in the 1960s, the Department of Defense in the 1970s

increased the recruitment of women, Since that time, the number of women in the

armed forces has grown dramatically. (See chart in appendix, Active Duty Enlisted

Women and Officer End Strengths.) The proportion of women now ranges from less

than 5% in the Marines to more than 13% in the Air Force. The question of whether

the percentages should be increased or decreased could become more acute during the

1990s if the active duty military personnel decline and the military services can meet

their recruiting requirements with well qualified men.

The higher percentage of women in the Air Force is accounted for in part by the

Air Force mission, which does not involve primarily ground combat, and in part by Air

Force policy and legislation. The Defense Authorization Act of 1985 required that 19%

of those enlisting in the Regular Air Force during FY1987 and not less than 22% of

those enlisting during FY1988 be women. The requirement for 1987 was repealed the

next year but the requirement of 1988 was left in place. The Defense Authorization Act

of 1989 prohibited the Air Force from setting a minimum or maximum percentage of

persons according to gender for original enlistments for skill categories or in any other

way basing acceptance of a person on gender, except for enlistments for training for

duty assignments prohibited by the combat exclusion. No comparable gender-free

enlistment provision exists for the other branches.

The Army, Navy, and Marines all set separate accession goals for men and women

based on program needs, Policies restricting women in combat and holding some

noncombat positions to permit ship-to-shore and similar rotations limit the program

need for women. Nevertheless, the kind of military jobs available to women has

steadily increased. Air Force women have been trained as pilots and assigned to

Minuteman missile crews. The Navy has also opened pilot training and assigned

women to various ship types in the combat logistics force, Women serve in the Marine

Security Guard and the Marine Security Forces, In the Army women are allowed in

virtually all occupational specialties except those with the highest probability of direct

combat such as Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, and Combat Engineers.

In 1988 the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported that about half of the 2.2

million military jobs were open to women and half were closed. The GAO concluded

that "the services limit the number of jobs that women may hold beyond the

requirements of the combat exclusion and related program needs. As a result women

may not compete for all jobs identified by the services as unrestricted by the combat

exclusion or their program needs."

At issue are the qualifications needed for modern armed forces, whether women

meet these qualifications, and the effect more women in the services would have on the

ability of the armed forces to carry out their missions and on society in general.

CRS-4

a

1B79045 11-20-91

One qualification is education, which some believe is becoming more important

with the growing complexity of modern weapons systems. The services have been able

to achieve higher standards for women recruits than for men because of the small

recruitment levels for women. A principal argument in favor of increasing the numbers

of women in the armed forces has been that it would be better to raise the number of

women recruits who are better educated than to recruit less qualified men. If the

number of women recruits is increased, however, the services might not be able to be

as selective and the differences in education level between male and female recruits

might be expected to narrow.

Aptitude tests have been the second measure of qualification used by the Defense

Department, and this is closely related to the issue of the kind of jobs to which women

should be assigned. In aptitude tests given by the Army, men as a group have

consistently scored higher than women as a group in three areas: electronics, general

mechanics, and motor mechanics. Some contend that these differences might be

expected as a result of differences in the educational and cultural backgrounds of men

and women, and that the tests do not reliably predict the performance of properly

trained women in fields such as electronics and mechanics.

A question is how much effort should be made to train women for jobs in the

traditionally non-female occupations. Most women have traditionally been assigned to

the administrative and medical occupations in which their aptitudes are high. Some

favor continuing this policy since many women prefer these jobs and there is

considerable room for more women in these areas. Studies by the Department of

Defense have shown that enlisted women have much higher rates of retention in the

service when they are assigned jobs in the traditionally female skills (administrative and

clerical, and medical and dental) and lower retention rates in traditionally non-female

occupations (mechanical and electrical equipment repair.) A RAND study in 1986

found that 34% of military women, contrasted with 3% of civilian women, worked in

jobs that were less than 10% female nationally.

A third area of qualifications at issue involves the entire range of physiological

differences between men and women. One aspect is physical size and strength. The

1982 Women in the Army Policy Review concluded that the average female recruit had

from 50%-70% of the strength, stamina, and muscle mass of the average male recruit

with the greatest disparity existing in the female’s upper body strength. It held that

upper body strength was the limiting factor in the performance of military jobs, since

the major physical capacity requirements for the majority of military jobs were deemed

to be lifting and carrying. On the basis of this assessment the Army has developed

criteria for determining whether individuals could meet the strength requirements for

each job. Some question whether the physical strength requirements being placed on

many jobs by the Army are as important as other criteria, such as education, in which

women are not at a disadvantage.

Another aspect of the physiological differences involves pregnancy and childbirth.

There is concern that because of these uniquely female conditions, and the related

traditional responsibility of mothers for child-care, women will lose more time away

from duty, be less able to deploy rapidly, and have shorter service careers. The services

are faced with an increasing need for adequate child care as more of its members,

whether men or women, have sole or primary responsibility for children or the parents

CRS-5

1B79045 11-20-91

are a dual-career couple. Another issue has been whether to permit servicewomen to

obtain abortions in military hospitals.

Some look beyond individual qualifications to group performance and contend that

even if they meet all necessary qualifications and can perform the necessary tasks,

women will decrease the efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces. In their view,

having women in large numbers might drive men away from the armed forces, or at

least impair the morale and efficiency of men who have taken pride in the masculinity

of their profession. They contend that the United States already has a greater

percentage of women in its armed forces than almost all other countries and fear that

other countries will perceive the United States as militarily weak if it increases the

number of women greatly, especially if women are put in combat positions.

Should Congress Change the Legal Restrictions

Against Women in Combat?

Since the main mission of the armed forces is to deter war by being prepared to

wage one if it occurs, there is a limit to the extent to which the armed forces can

increase the number and expand the assignments of women as long as there are

restrictions on assigning women to combat posts, For many years legislative

prohibitions restricted the assignment of women to vessels and aircraft assigned combat

missions for the Navy (10 U.S.C. 6015) and aircraft assigned combat missions in the Air

Force (10 U.S.C, 8549), As passed by both Houses and agreed to in conference, the

Defense Authorization bill for FY1992 and 1993 (H.R. 2100) would repeal the

limitations on assignment of females to combat aircraft,

The Senate, in passing its Defense Authorization bill, $.1507, also adopted an

amendment by Senator Glenn to establish a 15-member Commission on the Assignment

of Women in the Armed Forces to study and make recommendations on issues related

to assigning women to combat positions. House conferees agreed to the study which

is to be submitted to Congress with the President’s recommendations by Dec. 15, 1992.

In May Pentagon spokesman Pete Williams said the Department of Defense

welcomes the repeal legislation "because it gives the Department of Defense the

authority to decide where the line should be drawn, rather than having Congress set

the limits on the role of women in combat." Secretary Cheney has said he would not

be surprised, because of experience in the Persian Gulf War, if women’s combat roles

were expanded, Earlier in the Bush Administration, Secretary of Defense Cheney had

said the Defense Department had no intention of dropping the combat exclusion.

Christopher Jehn, Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management and

Personnel, had contended the issue is "subjective" and an “emotional and political"

matter and said, "The reason why we haven’t taken a stand one way or another on

putting women in combat is that this is an issue that fully deserves to be resolved in

public debate in the Congress, not by a policy edict from me or the Secretary of

Defense." Operation Desert Storm brought new attention to the subject.

While there is no legislative prohibition for the Army, Army policy imposes

restrictions on women in ground combat assignments. A Combat Exclusion Policy

established by the Secretary of the Army in 1977 was replaced in 1983 by the Direct

Combat Probability Coding Policy (DCPC Policy). Under this policy, women may be

CRS-6

¥

1B79045 11-20-91

assigned to all units that do not routinely perform their mission forward of the brigade

rear boundary. According to the Defense Department’s Manpower Requirements Report

for FY1985, "The DCPC Policy acknowledges that women will have substantial risk of

injury, death, or capture in a battlefield environment which may include the use of

nuclear, chemical, and unconventional forces, but has as its goal the removal of women

soldiers from units which can be expected to routinely engage in direct combat with the

army." In 1988 the Secretary of the Army defined direct combat as "engaging an enemy

with individual or crew-served weapons while being exposed to direct enemy fire, a high

probability of direct physical contact with the enemy, and a substantial risk of capture.

Direct combat takes place while closing with the enemy by fire, maneuver, or shock

effect in order to destroy or capture, or while repelling assault by fire, close combat, or

counterattack."

The Defense Department in February 1988 also adopted a “risk rule" that also

excludes women from non-combat units or missions if the risks of exposure to direct

combat, hostile fire, or capture is equal to or greater than the risk in the combat units

they support. In September 1988 the Secretary of Defense said that to protect combat

readiness, decisions of the Military Departments to assign women to certain units must

be made with the understanding that they would be so assigned both in times of peace

and conflict. He clarified that military women should not be assigned to duties which

they would not be allowed to fulfill in an emergency since there would be no plans to

evacuate them.

The Navy Judge Advocate General has determined that the law prohibiting Navy

women from being aboard combat vessels does not apply to Coast Guard Women,

although the Secretary of the Navy could order changes to keep the services uniform.

Coast Guard Commandant Admiral James S. Gracey stated in a memorandum that

women should not be excluded from combat missions because removing women in

wartime would degrade the operational readiness of vessels while replacements are

being trained.

The combat exclusion was one of the factors cited by the Supreme Court in

upholding the right of Congress to exclude women from registration for the draft. The

Court said,

The fact that Congress and the Executive have decided that women should

not serve in combat fully justified Congress in not authorizing their

registration, since the purpose of registration is to develop a pool of potential

combat troops (Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).

On the basis of the combat restriction, the services bar women from many

occupational specialties and assignments. Prior to 1978 many more occupational

specialties were closed to women. In 1977, in P.L. 95-79, Congress required the

Secretary of Defense to submit a definition of the term “combat” together with

recommendations on expanding job classifications to which women might be assigned

and any changes in law necessary. In his reply on Feb. 14, 1978, Deputy Secretary of

Defense Charles Duncan defined combat to mean "engaging an enemy or being engaged

by an enemy in armed conflict"; a person to be “in combat" when in a geographic area

designated as a combat/hostile fire zone by the Secretary of Defense or other specific

circumstances, and a combat mission as "a mission of a unit, ship, aircraft or task

organization which has as one of its primary objectives to seek out, reconnoiter, or

CRS-7

TB79045 11-20-91

engage an enemy." Subsequently, the virtually absolute ban against women on Navy

ships was modified and many new jobs in all services were opened to women.

During the Carter Administration, Deputy Secretary of Defense Duncan said the

best long-term solution to open still more assignments to women was to repeal both 10

U.S.C. 6015 and 8549. He proposed allowing the Secretaries of the Military

Departments to set policy for, monitor, and review the assignment of women within

their respective departments, with the Secretary of Defense reviewing the programs to

insure compatibility among the services. On May 14, 1979, the Department of Defense

transmitted to Congress a draft of proposed legislation (subsequently introduced as H.R.

4256) to repeal the statutory restriction on the assignment of women.

The Reagan Administration opposed removing the combat restrictions on women.

On Sept. 8, 1983, White House spokesman Larry Speakes said, "The President strongly

feels that women should not be sent into combat. That’s bedrock Reaganism." The

President agreed with the Justice Department, which had reviewed all statutes with

sexually discriminatory language, that no changes be made in laws barring women from

being drafted and from serving in combat.

Repeal of the combat exclusion provisions would not necessarily result in

assignments of women to all combat units because it would be up to each service

Secretary to set policy and assign personnel according to needs and abilities.

Proponents of repeal believe it would remove a bar to many assignments that women

could handle. Opponents feel that the statutory provisions are the last protection

against the services sending women into combat.

In January 1990 Representative Schroeder introduced H.R. 3868 directing the

Army to conduct a 4-year test period of allowing women in those Army occupations

closed to women. The bill was based on a December 1989 recommendation of the

Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS). In April 1990

the Army rejected the DACOWITS proposal, stating it did not feel such a test was

warranted.

Those who emphasize equal rights and responsibilities say women in the armed

forces cannot advance to the top without experience in combat units. Some go even

beyond this, and say that women cannot be equal in society as long as they are barred

from full participation in all levels of the national security system. In their view,

modern weapons have equalized the potentiality for women in combat since wars are

less likely to be fought on a hand-to-hand basis, and have made it impossible to protect

women from the destructiveness of combat. In any event, they claim, properly trained

women would be able to fight successfully and exempting them from combat is not fair

to men.

Those opposed to women in combat contend that the protection of women is a

mark of civilization and a method of safeguarding the human race. They point out that

countries such as Israel and the Soviet Union, in which women have fought in

emergencies, do not now place women in combat positions. This view holds that the

national security would be jeopardized because women are not as strong or aggressive

as men and their presence would impair the individual and group effectiveness of men.

They disagree with the assumption that modern technology has significantly reduced

the direct physical nature of combat, especially ground combat. They see permitting

CRS-8

1B79045 11-20-91

women in combat as an extreme deviation from tradition which would detract from the

dignity and femininity of women and disturb family cohesion to such an extent that it

might have a broad adverse impact on society.

Other NATO nations that allow women in combat jobs include Belgium, Canada,

Denmark, Norway, Greece, and the Netherlands.

Military Women in Saudi Arabia and Other Combat Actions

Women were included in the Armed Forces sent to Saudi Arabia and the Persian

Gulf after the U.S. deployments to halt Iraqi aggression against Kuwait began on Aug.

8, 1990. From that time and through the hostilities that started Jan. 16, 1991, they

served both in traditional roles such as nurses and non-traditional roles including

aircraft ground crews and intelligence and communications specialists. According to a

Defense Department fact sheet of Jan. 3, 1991, 6% of the service personnel in the area

were women. This is less than the 11% that women comprise of the forces as a whole

because of the exclusion of women from specified combat units. (For additional

information, see CRS Issue Brief 90124, Iraq-Kuwait Crisis: Key U.S. Military

Personnel and Compensation Questions.)

Following is the breakdown by service of women deployed in Operation Desert

Storm, according to the Defense Department on July 11, 1991.

Branch of Service | Active Duty Reserves, etc. Total

Army 19,590 11,265 30,855

Navy 3,400 1,049 4,449

Marines 1,098 134 1,232

Air Force 2,978 1,268 4,246

TOTAL 27,066 13,716 40,782

The action against Iraq, called Operation Desert Storm, provided new experience

with women in the Armed Forces close to combat. Prior to hostilities, many press

reports focused on the unique aspect of how the U.S. military and their Saudi hosts

dealt with cultural differences relating to women. After hostilities began, press reports

indicated that women were doing the military jobs for which they are trained.

Executive officials and congressional resolutions spoke of pride and support for the men

and women of the Armed Forces.

Operation Desert Storm raised once again questions concerning the combat ban.

Women piloted some of the 300 helicopters that airlifted men and equipment more than

50 miles inside Iraqi territory, according to a Reuters report in the Washington Times

Feb. 26, 1991.In addition, Operation Desert Storm provided the first experience with

casualties among women and illustrated that women are in danger when in a combat

zone even if they are not allowed in combat units. Casualties among female military

personnel included 11 killed and two prisoners of war.

CRS-9

1B79045 11-20-91

Child care is perhaps the principal issue demonstrated by the deployment of

women to the Persian Gulf. Many hardship stories were published concerning single

parents or military couples sent to Saudi Arabia, leaving their children in the care of

relatives, neighbors, or whomever they could find. Legislation was introduced seeking

to bring about a policy change that would allow some military parents to win exemption

from duty in the Gulf, and a study of relevant policies has been required. The Defense

Department opposed a change in policy during the war. On Feb. 7, 1991, Secretary of

Defense Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell wrote:

..Years ago, the Department of Defense made the considered policy

choice not to treat single parents and military couples as second class

citizens, and to allow them to serve anywhere in the world, in every type of

unit, and in any position... We have had a longstanding policy of requiring

every single parent and military couple to maintain a current family care

plan to ensure that their children are cared for when the parent or parents

deploy. That policy is working well... In our view, it would be a serious

mistake, particularly while we are engaged in combat, to reverse our

longstanding policy... Requiring their redeployment from the Desert Storm

theater now would weaken our combat capability by removing key personnel

from our deployed units and by undermining unit cohesion and esprit de

corps. It would also break faith with our single parents and military couples

and with their comrades who depend on them every day.

The Senate on Feb. 20, 1991, rejected an amendment by Senator Heinz expressing

the sense that provision should be made, at the request of the serviceperson, for the

prevention of the assignment of two parents, or a single parent, of a minor child to the

imminent danger area. It approved an amendment by Senator Glenn that the Secretary

of Defense should prescribe regulations governing the assignment of Armed Forces

members who are parents of minor children with appropriate consideration given the

unique needs of single parents, dual military couples, and newborns.

Defense Department figures indicated that on Feb. 18, 1991, 16,337 single parents,

the vast majority of whom have custody, and 1,231 military couples with children were

deployed in Operation Desert Shield. Thus in 17,500 families children were separated

from their parents by the war.

According to the Defense Department, in the total Armed Forces, there are 91,000

single, active duty personnel who have dependents who are children, primarily a

designation so the dependent may receive benefits. The Defense Department estimates

there are 66,000 single parents who have custody. Of these 39,400 are males and

26,600 are females; thus, there are more male single parents but a larger percentage of

active duty women are single parents. According to the Defense survey, there are

70,000 dual military career couples. Of these, 40,400 active duty couples have children,

and 6,600 active duty personnel married to reservists have children. The Defense

Department estimates there are 2,000 reserve couples who have children. The Services

seek to assign military couples to the same post to the extent possible and ordinarily

couples would favor this policy, but the war in the Persian Gulf presented a new

situation. (For further information, see CRS Issue Brief 91100, Military Deployment

and Family Policy.)

CRS-10

1B79045 11-20-91

The Iraq-Kuwait war was not the first experience with women in combat

situations, but it indicated the extent to which women have become an integral part of

the armed services and is bringing home the policy dilemmas. The inclusion of 600

women in the forces that invaded Panama in December 1989 stirred some controversy

over the issue. The Panamanian action illustrated that women sometimes had jobs that

took them very close to combat and that there were problems in trying to give women

equal opportunity while excluding them from combat. One woman, Captain Linda L.

Bray, led a military police unit in a raid on an attack-dog kennel, for which she was

awarded the Army Commendation Medal. Another woman, Sgt. Rhonda J. Maskus,

filed a discrimination complaint because she was not deployed to Panama.

Inconsistencies in the policies concerning women in the various services were also

noted in other military actions. Four women who were deployed to Grenada on Oct.

29, 1983, were returned to Fort Bragg the next day "to prevent their exposure to direct

hostile fire," and then on November 2 were returned to Grenada to serve as military

police along with 110 other women soldiers in support functions. On the other hand,

press reports indicated that women had been included in the crews of Air Force

transports flying to Grenada during the invasion. Women served on the crews of

tanker aircraft refuelling the aircraft that bombed Libya on Apr. 14, 1986, but they

would not have been allowed on the bombers themselves. After the USS Stark was hit

by an Iraqi missile in the Persian Gulf in 1987, a destroyer tender sent to help repair

the Stark had about 240 female sailors out of a crew of 1,300.

Should Women Be Included in Draft Registration?

On Feb. 8, 1980, President Carter proposed to resume registration for the draft

under a plan that would include women as well as men. However, Congress rejected

the inclusion of women. The registration measure, as passed, called for the registration

of men only. (P.L. 96-282, approved June 27, 1980.) The American Civil Liberties

Union filed suit on June 26 charging the Act to be unconstitutional gender

discrimination. On July 18, a Federal district court ruled that it was unconstitutional

to require the registration of males only, but on July 19 Associate Justice Brennan of

the Supreme Court stayed this ruling and ordered the registration of men to proceed,

On June 25, 1981, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision and ruled

that Congress acted within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and

navies when it authorized the registration of men and not women. (Rostker uv,

Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).) The court held that its greater deference to Congress

in the area of national defense and military affairs was particularly appropriate because

Congress had specifically considered the constitutionality of the Military Selective

Service Act. In its view, Congress was entitled to focus on the question of military need

rather than equity, and the exclusion of women from combat justified excluding them

from the draft.

What Would Be the Effect of the Equal Rights Amendment?

One question which has frequently been raised is what would be the effect of the

proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution upon women with

respect to their role in the military services and upon the policies of the military

CRS-11

IB79045 11-20-91

services, The amendment would provide that "equality of rights under the law shall not.

be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." First

passed by the Congress in 1972, the amendment fell short of being ratified by the

required three-fourths of the States (38) by the deadline which was extended until June

30, 1982. Legislation for an equal rights amendment has been reintroduced each

Congress since then (HJ.Res. 1 and SJ.Res. 3 in the 102d Congress). Meanwhile,

numerous legal and practical changes in the status of women in the armed forces have

been brought about in the absence of an Equal Rights Amendment.

The effect on women’s role in the military services has been one of the most

controversial issues throughout the history of the Amendment. In reporting ERA

favorably in 1972, the Senate Judiciary Committee said it seemed clear that the Equal

ERA would require men and women to be treated equally with respect to the draft, so

that if there were a draft, both men and women who met the requirements would be

subject to conscription. Once in the service, each person would be assigned according

to his or her qualifications and the service’s needs. However, the committee said,

women who were not qualified or who were exempt because of their responsibilities,

such as those with dependents, would not have to serve and the passage of ERA would

not mean that mothers would be conscripted from their children. Congress would

retain the power to define the exemptions from compulsory service which then would

be applied to both men and women. The Senate Judiciary Committee took the position

that the principle of equality did not mean that the sexes must be regarded as identical,

and that it did not prohibit states from requiring a reasonable separation of persons

under some circumstances, such as in military barracks.

LEGISLATION

P.L 102-25, S. 725

Persian Gulf Conflict Supplemental Authorization and Personnel Benefits Act of

1991. Section 315 requires the Secretary of Defense report by Mar. 31, 1992, on a study

of policies relating to activation of reserve units and overseas deployments as they

affect family responsibilities and interest of members of Armed Forces who have minor

children or who are from families with more than one member in the Armed Forces.

Section 317 states the sense of the House that the armed forces devise a uniform policy

on deployment of mothers of newborn children and that the policy should provide that

to the maximum extent possible, mothers of new born children under the age of 6

months shall not be deployed or activated if activation requires separation of mother

and child. Passed Senate Mar, 21, 1991; passed House Mar. 21, 1991 (896-4.) Signed

into law Apr. 6, 1991.

H.R. 2100 (Aspin)/S, 1507 (Nunn)

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993. H.R. 2100

reported to House May 13, 1991 (H.Rept. 102-60). Passed House May 22, 1991. S. 1507

reported to Senate July 19, 1991 (S.Rept. 102-113). Inserted in H.R. 2100 and passed

Senate Aug. 2, 1991, Conference report filed Nov. 18, 1991 (H.Rept, 102-311). Section

531 repeals statutory limitations on assignment of female members to Air Force and

Navy combat aircraft. Section 541 establishes Commission on the Assignment of Women

in the Armed Forces to study implications for the combat readiness of Armed Forces of

CRS-12

1B79045 11-20-91

permitting women to qualify for combat positions and related matters, and report its

findings to Congress by Nov. 15, 1992. House adopted conference report Nov. 18, 1991.

H.R. 2521 (Murtha)

Makes appropriations for Department of Defense for FY1992. Reported to House

June 4, 1991 (H.Rept. 102-95). Passed House, amended, June 7, 1991. Reported to

Senate Sept. 20, 1991 (S.Rept. 102-154). Passed Senate Sept. 26, 1991. Conference

report file in House Nov. 18, 1991 (H.Rept. 102-328). Conference dropped Senate

provision in Section 8129 that would permit privately funded abortions for military

personnel and their dependents in military hospitals outside the United States.

CHRONOLOGY

08/30/91 --- The General Accounting Office issued a report, "Air Force Revises Job

Availability but Entry Screening Needs Review," which reported that the

Air Force had eliminated separate job listings for men and women as

required by the National Defense Authorization Act for 1989, but some

screening tests eliminated female applicants at a higher rate than male

applicants.

04/25/91 --- The Naval Academy announced the appointment of Midshipman Juliane

Gallina to the rank of midshipman captain, marking the first time the

Academy’s Brigade of Midshipmen would be under the command of a

female.

03/00/91 --- Navy Personnel Research and Development Center released report,

Pregnant Enlisted Women in Navy Work Centers, finding that the impact

of pregnancy on the work center was seen as greater on ships than at

shore commands.

09/11/90 --- A Defense Department study on sexual harassment in the military said

that more than a third of the military women surveyed reported they had

experienced some form of direct harassment.

06/08/90 --- The Navy announced Cmdr. Rosemary Mariner would become the first

woman commander of a fleet jet aircraft squadron and two women would

get the Navy’s first ship commands.

01/12/90 --- The Military Airlift Command announced it had lifted restrictions

prohibiting female aircrews on C-130 aircraft and C-141 airdrop missions.

All Military Airlift Command missions would now be open except special

operations aircraft: AC-130 gunships, MC-130s, HC-130s, and MH-53 and

MH-60 helicopters.

CRS-13

1B79045

August 15, 1991

ACTIVE DUTY ENLISTED WOMEN END STRENGTHS

FISCAL ARMY % NAVY % USMC % USAFE % _ TOTAL %

64* 7,958 9 5,063 9 1,820 8 4,845 1 19,186 8

69** 10,721 8 ; 5,752 8 2,443 9 7,407 1.0 26,323 9

72 12,349 18 6,257 1.2 2,066 12 11,725 2.0 32,397 1.6

73*** 16,457 2.4 19,174 19 1,973 Li 15,028 2.6 42,627 2.2

74 26,327 3.9 13,381 2.8 2,402 14 19,465 3.7 61,575 3.3

75 37,701 5.6 17,516 3.8 2,841 16 25,232 5.0 83,272 4.6

76 43,806 6.5 19,288 4.2 3,063 18 29,235 6.1 95,392 5.3

77 46,094 6.8 19,464 4.4 * 3,606 2.0 34,610 7.3 103,674 5.8

78 50,549 7.6 21,093 41 4,662. 24 41,084 8.8 117,597 6.6

80 61,968 9.3 30,955 6.7 6,269 3.7 52,205 11.4 151,397 8.6

82 63,622 9.4 37,821 17 7,875 4,5 54,506 11:3 163,324 9.0

86 69,151 10.4 46,796 9.8 9,246 5.2 60,694 12.3 185,887 = 10.1

89. 73,794 = =11.2 51,633 10.0 9,012 5.1 63,175 13.6 197,614 10.9

90 70,741 «118 49,275 9.8 8,647 4.9 60,250 14.0 188,913 10.9

co 71,104 112 48,714 9.8 8,631 4.7 60,083 14.1 188,532 10.8

ACTIVE DUTY OFFICER WOMEN END STRENGTHS

64* 3,772 3.4 2,678 3.6 128 1 4,031 3.0 10,609 3.1

69** 5,157 3.0 : 2,884 3.2 284 Li 4,858 3.6 13,183 3.1

72 4,422 3.6 3,185 4.4 263 13 4,766 3.9 12,636 3.8

T3*** 4,279 3.7 3,464 4.9 315 16 4,727 4.1 12,775 4.0

74 4,388 4.1 3,649 5.4 336 18 4,767 4.3 13,140 4.3

75 4,594 45 ‘8,676 5.6 345 19 4,981 4.7 13,596 4.6

16 4844 4.8 8,544 5.6 386 2.0 4,967 5.0 13,741 4.9

77 5,696 5.8 3,791 6.0 422 2.3 §,383 5.6 15,292 5.5

78 6,292 6.4 3,980 6.4 433 2.4 6,010 6.3 16,715 6.1

80 7,528 8.9 5,027 8.3 463 2.7 8,876 9.0 21,884 8.4

82 9,033 8.8 5,740 8.5 560 3.0 9,942 9,8 25,275 8.7

86 11,263 10.3 7,260 10.1 643 3.2 12,377 11.4 31,543 = 10.1

89 12,197 111 7,453 10.3 696 3.5 13,403 12.9 33,749 = 11.1

90 12,411 118 7,827 10.8 672 3.4 13,331 13.3 34,241 11.5

git 12,466 11,9 7,790 10.0 677 3.4 13,874 13.6 34,307 116

* Last pre-Vietnam War fiscal year.

** Peak of Vietnam War, during draft period.

*4* ~~ Beginning of All Volunteer Force.

+ March 31, 1991

Sources: Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics);

Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate for Information.

(NO.)

OFFICERS

0-8 1

0-7 7

0-6 412

0-5 2,104

0-4 6,039

0-3 14,674

0-2 5,694

0-1 4,696

WARRANT

W-4 11

W-3 113

W-2 376

W-4 180

OFFICERS

TOTAL 34,307

ENLISTED

E-9 207

E-8 1,259

E-7 8,051

E-6 21,073

E-5 40,494

E-4 56,923

E-3 34,725

E-2 15,633

E-1 10, 167

TOTAL

ENLISTED 188,532

CADETS &

MIDSHIPMEN NA

GRAND

TOTAL 222,839

TOTAL

0.4

2.2

4.3

5.6

11.6

1.4

3.3

5.9

8.8

11.1

12.8

12.4

11.5

11.4

10.8

NA

10.9

DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE DUTY WOMEN

IB79045

August 15, 1991

BY RANK AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PERSONNEL IN EACH RANK

MARCH 31, 1991

(NO. )

439

3,463

7,958

13,814

24, 182

10,444

6,181

4,554

71,104

NA

83,570

ARMY

0.3

2.4

4.4

4.6

11.9

NA

11.3

*Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding.

Compiled by the Congressional Research Service from

Department of Defense data.

(NO. )

7,790

55

326

1,656

6,084

11,326

11,374

9,783

4,821

3,289

48,714

NA

56,504

NAVY

(4)

1.2

1.5

3.3

7.6

12.8

12.6

11.0

12.5

10.9

1.1

3.1

4.8

7.2

10.6

11.0

13.3

10.9

9.0

9.8

NA

9.9

(NO. )

677

18

61

287

806

1,534

1,934

2,757

946

288

8,631

NA

9,308

MARINE

(4)

We WW =| oO Oo

eo. e « # 8 a &

NO fF LP uwwMeo]So

1.2

2.6

6.1

7.2

3.4

1.2

1.6

3.0

5.2

5.8

5.0

4.8

4.5

3.5

4.7

NA

4.6

(NO.)

oo oo

13,374

65

433

2,645

6,225

13,820

19,433

11,741

3,685

2,036

60, 083

NA

73,457

AIR FORCE

(4)

0.0

1.8

2.5

5.9

11.9

14.9

21.0

18.9

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

13.5

1.5

4.9

6.7

10.8

12.8

16.5

19.7

18.6

19.5

14.1

NA

14.0