Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional research reportJun 5, 2019
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity
in the Armed Services: Background and Issues
for Congress
Kristy N. Kamarck
Specialist in Military Manpower
Updated June 5, 2019
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
R44321
SUMMARY
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in
the Armed Services: Background and Issues for
Congress
R44321
June 5, 2019
Kristy N. Kamarck
Specialist in Military
Manpower
-re-acte--@crs.loc.gov
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise and
support armies; provide and maintain a navy; and provide for organizing, disciplining, and
For a copy of the full report,
regulating them. Congress has used this authority to establish criteria and standards for
please call 7-.... or visit
individuals to be recruited, to advance through promotion, and to be separated or retired from
www.crs.gov.
military service. Throughout the history of the armed services, Congress has established some of
these criteria based on demographic characteristics such as race, sex, and sexual orientation. In
the past few decades there have been rapid changes to certain laws and policies regarding diversity, inclusion, and equal
opportunity – in particular towards women serving in combat arms occupational specialties, and the inclusion of lesbian, gay,
bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) individuals. Some of these changes remain contentious and face continuing legal
challenges.
Military manpower requirements derive from the National Military Strategy and are determined by the military services
based on the workload and competencies required to deliver essential capabilities. Filling these capability needs, from combat
medics to drone operators, often requires a wide range of backgrounds, skills and knowledge. To meet their recruiting
mission, the military services draw from a demographically diverse pool of U.S. youth. Some have argued that military
policies and programs that support diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity can enhance the services’ ability to attract,
recruit and retain top talent. Other advocates for a diverse force believe that it is in the best interest of the military to recruit
and retain a military force that is representative of the nation as a “broadly representative military force is more likely to
uphold national values and to be loyal to the government—and country—that raised it.” They contend that in order to reflect
the nation it serves, the military should strive for diversity that reflects the demographics of the entire country.
Some contend that a military that is representative of the nation should also reflect its social and cultural norms. Such
observers argue that popular will for social change should be the driving or limiting factor for DOD policies. Others oppose
the expansion of certain diversity and equal opportunity initiatives due to concerns about how these initiatives might be
implemented. For example, some contend that diversity initiatives could harm the military’s merit-based system, leading to
accessions and promotions that put demographic targets ahead of performance standards. Others express concern that the
inclusion of some demographic groups is antithetical to military culture and could affect unit cohesion, morale, and readiness.
When addressing equal opportunity within the Armed Forces, some further note that the military has a unique mission that
requires the exclusion of some individuals based on, for example, age, physical fitness level, education attainment, or other
characteristics.
Congressional Research Service
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Contents
Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Why Do Organizations Value Diversity? ........................................................................................ 2
Diversity and Cohesion ............................................................................................................. 2
Diversity and Effectiveness ....................................................................................................... 4
Diversity Management .............................................................................................................. 4
Diversity and the Civil-Military Relationship ........................................................................... 5
Diversity and Social Equality.................................................................................................... 5
How Does DOD Define Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity? .......................................... 6
Diversity and Inclusion Policy .................................................................................................. 6
Military Equal Opportunity Policy ............................................................................................ 7
How Does DOD Manage Diversity and Equal Opportunity? ......................................................... 9
Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI) .................................................................. 9
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI) ................................................ 10
Military Departments ............................................................................................................... 11
How Have the Definition and Treatment of Protected Classes Evolved in the Armed
Forces? ........................................................................................................................................ 11
Racial/Ethnic Inclusion: Background and Force Profile ......................................................... 12
The Civil War to World War II, Racial Segregation.......................................................... 12
Desegregation in the Truman Era ..................................................................................... 13
Civil Rights Movement and Anti-Discrimination Policies ............................................... 15
The Vietnam War and Efforts to Improve Race Relations ................................................ 17
Is the Racial/Ethnic Profile of the Military Representative of the Nation? ...................... 19
Inclusion of Women: Background and Force Profile .............................................................. 22
Women’s Participation in World War I and World War II ................................................ 23
Post-WWII and the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act ........................................ 24
Equal Rights Movement and an All-Volunteer Force ....................................................... 25
The 1990s: Increasing Roles for Women .......................................................................... 27
Recent Changes to Women’s Assignment Policies ........................................................... 29
Is the Gender Mix in the Military Representative of the Nation? ..................................... 29
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Inclusion: Background and Force
Profile................................................................................................................................... 33
Advocacy and DOD Policy Formation in the 1970s and 1980s ....................................... 34
The Evolution of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell ............................................................................ 35
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) ......................................................................... 37
Post-DADT Integration ..................................................................................................... 38
Transgender Service Policies ............................................................................................ 39
Religious Inclusion: Background and Force Profile ............................................................... 44
Is Religious Diversity in the Military Representative of the Nation? ............................... 46
Military Diversity and Equal Opportunity Issues for Congress .................................................... 47
Diversity in Leadership ........................................................................................................... 47
Diversity and Inclusion at the Service Academies .................................................................. 49
Management of Harassment and Discrimination Claims ........................................................ 51
Inclusion of Transgender Servicemembers ............................................................................. 53
Religious Discrimination and Accommodation ...................................................................... 56
Other Aspects of Diversity ...................................................................................................... 57
Congressional Research Service
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Are Diversity and Equal Opportunity Initiatives Needed in the Military? .................................... 59
Figures
Figure 1. DOD Active Duty Racial and Ethnic Representation .................................................... 20
Figure 2. Women Serving on Active Duty as a Percentage of Total Active Duty Force ............... 27
Figure 3. Female Representation in the Active Component .......................................................... 31
Figure 4. Women in Combat Policy Changes and Female Propensity for Military Service.......... 32
Figure 5. Non-prior Service Applicants for Active Component Enlistment by Gender and
Race/Ethnicity ............................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 6. Religious Diversity in the Active Duty Force ................................................................ 47
Figure 7. Representation Ratios for Non-prior Service Enlisted Accessions by State .................. 57
Figure 8. Active Component Enlisted Accessions by Median Household Income ....................... 58
Tables
Table 1. Diversity Goals for DOD and the Federal Workforce ....................................................... 6
Table 2. Equal Opportunity Definitions in DOD Policy.................................................................. 9
Table 3. Key Factors Measured in DEOCS ................................................................................... 10
Table 4. Selected Legislation for Command Climate Surveys ....................................................... 11
Table 5. Military Fatal Casualties as a Result of the Vietnam War ............................................... 18
Table 6. Race and Ethnic Representation in the Active Component and U.S. Population ............ 21
Table 7. Racial/Ethnic Representation Among Post-secondary Degree Holders .......................... 21
Table 8. 1992 Presidential Commission on Women in Combat .................................................... 28
Table 9. Female Representation in the Active Duty Armed Forces ............................................... 31
Table 10. Timeline for DOD Transgender Policy Changes ........................................................... 44
Table 11. Military Department Policy Regarding Religious Accommodation
and Expression ........................................................................................................................... 46
Table 12. Female Enrollment at Service Academies ..................................................................... 49
Table 13. Service Academy and U.S. Undergraduate Enrollment by Race/Ethnicity ................... 49
Table 14. Estimated Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment at Service Academies ........ 50
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 60
Congressional Research Service
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Overview
Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has the authority to raise and
support armies; to provide and maintain a navy; and to provide for organizing, disciplining, and
regulating them. In the past, Congress has used this authority to establish criteria and standards
for recruiting individuals into the military, promoting them, and separating or retiring them from
military service. In many cases, Congress has delegated the authority to develop these criteria and
standards to the Secretaries of Defense and the Military Departments. However, throughout the
history of the armed services, Congress has passed legislation either limiting or expanding
requirements for military service based on demographic characteristics such as race, sex, and
sexual orientation. In the past decade, there have been rapid changes to laws and policies
governing the integration of certain demographic groups in the Armed Forces. Since 2009, these
changes have allowed individuals who are gay to serve openly1 and recognized their same-sex
spouses as dependents2, opened submarine billets and combat assignments to women3, and have
modified policies relating to the service of transgender troops.4 While all career fields are open to
women, Congress has not passed legislation that would allow or require draft registration for
women.5
Over the past decade, there have also been a number of efforts by Congress and the
Administration to assess diversity, equal opportunity, and inclusion across the federal workforce.
In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417),
Congress mandated the creation of a Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) tasked
with conducting “a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide
opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces,
including minority members who are senior officers.”6 The commission’s final report, From
Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership in the 21st-Century Military, noted that while
great strides had been made in developing a diverse force, women and racial and ethnic minorities
are still underrepresented in top leadership positions. In May 2011, the commission’s report was
released, and in August 2011, then-President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order (EO
13583) calling for a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in
the federal workforce. In Section 528 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2016 (P.L. 114-92), Congress reaffirmed a commitment to maintaining a diverse military stating:
Diversity contributes to the strength of the Armed Forces.... It is the sense of Congress that
the United States should—(1) continue to recognize and promote diversity in the Armed
1 P.L. 111-321.
2 Secretary of Defense, Extending Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Military Members, Memorandum for
Secretaries of the Military Departments Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, February 11,
2013.
3 Department of Defense, “Secretary of Defense Remarks on the Women-in-Service Review,” December 3, 2015.
4 Cronk, Teri Moon, “Transgender Service Members Can Now Serve Openly, Carter Announces,” DOD News, June
30, 2016.
5 For a separate discussion of the selective service see CRS Report R44452, The Selective Service System and Draft
Registration: Issues for Congress.
6 The commission’s reference to minorities includes racial/ethnic minorities and women (although not a minority in the
general population, women make up a significantly smaller percentage of the total Armed Forces.) The commission did
not address issues related to the service of openly gay men and women as that topic was being addressed by the DOD
Comprehensive Review Working Group.
Congressional Research Service
1
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Forces; and (2) honor those from all diverse backgrounds and religious traditions who have
made sacrifices in serving the United States through the Armed Forces.
This report is intended to support congressional oversight of DOD’s diversity, inclusion, and
equal opportunity programs, policies, and management for uniformed personnel.7 The report
starts by giving an overview of recent research on diversity and organizational management to
demonstrate why organizations value diversity and what the findings on diversity suggest in a
military context. The next sections outline DOD’s military personnel policies, processes and
organizational structure for managing diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity. Following that,
the report examines how the concept of diversity and inclusion has evolved throughout the history
of the Armed Forces and provides a snapshot of the current demographic composition of the
military relative to the U.S. civilian population. Finally, the report addresses some of the current
legislative and policy issues related to diversity in the Armed Forces.
Why Do Organizations Value Diversity?
Diversity is often defined as the variation of traits within groups of two or more people and may
include both traits that are visible (e.g., sex, age, race) and invisible (e.g., knowledge, culture,
values). An internet search on “diversity initiatives in the workplace,” produces more than one
million results. Given the emphasis placed on diversity by modern organizations it is important to
understand why workforce diversity is valued and what that can mean in the context of military
personnel management.
Many argue that diversity is a core value of an egalitarian and multicultural society and
organizations should seek diversity regardless of its relationship with performance metrics.8 From
a human resource perspective, diversity is typically studied with regard to its impact on group
dynamics and other factors that contribute to organizational performance. Two key factors that
have been studied in both the civilian and military context are
cohesion: commitment to other members of the group and the group’s shared
objectives; and
effectiveness: the ability of the group to efficiently meet its objectives.
Studies on the impact of diversity on these factors have had mixed findings, leading some to
argue that diversity is beneficial to organizational success, and others to suggest that it might be
harmful.
Diversity and Cohesion
Military cohesion is often considered to be a positive group attribute that contributes to the team’s
ability to cooperate and perform at high levels under stressful conditions. There are varying
definitions of cohesion. In the military context, the 1992 Presidential Commission on the
Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces defined it as
the relationship that develops in a unit or group where (1) members share common values
and experiences; (2) individuals in the groups conform to group norms and behavior in
order to ensure group survival and goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor
7 This report does not provide extensive information on policies and programs for DOD civilian personnel, or for U.S.
Coast Guard uniformed personnel who are operating under the Department of Homeland Security.
8 O'Brien, Lauren T. and Patricia N. Gilbert, “Ideology: An Invisible yet Potent Dimension of Diversity,” in The Oxford
Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 135.
Congressional Research Service
2
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) unit members
become totally dependent upon each other for the completion of their mission and survival;
and (6) group members meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to
threaten group survival.9
Some studies have found that higher overall levels of cohesion are associated with individual
benefits of increased job satisfaction, retention, and better discipline outcomes.10 Meta-analysis of
group performance and cohesiveness has suggested that, on average, cohesive groups perform
better than non-cohesive groups.11 Others note that where observed causal relationships between
cohesion and group performance exist, it is more often the performance of the group that affects
the level of cohesiveness (i.e., unit success leads to a more cohesive unit) rather than the
reverse.12
Recent studies of group cohesion focus on two ways that group cohesion develops.13
Social cohesion is the extent to which group members like each other, prefer to
spend their social time together, enjoy each other’s company, and feel
emotionally close to one another.
Task cohesion is the shared commitment among members to achieving a goal that
requires the collective efforts of a group.
Some behavioral research has found that interpersonal relationships that lead to social cohesion
are established more readily between individuals with similar backgrounds, experiences and
demographic characteristics.14 In addition, some studies have found that teams with high levels of
social cohesion have less conflict15 and stronger support networks, which may help individuals to
better cope with stress.16 In the military context, those who argue for more homogenous units17
argue that these units develop stronger interpersonal bonds that provide important psychological
benefits and bolster unit resiliency when operating in highly stressful and austere environments.18
They also argue that “out-group” members—those with different characteristics than the majority
9 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November, 15,
1992, p. C-80.
10 Oliver, Laurel W. et al., “A Quantitative Integration of the Military Cohesion Literature,” Military Psychology, vol.
11, no. 1 (1999). Oliver et al. (1999).
11 Evans, Charles R. and Kenneth L. Dion, “Group Cohesion and Performance,” Small Group Research, vol. 43, no. 6
(December 2012).
12 Rostker, Bernard D. et al., Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy; An Update of RAND’s 1993
Study, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2010, p. 141.
13The distinction between these two lines of cohesion has become increasingly common in academic literature over the
past two decades. These definitions are derived from definitions in Rostker, Bernard D. et al., Sexual Orientation and
U.S. Military Personnel Policy; An Update of RAND’s 1993 Study, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2010, p.
139.
14 Reagans, Ray, “Demographic Diversity as Network Connections: Homophily and the Diversity-Performance
Debate” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2012), p. 181.
15 Ibid., p. 181.
16 Ahronson, Arni and James E. Cameron, “The Nature and Consequences of Group Cohesion in a Military Sample,”
Military Psychology, vol. 19, no. 1 (2007), pp. 9-25.
17 Over time, this argument has been used to advocate against integrated military units with regard to race, gender, and
sexual orientation.
18 See for example, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Research and Development, “Unit Cohesion Could
be Key to PTSD Resiliency,” September 12, 2014, at http://www.research.va.gov/currents/summer2014/summer201427.cfm.
Congressional Research Service
3
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
of others in the groups—may experience negative individual psychological effects as a result of
poor social integration.
Other studies have found shared experiences can contribute to task cohesion and that this type of
cohesion is a stronger predictor of group performance than social cohesion.19 This leads some to
argue that the “sameness” of individuals in a military unit is less important than the shared
experiences of the unit. In this regard, some argue that military units that operate in an integrated
manner can build task cohesion through integrated training.20
Diversity and Effectiveness
Some studies on the effectiveness of small groups have found that the presence of diversity (in
particular racial and gender diversity) is associated with better creative problem solving,
innovation, and improved decisionmaking.21 These positive outcomes are sometimes attributed to
the broader range of perspectives, knowledge, and experience available in diverse groups relative
to homogenous groups. Those who argue for diversity initiatives in the military argue that a more
diverse force has the potential to be more efficient and flexible, and able to meet a broader set of
challenges.
Other studies have found that within diverse groups individuals with demographically similar
characteristics tend to build strong in-group relationships to the detriment of the larger unit.22 The
presence of demographic in-groups has been found in some circumstances to negatively affect
group productivity, particularly if active fault lines or biases exist between subgroups.23 Those
who argue against the integration of certain subgroups suggest that there are pervasive cultural
biases that can contribute to interpersonal friction within military units and distract from the
unit’s ability to perform under stress.
Diversity Management
While the direction and magnitude of the effects of diversity on group performance remain
debatable, there is a wide body of literature that links the performance of diverse groups to
leadership and management.24 Among human resource professionals in the public and private
sectors, the focus in workforce management has shifted from diversity acquisition (e.g.,
affirmative action and hiring quotas) to diversity management. Under the previous philosophy,
employers set targets for accessions based on race, sex, or other attributes in order to bolster
19 Mullen and Copper (1994) and Beat et al.
20 In the past, training pipelines and in some instances units were segregated by race and gender. As of 2015 the Marine
Corps has separated men and women for portions of basic training.
21 See review of the literature in, Richard, Orlando C. and Carliss D. Miller, “Considering Diversity as a Source of
Competitive Advantage in Organizations.” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson
(New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 240.
22See review of the literature in, Jehn, Karen A. and Lindred L. Greer, “Diversity as Disagreement: The Role of Group
Conflict” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2012), p. 181.
23 Thatcher, Sherry M., “Moving Beyond a Categorical Approach to Diversity: The Role of Demographic Faultlines,”
in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed. Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press,
2012), p. 59.
24 Ferguson, Melissa J. and Shanette C. Porter, “An Examination of Categorization Processes in Organizations: The
Root of Intergroup Bias and a Route to Prejudice Reduction,” in The Oxford Handbook of Diversity and Work, ed.
Quinetta M. Roberson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 98.
Congressional Research Service
4
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
historically underrepresented groups. More recent diversity management philosophies focus on
building organizational culture and policies to better attract a diverse workforce and to
accommodate career development for employees with different backgrounds.
Diversity and the Civil-Military Relationship
Given the U.S. military’s unique role in society there are additional reasons that diversity could
be of value within the defense establishment. In the military, the value of diversity is sometimes
discussed as a facet of the civil-military (civ-mil) relationship. Some explain this relationship as a
trinity of civilian leadership, civil society, and military servicemembers.25 Civilian leadership
ultimately decides how to resource and employ the military. These decisionmakers are influenced
by civilian society (their constituents). In an all-volunteer force, recruits are drawn from civil
society. Some portion of civil society serves, has served, or is directly affected by those who
serve. The strength of the relationship between civil society and those who serve has been tied to
the willingness of a democratic populous to hold civilian leaders accountable for decisions to
enter and engage in conflict and to expend national resources to sustain a military force.26
On the other end, civilian leaders oversee the implementation of national security policies and
hold military leaders accountable. One concern many have is that a cadre of military leaders who
lack meaningful connections with civil society could question the legitimacy of civilian authority
in military matters.27 In the context of such concern, advocates for a diverse force believe that
such a force is in the best interest of society because “a broadly representative military force is
more likely to uphold national values and to be loyal to the government—and country—that
raised it.”28
Diversity and Social Equality
Another argument for demographic representation is based in social equality. From this
perspective, many believe that the risks of military service should be shared equally among all
qualified citizens, and not disproportionately the burden of certain geographic, demographic, or
socioeconomic groups. Others note that military service confers various benefits, opportunities,
and status within society (e.g., veterans’ preference in federal or state hiring29, education benefits,
specialized training). As a result, some social equality advocates argue that all qualified
individuals should have equal opportunities to participate, earn the benefits, and advance within
the military.
25 Evans, Col. Charles M., “Impact of Diversity on the Civil-Military Relationship,” School of Advanced Military
Studies, United States Army Command and General Staff College., May 2013, p. 11.
26 Owens, Mackubin Thomas, “What Military Officers Need to Know About Civil-Military Relations,” Naval War
College Review, vol. 65, no. 2 (Spring 2012).
27 Ibid., p. 80.
28 Armor, David J., “Race and Gender in the U.S. Military," Armed Forces & Society, vol. 23, no. 1 (Fall 1996), pp. 727.
29 Veterans account for about 10% of the U.S. population; however account for 30% of the federal workforce, and
nearly 50% of the defense civilian workforce. (https://www.federaltimes.com/home/2018/04/07/where-are-theveterans-in-the-federal-workforce/).
Congressional Research Service
5
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
How Does DOD Define Diversity, Inclusion, and
Equal Opportunity?
Diversity, inclusion, and equal opportunity initiatives often go hand-in-hand in workforce
management. Although the three terms are frequently used interchangeably, there are some key
differences in how they are interpreted and applied. While diversity is primarily used to discuss
the variations in visible and invisible traits among employees in an organization, inclusion or
inclusiveness is typically used to discuss the culture of organizations. An inclusive organization is
often described as one with policies that promote respect for differences, enable individual
contributions, and instill a sense of organizational belonging. Equal opportunity is used in the
context of legal protections for individuals or groups of individuals from forms of discrimination
in the workplace. Policies that promote diversity and equal opportunity are typically
complementary and can help build an organizational culture of inclusiveness.
Diversity and Inclusion Policy
DOD’s current diversity policies and plans stem from congressional and administration actions
between 2008 and 2011. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417, Section 596), Congress authorized the creation of the Military
Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). The commission’s charter includes 16 tasks, one of
which was to “develop a uniform definition of diversity to be used throughout DOD congruent
with the core values and vision of DOD for the future workforce.”30 In 2011, the commission
released its final report. In the same year, then-President Obama issued an Executive Order (EO
13583) calling for a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote diversity and inclusion in
the federal workforce.31
In 2012, DOD issued a five-year Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan that drew on many of the
recommendations from the MLDC report and outlined three overarching goals intended to align
with goals in the Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan published by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) (see Table 1).32
Table 1. Diversity Goals for DOD and the Federal Workforce
OPM Strategic Goals
DOD Strategic Goals
Workforce Diversity. Federal agencies shall recruit
from a diverse, qualified group of potential applicants to
secure a high-performing workforce drawn from all
segments of society.
Employ an aligned strategic outreach effort to identify,
attract, and recruit from a broad talent pool reflective
of the best of the nation we serve. Position DOD to be
an “employer of choice” that is competitive in
attracting and recruiting top talent.
30 Military Leadership Diversity Commission, From Diversity to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21 st-Centurty
Military, Final Report, March 15, 2011, p. 119.
31 Executive Order 13583, “Establishing a Coordinated Government-Wide Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion
in the Federal Workforce,” 76 Federal Register, August 23, 2011.
32 Department of Defense, Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2012-2017. The United States Coast Guard’s
Diversity & Inclusion Strategic Plan, 2015 – 2018, can be found here: https://www.dcms.uscg.mil/Portals/10/CG-1/
diversity/docs/pdf/Diversity_Inclusion_Strategic_Plan.pdf?ver=2017-03-01-095434-610.
Congressional Research Service
6
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
OPM Strategic Goals
DOD Strategic Goals
Workplace Inclusion. Federal agencies shall cultivate a
culture that encourages collaboration, flexibility, and
fairness to enable individuals to contribute to their full
potential and further retention.
Develop, mentor, and retain top talent from across the
total force. Establish DOD’s position as an employer of
choice by creating a merit-based workforce life-cycle
continuum that focuses on personal and professional
development through training, education, and
developing employment flexibility to retain a highly
skilled workforce.
Sustainability. Federal agencies shall develop structures
and strategies to equip leaders with the ability to
manage diversity, be accountable, measure results,
refine approaches on the basis of such data, and
engender a culture of inclusion.
Ensure leadership commitment to an accountable and
sustained diversity effort. Develop structures and
strategies to equip leadership with the ability to manage
diversity, be accountable, and engender an inclusive
work environment that cultivates innovation and
optimization within the Department.
Sources: DOD Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan, 2012-2017; Government-Wide Diversity and Inclusion
Strategic Plan, 2011.
Note: OPM is the U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
The DOD strategic plan placed an emphasis on diversity management over the workforce lifecycle (from recruitment to retirement) and highlighted the role of leadership in establishing an
inclusive organizational climate. The plan also established new definitions of diversity and
diversity management that apply to both uniformed personnel and DOD:
Diversity: All the different characteristics and attributes of the DOD’s total force, which
are consistent with DOD’s core values, integral to overall readiness and mission
accomplishment, and reflective of the Nation we serve.
Diversity Management: The plans made and programs undertaken to identify and promote
diversity within the DOD to enhance DOD capabilities and achieve mission readiness. 33
DOD’s definition of diversity encompasses not only demographic characteristics, but also
different backgrounds, skills, and experiences. The strategic plan does not outline targets or
quotas for the recruitment, retention, or promotion of historically underrepresented demographic
groups, nor does it prioritize diversity at the expense of military readiness. While DOD does not
establish official diversity targets based on demographic profiles, an inherent goal within the
current definition is that the characteristics of the force should reflect the demographic
characteristics of the U.S. population.34 Consistent with this, DOD regularly collects and reports
on the demographic profile of the force which can then be compared to the demographic profile
of the civilian population.
Military Equal Opportunity Policy
Equal opportunity typically refers to nondiscrimination protections for certain classes of
individuals. DOD has civilian and military employees and operates both a Civilian Equal
Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program and a Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Program.35
33 Department of Defense, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the DOD, DODD 1020.02E, June 8, 2015,
Incorporating Change 2, Effective June 1, 2018.
34 https://diversity.defense.gov/About/, May 2, 2019. However, the individual Military Departments have in the past
announced recruiting and accession targets. For example, in a speech at the Naval Academy in May 2015 the Secretary
of the Navy announced a recruitment goal of 25% women for the Navy and Marine Corps. See Perkins, Derrick,
“Mabus: 1 in 4 Marine Recruits Should Be Women,” Marine Corps Times, May 26, 2015.
35 This report focuses only on diversity and equal opportunity policies for uniformed servicemembers, not DOD
Congressional Research Service
7
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Military equal opportunity policies generally follow the precepts set in civilian civil rights law;
however, many statutes and regulations that are applicable to civilian employment are not
applicable to military service. The sources of uniformed servicemembers’ rights, and restrictions
thereon, include the Constitution, statute—including the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ)—DOD and service-level policies and regulations, and Executive Orders.
Congress has the authority to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed
forces. Whereas civilian law prevents discrimination based on age36 or disability37, the military is
allowed, and in some cases compelled, by law to deny service opportunities to those unable to
meet certain physical standards, and those above a certain age. For example, by statute,38 a
commissioned officer may be appointed only if he or she is “able to complete 20 years of active
commissioned service before his sixty-second birthday ... is physically qualified for active service
... and has such other special qualifications as the Secretary of the military department concerned
may prescribe by regulation.”39 Likewise, the law specifies persons who are ineligible to enlist.40
The Secretary of Defense has the general authority to prescribe policies and regulations for DOD
employees, including those regulations pertaining to equal opportunity and nondiscrimination.41
In DOD’s 2015 revision to its policy, the MEO definition more closely mirrors the civilian EEO
definition. Another change in 2015 expanded the protected classes of individuals to prevent
unlawful discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In announcing this change, thenSecretary of Defense Ashton Carter stated
We have to focus relentlessly on the mission, which means the thing that matters most
about a person is what they can contribute to it ... we must start from a position of
inclusivity, not exclusivity.... Anything less is not just wrong—it’s bad defense policy, and
it puts our future strength at risk. 42
Table 2 shows a comparison of DOD’s equal opportunity definitions for civilian employees and
military servicemembers.43 In 2016, DOD changed the MEO definition to include gender identity
under those protected from discrimination and harassment.
civilian employees.
36 The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (P.L. 90-202) forbids employment discrimination against
anyone at least 40 years of age.
37 The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336) prohibits discrimination based on disability and requires
employers to provide reasonable accommodations for those with disabilities. For Federal employees the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-112) applies.
38 The President has authority under 10 U.S.C. §531 to appoint officers. This authority is delegated by executive order
to the Secretary of Defense.
39
10 U.S.C. §532(a).
40 10 U.S.C. §504.
41 5 U.S.C. §301.
42 Cronk, Terri, M. “Carter: Diversity, Inclusion Critical to the Force of the Future,” DOD News, Defense News Media,
June 9, 2015.
43 The previous definition of MEO from DODD, 1020.02, dated February 5, 2009, was: “The right of all military
personnel to participate in and benefit from programs and activities for which they are qualified. These programs and
activities shall be free from social, personal, or institutional barriers that prevent people from rising to the highest level
of responsibility possible.”
Congressional Research Service
8
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Table 2. Equal Opportunity Definitions in DOD Policy
DOD Civilian Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) Definition
The right of all DOD employees to apply, work, and
advance on the basis of merit, ability and potential, free
from unlawful discrimination based on race, color,
national origin, religion, sex (including pregnancy,
gender identity, and sexual orientation when based on
sex stereotyping), disability, age, genetic information,
reprisal, or other unlawful factors.
Military Equal Opportunity (MEO) Definition
The right of all servicemembers to serve, advance, and
be evaluated based on only individual merit, fitness,
capability, and performance in an environment free
from unlawful discrimination on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity),
or sexual orientation.
Source: Department of Defense, Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity in the DOD, DODD 1020.02E, June
8, 2015, Incorporating Change I, Effective June 1, 2018.
Note: DODD 1020.02E states that the civilian EEO program is governed by 42 U.S.C. §§2000e through
2000e-17, part 1614 of Title 29 C.F.R., chapter 14 of 29 U.S.C., and 5 U.S.C. §§2302(b)(1) and 7201.
Discrimination and harassment as described in military issuances include sexual harassment,
hazing, intimidation, disparaging remarks, or threats against other servicemembers or civilians
based on protected characteristics. Harassment also includes creating an intimidating or hostile
work environment for individuals on the basis of protected characteristics. Harassment by
military personnel may result in administrative actions (e.g., letters of reprimand, counseling, or
low marks on annual performance evaluations) and may also be punishable under the UCMJ.44
How Does DOD Manage Diversity and Equal
Opportunity?
DOD oversees diversity management and equal opportunity programs while the military
departments implement them. Programmatic components include research and data collection,
training, and processes and procedures for military equal opportunity complaint resolution.
Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ODEI)
The Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (formerly the Office of Diversity Management and
Equal Opportunity, ODMEO) is the DOD organization responsible for promoting diversity in the
DOD workforce.45 The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness
oversees this office. ODEI has oversight authority for the DOD Diversity and Inclusion
Management Program, DOD Military Equal Opportunity Program, DOD Civilian Equal
Employment Opportunity Program, DOD Civil Rights Program, and Harassment Prevention and
Response in the Armed Forces Program. The Director also provides oversight and guidance to the
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI). DOD component heads have
oversight of MEO programs and are responsible for making required reports to the Secretary of
Defense and Congress.46
44 Harassment may be punishable under the UCMJ, Article 92, “Failure to Obey an Order or Regulation” and Article 15
“Nonjudicial Punishment.” (10 U.S.C. §892) Other punitive articles may also apply depending on the nature of the
incident.
45 ODEI was first established in 1994 as the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Equal Opportunity.
46 Section 579(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 required the Secretary of
Defense to report on substantiated incidents of sexual harassment that involve members of the Armed Forces including
Congressional Research Service
9
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI)
In 1971, DOD established the Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI) with a mandate to
conduct training for Armed Forces personnel designated as instructors in race relations,
develop doctrine and curricula in education for race relations, conduct research, perform
evaluation of program effectiveness, and disseminate educational guidelines and materials
for utilization throughout the Armed Forces.47
In 1979, DRRI became the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute as the organization
evolved to address not only race, but other diversity and equal opportunity issues in DOD. Today
DEOMI offers resident, nonresident and e-learning courses geared toward equal opportunity
advisors, counselors, and program managers across all military departments and components.
DEOMI also conducts research to support policy-making and training and development
programs, and provides a range of online resources for diversity management and equal
opportunity programming.
DEOMI’s Research Directorate administers the Defense Equal Opportunity Climate Survey
(DEOCS). This survey is intended to be a tool to help commanders better gauge morale in their
units, identify potential issues or areas of strength, and improve their organizational culture. It
measures factors associated with organizational effectiveness, equal opportunity/fair treatment,
perceptions of sexual harassment, and sexual assault prevention and response (see Table 3). The
DEOCS may be administered to any DOD agency and is used for both uniformed military
personnel and civilian employees.
Table 3. Key Factors Measured in DEOCS
Equal Opportunity/ Fair
Treatment
Organizational Effectiveness
Sexual Assault Prevention
and Response (SAPR)
Organizational Commitment
Favoritism
Safety
Trust in the Leadership
Hazing
Bystander Intervention
Organizational Performance
Demeaning Behaviors
Training Quality
Organizational Cohesion
Sexist Behaviors
Leadership Cohesion
Racist Behaviors
Information/Resource
Availability
Job Satisfaction
Racial Discrimination
Adequate Response
Diversity Management
Sex Discrimination
Retaliation
Organizational Processes
Sexual Harassment
Help Seeking Behaviors
Religious Discrimination
Exhaustion/Burnout
Civilian Only:
Intention to Stay
Age Discrimination
Disability
Discrimination
Equal Pay
Genetic Information
Pregnancy
Source: DOD Sample DEOCS 4.0 Survey, DEOMI, January 1, 2014.
identifying cases in which a member is accused of multiple incidents of sexual harassment.
47 Department of Defense Directive, Education and Training in Human/Race Relations for Military Personnel, DODD
1322.11, 24 June 1971 (cancelled).
Congressional Research Service
10
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Note: The survey also allows for the addition of locally developed questions and allows respondents to provide
written comments directly associated with discrimination/sexual harassment/SAPR.
The DEOCS is used at the unit level to establish a baseline assessment of the command climate.
Subsequent surveys are intended to track progress relative to the baseline. In recent years there
has been a series of legislative initiatives that have enhanced requirements for the administration
of command climate surveys (see Table 4). Many of these initiatives have come in response to
growing concerns about command responses to sexual harassment and assault reports.48
Table 4. Selected Legislation for Command Climate Surveys
Public Law
Description
P.L. 112-239,
FY2013 NDAA
Section 572: Requires commander of each military command to conduct a climate
assessment for the purposes of preventing and responding to sexual assaults within 120 days
of assuming command and at least annually thereafter.
P.L. 113-66
FY2014 NDAA
Section 587: Requires results of command climate surveys to be provided to the
commander and the next higher up in the chain of command and requires that a failure to
conduct a command climate survey be noted in the commander’s performance evaluation.
Section 1721: Requires the Secretaries of the military departments to track compliance with
statutory command climate survey requirements.
Section 1751: Expresses a sense of congress regarding the importance of establishing a
command climate where criminal activity can be reported free from the fear of retaliation or
ostracism.
Source: Public Law.
Military Departments
In practice, the military departments manage their own diversity programs and initiatives. MEO
training, prevention, complaints, and resolutions are handled at the unit level through the chain of
command. It is the commander’s responsibility to establish a climate of inclusiveness and equal
opportunity.49 Accountability for senior leaders is achieved through command climate
assessments (DEOCs) and through evaluations of character and organizational climate/equal
opportunity on performance evaluations. For example, character is rated on senior enlisted
evaluations for E7-E9’s in the Navy. A Greatly Exceeds Standards rating for character requires
that the individual “seamlessly integrate diversity into all aspects of the command,” while a
Below Standards rating describes the individual as “demonstrates exclusionary behavior, fails to
value differences from cultural diversity.”50
How Have the Definition and Treatment of
Protected Classes Evolved in the Armed Forces?
DOD’s current definition of military equal opportunity protects servicemembers from unlawful
discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex (including gender identity)
or sexual orientation. However, throughout the history of the Armed Forces, these currently
protected classes were excluded to varying degrees from military participation and occupational
48 For more on military sexual assault, see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A Framework for
Congressional Oversight.
49 See for example, Air Force Instruction 1-2, Commander’s Responsibilities, AFI 1-2, May 8, 2014.
50 Department of the Navy, Navy Performance Evaluation System. BUPERSINST 1610.10C, April 20, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
11
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
assignments by policy and statute. The history of integration in the military is detailed and often
dependent on the political, social, and cultural context of the era. This section describes statutory
and policy changes that affected the treatment of various demographic groups over time. The
following sections also provide a snapshot of the demographic profile of the Armed Forces.
Racial/Ethnic Inclusion: Background and Force Profile
Racial minorities have volunteered or been drafted for service since the time of the American
Revolution;51 however, the military was a racially segregated institution until the mid-20th
century. Under the widely accepted separate but equal philosophy of the time, these segregation
policies were not considered to be unjust by many senior military and government officials.
However, civil rights activists rejected this notion, and pushed for full racial integration across all
segments of society, including the Armed Forces. Even as policy and statute changed over time to
remove occupational and assignment barriers to racial/ethnic minorities, concerns about
discrimination and equal opportunity have persisted.
The Civil War to World War II, Racial Segregation
The recruitment of racial minorities into the service through most of the 1800s and 1900s was not
driven by a desire for diversity, but rather by practical manpower requirements. During the Battle
of New Orleans during the War of 1812, General Andrew Jackson’s Army included both “Free
Men of Color,” and Choctaw Native Americans.52 During the Civil War, approximately 186,000
black Americans served in the Union Army as part of sixteen segregated combat regiments, and
some 30,000 served in the Union Navy. Following the Civil War, as part of what is commonly
known as the Army Reorganization Act of 1866, Congress authorized the creation of permanent
“colored” units consisting of two cavalry and four infantry regiments.53 The act also authorized
the recruitment and enlistment of 1,000 Native Americans to act as scouts. While the creation of
these units guaranteed career opportunities for specific racial minorities, it also introduced an era
of institutionalized segregation in the armed services.
In 1896, the Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson upheld state laws authorizing racial
segregation under a “separate but equal” doctrine. Following the ruling, states proceeded to enact
a series of segregation-based laws and the military services began active implementation of racial
segregation policies. Due to pressing needs for additional manpower in the Army, black soldiers
made up approximately 11% of the Army’s total strength in World War I and 13% of all those
conscripted (in racially separate “white” and “colored” draft calls).54 Hispanics, Native
Americans, and Asian Americans were mostly drafted as “whites.”55 However, there was
51 Approximately 5,000 black soldiers served in the Revolutionary War. MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the
Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1981), p. 4.
52 Ward, Rufus, “Andrew Jackson and the Free Men of Color, The Commercial Dispatch, January 8, 2011.
https://lowndeslibarchives.wordpress.com/2011/01/09/andrew-jackson-and-the-free-men-of-color/.
53 39th Congress, Sess.1. Ch. 299, July 28, 1866. An Act to Increase and Fix the Military Peace Establishment of the
United States. The units created were the 9th and 10th Cavalry and the 38th, 39th, 40th, and 41st Infantry. In March of
1869, as part of reduction-in-strength measures, Congress combined the four infantry regiments into just two regiments
(the 24th and 25th).
54 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History,
1981), p. 7.
55 There was confusion as to whether these other minorities should be classified as “white” or “colored” and some may
have appeared on either of the draft calls depending on local interpretations. Shenk, Gerald E., “Work or Fight!” Race,
Gender, and the Draft in World War One, New York, New York, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
12
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
confusion in some states as to how to treat draftees of Asian ethnicity. Chinese surnames appeared
on both black and white draft lists.56 While black soldiers in the Army were often directed
towards unskilled combat support or service support jobs, many also served as frontline combat
troops.
During World War II, the War Department again issued separate draft calls for black and white
servicemembers and maintained segregated training and unit assignments. The Army upheld a
quota policy for the recruitment of black soldiers with a ceiling of 10% of total recruits.57 In this
era, the distribution of white and black servicemember between the officer and enlisted ranks and
occupational specialties suggested some inequities in accession and assignment policies. In 1941,
black soldiers in the Army accounted for 5% of the Infantry and less than 2% of the Air Corps,
whereas they accounted for 15% of the less-prestigious Quartermaster Corps58 and 27% of
unassigned or miscellaneous detachments.59 About 2% of the Navy was black, and with the
exception of six men rated as regular seaman, all of them were enlisted steward’s mates. None
were officers.60 At peak WWII manpower strength in 1945, black servicemembers accounted for
7.2% of the total military force but only 0.6% of the officer corps.61 Army practices did not allow
black officers to outrank or command white officers in the same unit, and some commanders
preferred to assign white officers for command of black units.62
Given Japan’s role in the war there was a general public suspicion of Japanese Americans and
some already serving in the military were removed from active duty or discharged.63 However,
approximately 6,000 Nisei (first-generation, American-born Japanese) served as interpreters or
linguists in the war with about 3,700 serving in combat.64 In addition, the Army formed a
segregated unit comprised of about 4,500 Japanese-Americans within the 442d Regimental
Combat Team (RCT) that fought in Italy and Central Europe.65
Desegregation in the Truman Era
In December 1946, in response to what was seen as a worrisome increase in racial violence and
tension across the United States, President Harry Truman issued an Executive Order establishing
the President’s Committee on Civil Rights.66 The commission’s mandate was to examine civil
rights for all citizens; however, they did make certain recommendations for the military services.
56 Shenk, Gerald E., “Work or Fight!”; Race, Gender, and the Draft in World War I (Palgrave Macmillian, 2005),
p. 122.
57 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History,
1981), p. 37.
58 Quartermaster functions included food service, laundry, and other logistical services.
59 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History,
1981), p. 24.
60 President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Freedom to Serve: Equality
of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, United States GPO, Washington, DC, 1950. p. 25.
61 The Report of the President’s Committee on Civil Rights, To Secure These Rights, October 1947. p. 44.
62 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History,
1981), p. 37.
63 Hajela, Deepti, “Asian American Soldier’s Suicide Called a ‘Wake-Up Call’ for the Military,” Washington Post,
February 21, 2012.
64 New Jersey Korean War Memorial Website, Fact Sheet: Asian Americans in the United States Military during the
Korean War, Atlantic City, NJ, October 28, 2015.
65 Ibid.
66 Executive Order 9808, “Establishing the President’s Commission on Civil Rights,” December 5, 1946.
Congressional Research Service
13
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
The commission’s report, To Secure These Rights, noted that blacks and other minority
servicemembers faced many barriers to equal treatment both within and outside the military. The
commission advocated for (1) full racial integration within the military, (2) a ban on
discrimination based on race or color, and (3) award of officer commissions and promotions
based solely on merit.
In 1948, during his campaign for reelection, President Truman issued Executive Order 9981,
which set in motion a purposeful desegregation effort.67
It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment
and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion
or national origin.68 This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due
regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing
efficiency or morale.
The order also established the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity
in the Armed Forces under chairmanship of Charles Fahy to understand the potential impact of
integration on military efficiency. During the commission’s inquiry, some military leaders
advocated for maintaining the status quo due to concerns about inefficiencies that might arise
from “impaired morale in mixed units.”69 The Fahy Committee’s final report, released in 1950,
expressed serious doubts about military officials’ claims that integration would negatively affect
morale and efficiency, finding instead evidence that existing segregation policies were
contributing to inefficiencies through unfilled billets, training backlogs, and less capable units. In
their conclusion, the committee stated:
As a result of its examination into the rules, procedures, and practices of the armed services,
both past and present, the Committee is convinced that a policy of equality of treatment
and opportunity will make for a better Army, Navy, and Air Force. It is right and just. It
will strengthen the nation.70
Between 1949 and 1950 the military departments changed their policies regarding minority races
to reflect the recommendations of the Fahy Committee and to echo the language of President
Truman’s Executive Order that there should be “equality of treatment and opportunity for all
persons ... without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.”71 By this time, AsianAmericans were no longer serving in segregated units; however, black units were still segregated.
The manpower needs of the Korean War (1950-1953) catalyzed racial integration in the services.
Under pressure to rapidly build up and deploy forces, the Army lacked the time and resources to
continue to operate separate training pipelines for black and white soldiers. On the battlefield,
Army and Marine Corps commanders began assigning black soldiers to replace losses in white
combat units by necessity. However, senior leaders in the Army were reluctant to change official
policies, as stated by Army Lt. General Edward M. Almond in opposition to changes:
Executive Order 9981, “Establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the
Armed Forces,” July 26, 1948.
68 At this time the policy did not mention discrimination based on gender.
69 President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Freedom to Serve: Equality
of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, United States GPO, Washington, DC, 1950. p. 15.
70 President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Freedom to Serve: Equality
of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services, United States GPO, Washington, DC, 1950. p. 68.
71 The Navy and Marine Corps’ policy was issued on June 23, 1949, the Air Force policy was issued on May 11, 1949,
and the Army policy was issued on January 16, 1950.
67
Congressional Research Service
14
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
I do not agree that integration improves military efficiency; I believe it weakens it. I believe
that integration was and is a political solution for the composition of our military forces
because those responsible for the procedures ... do not understand the characteristics of the
two human elements concerned... This is not racism—it is common sense and
understanding. Those who ignore these differences merely interfere with the combat
effectiveness of combat units.72
In response to political pressures for change, the Army initiated two scientific research studies of
the performance of integrated units; one conducted internally by the Army G-1, and one through a
contracted agency that was code named “Project Clear.” Both studies concluded that contrary to
widely held beliefs, unit performance was not negatively affected by integration, and that the
practice of segregating units was in fact damaging to military effectiveness.73
The Army dropped its 10% ceiling on the recruitment of black soldiers in 1950. By October 1953,
basic training and unit assignments were no longer segregated, and the Army announced that 95%
of African-American soldiers were serving in integrated units.74 In 1951, the Marine Corps
announced a policy of racial integration.75 By 1954, then-Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin
Wilson announced that the last all-black active duty unit had been abolished. However, some
Reserve and National Guards remained segregated or closed to black entrants into the 1960s.76
Civil Rights Movement and Anti-Discrimination Policies
While DOD had announced the full integration of the active duty military in 1954, segregation
was still widespread in National Guard and Reserve units and discrimination on military
installations and in surrounding communities persisted.77 In 1962, President John F. Kennedy
authorized the President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces to be chaired by
Gerhard A. Gesell. The commission was the first to address equal opportunity in the forces since
the Fahy Commission in 1950; its mandate was to determine the following.
1. What measures should be taken to improve the effectiveness of current policies and
procedures in the Armed Forces with regard to equality of treatment and opportunity for
persons in the Armed Forces?
2. What measures should be employed to improve equality of opportunity for members of
the Armed Forces and their dependents in the civilian community, particularly with respect
to housing, education, transportation, recreational facilities, community events, programs
and activities?78
The commission found that while armed services policies were not discriminatory as written,
there was a need for the military to improve recruitment, assignment, and promotion practices to
72 MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History,
1979), p. 441.
73 Binkin, Martin et al., Blacks and the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1982, p. 29.
74
In October 1953, the Army announced that 95% of African-American soldiers were serving in integrated units.
75 However, black Marines were still restricted to certain assignments until 1962. MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration
of the Armed Forces 1940-1965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), p. 468.
76 Until 1963 there were 10 states with large black populations and no black soldiers in their National Guard units and
the Army Reserve maintained six all-black units. MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 19401965 (Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), pp. 518 and 553.
77 In 1964 the National Guard Bureau announced the integration of all States’ National Guard.
78 Letter from President John F. Kennedy to Gerhard A. Gesell, June 22, 1962. See
http://chapters.rowmanlittlefield.com/07/425/0742545326ch3.pdf, September 2, 2015.
Congressional Research Service
15
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
achieve equal treatment of black servicemembers.79 In addition, the commission noted particular
hardships imposed on black servicemembers and their families when assigned to or transferred to
installations in communities with high levels of segregation and discrimination in education,
housing, transportation, and employment. For example, one-fourth of all Army and Navy
installations were located in communities with segregated public schools.80 The commission
noted that black servicemembers and their families were
daily suffering humiliation and degradation in communities near bases at which they are
compelled to serve ... community conditions are a constant affront and constant reminder
that the society they are prepared to defend is a society that depreciates their rights to full
participation as citizens.81
The commission’s finding suggested that base commanders were not taking an aggressive role in
identifying and addressing racial discrimination on base and within the communities. Some of the
key recommendations of the commission were as follows.
Expand and clarify the installation commander’s role with respect to
discrimination in the community.
Develop mechanisms to tie an officer’s performance ratings to their ability to
establish a climate of equal opportunity.
Initiate mandatory command training programs on discrimination and equal
opportunity.
Build biracial community working groups.
Allow installation commanders to impose economic sanctions (boycotts/bans) on
local businesses by prohibiting servicemembers from patronizing establishments
that were racially discriminatory.82
Establish equal opportunity offices and appoint officials for each of the military
departments.
In response to the commission’s recommendation, then-Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara83
issued a new DOD policy in July 1963 to
79 The commission found that promotion boards were made up of primarily white officers, and black officers made up a
very small percentage of the total officer corps. The President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces,
Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for Negro Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States, June 13,
1963.
80 The military traditionally did not offer on-base schools, but where it was available it was desegregated. The
President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for Negro
Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States, Initial Report, June 13, 1963.
81 The President’s Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, Equality of Treatment and Opportunity for
Negro Military Personnel Stationed Within the United States, June 13, 1963.
82 This was one of the commission’s most controversial recommendations and was seen by some critics as a threat to
civil liberties and state sovereignty. During congressional debate, Rep. Durwood G. Hall of Missouri stated, “The
recommendations made in the report and in the directive indicate a narrowness of vision which, in seeing only the civil
rights issue, has blinded itself to the question of whether it is proper to use the Armed Forces to enforce moral or social,
rather than a legal, issue in the civilian sector.” MacGregor, Morris, J. Jr., Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1965
(Washington, DC: Center of Military History, 1979), p. 550.
83 Some argue that McNamara did not go far enough in adopting the Gesell Commission’s recommendations,
particularly those relating to DOD internal processes for monitoring race relations and holding leaders accountable for
command climate. See Military Leadership Diversity Commission, From Diversity to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership
for the 21st-Centurty Military, Final Report, March 15, 2011, p. 5.
Congressional Research Service
16
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
conduct all of its [DOD’s] activities in a manner which is free from racial discrimination,
and which provides equal opportunity for all uniformed members and all civilian
employees irrespective of their color.84
One year after the DOD’s policy issuance, the federal government passed the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (P.L. 88-352) that outlawed discrimination or segregation on the grounds of race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin.85 DOD responded by issuing a new policy that prescribed policies
and procedures for processing servicemember requests for legal action under the new law in cases
of discrimination faced off-base.86
The Vietnam War and Efforts to Improve Race Relations
Despite the DOD’s new policy in response to the Gesell Commission recommendations, the
1960s brought an era of conflict abroad and social unrest at home. In 1965 the U.S. deployed
combat troops to Vietnam. While in previous wars, recruitment of blacks was limited by quotas or
segregation policies, during Vietnam there was a perception that blacks were disproportionally
drafted, sent to Vietnam, assigned to serve in high-risk/high-casualty combat units, and killed or
wounded in battle.87
DOD draft data from 1964 show that among men aged 26-29, a greater percent of nonwhite males
(50%) had been found unfit for service than white males (25%). However, of those who were
qualified, 30.2% of the black male population was drafted compared with 18.8% of the white
population.88 The final report of the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service noted
that in October 1966 only 1.3% of local draft board members were black and state draft boards
had zero black members.89 This lack of representation fed perceptions of favoritism towards white
registrants. One of the recommendations of the commission was that local draft boards should
“more realistically represent all elements, including ethnic, of the population of the country.”90
Studies following the Vietnam era have found little evidence of sustained or widespread
institutional racism in draft decisions. Generally, studies have found bias in draft deferments and
inductions based on socioeconomic factors. Casualty statistics give a mixed picture as well. Black
casualties in the early years of the war accounted for 22.4% of all troops killed in action in 1966;
nevertheless, by 1973, at the end of U.S. military involvement in the war, total black fatalities
were approximately 12.4% of the total casualties (see Table 5). In 1973, black servicemembers
84 Department of Defense, Equal Opportunity in the Armed Forces, DODD 5120.36, July 1963 (Cancelled).
85 Title VII of this law “Equal Employment Opportunity,” did not apply to the employment of uniformed military
personnel.
86 Department of Defense, Processing of Requests by Military Personnel for Action by the Attorney General Under the
Civil Rights Act, DODI 5525.2, July 24, 1964 (Cancelled).
87 Between 1966 and 1969, Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara initiated “Project 100,000” which was intended
to bring low-aptitude men out of poverty through military training and service. Inductees under this program were
called “New Standards Men” reflecting the lowering of qualification standards on entrance examinations and
requirements. Of the 236,000 Project 100,000 recruits, 47% were drafted, and 40% were black (relative to 9% of male
enlistees that were black). About 37% of all Project 100,000 recruits were assigned to combat-type occupations and
over half who entered the Army and Marine Corps were deployed to Vietnam. Binkin, Martin et al., Blacks in the
Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1982, p. 34.
88 “In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves When Not All Serve?,” GPO, February 1967, p. 26.
89 This commission was stablished on July 2, 1966 by Executive Order 11289. The final report was commonly known
as the Marshall Report after its Chairman, Burke Marshall. It was published as “In Pursuit of Equity: Who Serves
When Not All Serve?,” GPO, February 1967.
90 Ibid., p. 34
Congressional Research Service
17
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
accounted for 18.4% of the active component Army enlisted corps and 16.9% of Marine Corps
enlisted.91
Table 5. Military Fatal Casualties as a Result of the Vietnam War
Race
Number of Fatalities
Percent of Total Fatalities
White
49,830
85.5%
Black or African American
7,243
12.4%
Other
1,147
2.0%
Total
58,220
100%
Source: Vietnam Conflict Extract Data File of the Defense Casualty Analysis System (DCAS), National Archives
and Records Administration, http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#race.
Notes: Figures include those who died as a result of the Vietnam War and include deaths between June 8, 1956,
and May 28, 2006. The “Other” category under race includes Asian, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native
Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, Hispanic (one race), and Non-Hispanic (more than one race).
Between 1968 and 1970, perceived patterns of racial discrimination in both the military and
surrounding communities contributed to an uptick in recorded violent incidents at military
installations in the U.S. and overseas.92 DOD ultimately was compelled to act after a 1971
incident at Travis Air Force Base, California, where an altercation in the barracks between a black
Airman and a white Airman escalated into riots that ended in 135 arrests, 10 injuries, the death of
a civilian firefighter, and significant property damage.93 In 1971, in response to the incident at
Travis AFB and the recommendations of an inter-service task force on racial relations, DOD
established the Race Relations Education Board, required race relations training for all
servicemembers, and opened the Defense Race Relations Institute (DRRI)94 on Patrick Air Force
Base, Florida.
On April 5, 1972, following concerns about discrimination in the military justice system, thenSecretary of Defense Melvin R. Laird established the Task Force on the Administration of
Military Justice in the Armed Forces to
identify the nature and extent of racial discrimination in the administration of
military justice;
identify and assess the impact of factors contributing to disparity in punishment
rates between racially identifiable groups;
identify and assess racial patterns or practices in initiation of charges against
individuals; and
recommend changes to enhance equal opportunity for servicemembers.95
91 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Population Representation in the Military Services, Fiscal Year 1997, November,
1998, Table D-17. CRS has been unable to locate similar data for 1966.
92 For example, racially motivated incidents occurred at Long Binh Jail outside Saigon (1968) and at Cam Ranh Bay
(1969) in Vietnam, and domestically at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina (1969), and Camp Pendleton, California (1970).
93 Leidholm, Nicole, Race Riots Shape Travis’ History, U.S Air Force, November 8, 2013.
94 In 1978, DRRI became the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute (DEOMI).
95 Department of Defense, Report of the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces,
November 30, 1972.
Congressional Research Service
18
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
The Task Force found evidence of both intentional and unintentional discrimination toward racial
minorities in the military justice system stating,
The Task Force believes that the military system does discriminate against its members on
the basis of race and ethnic background. The discrimination is sometimes purposive; more
often, it is not. Indeed, it often occurs against the dictates not only of policy but in the face
of determined efforts of commanders, staff personnel and dedicated service men and
women.96
The report proposed enactment of a specific legislative provision in the UCMJ to ban
discrimination. However, this recommendation was not adopted and the UCMJ does not currently
have any specific provision banning discrimination. The adoption of new antidiscrimination
policies, programs and protections along with the advent of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973
helped to alleviate some of the racial tensions that had plagued the Armed Forces for the better
part of the 20th century. Despite great strides in racial equality and nondiscrimination, some
concerns about the treatment of and opportunities for racial minorities have persisted into the 21st
century.97 For example, some researchers have pointed to consistently higher rates of disciplinary
action (i.e., court-martial or nonjudicial punishment) for black servicemembers relative to their
white counterparts as evidence of persistent racial bias in the military justice system. 98
Is the Racial/Ethnic Profile of the Military Representative of the Nation?
For over 50 years DOD has not prohibited qualified U.S. citizens of different races or ethnicity
from serving in any occupation in the military. Recent concerns by DOD and others have focused
on whether the racial/ethnic composition of the military is representative of the broader society.
The military’s racial and ethnic profile shifted slightly over the past few decades. There was a
surge in black enlistments in the late 1970s and 1980s, most significantly in the Army where
black representation was above 30% from 1979 to 1981.99 Black representation declined to
approximately 20% of the active component throughout the 1990s, and has dipped below 20% in
the past decade (see Figure 1). However, black representation in the Army remains above 20%
and overall, the black members are overrepresented in the Armed Forces relative to the total U.S.
population. The percentage of Hispanic servicemembers has grown consistently in the past two
decades, and has doubled since 1997. This is consistent with the growth of the Hispanic
population in the United States and its higher propensity to enlist, which sometimes varies by
racial/ethnic group. Between 2004 and 2010 as reported by youth surveys, Hispanic youth (male
and female) had a higher average aided propensity for enlistment than their white or black
counterparts. The number of members identifying as mixed race has also grown, which
contributes to growth in the other/unknown category in Figure 1.
96 Department of Defense, Report of the Task Force on the Administration of Military Justice in the Armed Forces,
November 30, 1972, p. 18.
97 See for example, Tan, Michelle, “Army Investigates Alleged ‘Racial Thursdays’ at Unit,” Army Times, March 19,
2015. Hajela, Deepti, “Asian American Soldier’s Suicide Called a ‘Wake-up Call’ for the Military,” Washington Post,
February 21, 2012. Losey, Stephen, “Racial Slurs Written on Dorm Room Boards of Black Air Force Academy Cadet
Candidates," Air Force Times, September 28, 2017.
98 Christensen, Don, Col. (Ret.) et al., Racial Disparities in Military Justice: Findings of Substantial and Persistent
Racial Disparities Within the United States Military Justice System, Protect Our Defenders, May 5, 2017.
99 Burk, James and Evelyn Espinoza, “Race Relations Within the US Military," Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 38
(March 9, 2012), pp. 401-422.
Congressional Research Service
19
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Figure 1. DOD Active Duty Racial and Ethnic Representation
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center.
Notes: Data includes all active duty members (officer and enlisted). Race and Hispanic origin are self-identified.
The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g.,
Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black).
According to data from the Defense Manpower Data Center, the active duty enlisted corps is
more racially diverse than the U.S. resident population with nonwhite servicemembers accounting
for roughly one-third of all active duty enlisted and 23% of the total U.S. population ages 18-64.
(see Table 6). Among enlisted minority groups in the active and reserve components, Asian
servicemembers are underrepresented relative to the U.S. population and blacks and Pacific
Islanders are overrepresented.
However, in the officer corps, and especially at the senior leadership level, racial and ethnic
minorities are underrepresented relative to the enlisted corps and the U.S. population. For
example, those of Hispanic origin (age 18-64) account for approximately 18% of the population
and 18% of the active duty enlisted corps.100 However, Hispanic officers account for roughly 8%
of the officer corps and 2% of General/Flag officers. When considering the demographic makeup
of the officer corps, it is important to note that certain requirements must be met to become a
commissioned officer. For example, attaining a bachelor’s degree (or higher) is a requirement for
the appointment and advancement of most officers. Looking again at the Hispanic population, the
percent of Hispanics in the officer corps is closer in terms of percentage of the pool of eligible
officer candidates by educational attainment. While, those of Hispanic origin101 account for nearly
18% of the U.S. population, they account for roughly 8% of all post-secondary degree holders
(see Table 7).
100 United States Census Bureau, Annual Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race, and Hispanic Origin
for the United States and States: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 201 , 2018, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/
jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk. Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), Active Duty by Service, December
2018. DMDC’s Hispanic grouping includes members reporting Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Latin American with
Hispanic descent, and other Hispanic descent ethnicities.
101 The term Hispanic broadly refers to peoples, nations, and cultures that have a historical link to Spain as expressed
through language, culture, or tradition.
Congressional Research Service
20
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Table 6. Race and Ethnic Representation in the Active Component
and U.S. Population
As of May 2018
Rank and Grade
White
Black
Asian
American
Indian/
Alaskan
Native
Native
Hawaiian/
Pacific
Islander
Multi/
Unknown
Hispanic*
General/Flag
Officer (O-7 and
above)
87.5%
8.1%
1.8%
none
0.3%
2.4%
2.1%
Officer (all)
77.3%
8.1%
5.2%
10.1%
0.5%
8.2%
7.6%
Warrant Officer
69.0.%
16.0%
3.1%
0.8%
0.6%
10.4%
11.6%
Senior Enlisted (E7 and above)
63.1%
19.1%
3.8%
1.3%
1.2%
11.5%
14.3%
Enlisted (all)
67.4%
18.5%
4.3%
1.3%
1.3%
7.3%
17.5%
Total Active
Duty
69.1%
16.8%
4.4%
1.2%
1.1%
7.5%
15.8%
U.S. Resident
Population
(age 18-64)
76.2%
13.7%
6.3%
1.2%
0.3%
2.2%
17.9%
Sources: Officer and Enlisted figures are as reported by the Defense Manpower Data Center, May 2018. Annual
Estimates of the Resident Population by Sex, Age, Race and Hispanic Origin for the United States, States, and
Counties: April 1, 2010, to July 1, 2017, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division, Release Date: July 1, 2017.
Notes: Race and Hispanic origin are self-identified.
* The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g.,
Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black). Percentages for race should not be combined with percent Hispanic.
Table 7. Racial/Ethnic Representation Among Post-secondary Degree Holders
U.S. Population compared with Active Duty Officer Corps
% of Resident Population
(age 18-64)
% of Total Active Duty
Officer Corps
% of all Post-secondary
Degree Holders
(18 years and above)
White
76.2%
77.3%
79.5%
Black
13.7%
8.1%
8.6%
Asian
6.3%
5.2%
9.7%
Hispanic*
17.9%
7.6%
7.7%
Race/Ethnic
Origin
Sources: Officer and Enlisted figures are as reported by the Defense Manpower Data Center, May 2018.
Educational Attainment of the Population 18 Years and Over, by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin, U.S.
Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2017 Annual Social and Economic Supplement.
Notes: Degree holders include Bachelor’s, Master’s, Professional, or Doctoral Degree.
* The concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin, Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g.,
Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black).
Attaining the highest officer rankings (Admiral or General Officer) requires that individuals be
competitively selected for promotion when eligible or in zone at different stages of their
Congressional Research Service
21
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
careers.102 A 2014 study of Air Force promotion rates found no evidence of differential rates of
promotion by race/ethnicity for approximately 93% of the cases observed, suggesting overall
fairness in the promotion system.103 However, where disparities existed, whites had more
favorable promotion outcomes than African Americans or Hispanics with similar
characteristics.104 The authors of the study found that career success is cumulative and that racial
and ethnic minority officers, on average, were less likely to have achieved the early career
milestones that are correlated with improved promotion prospects.105
Other potential factors in racial diversity among senior military leaders are career field
preferences and career field assignment policies. In a 2009 study of assignments and preferences,
of Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) cadets, researchers found that African
American cadets tend to prefer Combat Service Support branches whereas white cadets tended to
gravitate towards Combat Arms branches.106 Other studies have noted that racial minorities,
particularly African Americans, are also underrepresented in Special Operations Forces (SOF)
relative to their source population. For example, a 1999 RAND study found that black
servicemembers were particularly underrepresented in SOF, compared to the source population.107
This report cited both structural barriers (e.g., swimming requirements, Armed Service Vocational
Aptitude Battery cutoff scores) and perceptual barriers (e.g., perceived racism, lack of
knowledge/support in minority community for SOF careers, minority preferences for occupations
with less risk or more civilian job transferability).108
Inclusion of Women: Background and Force Profile
As with racial and ethnic groups, women have played a role in supporting and serving in the U.S.
Armed Forces since the Revolutionary War. However, laws and policies regarding how many
women may serve, their authorized benefits, and types of assignments have changed over the
history of women’s service. While the ceiling on the percentage of women allowed to serve in the
military was repealed in 1967, women continued to be prohibited from serving in many
occupations by statute and policy—particularly those occupations related to combat arms
specialties.109 In 1993, all laws prohibiting females from serving in any occupation were repealed;
however, by DOD policy, women were still excluded from serving in units or occupations
involved in direct ground combat. In 2013, the DOD rescinded the Direct Ground Combat and
Assignment Rule, which had excluded women from assignment to units below the brigade level
whose primary mission was to engage in direct combat on the ground. This rule had the effect of
prohibiting women from assignments to certain combat arms occupations and units (e.g.,
102 The officer promotion system was established in 1980 through the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
(DOPMA) (P.L. 96-513).
103 The study did not address promotion rates for the other military departments.
104 Lim, Nelson, Louis T. Mariano, and Amy G. Cox et al., Improving Demographic Diversity in the U.S. Air Force
Officer Corps, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2014.
105
Ibid., p. 48. For example, officers with higher military order of merit upon graduation from their commissioning
program may get the opportunity to select career fields and assignments ahead of their peers.
106 Lim, Nelson et al., Officer Classification and the Future Diversity Among Senior Military Leaders; A Case Study of
the Army ROTC, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2009, p. xii.
107 Harrell, Margaret C. et al., Barriers to Minority Participation in Special Operations Forces, RAND Corporation,
Santa Monica, CA, 1999. The reasons cited by this report included structural and perceptual barriers that impede
minority members from joining.
108 Ibid., p. xv.
109 P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374; November 8, 1967. The ceiling was 2% enlisted women and 10% officers.
Congressional Research Service
22
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
infantry) and its removal was the last major policy barrier to women’s service in all occupational
fields. The services were required to fully implement this change no later than January 1, 2016;
however, they were allowed to request a waiver from the Secretary of Defense for further
exclusion of women from certain positions.110 On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense
Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat jobs to women with no waivers or
exceptions.111
Women’s Participation in World War I and World War II
The first uniformed women served in the Army Nurse Corps (established in 1901) and the Navy
Nurse Corps (1908). Both Army and Navy nurses served abroad during WWI in field hospitals,
mobile units, evacuation camps, and convalescent hospitals as well as on troop transports.112
However, women who served in the Army and Navy Nurse Corps were not eligible for retirement
or veterans’ benefits. During World War I, under the Naval Act of 1916, which authorized the
Navy to enlist “citizens,”113 the Navy Department enlisted approximately 13,000 women for
service in the Navy and Marine Corps in clerical occupations.114 These enlisted women were
eligible for the same pay and benefits as their male counterparts. While women served in the
Army Nurse Corps, the Army did not officially enlist any women in the regular service.115
Before World War II, traditional attitudes towards women’s roles in society and the military as a
masculine organization were prevalent and thus there was little public interest in permanently
integrating females into other occupations in the Armed Forces. In 1928, Major Everett S.
Hughes, the chief Army planner for the development of the women’s corps suggested that given
shifting technology and rapid industrialization, women would inevitably play a role in future
combat and as such they should be “indoctrinated” into the Army’s culture and processes. He also
argued that separate structures for women and men would be inefficient and that women should
be afforded similar uniforms, ranks, and privileges.116 Senior officials put aside Hughes’
recommendations and planning efforts by and they were not adopted.
In 1941, then-Representative Edith Nourse Rogers introduced legislation that would have
provided for a women’s auxiliary to the Army. However, the bill did not move forward until after
the attack on Pearl Harbor. On May 15, 1942, Congress approved the temporary establishment of
a Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC), which then became the Women’s Army Corps
(WAC) in 1943.117 In 1942, the Navy WAVES (Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency
Service), Coast Guard SPARs (Semper Paratus Always Ready), and Marine Corps (Marines) also
established female divisions.118 Occupational roles held by women during the war expanded from
110 For more information on women in combat, please see CRS Report R42075, Women in Combat: Issues for
Congress.
111 The Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the Air Force, and the Secretary of the Navy, as well as the Chief of
Staff of the Army, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, the Chief of Naval Operations, and the commander of U.S.
Special Operations Command recommended no exceptions. The Marine Corps requested a partial exception in some
areas such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support, reconnaissance, and others. Secretary of Defense Remarks on the
Women-in-Service Review, December 3, 2015.
112 See http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/rr/s01/cw/students/leeann/historyandcollections/history/lrnmrewwinurses.html.
113 The act did not specify male citizens, thus allowing a loophole for enlisting women.
114 Binkin, Martin and Shirley J. Bach, Women in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 5.
115 Women in Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, History and Collections.
116 Binkin, Martin and Shirley J. Bach, Women in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 7.
117 P.L. 77-554.
118 While many expected the Marine Corps to develop a catchy name or acronym, the Marine Corps Commandant at
Congressional Research Service
23
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
nursing and clerical positions to include airplane mechanics, air traffic controllers, instructors and
other specializations with the exception of direct combat roles. Women also served for the first
time as pilots of military fighter, bomber, transport, and training aircraft as part of a specialized
paramilitary program called Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). The women who served
with the WASPS were not officially part of the armed services and were not afforded military
benefits or given veteran status until 1977.119 During WWII, over 350,000 women served in the
Armed Forces.120
Post-WWII and the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act
Following World War II, Congress made women a permanent part of the military services with
the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.121 This legislation excluded women from
combat ships and aircraft and limited the proportion of women (as proposed by the Pentagon) to
2% of the enlisted force and 10% of officers.122 While racial quotas during the same era were
linked to the percentage of blacks in the U.S. population, there was not a clear basis for the
ceiling on females who at the time accounted for nearly 30% of the civilian workforce. In
addition, while the law allowed for permanent integration of women into the services it did not
allow for equal treatment. Some of the limitations on women’s service included
women required parental consent for enlistment under the age of 21 (the age of
consent was 18 for men);
women could not hold a permanent rank above lieutenant colonel/commander
(O-5);
male spouses had to demonstrate dependency in order to receive female
servicemembers’ dependent’s benefits and/or the female servicemember had to
be the family’s primary source of support for her children to be considered
dependents.123
In 1951, then-Secretary of Defense George C. Marshall established the Defense Advisory
Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS)124 to serve as a board of civilian advisors to
the time, General Thomas Holcomb, told Life magazine “They are Marines. They don’t have a nickname and they don’t
need one. They get their basic training in a Marine atmosphere at a Marine post. They inherit the traditions of Marines.
They are Marines.” See http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/rr/s01/cw/students/leeann/historyandcollections/history/
lrnmrewwiimar.html.
119 P.L. 95-202, GI Bill Improvement Act of 1977. In 2009, Congress further recognized the WASPS by awarding a
Congressional Gold Medal (P.L. 111-40).
120 Binkin, Martin and Shirley J. Bach, Women in the Military, Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 1977, p. 7.
121 P.L. 80 - 625; 62 Stat. 356; June 12, 1948.
122 The 10% cap excluded nurses. P.L. 625; 62 Stat. 356; June 12, 1948: “Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of
1948.” U.S. Congress, Senate Armed Services Committee, Women's Armed Services Integration Act of 1947: Hearings
on S. 1103, a bill to establish the Women's Army Corps in the regular Army, and for other purposes, S. 1527, a bill to
authorize the enlistment and appointment of women in the regular Navy and Marine Corps and the Naval and Marine
Corps Reserve, and for other purposes [and] S. 1641, a bill to establish the Women's Army Corps in the regular Army,
to authorize the enlistment and appointment of women in the regular Navy and Marine Corps and the Naval and
Marine Corps Reserve, and for other purposes. , 80th Cong., 1st sess., July 1947 (Washington: GPO, 1947).
123 These dependent benefits included increased housing allowances and medical benefits. At the time Social Security
payments were also allotted on the assumption that men were the primary breadwinners and women were the
dependent spouses.
124 DACOWITS is authorized under the provisions of P.L. 92-463, the Federal Advisory Committee Act and meets on a
quarterly basis to review issues and conducts information-gathering activities through installation visits, meetings,
reports, and surveys. The committee provides recommendations to the Secretary of Defense through an annual report.
Congressional Research Service
24
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
DOD on matters relating to the recruitment and retention, treatment, employment, integration,
and well-being of women in the Armed Forces.
Equal Rights Movement and an All-Volunteer Force
The 1960s and 1970s brought a rapid increase in the integration of women into the forces, due in
part to the equal rights movement and the shift to an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) in 1973. The
equal rights movement added momentum to efforts to eliminate discriminatory treatment of
women in the armed forces. As with racial integration, the integration of women in the military
was seen by some as a social catalyst for gender equity in the civilian sector. Some suggested that
as females proved their abilities in military service, civilian employers would be “hard-pressed to
deny jobs to women solely on the basis of their sex.”125
A number of laws concerning gender discrimination in the civilian workforce were passed
between 1963 and 1980, including the Equal Pay Act of 1963,126 banning pay discrimination, and
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, banning workplace discrimination based on a number of
characteristics, including sex.127 In 1967, Congress amended Titles 10, 32, and 37 of United
States Code to remove restrictions on the careers of female officers. This legislation removed the
limit on the percentage of women in the military, applied the same promotion rules to women as
to men, and counted service as a nurse in the armed services as creditable commissioned
service.128 The first women Brigadier Generals for the Army (WAC), Elizabeth P. Hoisington and
Anna Mae Hays, were appointed in 1970.129
In 1972, Congress passed the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) with a ratification deadline of
March 22, 1979 (later amended to June 30, 1982). The Amendment stated that “equal rights under
the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” The ERA
was never ratified, in part due to efforts by opponents who suggested that, if ratified, the ERA
could pave the way for conscription of women into the armed forces, potentially putting them in
combat roles.130
In the 1970s a series of policies for servicewomen’s military benefits and eligibility for military
service were changed. In 1973, in the Supreme Court case of Frontiero v. Richardson, the Court
held that the policy requiring female servicemembers to prove the dependency of their spouses
was unconstitutional, thus entitling female servicemembers to the same dependent benefits as
male servicemembers for their spouses and children.131 In 1974, Congress reduced the minimum
125 Goldich, Robert, Women in the Armed Forces: Proceedings of a CRS Seminar Held on November 2, 1979 and
Selected Readings, Congressional Research Service, February 14, 1980.
126 29 U.S.C. §206(d).
127 42 U.S.C. §§2000e et seq.
128 P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374; November 8, 1967.
129 Army Chief of Staff General William C. Westmoreland congratulated them during their promotion ceremony by
kissing them on the mouth, calling it “a new protocol for congratulating lady generals.” Time Magazine, Vol, 95, No.
25, June 22, 1970.
130 Schafly, Phyllis, “'Equal Rights' for Women: Wrong Then, Wrong Now," Los Angeles Times, April 8, 2007.
Although the military draft ended in 1973, most male residents of the United States are required to register for the
Selective Service. Women in the United States have never been required to register for the draft. For more information
see, CRS Report R44452, The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress.
131 Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973).
Congressional Research Service
25
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
age of consent for women to be consistent with the age of consent for men.132 Until a DOD policy
change in 1975, women could be involuntarily discharged for pregnancy.133
In 1972, the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps (ROTC) was opened to women and in 1975,
legislation was enacted allowing women to attend the military service academies.134 By 1975
women accounted for approximately 5% of the active duty force (see Figure 2). In a 1978 DOD
study of utilization of women in the military, researchers found that in the all-volunteer force,
recruiting more women had the benefits of improving quality and saving money. In support of
expanding female recruitment, the report stated
The tradeoff in today’s recruiting market is between a high quality female and a low quality
male. The average woman available to be recruited is smaller, weighs less, and is physically
weaker than the vast majority of male recruits. She is also much brighter, better educated,
scores much higher on the aptitude tests and is much less likely to become a disciplinary
problem.135
In 1978, the WAC was disestablished and women were assigned to Army branches for which they
were eligible, in the same way as other soldiers.136 In the same year, Congress authorized DOD to
assign women to permanent duty on noncombatant Navy ships and up to six months of temporary
duty on other ships.137
132
P.L. 93-290; 88 Stat. 173; May 24, 1974.
133 After the policy change, women could still voluntarily separate if pregnant. Women in Military Service for America
Memorial Foundation, Inc., History and Collections.
134 P.L. 94-106; 89 Stat. 537; October 7, 1975. Women had already been admitted to the Coast Guard and Merchant
Marine Academies by administrative action.
135 Officer of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and Logistics), Use of Women in the
Military, 2nd Edition, September, 1978.
136 The WAC was disestablished by the Army in a ceremony on April 28, 1978. P.L. 95-485 abolished the WAC by
statute.
137 P.L. 95-485; 92 Stat. 1623; October 20, 1978.
Congressional Research Service
26
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Figure 2. Women Serving on Active Duty as a Percentage of Total Active Duty Force
1975-2018
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center data.
The 1990s: Increasing Roles for Women
In the early 1990s there was an expansion of military occupations open to women. In 1991,
Congress removed the restriction on women’s assignment to combat aircraft. In the same year,
the President’s Commission on Women in the Armed Services was established. The commission’s
recommendation and votes are summarized in Table 8. Voting members of the commission
overwhelmingly recommended retaining restrictions on women’s assignment to direct ground
combat and Special Operations roles and the commission members strongly favored both genderneutral assignment policies and military readiness as the deciding factor in assignment decisions.
The commission was sharply divided in terms of female assignments to combat aircraft and
surface combatants, narrowly voting to reenact the law prohibiting women’s assignments to
combat aircraft. However, in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994,
Congress allowed women to serve as permanent crew on combat vessels and did not enact
restrictions on women’s assignment to combat aircraft.138 In response to concerns by the
commission that instances of the use of quotas were perceived as discriminatory or negatively
affected morale,139 the same act also prohibited the Secretary of Defense from implementing any
“gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law” for any occupational
career field.140
138 P.L. 103-160; 107 Stat. 1659 et seq.; November 30, 1993.
139 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November,
15, 1992, p. 1.
140 P.L. 103-160 §543.
Congressional Research Service
27
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Table 8. 1992 Presidential Commission on Women in Combat
Recommendations and Votes
Commission Votes
Commission Recommendation
Yes
No
Abstain
DOD should establish a policy to ensure that no person who is best qualified is
denied access on the basis of gender to an assignment that is open to both men
and women.
9
6
0
The Services should adopt gender-neutral assignment policies, providing the
possibility of involuntary assignment of any qualified personnel to any position
open to them.
10
2
3
The Services should retain gender-specific physical fitness tests and standards
[…], provided they do not compromise training or qualification programs for
physically demanding combat or combat support MOSs.
12
0
1
The Services should adopt specific requirements for those specialties for which
muscular strength/endurance and cardiovascular capacity are relevant
9
4
2
Entry level training may be gender-specific as necessary.
8
6
1
DOD should review policies regarding single parent military servicemembers and
dual-service families.
9
0
1
Military readiness should be the driving concern regarding assignment policies;
there are circumstances under which women might be assigned to combat
positions.
8
1
1
Women should be excluded from direct land combat units and positions
10
0
2
The law prohibiting women to be assigned to aircraft on combat missions that
was repealed in 1991 should be reenacted.
8
7
0
Laws prohibiting women to serve on combatant vessels except for submarines
and amphibious vessels should be repealed.
8
6
1
Policies restricting assignment of women to Special Operations Forces should be
retained.
14
0
0
DOD’s “Risk Rule” for the assignment of women should be retained.
9
4
2
The integration process should be accomplished in an orderly fashion and
without undue haste.
11
3
1
Women should not be required to register for or be subject to conscription
(draft).
11
3
1
Source: Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President,
November, 15, 1992.
Even as the armed services opened new roles for women, a series of incidents raised questions
about how the military was handling sexual harassment and assault. In 1990, a female student
(midshipman) at the Naval Academy left after an incident where she was handcuffed to a urinal in
the men’s bathroom and photographed by other midshipmen.141 In response to this incident, thenChairmen of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Subcommittee on Manpower and
Personnel asked GAO to conduct a study on the prevalence of sexual harassment at the Air Force,
Naval, and Military academies. The GAO’s 1994 report found that 93% to 97% of academy
141 Barringer, Felicity, “Harassment of Woman Shakes Naval Academy," New York Times, May 20, 1990.
Congressional Research Service
28
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
women experienced at least one form of sexual harassment during the 1990-91 academic year.142
In 1992, complaints of sexual harassment and assault arose at a Las Vegas military aviation
symposium hosted by the Tailhook Association. After what was deemed an inadequate
investigation by Navy inspectors, the Office of the Inspector General (IG) launched an
independent investigation. The IG’s 1993 report identified 90 victims (83 women and 7 men) of
indecent assault at Tailhook and highlighted a lack of leadership. In response to the IG report,
then-Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Frank Kelso stated
Tailhook brought to light the fact that we had an institutional problem in how we treated
women. In that regard, it was a watershed event that has brought about institutional
change.143
In 1996, a scandal at Aberdeen Proving Ground, an Army training base in Maryland, resulted in
charges being brought against 12 male officers and enlisted trainers for sexual assault of females
under their command. Sexual harassment and assault of female servicemembers continues to be a
concern of both Congress and DOD with the integration of women in the military.144
Recent Changes to Women’s Assignment Policies
While laws prohibiting women from serving in combat units were repealed in the early 1990s,
until recently it has been DOD policy to restrict women from certain military occupations and
units, especially ground combat units. On January 24, 2013, DOD rescinded the ground combat
restrictions for women, with the expectation that full implementation by the services would occur
on January 1, 2016. The Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Army, and Special Operations Command
were directed to develop implementation plans for the review of all closed occupations and units
and the standards associated with entry and assignment to those units. Recommendations based
on these reviews were reported to the Secretary of Defense by September 30, 2013.145 On
December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter ordered the military to open all combat
jobs to women with no exceptions. This most recent policy change followed extensive studies on
issues such as unit cohesion, women's health, equipment, facilities modifications, propensity to
serve, and international experiences with women in combat.146
Is the Gender Mix in the Military Representative of the Nation?
Female participation in the civilian and military workforce has been steadily rising over the past
50 years. In 1970, women accounted for less than 40% of the civilian workforce and less than 4%
of the Armed Forces. In 2018, women accounted for nearly 17% of DOD’s active duty force. In
comparison, in 2016, women accounted for approximately 47% of the civilian workforce in the
United States.147 Growth in female representation in the military has mirrored growth in certain
142 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Service Academies; More Actions Needed to Eliminate Sexual
Harassment, NSAID96-4, January 1994, p. 2.
143 Gordon, Michael R., “Pentagon Report Tells of Aviators’ ‘Debauchery’,” New York Times, April 23, 1993.
144 For more information on congressional action, please see CRS Report R44944, Military Sexual Assault: A
Framework for Congressional Oversight.
145 A list of all research studies can be found in: U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD is Expanding Combat
Service Opportunities for Women, but Should Monitor Long-Term Integration Progress, GAO-15-589, July 20, 2015,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-589.
146 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOD Is Expanding Combat Service Opportunities for Women, but Should
Monitor Long-Term Integration Progress, GAO-15-589, July 2015.
147 Bureau of Labor Statistics, Household Data, Annual Averages, Employment Status of the Civilian Noninstitutional
Population 16 years and over by Sex, 1976 to Date.
Congressional Research Service
29
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
historically male-dominated civilian occupations. For example, female representation in the
civilian police force rose from 3.7% in 1970 to 14.8% in 2010.148
In 2018, women accounted for approximately one-fifth of all officers in the Air Force, Navy, and
Army, and 7.9% of officers in the Marine Corps (see Table 9). Among enlisted ranks, the Navy
and Air Force again have about one-fifth of their active duty positions filled by female
servicemembers while the Army has 14% women and the Marine Corps has 8.7%. While women
make up almost 20% of the officer corps, they account for less than 10% of the highest leadership
positions.
The disparity between female representation in General and Flag officer ranks relative to the
officer corps in current data could be influenced by a number of factors. Some argue that limits
on women’s assignments, particularly to combat-related occupations and units, have harmed
women’s career and promotion potential to the highest leadership positions. For example, Retired
Air Force General Lester L. Lyles, who chaired the Military Leadership Diversity Commission,
stated
We know that [the exclusion] hinders women from promotion. [ ... ] they’re not getting
credit for being in combat arms, [and] that’s important for their consideration for the most
senior flag ranks.149
The military personnel system does not typically allow lateral entry, thus the average general/flag
officer (G/FO) has over 30 years of service. Therefore, today’s females eligible for G/FO rank
likely entered service in 1985 before restrictions were lifted on women serving on combat aircraft
(1991), surface combatants (1993), submarines (2010), and before the “risk rule” was rescinded
(1988).150 Given this context, it may take some time before effects of current policy changes
removing restrictions on female combat assignments can be observed in the data.
Another factor affecting the percentage of women in top positions may be related to retention
rates for women in the military. Various studies have found that women leave the military at
higher rates than men at various points during their career, meaning that while a new cohort of
officer accessions may have a high percentage of females, that percentage may have dropped
significantly by the time the cohort is eligible for promotion to senior ranks.151 In some past
surveys and focus groups, military women have suggested that reasons for leaving the service
included perceptions of limited occupational roles, lack of career path flexibility, long hours/shift
work, and concerns about harassment and family obligations.152
148 U.S. Census Bureau, 1970 Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation based on the decennial census and 2006-
2010 Equal Employment Opportunity Tabulation based on the American Community Survey.
149 Daniel, Lisa, “Panel says Rescind Policy on Women in Combat,” American Forces Press Service, March 8, 2011.
150 In 1988, DOD implemented the “risk rule” which excludes women from noncombat units or missions if the risk of
exposure to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture were equal to or greater than the risks to the combat units they
support.
151 Previous studies have found that female officers generally have lower retention rates than their male counterparts.
See for example, Keller, Kirsten M. et al., Addressing Barriers to Female Officer Retention in the Air Force, RAND
Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2018. Asch, Beth J. et al., A New Look at Gender and Minority Differences in Officer
Career Progression in the Military, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2012, p. xii.; or U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Women in the Military; Attrition and Retention, NSAID-90-87BR, July 1990.
152 Asch, Beth J. et al., A New Look at Gender and Minority Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military,
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2012. DiSilverio, Laura A.H., Winning the Retention Wars: The Air Force,
Women Officers, and the Need for Transformation, Air University Press, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL, August 2003.
Congressional Research Service
30
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Table 9. Female Representation in the Active Duty Armed Forces
As of August 2018
Service
Branch
% of Total
Active
Duty Force
% of Total
Enlisted
% of Senior
Enlisted (E7, E-8, E-9)
% of Total
Officers
(excludes
Warrant
Officers)
Army
15.0%
14.4%
12.0%
18.7%
6.8%
Navy
19.7%
19.7%
12.0%
19.3%
8.6%
Marine
Corps
8.6%
8.7%
5.7%
7.9%
2.1%
Air Force
20.2%
19.9%
20.4%
21.1%
9.2%
All DOD
16.5%
16.2%
13.5%
18.6%
7.6%
% of
General/Flag
Officers
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp.
Notes: Total Officer calculations exclude Warrant Officers for purposes of comparison as they are ineligible for
General/Flag rank and the Air Force does not have Warrant Officers. Warrant officers are included in Total Active
Duty Force calculation. Total Active Duty Force does not include cadets and midshipmen General/Flag Officers include
O-7s and above.
Figure 3. Female Representation in the Active Component
August 2018
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC), https://www.dmdc.osd.mil/appj/dwp/dwp_reports.jsp.
It is important to note that female participation in the military is a function not only of the number
of occupations open to women, but also women’s propensity to serve in the armed forces and
desire to serve in a given occupation. Propensity to serve has historically been higher for men
than women, and women are more likely to want to serve in the Navy or Air Force relative to the
Army or Marine Corps. In recent youth polls, the percent of young women who said that they
would “probably” or “definitely” be serving in the military in the next few years was 8% relative
Congressional Research Service
31
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
to 18% for men.153 Some have questioned whether the opening of direct combat roles to women
would have an effect on female propensity to serve. DOD surveys have found that 35% of new
recruits reported that this policy change made them more likely to serve; however only 2% of
female recruits wanted a combat specialty in Armor, Artillery, or Infantry.154
Figure 4. Women in Combat Policy Changes and Female Propensity for
Military Service
Female youth ages 16 to 24, 2013-2016
Source: Fairley, Taylor, An Overview Prepared for the Defense Advisory Committee for Women in the Services
(DACOWITS), Department of Defense, Office of People Analytics, December 2017, p. 7,
https://dacowits.defense.gov/Portals/48/Documents/General%20Documents/RFI%20Docs/Dec2017/
OPA%20RFI%202.pdf?ver=2017-12-06-100540-760.
Interest in serving can also be measured by total applicants for enlistment. In FY2017,
approximately 22% of DOD active component applicants were women, with the Navy and Air
Force having the highest percent of applicants (27% and 29%, respectively) and the Marine Corps
having the lowest (12%).155 Among female applicants, black women were overrepresented
relative to their representation in U.S. young adult population (18-24 years old); black women
account for 15% of U.S. young female adults but 29% of all female applicants for enlistment (see
Figure 5).
153 Department of Defense Office of People Analytics, An Overview Prepared for the Defense Advisory Committee for
Women in the Services (DACOWITS), December 2017, https://dacowits.defense.gov/Portals/48/Documents/
General%20Documents/RFI%20Docs/Dec2017/OPA%20RFI%202.pdf?ver=2017-12-06-100540-760.
154 Ibid., slide 7.
155 CNA, Population Representation in the Military Services, Fiscal Year 2015, Appendix A: Active Component
Tables, Table A-3.
Congressional Research Service
32
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Figure 5. Non-prior Service Applicants for Active Component Enlistment by Gender
and Race/Ethnicity
Comparisons with Civilian Cohort, FY2017
Source: Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Personnel and Readiness, Population Representation in the
Military Services, Fiscal Year 2017, Table A-3, Applicants1 for Active Component Enlistment, FY17: by Service,
Gender, and Race/Ethnicity with Civilian Comparison Group.
Notes: Civilian data from Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey, non-institutional, age 18-24,
October 2016-September 2017 average. Applicants are individuals whose first formal application (i.e., taking a
screening physical exam or the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB)) was in FY2015. The
concept of race is separate from the concept of Hispanic origin. Hispanic may be more than one race (e.g.,
Hispanic and White or Hispanic and Black). Percentages for race should not be combined with percent Hispanic.
The “Other” category includes Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders, and American Indian and Alaskan
Natives.
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Inclusion:
Background and Force Profile156
Until the early 1990s individuals who were gay were not explicitly prohibited by U.S. law from
serving in the Armed Forces. However, starting around World War I, such individuals were
restricted by military personnel regulations or through application of military justice laws that
prohibited sodomy.157 In the early part of the 20th century Army physical standards also
disqualified men with feminine physical characteristics (e.g., broad hips, narrow shoulders, and
lack of facial hair).158 During World War II, at the advice of psychiatric consultants, the Selective
156 The term “gay” is used in this section to describe both men and women who identify as homosexual.
157 The Articles of War of 1916 and as modified in 1920 established a new category for Miscellaneous Crimes and
Offenses under the statutes governing military discipline and justice. Article 93 under that category stated that sodomy
could be punishable by court-martial. Offenders could be subject to confinement and hard labor. Sodomy laws were
later incorporated in the Uniform Code of Military Justice when adopted in 1951.
158 Berube, Allan, Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II (New York, NY: The
Free Press, 1990), p. 14.
Congressional Research Service
33
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Service System added psychiatric screening, including questions about sexual behaviors and
preferences, as part of the medical induction process. By 1941, Army directives disqualified men
with “homosexual proclivities” due to “psychopathic personality disorders.”159 For men who
wanted to serve, there were incentives to lie about their sexuality to be able to enter the service, to
avoid draft rejection paperwork identifying them as a homosexual, and/or to avoid being labeled a
shirker or malingerer.160
In terms of those men who had already entered the service and been identified as homosexual
(through admission or behavior), military leaders recognized that that courts martial and/or
confinement was not a sustainable punitive response in a time of war.161 Between 1941 and 1943,
in consultation with the psychiatric community (which largely viewed homosexuality as a mental
illness) the Army and Navy developed new policies for the discharge of homosexual
servicemembers who were not engaged in prohibited behavior. These “latent homosexuals” were
offered an undesirable discharge (sometimes referred to as a Section 8) in lieu of prosecution for
sexual acts.162 Discharge paperwork often indicated the reason for discharge as homosexual or
sexual psychopath.163 This created problems for gay veterans returning to the civilian workforce
after the war in an era where several states enacted sex psychopath laws and those who were
suspected of being homosexual were generally viewed with high suspicion.164 In 1952, the
American Psychiatric Association (APA) established homosexuality as a “sociopathic personality
disturbance” in the first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-I).165 Shortly after, in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower issued Executive Order
10450 prohibiting federal employees from participation in groups considered “subversive” and
listed “sexual perversion” as a security risk and grounds for termination or denial of
employment.166
Advocacy and DOD Policy Formation in the 1970s and 1980s
In 1972, gay rights advocacy groups announced a platform for social change that included a call
for
Issuance by the President of an executive order prohibiting the military from excluding for
reasons of their sexual orientation, persons who of their own volition desire entrance into
the armed services; and from issuing less-than-fully-honorable discharges for
homosexuality; and the upgrading to fully honorable all such discharges previously issued,
with retroactive benefits.167
159 Women were not part of the draft, and there were no formal restrictions on lesbians entering the military until 1944.
Berube, Allan, Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II (New York, NY: The
Free Press, 1990), p. 12 & 28.
160 Ibid., p. 20-23.
161 Ibid., p. 135.
162 Ibid., p. 143
163 Ibid., p. 258.
164 Ibid., p. 259.
165 In 1968, homosexuality was reclassified as a “sexual deviation” in the DSM-II, and in 1973 it was removed as a
mental health diagnosis in the manual. Drescher, Jack, “Out of DSM: Depathologizing Homosexuality," Behavioral
Science, vol. 5, no. 4 (December 2015).
166 Executive Order 10540, Security requirements for Government employment, April 23, 1953.
167 The 1972 Gay Rights Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention, Chicago,
Illinois, 1972.
Congressional Research Service
34
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
In the late-1970s, the Joint Service Administrative Study Group released a study with two
recommendations concerning homosexual behavior.
One recommendation [was] to reaffirm the long-established ban on gays in the military.
Specifically, the study group [had] proposed that the phrase “homosexuality is
incompatible with military service” and “processing (for separation) is mandatory unless
... the allegations are groundless” be included in all subsequent DOD directives on
personnel separations. The second recommendation [was] that, in cases of “unsuitability,”
i.e., those involving homosexual tendencies or homosexual acts between consenting adults,
individual receive an honorable discharge.168
The recommendations from this study group provided the basis for DOD policy and in 1981,
DOD issued a new directive stating that
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military
environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements,
demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the
accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects
the ability of the military services to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster
mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system
of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service
members who frequently must live and work under close conditions affording minimal
privacy; to recruit and retain members of the military services; to maintain public
acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security. 169
In addition, the 1981 policy stated that any servicemember attempting to engage in a homosexual
act would be subject to mandatory discharge.
The Evolution of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell
By the 1990s, there was pressure from some advocacy groups to rescind the DOD’s policy on the
grounds that it was a violation of civil rights and fair treatment. Proponents of maintaining the
policy contended that allowing individuals who are gay to serve would prove disruptive to unit
cohesion to the detriment of military readiness. In 1991, both the House and Senate introduced
resolutions calling on President George H.W. Bush to rescind sections of the DOD policy that
banned gay servicemembers; these resolutions were referred to committee and did not go any
further.170 In 1992, the GAO released a report estimating that between 1980 and 1990,
approximately 17,000 servicemembers had been discharged under the DOD’s separation policy
and that the cost associated with replacing men and women discharged for homosexuality was
$28,266 for each enlisted member and $120,722 for each officer.171 In the same year during the
presidential campaign, then-candidate Bill Clinton expressed support for allowing gay people to
openly serve in the military.
After taking office in January 1993, President Clinton moved forward with his campaign promise,
ordering DOD to undertake studies on how to best reform the policy. Secretary of Defense Les
Aspin commissioned two studies, one by a panel of general and flag officers called the Military
168 Snyder, William P., and Kenneth L. Nyberg, Policy Paper Gays and the Military: An Emerging Policy Issue, Journal
of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 8, No.1, Spring 1980: 74.
169 Department of Defense Directive, Enlisted Administrative Separations, DOD 1332.14, January16, 1981.
170
102nd Congress, 1st Session, S.Res. 236, H.Res. 271.
171 U.S. General Accounting Office, Defense Force Management: DOD’s Policy on Homosexuality, NSAID-92-98,
June 12, 1992, p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
35
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
Working Group (MWG), and one by the RAND Corporation’s National Defense Research
Institute. While the MWG’s proposal recommended maintaining the status quo, stating that
“homosexuality is incompatible with military service,”172 RAND’s findings suggested that sexual
orientation is “not germane to determining who should serve in the military.”173
The Clinton proposal to allow gay individuals to serve openly was controversial with the military,
the public, and many Members of Congress. The Senate and House Armed Services Committees
held extensive hearings on the issue. The congressional consensus that emerged was an approach
that prohibited DOD from asking questions concerning the sexuality of prospective members of
the military and required individuals to keep their homosexuality to themselves. If the individual
was already in the service he or she would be discharged. If seeking to join the service, he or she
would be denied enlistment or appointment. On July 19, 1993, President Clinton announced his
compromise the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy.
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (P.L. 103-160, Section 571)
codified DOD’s accession and separation policies regarding gay individuals.174 The justification
provided in the act for continuing to prohibit such individuals from openly serving was
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to
engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of
morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military
capability.
This provision in the FY1994 NDAA also included a “sense of Congress” that the Secretary of
Defense should consider issuing guidance governing the circumstances under which
servicemembers or prospective recruits are questioned about their sexuality. In response to the
law, the DOD amended policies for entry into the military services175 and administrative
separation.176 These policies barred “homosexual conduct” but required that individuals, “[ ... ]
shall not be asked or required to reveal their sexual orientation nor shall they be asked to reveal
whether they have engaged in homosexual conduct.” The grounds for discharge under the law
were (1) the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a
homosexual act or acts; (2) the member states that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual; or (3)
the member has married or attempted to marry someone of the same sex. This law came be
known as “don’t ask, don’t tell” (DADT).
Critics of DADT suggested that it was harmful to gay, lesbian, and bisexual servicemembers and
to military readiness. These critics suggested that it forced individuals into ethical conundrums
where they felt obliged to conceal or lie about aspects of their personal lives to their peers and
their leadership in order to keep their job. Some also suggested that ambiguity around the
relationship between sexual orientation, proclivities, statements, and actions resulted in
inconsistent implementation of discharge policies. Critics also suggested that the existence of
172 Office of the Secretary of Defense, Summary Report of the Military Working Group, July 1, 1993.
173 RAND Corporation, Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment, Santa
Monica, CA, 1993, p. 2.
174 10 U.S.C. §654, Policy Concerning Homosexuality in the Armed Forces.
175 Department of Defense Instruction, Qualification Standards for Enlistment, Appointment, and Induction, DODI
1304.26, December 21, 1993.
176 Department of Defense Directive, Enlisted Administrative Separations, DOD 1332.14, February 5, 1994.
Department of Defense Directive, Separations of Regular Officers, DOD 1332.30, February 5, 1994.
Congressional Research Service
36
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
DADT deterred some qualified and motivated individuals from joining the military and caused
some individuals to be separated from the military at a time when critical skills were needed.177
Those in favor of maintaining DADT suggested that a very small portion of the total force was
affected. Others suggested that if the law were repealed, the number of HIV-positive
servicemembers would increase, which could harm military readiness by limiting individual
deployability, or could place undue burdens on the military health system.178 From FY1994
through the end of FY2009, approximately 13,000 servicemembers were administratively
discharged for homosexual conduct under DADT, which accounted for less than 0.1% of the total
active and reserve component force during that time.179
Repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT)
Between the mid-1990s and 2009, public support for gay people serving in the military grew180
and there were several efforts to repeal DADT.181 These bills would have amended Chapter 37 of
Title 10 of the United States Code, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Discrimination on this basis was defined as
(1) in the case of a member of the armed forces, the taking of any personnel or
administrative action (including any action relating to promotion, demotion, evaluation,
selection for an award, selection for a duty assignment, transfer, or separation) in whole or
in part on the basis of sexual orientation; and
(2) in the case of a person seeking to become a member of the armed forces, denial of
accession into the armed forces in whole or in part on the basis of sexual orientation. 182
During his 2010 State of the Union address, then-President Barack Obama announced that he
would work with DOD and Congress to repeal DADT.183 In February 2010, the Senate Armed
Services Committee held a hearing on the issue, at which time the Secretary of Defense, Robert
Gates, announced that DOD would establish a high-level working group to review
implementation issues associated with a repeal of DADT.184 On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of
Defense issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a
Repeal of 10 U.S.C. Section 654.185
177 For example, after the September 11th attacks, the government faced a shortage of Arabic linguists and some raised
concerns that qualified linguists were being separated from the military due to their sexual orientation. See for example:
“Gay Linguists Get the Boot,” at https://www.cbsnews.com/news/gay-linguists-get-the-boot/, or “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Translate,” at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html?_r=0.
178 Von Ritter, Yihana, “Don’t Keep “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” Intersect, vol. 3, no. 1 (2010).
179 Data for the years 1980 through 1997 are from U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Assistant Secretary of
Defense (Personnel and Readiness), Report to the Secretary of Defense, Review of the Effectiveness of the Application
and Enforcement of the Department’s Policy on Homosexual Conduct in the Military, April 1998.. Data for later years
are from the Department of Defense, Defense Manpower Data Center. Year 2005 data are from Files, John, “Military’s
discharges for being gay rose in ‘05,” New York Times, August 15, 2006. Data from 2006-2009 are from DOD office
of Legislative Affairs.
180 McCabe, Brian J., "Public Opinion on ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’," FiveThirtyEight, November 10, 2010.
181 The Military Readiness Enhancement Act of 2005 (H.R. 1059), 2007 (H.R. 1246) and 2009 (H.R. 1283 & S. 3065)
would have repealed DADT, but failed to advance out of committee.
182 S. 3065.
183 President Barack Obama, White House Officer of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President in State of the
Union Address, January 27, 2010.
184 Volsky, Igor, “Making Gates’ DADT ‘Working Group’ Work,” Think Progress, February 3, 2010.
185 Secretary of Defense Memorandum, Comprehensive review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C §654,
Congressional Research Service
37
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
On March 25, 2010, then-Secretary Gates changed DOD’s enforcement policies by raising the
discharge authority for homosexual conduct to the level of general or flag officer, and to limit
certain statements and categories of information that were admissible as evidence in support of
such separations. That same year, a federal district court ruled that DADT was unconstitutional.186
On November 30, 2010, DOD released the key findings of the working group regarding
implementation of DADT repeal, which included
More than two-thirds of military servicemembers who were surveyed did not
object to gays and lesbians serving openly in uniform. (Higher levels of
discontent were reported by individuals in combat arms specialties, combat units,
and among the Chaplain corps.)
Administrative concerns (e.g., sexual conduct, fraternization, billeting
arrangements) associated with the repeal could be addressed through existing
DOD policies and regulations with some changes.
A repeal of DADT would impose minimal risk to military readiness in terms of
unit cohesion, recruiting and retention, and performance.187
Secretary Gates also called for Congress to act on legislation to repeal DADT within the year. On
December 15, 2010, the House voted to repeal DADT by passing H.R. 2965. Three days later the
Senate passed S. 4023 and the repeal was signed into law (P.L. 111-321) by the President on
December 22, 2010. The law included a provision that delayed the effective date until 60 days
after the President, Secretary of Defense, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff certified that
they were prepared to implement all policies and regulations associated with the repeal.
Post-DADT Integration
Although the DADT repeal allowed gay servicemembers to serve openly and to marry their samesex partner where such a marriage was legal,188 the federal government, under the 1996 Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA),189 did not recognize same-sex marriages for the purpose of federal
benefits. Therefore, as DOD employees, military servicemembers in same-sex marriages were not
eligible to receive the same benefits (e.g., dependent ID cards, insurance benefits, counseling
services) as married heterosexual couples. On February 11, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon
Panetta issued a memorandum190 directing the military departments to extend 20 education,
survivor, and travel and transportation benefits to same-sex domestic partners and children of
same-sex domestic partners.
On June 26, 2013, in the U.S. Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor, the Court held that
Section 3 of DOMA restricting federal interpretation of “marriage” and “spouse” to heterosexual
unions was unconstitutional.191 Following this decision, DOD issued a new policy extending all
March 2, 2010.
186 Log Cabin Republicans v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93612 (C.D. Cal. September 9, 2010).
187 Department of Defense, Press Operations, DOD News briefing with Secretary Gates and Adm. Mullen from the
Pentagon, November 30, 2010. http://archive.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4728.
188 Same-sex marriage was legal in some but not all States.
189 P.L. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419.
190 Secretary of Defense, Extending Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Military Members, Memorandum for
Secretaries of the Military Departments Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, February 11,
2013.
191 United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675, (2013).
Congressional Research Service
38
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
military benefits for married couples to same-sex couples. Under the new policy, same-sex
military couples married before or on June 26, 2013, were entitled to benefits and entitlements
with an effective date of June 26; for same-sex couples married after June 26, their effective date
of benefits and entitlements would be the actual date of marriage.192
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court, in the case Obergefell v. Hodges, decided that same-sex
couples had the fundamental right to marry under the Due Process Clause and Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.193 This decision legalized samesex marriage across the United States. While DOD had already recognized same-sex marriage for
the purpose of military benefits, the Supreme Court’s decision allowed marriages of same-sex
military couples to be recognized in states that previously had banned these types of marriages.
However, not all states have in place nondiscrimination laws that protect individuals from
discrimination based on sexual orientation.194 It is possible for gay servicemembers and their
same-sex spouses to be assigned to installations in states that have varying levels of
nondiscrimination protections for those seeking employment, housing, or other services within
the local community.
The military does not track or report data on the number of gay or bisexual servicemembers in the
military. In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau does not collect data on sexual orientation, sexual
behavior, or attraction.195 Therefore, survey data is typically used to estimate the size of the LGB
population in the U.S. and the military. Based on the DOD’s 2015 Health Related Behaviors
Survey, an estimated 3.9% of men and 16.1% of women in the military self-identify as gay,
lesbian or bisexual.196 Demographic surveys for the total U.S. population have varying estimates.
A 2015 demographic study estimated that among the U.S. adult population, 7.7% of men and
5.1% of women identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.197 Another Gallup survey estimated that in
2017, 4.5% of the total U.S. adult population identified as LGBT (3.9% of men and 5.1% of
women).198 In addition, the Gallup survey found that 8.1% of Millennials identified as LGBT and
that the percent of the population identifying as LGBT has slowly increased over the past decade.
Transgender Service Policies
On December 18, 2014, then-Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Department of
Justice would take the position in litigation that the protection of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 extends to claims of discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity, including
transgender status.199 Title VII applies to DOD civilians, but does not apply to military personnel.
192 “Same-Sex Spouses of Soldiers Now Receiving Benefits,” Army G-1 Public Affairs Office, September 4, 2013.
193 Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 1039 (2015).
194 According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), at the end of 2016, 20 states and the District of Columbia
had laws banning discrimination based on sexual orientation and/or gender identity in employment, housing, and public
accommodations. See https://www.aclu.org/other/past-lgbt-nondiscrimination-and-anti-lgbt-bills-across-country, and
https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/lgbt/discrim_map_bw.pdf.
195 The Census Bureau has announced that they will be adding a question on same-sex couples to the 2020 Census, see
United States Census Bureau, Questions Planned for the 2020 Census and American Community Survey; Federal
Legislative and Program Uses, March 2018.
196 Meadows, Sarah et al., 2015 Health Related Behaviors Survey, RAND Corporation, Research Brief, Santa Monica,
CA, March 27, 2019, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9955z6.html.
197 Herbenick, Debby et al., "Sexual diversity in the United States: Results from a nationally representative probability
sample of adult women and men," PLoS One, July 20, 2017.
198 Newport, Frank, "In U.S., Estimate of LGBT Population Rises to 4.5%," Gallup, May 22, 2018.
199 U.S. Department of Justice, “Attorney General Holder Directs Department to Include Gender Identity Under Sex
Congressional Research Service
39
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
The medical definition of transgender is applied to individuals who do not identify or conform to
their physical gender at birth and this may include, but is not limited to, those who self-identify as
transgender, transsexual, gender-queer, gender nonconforming, or cross-gender.
For some individuals, the conflict between physical gender and the gender with which he/she/they
identify can cause psychological distress. The American Psychiatric Association classifies this
condition as gender dysphoria. The diagnosis of gender dysphoria, per the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), is based on the length of time the individual
experiences such distress, and often a desire to gain the sex characteristics and be treated as the
gender with which the individual identifies.200 Treatment of gender dysphoria may include
counseling, hormone therapy, and/or surgical interventions. However, some with gender
dysphoria may merely seek social or legal recognition of gender identity.201
Until June 30, 2016, DOD treated the physical and psychological aspects of transgender
conditions as disqualifying conditions for new accessions and grounds for the discharge of
existing servicemembers.
Prior DOD policies
1. prohibited the appointment, enlistment, or induction of those with a “current or
history of psychosexual conditions, including but not limited to transsexualism,
exhibitionism, transvestism, voyeurism, and other paraphilias,” or those with
“history of major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia including but not
limited to change of sex, hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure
gonadal dysgenesis;”202 and
2. allowed servicemembers to be separated administratively on the basis of a
diagnosis of a mental disorder. Mental disorders were further defined by military
department regulations to include, “psychosexual, transsexual, and gender
identity conditions to include ... change of sex or a current attempt to change
sex.”203
The first policy effectively banned entry into service of those who have undergone sex
reassignment surgery and those who have a psychiatric history of the conditions listed above. In
the case of military discharges, while DOD policies allowed for existing servicemembers to be
administratively separated for psychiatric disorders, they did not require that the servicemember
be separated. The DOD policy authorized the discharge of the servicemember only if the mental
health provider’s diagnosis “concludes that the disorder is so severe that the member’s ability to
function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.”
On July 13, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that DOD would review its
policies on transgender service. At the same time, he issued two directives:
1. The first created a working group composed of military and civilian personnel to
study the policy and readiness implications of allowing transgender persons to
serve openly.
Discrimination Employment Claims,” December, 18, 2004.
200 American Psychiatric Association, What is Gender Dysphoria? https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/
gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria.
201 Ibid.
202 Department of Defense, Medical Standards for Appointment, Enlistment, or Induction into the Military Service,
DOD Instruction 6130.03, April 28, 2010.
203 Department of the Army, Standards of Medical Fitness, Army Regulation 40-501, August 28, 2003.
Congressional Research Service
40
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
2. The second appointed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness as decision authority for administrative discharges for those diagnosed
with gender dysphoria or who identify themselves as transgender, providing
enhanced scrutiny over discharges of these members.
As part of the review, DOD asked the RAND Corporation to (1) identify the health care needs of
the transgender population, transgender servicemembers’ potential health care utilization rates,
and the costs associated with extending health care coverage for transition-related treatments;
(2) assess the potential readiness implications of allowing transgender servicemembers to serve
openly; and (3) review the experiences of foreign militaries that permit transgender
servicemembers to serve openly.204 RAND found that the cost, readiness, and cohesion impacts of
including transgender servicemembers would be relatively small and recommended policy
changes in the areas of accession, retention, separation, and deployment.205
On June 30, 2016, then-Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that “transgender
Americans may serve openly, and they can no longer be discharged or otherwise separated from
the military just for being transgender.”206 In terms of in-service transition, DOD issued a new
policy (DODI 1300.28), effective October 1, 2016, that
established a construct by which transgender servicemembers may transition
gender while serving;
enumerated prerequisites and prescribes procedures for changing a
servicemember’s gender marker in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting
System (DEERS); and
specified medical treatment provisions for Active Component (AC) and Reserve
Component (RC) transgender servicemembers.207
In 2016, DOD began training and promulgated an implementation handbook designed to assist
commanders, transgender servicemembers, peers, and others. The handbook addresses specific
scenarios related to, inter alia, physical standards, privacy and cohabitation, and overseas
assignment considerations.208 Furthermore, in June 2016 then-Secretary Carter announced plans
to begin to admit transgender recruits by July 1, 2017.
However, in a June 30, 2017, memo, then-Defense Secretary James Mattis delayed the decision to
accept transgender recruits, stating that the additional time would be used to, “evaluate more
carefully the impact of such accessions on readiness and lethality.”209 A Presidential
Memorandum to the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security (secretary for the parent
agency to the U.S. Coast Guard) followed on August 25, 2017, outlining the new policy
parameters with respect to uniformed DOD and Coast Guard personnel.210 President Trump’s
204 Schaefer, Agnes Gereban et al., Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Persons to Serve Openly,
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2016, p. ix.
205 Ibid., p. xiv.
206 Cronk, Teri Moon, “Transgender Service Members Can Now Serve Openly, Carter Announces,” DOD News, June
30, 2016.
207 More information and resources on these policy changes can be found at http://www.defense.gov/News/SpecialReports/0616_transgender-policy.
208 Department of Defense, Transgender Service in the U.S. Military, An Implementation Handbook, September, 20,
2016, at https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/features/2016/0616_policy/DoDTGHandbook_093016.pdf.
209 Baldor, Lolita C., “Pentagon OKs 6-month Delay in Transgender Enlistments," AP News, July 1, 2017.
210 U.S. President (Trump), “Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland
Security," https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/25/presidential-memorandum-secretary-defense-andsecretary-homeland, August 25, 2017.
Congressional Research Service
41
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
directive to the Secretary of Defense announced a return to the pre-2016 policy that allowed
consideration of transgender conditions as grounds for discharge and would indefinitely continue
the policy prohibiting transgender individuals from joining the Armed Forces. The President also
directed a halt to all DOD or DHS spending on sex reassignment surgeries “except to the extent
necessary to protect the health of an individual who has already begun a course of treatment to
reassign his or her sex.” These policies were to go into effect in March of 2018. In the interim, the
President delegated decisions about transgender service, as such:
The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall
determine how to address transgender individuals currently serving in the United States
military.
On August 29, 2017 Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced that for the time being,
“current policy with respect to currently serving servicemembers will remain in place.” A
September memorandum issued by Mattis stated :
The policies and procedures set forth in DODI 1300.28, In-Service Transition for
Transgender Service Members, dated July 1, 2016, remain in effect until I promulgate
DOD's final guidance in this matter.211
The memorandum also designated a Central Coordination Cell under the Office of the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to provide advice and assistance to the military
departments, services, and commanders on implementing the interim guidance.212
On February 22, 2018, Secretary Mattis submitted the results of an internal DOD study with his
policy recommendations to the President:
Transgender persons with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria are
disqualified from military service, except under the following limited
circumstances: (1) if they have been stable for 36 consecutive months in their
biological sex prior to accession; (2) servicemembers diagnosed with gender
dysphoria after entering into the service may be retained if they do not require a
change of gender and remain deployable within applicable retention standards;
and (3) currently serving servicemembers who have been diagnosed with gender
dysphoria since the previous administration’s policy took effect and prior to the
effective date of this new policy, may continue to serve in their preferred gender
and receive medically necessary treatment for gender dysphoria.
Transgender persons who require or have undergone gender transition are
disqualified from military service.
Transgender persons without a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria, who are
otherwise qualified for service, may serve, like other servicemembers, in their
biological sex.213
211 Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, Military Service by Transgender Individuals - Interim Guidance, Department of
Defense, September 14, 2017.
212 According to February 27, 2019, testimony to the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee by the
Acting Secretary of Defense, the decisionmaking panel included Under Secretaries of the military departments, Armed
Services Vice Chiefs, Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, and senior enlisted members.
213 Department of Defense, Secretary of Defense, Memorandum for the President, Military Service by Transgender
Individuals, February 22, 2018.
Congressional Research Service
42
Diversity, Inclusion, and Equal Opportunity in the Armed Services
In response to the policy shifts, several lawsuits were filed against the government on behalf of
existing transgender servicemembers and transgender individuals who would like to enlist.214 On
January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court granted a Justice Department request to allow the
government to enforce military transgender policies while lawsuits continue to be heard in lower
courts.
On March 12, 2019, the Secretary of Defense released a Directive-type Memorandum outlining a
new DOD policy.21
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.