Downloaded from

Back to Women in the Military and in Combat topic area


Statement and Status Report

of the

Congressional Commission on Military Training

and Gender-Related Issues

Anita K. Blair, Chairman

Honorable Frederick F.Y. Pang, Vice Chairman

Nancy Cantor, Ph.D.

LtGen George R. Christmas, USMC (Ret)

CSM Robert A. Dare, Jr., USA (Ret)

LtGen William M. Keys, USMC (Ret)

Thomas Moore

Charles Moskos

Honorable Barbara Spyridon Pope

Mady Wechsler Segal, Ph.D.


I. Introduction 3

II. Background 4

A. Chronological Overview 5

B. Initial Entry Training (IET) Overview 6

C. Services' Operational Overview 7

D. Joint Operational Overview 8

III. Research Program 10

A. Overview 10

B. Objectives 10

C. Projects 10

IV. Cross-Gender Relationships 13

A. Statutory Requirements 13

B. The Review 13

C. Conclusions and Recommendations 14

V. Initial Entry Training with Emphasis on Basic Training 16

A. Statutory Requirements 16

B. The Review 16

C. Recent Changes in Initial Entry Training 23

D. Conclusions and Recommendations 27

VI. Gender-Integrated Military Training 31

A. Statutory Requirements 31

B. The Review 31

C. Discussion 31

D. Conclusions and Recommendations 34

VII. Closing Remarks 37

VIII. Appendices

A. Commissioners' Biographies 38

B. Installation Visit Maps 57

C. Initial Entry Training (IET) Continuum Chart 59

D. Service Secretaries' Response to 61

Public Law 105-85, SEC. 562.(e)(2)

E. Minority Statements 78


Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the subcommittee:

We, the members of the Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, are honored to appear before you today to present testimony on the status of our work to date. As you know, we come to this task from different points of view and with diverse backgrounds. Nevertheless, it is a collective effort. Commissioners spent the past year making trips, attending hearings, and meeting together to assess the data and information.

We acknowledge the work of our staff. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps provided us with excellent military liaison officers who have done the lion's share of the work. This is tough duty - to assist a commission in investigating one's own Service. They have walked that fine line and served well both the Commission and their Service. The Pentagon detailed to us a Deputy Executive Director/Fiscal Officer without peer and our Administrative Chief and Supply NCO who worked tirelessly. The Research Team did the impossible given the short amount of time they were allotted. We commend the Research Director and the principal researchers for the professional results of their work. Our counsel and legal consultants labored to review, organize and present volumes of regulations, policies and data to the commissioners in a coherent manner. Also, our support staff met every requirement set by the commissioners. Finally, our special thanks to the Executive Director for assembling a fine, capable team and ensuring the Commission was provided the necessary resources to complete its mission.

We also commend all who cooperated in our efforts. In particular, we acknowledge and commend the men and women in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services for their assistance and their service to the Nation. We acknowledge also the contributions of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the General Accounting Office. Both contributed generously to our work.

The Congress and your staff were instrumental in getting us started last year. Your legislative road map gave us the directions. The answers were more complex than perhaps even you contemplated. Indeed, the subject matter is neither simple nor neutral, because almost everyone has an opinion on men and women in the military. Our charge from the Congress was to answer the questions with facts and reasoned analysis.

We include herein basic conclusions and recommendations reached thus far. Our research program, discussed in Chapter III, is nearly complete, and we anticipate further recommendations favoring opening our research to the public and recommending further research.


Congress established the Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues (hereinafter "Commission") under Title V, Subtitle F (Subtitle F) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (FY98 DoD Authorization Act). The mandate is set forth in Public Law 105-85 enacted on November 18, 1997. The Commission is composed of ten private citizens. Five commissioners were appointed jointly by the chairman and ranking minority party member of the House Committee on National Security, and five commissioners were appointed jointly by the chairman and ranking minority party member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services.

Our mission was to review requirements and restrictions regarding cross-gender relationships of members of the Armed Forces, to review the basic training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, and to make recommendations on improvements to those programs, requirements, and restrictions. The focus of our efforts was operational readiness as it relates to recruits and Initial Entry Training, with the emphasis on basic training.

The statute required the Commission to review and assess laws, regulations, policies and practices regarding cross-gender relationships in the Services. We were also directed, with regard to Initial Entry Training, to look at all aspects of gender-integrated (hereinafter "GI") training and gender-segregated/separate (hereinafter "GS") training, including the effectiveness of each. We were required to review a specific list of items set forth in Section 562(b)(2) and to make factual determinations, qualitative assessments, and recommendations on GI and GS training. We investigated and assessed the component parts of basic training in general to determine whether or not the individual coming out of training meets the needs of the gaining operational unit.

To achieve this mission, we organized into three working groups to address the principal areas of concern: Adultery and Fraternization Rules, Basic Training in General, and Gender Integration in Initial Entry Training. We adopted a chronological model as the conceptual approach to assessing Initial Entry Training. The model, referred to as the "Continuum," traces the steps from the Services' first contact with a recruit, through Initial Entry Training, to assignment of the individual in an operational unit. We applied various methods and techniques to acquire and evaluate information. By design, these multiple approaches included a scientific research program. For most of the work, we acted as a committee of the whole in reviewing and analyzing the information. Thus, each commissioner acted upon both common and shared information.

We are close to completion of our findings of fact and the requisite statutory analysis. We have identified all pertinent data. We are finalizing our assessments and now are processing the information into a more expansive form than the one being used in this report. Nonetheless, the basic assessments in this status report are supported by us and will be reflected in our Final Report, which we expect to provide the Congress in mid-April.

A. Chronological Overview

The Commission, after reviewing the results of previous study groups, began its work by observing and reviewing the Services' basic training programs, while awaiting permanent office space, furnishings, and equipment.

On June 1 and 2, 1998, the Services briefed us on all phases of Initial Entry Training (IET), from accession of the recruit to the initial assignment to an operational unit. We became acquainted with the differing cultures and missions of the four Services. Throughout the summer months, we visited IET installations in all four Services.

In late August, we planned the next phases of our evaluation. We decided to visit operational forces, to use written interrogatories to the Secretary of Defense and the Services, and to hold information-gathering hearings to complete the multi-dimensional assessment. The research program commenced with the hiring of the Research Director and the principal researchers.

From October 1998 to the end of January 1999, the Commission held 21 days of hearings to gather and assess information. At our direction, the staff identified witnesses who could address areas relevant to the inquiry. Witnesses from the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services presented official practice and policy. Retired military officers, outside experts from both the military and civilian sectors, and individuals knowledgeable on the experiences and practices of foreign allies also testified. We heard from both supporters and critics of current policies.

The interrogatory phase, started in September 1998 and completed in February 1999, included written and oral requests for information and data. All requests went to the Office of the Secretary of Defense or the Services. We obtained volumes of relevant material. The commissioners and staff commend those who labored to meet the deadlines.

We retained consultants to provide needed expertise. Former Judge Advocate General officers to assist in legal issues, additional research consultants, and an editor also joined our staff.

The Commission has met regularly since the first of February to assess the information it gathered. There is not total agreement on all issues. The differences are identified where and when they occur.

B. Initial Entry Training (IET) Overview

The four military liaison officers joined the staff, and planned, coordinated, and executed the visits to the basic training installations and advanced individual training/military occupational specialty schools. Regardless of the Service site being visited, the format was similar. The commissioners observed training activities and talked with recruits and trainers. The first impressions and introductions to military life for recruits helped the commissioners with the start of the process of fulfilling the mandate of the Congress. We conducted multiple visits to accommodate conflicting schedules. We talked with hundreds of Service members in planned discussion groups; we also conversed informally with individuals while observing training activities.


We completed an extensive review of the Army's IET program covering the different types of training - Basic Training (BT) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) or One Station Unit Training (OSUT) - conducted at each location.

By the end of the second visit to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, we had observed both BT and AIT, and the Drill Sergeant School. We talked to over 140 BT and 26 AIT soldiers, 42 Drill Sergeants, 8 Drill Sergeant Leaders, 15 officers and senior non-commissioned officers, 13 Chaplains and the Commanding General.

The two Fort McClellan, Alabama, visits provided information concerning the conduct of OSUT for Military Police and Chemical Military Occupational Specialties (MOS). We were also able to obtain insights into the conduct of training for multi-service students. The Commission observed MP and Chemical OSUT, talked to over 150 OSUT soldiers, 34 Drill Sergeants, 23 officers and senior non-commissioned officers, 6 Chaplains and the Commanding General.

At Fort Benning, Georgia, we received a briefing from the Army Physical Fitness Institute and also observed Infantry OSUT. We talked to 32 OSUT soldiers, 7 Drill Sergeant Leaders, 15 Drill Sergeants, 12 Drill Sergeant Candidates, 14 officers and senior non-commissioned officers, 7 Chaplains, and the Commanding General.


We visited the Navy's Recruit Training Command and Service School Command, Great Lakes, Illinois, on three separate occasions and spoke with over 70 recruits, 55 Recruit Division Commanders, 60 officer and senior enlisted recruit training leaders, over 70 advanced skills instructors, and the commanding officers of both schools in addition to the Commander, Naval Training Center, Great Lakes.

Air Force

The Commission visited Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, on four separate occasions and had the opportunity to view Basic Military Training as well as advanced Technical Training (TT). We spoke with over 190 basic recruits, 80 Military Training Instructors, (MTI) 18 basic and TT Squadron Commanders over 40 advanced TT students, and 19 Military Training Leaders (MTL). Additionally, we visited the MTI/MTL School and talked with students and instructors.

Marine Corps

We visited Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina; Marine Combat Training at Schools of Infantry (East and West); Infantry Training Battalion at School of Infantry (East) and Marine Corps Service Support School, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina; in addition to the Marine Detachment for Military Police MOS at Fort McClellan, Alabama. At these sites we spoke with over 135 recruits, 75 Marines in MCT, 45 Marines in MOS Schools, 50 Drill Instructors, 20 Drill Instructor School students, 20 Drill Instructor School Instructors, 20 MCT Instructors, 40 MOS Instructors, 45 officer and senior enlisted recruit training leaders, and the commanding officers of all schools in addition to the Commanding Generals of Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island and Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune.

C. Services' Operational Overview

The Commission used the operational force visits to evaluate the results of Initial Entry Training (IET). The format for these trips differed from the training site visits. We no longer concentrated on observed activities; instead we spent most of the time asking all levels of command to assess the IET product, i.e., the trained and recently assigned Service members. We focused on units from the commanding officer down to the first line supervisor and met with both commissioned and non-commissioned officers. We also asked the individuals who were beginning the working phase of their military careers to assess their own training. These discussion group participants represented a variety of combat and support units. The final event of this phase was a trip to the European Theatre to visit soldiers in Bosnia, sailors and Marines aboard the USS Enterprise (CVN 65) underway in the Mediterranean Sea, and airmen at Ramstein Air Base, Germany. This final trip allowed the commissioners to interact with Service members deployed in the performance and support of operational commitments abroad.


We visited Fort Hood, Texas, the free world's largest military installation, in January 1999. The orientation and familiarization consisted of meeting with soldiers assigned to operational units and viewing Fort Hood's extensive infrastructure and seven miles of motor pools by Blackhawk helicopter. We also observed pilots training in helicopter flight simulators and soldiers conducting operator checks and maintenance. We received a command briefing from the III Corps Chief of Staff and conducted discussions with 60 soldiers of the entire chain of command consisting of battalion commanders, Command Sergeants Major, company commanders, First Sergeants, first-line supervising NCOs, and soldiers recently graduated from IET.


We visited Naval Station Norfolk, Virginia, the world's largest naval base, in December 1998. This visit included orientation and familiarization of an amphibious assault ship, a destroyer, a nuclear attack submarine and a helicopter support squadron. Additionally, we had a discussion with Commander, Amphibious Group TWO and spoke with over 60 representatives of the entire chain of command: junior seamen, first-line supervising NCOs, junior and mid-grade officers and commanding officers.

Air Force

In January 1999, we visited the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, which is also the home of the Air Combat Command headquarters. This visit included orientation and familiarization of the entire base, a tour of the F-15 engine repair hangar and an opportunity to explore an F-15 static display aircraft. We conducted group discussions with over 60 permanent party personnel composed of first-term airmen, first-line supervising NCOs, squadron senior enlisted superintendents, squadron first sergeants, squadron section commanders and squadron commanders.

Marine Corps

We visited II Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF) and subordinate units aboard Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Marine Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina, in December 1998 and February 1999. These visits included orientation and familiarization of an artillery battalion, motor transport maintenance company, heavy-lift capable helicopter squadron, and a Marine Aviation Logistics squadron. Additionally, we spoke with over 120 representatives of the chain of command: new Marines, first-line supervising NCOs, Staff Non-commissioned Officers, junior and mid-grade officers, the commanding officers of deployable units and the Commanding General, II MEF.

D. Joint Operational Overview

We went to Bosnia, visited TASK FORCE Eagle in Tuzla, toured the headquarters, and talked with active and reserve component soldiers. The Army also took us to Camps Commanche and Bedrock, where we talked with soldiers about their tour of duty in Bosnia. We then proceeded to the USS Enterprise underway, where we observed night flight operations, remained overnight, toured the ship, including berthing compartments, and talked with sailors and Marines. Our final site visit was Ramstein Air Base, Germany, where we toured the installation and talked with airmen, NCOs, and officers.

Additionally, individual commissioners made authorized visits to several joint commands and the United States Coast Guard basic training facility. The joint visits included the Pacific Command (PACOM), the Atlantic Command (ACOM), the Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) and the Southern European Task Force (SETAF).


A. Overview

The research program consisted of two types of assessment: gathering and analyzing existing documents and literature, and new data collection efforts. These new studies addressed sections of the statute that required an examination of basic training in general and the effects of gender format in particular. In all, ten projects were initiated. The research program was developed in collaboration with commissioners, contractors, and consultants. The General Accounting Office (GAO) provided valuable review and input on research methodologies. The design and review phases of the program occurred in September and October 1998. The fielding of the program occurred in November, with the majority of data collected from November 1998 through January 1999.

Currently, all projects in the program are in their final analysis and report preparation phases, with anticipated completion this month. We will then review and incorporate the research projects in our Final Report.

B. Objectives

The program encompassed the continuum of recruit experience, beginning with military enlistment and arrival at a basic training site, and continuing through graduation from the initial entry program and assignment to receiving units. The objectives were to track recruit socialization and the corresponding development of values, attitudes and performance, and to assess the effect of these experiences as recruit graduates were assigned to their new units and began their military careers. Toward this end, surveys and interviews were conducted with an extensive range of Service members. The surveys included recruit self-assessment. In addition, recruit trainers and enlisted leaders and officers serving in operational units provided their assessments of the quality of the training programs and the qualifications of trainees who graduated. Further, enlisted members with one through eight years of military service retrospectively assessed their experiences and proficiency levels in a number of dimensions. Assessments focused on socialization into the military, the development of core values and attitudes, and opinions on military training and gender-related issues.

C. Projects

One project assessed beginning and graduating recruit attitudes conducive to unit cohesion and commitment, as well as military leader opinions on training and gender-related issues. This project included samples of approximately 11,000 recruits and 2,300 recruit trainers across the Services. There was also a leader sample of approximately 13,000 officers and senior enlisted members. The sample included a

stratified random sample of O-3 and E-6/7 military leaders, as well as a census of all operational unit battalion, squadron and ship commanders and their senior enlisted advisors. A second project assessed open-ended comments from the sample of recruit trainers across Services, providing in-depth information on their perceptions of basic training, gender-integrated training format, and adultery and fraternization policies. A thematic assessment of approximately 3,000 open-ended comments from graduating recruits' surveys supplemented the data on their basic training experiences. Finally, the open-ended survey comments from all recruit and military leader samples, representing approximately 7,000 additional comments to those noted above from the recruit trainer and graduating recruit samples, were transcribed for the record.

A complementary project surveyed approximately 10,000 enlisted personnel across the Services with one through eight years of military experience. The strata also included gender and career fields. The basic training assessment section of the survey overlapped the data collected for the project on recruits' and leaders' values, attitudes and training experiences summarized above. Other survey questions addressed current assignment, career progression experiences, proficiency levels and gender interaction policies.

A systematic focused interview project was conducted to provide in-depth, qualitative description of the following topics: performance, equitable standards and treatment, superior/subordinate relationships, social interactions and their effect on performance, clarity and effectiveness of military regulations about gender interactions and viewpoints on gender in the military. Content analyses of summaries of full transcripts were completed for 42 focus groups (approximately 420 total participants) organized by gender, Service, career level (Basic Training, Advanced/Technical Training, or Operational Unit), and level of gender integration in current unit.

Three projects in the research program evaluated existing survey and performance data to broaden the perspective on recruit training experiences and outcomes and on gender integration issues. These secondary analyses provided a longitudinal perspective without the requirement of following Service members over time. The performance data-modeling project compared attrition rates for Fiscal Years 1992 through 1997 cohorts of enlisted Service members by gender and job category across Services. Another project reviewed data from an existing annual national survey (the Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS)) of 10,000 male and female respondents, 18 to 24 years of age, on military enlistment propensity with added questions at our request on attitudes about gender-integrated recruit training. The Military Equal Opportunity Climate Survey (MEOCS) also provided data evaluating equal opportunity and organizational effectiveness trends for 800,000 Service members from 6,000 units across Services.

The final projects included a report on Presidential Executive Orders, Congressional legislation and official policies regarding women in the military, documenting the chronology of changes from 1947 to the present; and an annotated bibliography and literature review. Collected literature addressed the following subjects: gender-integrated training, women in the military, military training, women's integration in non-traditional work sectors and women in militaries outside of the United States.


A. Statutory Requirements

The statute requires the Commission to review and assess requirements and restrictions regarding cross-gender relationships in the Armed Forces. This includes an assessment of the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and practices governing personal relationships between men and women in the Armed Forces, and an assessment of the consistency with which these are applied relative to the Service, sex, and rank of those involved. The statute also requires an assessment of the reports of the independent panel (referred to as the Kassebaum Baker report), an adultery review panel, and a task force on fraternization.

B. The Review

In reviewing Section 562(a) pertaining to cross-gender relations, we received briefings, research data, testimony, and documentation from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Services relating to male/female relations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). We also compiled research on the opinions of Service members regarding adultery, fraternization, and sexual harassment.

In October, 1998, the Commission heard testimony from the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness and other officials on a broad range of personnel issues pertaining to gender integration and specific legal and policy matters concerning good order and discipline. The Under Secretary provided background material and information, guidance to commanders regarding the UCMJ offense of adultery, and regulated interpersonal relationships between male and female Service members. Included in the testimony was a status report on the implementation of recommendations from the Kassebaum Baker report concerning cross-gender issues. We also solicited comments from the CINCs of the Unified Commands.

Following the testimony of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Commission held hearings and received testimony from top legal representatives of each Service and other witnesses with previous military experience in the area of cross-gender relationships. We obtained valuable insight into the intricate and extensive framework of the laws, regulations, policies, directives, and practices in this area of inquiry. Subsequently, we began the process of gathering data in order to make assessments.

We included questions about adultery, fraternization and related proscribed relationships, and sexual harassment in two surveys completed by thousands of Service members. Additionally, a series of questions was submitted to both the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Services regarding relevant legal matters. Concurrently, we requested documentation from each Service pertaining to relevant regulations and policies along with a sampling of adjudicative documents.

The information gathering effort in this area became an evolutionary process. After conducting hearings to define the scope of the statutory inquiry, we instituted a plan to formulate a meaningful, yet manageable, review given the time constraints and resource limitations.

To assist with this review, we hired five legal consultants. Collectively, their careers represent over a century of military justice experience spanning the four Services. These consultants implemented the research plan to collect key regulatory data and sample adjudicative documentation. Thousands of pages of regulations and court documentation were received. The consultants analyzed the data and produced a report that was presented to the Commission, along with testimony on January 30, 1999.

C. Conclusions and Recommendations

As a result of our investigations, we reached the following recommendations and conclusions:


The proposed changes to the Manual for Courts Martial (MCM) concerning the offense of adultery are unnecessary. The Secretary of Defense should not submit the proposed changes for inclusion in the MCM.

  • Unanimous Approval


The Commission is not persuaded that the new changes to military fraternization rules developed by the Department of Defense "Good Order and Discipline" Task Force are necessary or advisable. Service specific policies have been functional and suitable to meet the requirements of each Service. Therefore, the Services should be permitted to retain their prerogatives in this area.

  • Unanimous Approval

Perceptions of Inconsistent Application of Laws and Rules

The Commission recommends that the Secretary of Defense take steps to cause the Services to educate their members and to inform the public about the special considerations that affect the prosecution and punishment of offenses relating to sexual misconduct in the military.

  • Unanimous Approval

The Commission recommends that the Services improve military justice data collection systems, so that the Services may better monitor the consistency of application of rules governing sexual conduct in the military and avoid or correct misperceptions.

  • Unanimous Approval

There is a need to increase leader training at all levels in knowledge and application of military law and to increase their participation in the military justice system.

  • Unanimous Approval



A. Statutory Requirements

The statute requires the Commission to review the course objectives, structure, and length of the basic training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps. The statute includes within the scope of Initial Entry Training the training that occurs immediately after basic training. We are required to determine the current end-state objectives for graduates in the following areas:

(A) Physical conditioning.

(B) Technical and physical skills proficiency.

(C) Knowledge.

(D) Military socialization, including the inculcation of service values and attitudes.

(E) Basic combat operational requirements.

The law also requires the Commission to address basic training as preparation for an individual's suitability in the operational forces.

B. The Review

All Service recruiters use the same methods to identify potential recruits to begin their transition from civilian to soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine. These methods are telephone prospecting; high school, college, and area business canvassing; telephone calls to potential recruits referred by students, parents, relatives, teachers, and other positive centers of influence in their lives; and follow-up calls or meetings to those who have requested information about enlistment. Once at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS) applicants complete any required Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) testing, take a medical exam, and meet with a Service counselor. Service specific contract documents are completed and the new Service member enters the Delayed Entry Program (DEP), from 14 days up to 365 days depending on educational status or the training start date he or she has been given. Prior to transporting the new Service members to their Initial Entry Training location, MEPS verifies their medical status and contract documents.

Appendix C is a graphic representation of the Initial Entry Training (IET) Continuum for each of the Services. This chart provides a visual representation of the maturation process from civilian to soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine in his or her first operational assignment. Training highlights, graduation requirements and defining events are highlighted throughout the Continuum. The chart is not provided to compare the Services, but rather to provide a visual aid to the unique processes used by each Service and described in the following paragraphs.


Upon arrival at one of four Basic Combat Training (BCT) or four One Station Unit Training (OSUT) locations, new soldiers spend three to ten days in a Reception Battalion for further processing, uniforms and ID tags, and a fitness evaluation test. New soldiers are evaluated using specific fitness standards and, if required, are placed in a Fitness Training Unit for up to three weeks before starting IET.

Day One begins with arrival at a BCT or OSUT company. BCT lasts 9 weeks and at graduation new soldiers go on to Advanced Individual Training (AIT) for Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) training lasting 4 to 52 weeks. OSUT, which combines BCT and AIT training in a single company, lasts 12 to 18 weeks. BCT is primarily gender-integrated, while OSUT is predominantly male only. OSUT training for Career Management Fields (CMF) 11-Infantry and 19-Armor, Field Artillery MOS 13B, and Combat Engineer MOS 12B is not open to women. OSUT training for CMF 95-Military Police, 54-Chemical and Bridge Crewmember MOS 12C, however, is fully integrated.

IET is divided into five "phases." The first three phases, weeks one through nine, are common to BCT and the BCT portion of OSUT. Phases IV and V are associated only with AIT or the MOS portion of OSUT.

Phase I focuses on Army values, traditions, and ethics while developing basic combat skills and physical fitness. Phase II emphasizes weapons training (U.S. weapons training, basic rifle marksmanship training, and bayonet assault training, along with foot march training). Self-discipline and team building are also emphasized. Phase III develops the IET soldier's understanding of the importance of teamwork. The defining event is a 72-hour Warrior field training exercise (FTX) where soldiers demonstrate basic combat skills proficiency in a tactical field environment, and operate as part of a team while being physically and mentally challenged.

To graduate from BCT, all soldiers must successfully complete the following:

  • Pass the Army Physical Fitness Test with 50 points in each of three events: push-ups, sit-ups, two-mile run.
  • Qualify with the M16A2 rifle - a minimum of 23 of 40 target hits.
  • Qualify on the hand grenade course, and throw two live hand grenades.
  • Pass all end-of-phase tests and all end-of-cycle tests.
  • Complete all obstacle and confidence courses.
  • Complete bayonet and pugil fight training.
  • Complete hand-to-hand combat training.
  • Complete the Protective Mask Confidence Course.
  • Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the Army Core Values of Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage.
  • Complete all tactical field training, including foot marches (3, 5, 8, 10, and 10 km) and field training exercises.

No waivers are granted for the graduation requirements; however, the Army's New Start Program allows IET soldiers who fail to meet training standards to be reassigned to another unit where training can be repeated.

After BCT, the soldierization process continues in both AIT and the second part of OSUT. This takes place in Phases IV and V. In these phases, there is an increased emphasis on technical MOS training and reduced control over the training environment. The lessening of control, expansion of privileges and focus on MOS skills are seen as part of the evolutionary process that transforms a young civilian into someone who thinks, looks and acts like a soldier. Over 210 Army MOSs in 32 different Career Management Fields (CMF) are taught at the 23 AIT and 4 OSUT locations.


Arriving from throughout the country at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, Navy recruits are met by senior petty officers (non-commissioned officers) and transported to Recruit Training Command (RTC) at Great Lakes, Illinois. On their arrival at RTC, the recruits are assigned to divisions of approximately 88 members. Each division is assigned to a training barracks referred to as a "ship." The typical layout of a ship is four living areas, referred to as "compartments," on each deck of the ship. Three Recruit Division Commanders are assigned to each division, and each ship has a Leading Chief Petty Officer and a Ship's Officer.

Navy recruit training is 9.2 weeks in duration. In-processing includes medical and dental exams, physical fitness and academic assessments, and basic courses on military policy. Training divisions are formally commissioned during the recruit's second week and the structured curriculum begins. This includes instruction in Navy Core Values, personal rights and responsibilities, shipboard communications, rights and responsibilities, watch-standing procedures, and basic seamanship. Additionally, recruits participate in marching, drill, and physical training, swimming qualifications, fire-fighting and damage control scenarios, gas mask donning, and weapons familiarization. The defining event of a recruit's training is a physically and mentally demanding 14-hour event comprised of 12 fleet-oriented scenarios referred to as Battle Stations.

As formally defined by the Navy, to graduate from recruit training, a recruit must:

  • Be able to succeed in a gender-integrated, multi-racial, multi-cultural Fleet environment.
  • Demonstrate an understanding of the team concept.
  • Have a basic military knowledge including customs, courtesies, and rank recognition.
  • Have knowledge of the Navy's heritage.
  • Display military bearing and demonstrate proper wearing of the uniform.
  • Display an understanding of the chain of command.
  • Be familiar with the procedures for small-arms fire.
  • Demonstrate an understanding of proper watch-standing procedures.
  • Be introduced to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
  • Emulate Core Values (Honor, Commitment, and Courage).
  • Show an acceptance of the Sailor's Creed.
  • Be introduced to shipboard life, fire fighting / damage control / seamanship procedures.
  • Exceed the fleet's minimum physical fitness standards.
  • Pass third-class swim qualifications.

Recruits may face setbacks in training for academic or non-academic reasons. Remedial programs assist dedicated and able recruits to meet training graduation standards. Recruits who do not meet physical fitness or body fat standards are placed in special units until the standards are met, or until they are separated. Injured recruits likely to return to training are placed in a medical holding unit until determined fit for training duty.

No recruit reports directly to his or her duty station without attending an apprentice school for some type of specialized training ranging in duration from 2 to 63 weeks. For those ratings (job specialties) unrestricted by gender, the instructional course is fully gender-integrated. In Fiscal Year 1998, some 52,000 new sailors did this: 25 percent attended apprenticeship training (seaman, airman and fireman); 7 percent attended nuclear training; 3 percent attended Seabee-related training, and 8 percent attended administrative-related training. In addition, 25 percent attended training related to surface warfare; 19 percent related to air warfare, and 14 percent to submarine warfare.

Air Force

Upon arrival at the San Antonio, Texas, International Airport, recruits are transported to Lackland Air Force Base. Recruits arrive Wednesdays through Fridays, and as they leave the buses they are divided into groups of 50 to 58, and assigned to a flight. They also meet their Military Training Instructors (MTIs) who will remain with them around the clock for the first 72 hours. Female recruits live in clustered dormitory bays on the top floors of the recruit housing and training facilities to enhance their security and privacy. On their first weekend, the recruits, now called "rainbows," continue to wear civilian clothes, although they are issued some gear, and begin to learn basic drill. Their first day of BMT, however, will not begin until 0500 the Monday after arrival.

BMT is conducted over 6.4 weeks, or 47 calendar days. As the primary BMT trainers, the MTIs instruct recruits in discipline, academics, military customs and courtesies, physical conditioning (PC), and the Field Training Exercise (FTX). The principal goal is to produce disciplined, physically fit and academically qualified airmen who can then go on to Technical Training (TT) schools and Air Force duty.

The BMT program of instruction is the same for males and females, although the PC standards for the two-mile run, sit-ups and push-ups are different, based on physiological differences. Physical conditioning is conducted six days a week throughout the 6.4 weeks of BMT. The aim is to produce the same level of fitness for both men and women.

On an hourly basis, BMT breaks down as follows:

  • Administration (83.75 hours): clothing issue, job classification, medical examination, and record keeping.
  • Military studies (44.25 hours): customs and courtesies, financial management, Air Force history and organization, human relations.
  • Military training (183.25 hours): Dorm, drill (parade and retreat), Core Values, field training exercise (FTX), marksmanship, PC.
  • Miscellaneous (143.25 hours): meals, tests and surveys, transit time.

To graduate from BMT, all recruits must complete the following:

  • Be within the maximum weight or body fat standards.
  • Pass wear of the uniform evaluation.
  • Pass reporting procedures evaluation.
  • Pass individual drill evaluation.
  • Pass dorm performance.
  • Demonstrate an understanding of the USAF Core Values of Integrity First, Service Before Self, and Excellence In All We Do.
  • Pass End of Course Test (70 percent passing score).
  • Pass sixth week of training physical conditioning evaluation consisting of a two-mile run, push-ups, and sit-ups.

Recruits are required to run a confidence course during their fourth and fifth weeks. Rifle qualification and the FTX also take place during the fifth week. The FTX prepares recruits for Air Force expeditionary deployments by familiarizing them with field conditions and basic encampment operations

Graduation parades are held on the last Friday of the sixth week of BMT. On Saturday, recruits are given a town pass to visit San Antonio or to spend time with their families. On the Monday after their graduation from BMT, the recruits, now airmen, leave Lackland AFB to undergo their second phase of training which is called Technical Training (TT). BMT itself does not conduct TT, although it attempts to lay its foundation by introducing recruits to proper study discipline, familiarizing them with Air Force manuals and directives, and acclimating them to Air Force testing programs and methods.

There are 178 Air Force Specialty Codes (AFSCs) within the enlisted career fields that are taught in TT. School lengths vary per AFSC, from 4 weeks to 83 weeks. The majority of initial skills TT takes place at five major sites: Lackland AFB, Sheppard AFB, Texas, Goodfellow AFB, Texas, Vandenberg AFB, California, and Keesler AFB, Mississippi. When airmen from BMT arrive at one of the Air Force's TT schools, they begin the second step in a continuum of training. Each day they spend eight hours in class receiving instruction from TT instructors who are experts in their career fields. During the weekends, morning hours, and evening hours, Military Training Leaders (MTLs) supervise the students. These individuals are in charge of ensuring that students eat in the dining facility, receive physical and military training, and adhere to the rules of TT.

A central feature of the transition from BMT to the operational unit takes place in the TT schools. A five-step phase program bridges the closely controlled environment of BMT to TT. In Phase I, privileges are limited and airmen must demonstrate the ability to accept responsibility and be held accountable for their actions. Airmen must understand that readiness is dependent on their ability to act responsibly. As they demonstrate this trait, privileges are earned. In Phase II, some freedoms are allowed for those who have demonstrated the required military bearing expected at this point in training. Phase III continues to increase freedoms, such as the use of a privately owned vehicle and the ability to request permission to reside off base if one's spouse is in the local area. In Phase IV, no curfew on the weekends is authorized. Phase V allows for the least restrictive environment, one which most closely mirrors the airman's first operational duty station.

Marine Corps

The Marine Corps entry level training pipeline is designed to make Marines. The process is called Transformation and consists of four phases: recruiting, recruit training (boot camp), cohesion and sustainment. Each phase is interrelated, builds upon the previous one, and is essential to the process of making Marines. The Marine Corps does this through an entry level training process that functions much like a rheostat, moving from gender segregation at boot camp, to partial gender integration at Marine Combat Training and finally full gender integration at the Military Occupational School.

Female recruits, as well as all male recruits east of the Mississippi River, go to Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) Parris Island, South Carolina. Male recruits west of the Mississippi go to the Marine Corps Recruit Depot (MCRD) in San Diego, California. Except for the differences imposed by geography and environment, the training is the same at both MCRDs. The recruits undergo 12 weeks of boot camp starting the transformation from young, and usually immature, civilians into basically trained Marines. During this socialization process, the recruits learn institutional values and are inculcated with the Marine Corps' Core Values of Honor, Courage and Commitment.

The organizational structure of three recruit training battalions is the same at both recruit depots, except for the existence of an additional all-female training battalion at MCRD Parris Island. The battalions are separated into four training companies, each commanded by a captain (O-3). Each company has two series, usually commanded by a lieutenant, and each series has three platoons. The platoons, supervised by three or four Drill Instructors, are the primary training units. Drill Instructors are always the same gender as the recruits under their command. The Marine Corps conducts all of its recruit training separately for male and female recruits.

After they arrive at either of the two depots, recruits spend four or five days in which they undergo physical examinations, take classification tests, receive uniforms and equipment, and begin their assimilation into the military environment. Their 12-week training cycle, standard for all recruits since 1996, may be broken down to 489 training hours over a period of 64 training days. These training hours do not include, however, a forming period of 1 to 3 days, Team Week (week 9), Sundays and holidays. Week 6 contains field training, weeks 7 and 8 are marksmanship training, followed by the Crucible in Transformation Week (week 11), and Transition Week (week 12). In addition, there are 157 non-academic hours: 70 hours commanders' time and 87 hours administrative time.

To graduate from boot camp, all recruits must complete the following requirements:

  • Pass the Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test.
  • Qualify with the Service Rifle.
  • Complete the Combat Water Survival Test.
  • Pass the Recruit Training Battalion Commander's Inspection.
  • Achieve mastery of designated General Military Subjects and Individual Combat Basic Tasks as set forth in the Program of Instruction (POI).
  • Complete the Crucible.
  • Be at or below maximum weight (or body fat) requirements.

Recycling is authorized for recruits who fail to meet physical training standards; show an inability to meet the desired level of general performance; lose 3 or more days of training within any 30-day period, no matter what the reason; or fail to meet weight standards or to show satisfactory progress while following a weight-control program. In general, when all attempts to bring recruits to satisfactory levels of conditioning, behavior, discipline or skills have failed, they are separated from the Service.

Male Marines (other than those designated for the infantry, who go directly to Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) training) go to Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, or Camp Pendleton, California, for Marine Combat Training (MCT) after they have completed boot camp. Female Marines go to Camp Lejeune. MCT, a 17-day exercise, simulating an overseas deployment, seeks to provide the new Marines with the skills needed to fight and survive in a combat environment. They will operate for the first time in a partly gender-integrated unit. Female Marines, although billeted separately in their own barracks, are placed in a single platoon in an otherwise all male company. The platoon has female squad leaders, and a male infantry Staff Noncommissioned Officer (SNCO) as platoon commander. The company-level staff is a combination of male and female officers and Non-commissioned Officers (NCOs).

On completion of combat training, all Marines report to MOS schools; 62 percent of the schools are combined or shared with those of the other Services, and their courses vary in length from weeks to months. Other than the combat arms MOS schools, attended only by male Marines, the schools are fully gender-integrated where Marines become members of the same squads, the lowest organizational level.

The Marine Corps also considers unit cohesion as an important part of the transformation process in which civilians are made into Marines. Cohesion begins with the formation of teams in their respective MOS schools, keeping the teams together through training and assigning the Marines, as a team, to a unit. The intent is to have the teams train, garrison, deploy and fight together.

C. Recent Changes in Initial Entry Training

The Services provided information on changes to Initial Entry Training (IET) during our briefings, visits and hearings. In January 1999, we asked the Services to provide, in a hearing format, the status of changes in IET since our initial briefings to include any projected changes in the next 12 months. As a result of previous outside reviews and periodic Service self-evaluation of programs, we witnessed a dynamic and evolving training environment. The following paragraphs are a summary of our observations. Each Service differs in size and needs; however, all pointed out, and we agree, that improving IET is a continuous process.


Initial Entry Training has undergone numerous changes in the Army over the past year. These changes were implemented with the intent to produce a values-based, motivated, disciplined, and physically ready soldier. These changes have been phased into the Army IET programs throughout TRADOC and have occurred in the areas of IET policy and training improvements, personnel selection and assignment, and Drill Sergeant selection and training.

TRADOC Regulation 350-6, Initial Entry Training Policies and Administration, the foundation for the conduct of IET throughout the Army, was extensively updated and published November 30,1998. The new regulation focuses on rigor and standardization of training. It establishes ten non-waiverable graduation requirements, encourages new starts, and tightens control at Advanced Individual Training (AIT) sites. Additionally, it strengthens Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) requirements and mandates the use of Fitness Training Units (FTU) for APFT failures. IET commanders are also required to conduct mid- and end-of-course sensing sessions. Standards have been mandated for separate and secure housing and for the Charge of Quarters (CQ) and supervisory policies. This revision also standardizes Individual Training Records (ITR) so field commands have better information on how their new soldiers are trained.

Basic Combat Training (BCT) and One Station Unit Training (OSUT) Phases I-III increased in length from eight to nine weeks beginning October 1, 1998. The additional 54 hours of training are spread over these three initial phases of training and focus on human relations (HR), Core Values, and Army traditions. Twelve human relations training support packages (TSPs), nine values TSPs, nine values videotapes, and two Army heritage videotapes are included in the revision of BCT. A cadre guide for Drill Sergeants, a train-the-trainer guide, and a reception station TSP, covering introduction on the Army's values and heritage, were also produced. Overall, 21 new TSPs were added to BCT Program of Instruction (POI) and 72 current TSPs were revised to incorporate values training.

Rigor during BCT/OSUT has also been increased, both physically and mentally. Graduation standards have been updated, requiring each BCT/OSUT soldier to pass the APFT and demonstrate proficiency in nine other requirements. The addition of a 72-hour, end-of-course/Phase III "Warrior" field training exercise (FTX) tests each soldier's physical, mental, and tactical skills. The FTX centers on discipline, teamwork, and reinforcing Army values. Each Warrior FTX ends with a Rite of Passage ceremony, which marks the successful completion of the FTX as well as all BCT requirements. The Rite of Passage ceremony identifies the right to continue in the soldierization process.

Human relations and values reinforcement training in Advanced Individual Training (AIT) began January 1, 1999. These TSPs include Army Core Values, individual branch history, equal opportunity (EO), prevention of sexual harassment (POSH), Uniform Code of Military Justice, spiritual/emotional/mental fitness, personal finances, and rape prevention. The World Institute of Leadership and Learning is completing development of virtual experience software to supplement EO/POSH training in AIT.

The Army has measures in place to provide IET soldiers with gender privacy and dignity in secure living conditions. These measures were implemented in BCT/OSUT on May 1, 1998 and AIT on July 1, 1998.

All company Executive Officer billets and Unit Ministry Teams are being filled. The Army conducts a quality review of commanders serving in IET and has added EO/Sexual Harassment training to the Pre-Command Course (PCC), Cadre Training Course (CTC), and the Orientation course.

The new Drill Sergeant School (DSS) POI introduced on October 1, 1998, provides more ethics, values and HR training. A total of 38 hours of HR and values/ethics training has been added to ensure Drill Sergeants are better trained to meet the diverse challenges in today's IET environment. Additionally, in an effort to improve the Drill Sergeants' ability to conduct physical fitness training, Master Fitness Trainer (MFT) qualification was added as part of the curriculum. All Drill Sergeant Leaders are certified as Equal Opportunity Representatives.

The Army directed that all BCT companies be limited at 240 soldiers and to support this decision expanded BCT to Fort Benning, effective January 1999. The analysis of the Future Barracks Design is currently ongoing, along with the Strategic Study of Barracks Requirements.


During the past 12 months, the Navy implemented substantive changes to recruit and apprentice training as a result of focused leadership to improve the Initial Entry Training processes at Naval Training Center Great Lakes. The Commanding Officer of the Recruit Training Command, his directorate heads, and other key command personnel began weekly roundtable discussions in the Fall of 1998 to discuss training issues and propose/enact actions.

Battle Stations, a series of fleet-oriented tests initiated in July 1997 to measure a recruit's transformation from civilian to sailor in the seventh week of training, was extended from 12 to 14 hours in June 1998.

In response to the poor fitness level sometimes found among beginning recruits, and in an attempt to prevent their potential exercise-related injuries, several physical fitness-related initiatives have been instituted. In May 1998, the physical rigor of recruit training was heightened to ensure that all graduating recruits pass the Physical Readiness Test with a score of "good" in every category, exceeding the Navy-wide standard of "satisfactory." In December 1998, recruits began to take a physical fitness-screening test on their third day of training. Those found in need of additional physical conditioning are assigned to a remedial fitness training unit for a two-week program designed by the Naval Health Research Center. Additionally, a restructured, progressive physical training program was extended to six times per week to improve physical stamina and to prepare the recruits better to meet the physical demand of Battle Stations.

In October 1998, the curriculum at the Recruit Division Commander (RDC) School was lengthened from 7 to 13 weeks to allow RDC students to spend more time under the supervision of senior commanders. Additionally, the Program of Instruction (POI) for this critical school was also revamped to provide the RDCs with the tools to succeed.

Since July 1998, 171 reservists have been added to instructor and training support billets to increase the supervisory presence during peak training periods. Ten ensigns, awaiting flight instruction, were also temporarily assigned to offset officer-manning gaps and to provide an additional barracks presence during peak training periods. The Navy reports that the number of ensigns participating in this program will increase in 1999. By December 1, 1998, the Navy Personnel Command had filled Recruit Training Command's 651 authorized billets, thereby meeting the 13-week training requirement prior to transfer of qualified RDCs.

Controls were implemented at Recruit Training Command to ensure that same gender members conduct after-hour security watches in recruit barracks. Additionally, alarms were installed on doorways leading to fire escape ladders and monitored at remote stations (Ship Quarterdecks) to alert unauthorized access to recruit barracks. At Service School Command, hallway barrier installation began in February 1999 (scheduled completion May 1999) to separate the genders in different wings of the barracks. Men and women have separate entrances to their floors and rooms that are staffed and monitored for proper security and access control.

In September 1998, the curriculum for the Navy Military Training (NMT) program was restructured in response to Fleet feedback. Incorporated into all IET and continuing in the Fleet for all sailors in their first year of enlistment, NMT continues the Navy sailorization process by building on the military socialization skills gained in recruit training. The revamped program focuses on inculcating skills to aid the sailor in managing personal and professional priorities. In addition to specific physical training and military bearing/values requirements, the latest revision to NMT instituted a three-phase ladder of privileges to guide sailors' personal time.

Air Force

Since January 1998, Military Training Instructors (MTIs), who conduct counseling sessions with trainees of the opposite gender, have been required to have an additional permanent party member in attendance as a witness. Previously, another trainee could be a witness. In July 1998, physical conditioning sessions in Basic Military Training (BMT) were increased to 6 days a week and lengthened from 45 to 75 minutes per session; recruits were also required to run the Confidence Course twice rather than once. Currently, the Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine is conducting a study that re-evaluates physical fitness and gender-based standards.

Another new initiative involved the upgrading of security measures within the Recruit Housing and Training facilities. All fire exit doors were alarmed, closed circuit cameras were installed in stairwell foyers, and monitor screens were installed in the squadron charge-of-quarters offices.

The BMT Field Training Exercise (FTX) is currently being restructured. The new "Warrior Week" will expand the current FTX to a full week and include mobility processing, M-16 qualification, Law of Armed Conflict, self-aid/buddy care and gas mask training. The defining event will bestow "airman" status on the graduating recruit. The goal of "Warrior Week" is to provide airmen ready for the challenges of the Air Expeditionary Force at their first operational unit.

Marine Corps

The Marine Corps embarked upon its biggest change to boot camp in almost 15 years in August 1996. The Corps started instilling the Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment into its ranks beginning with boot camp. A new training schedule, the highlight being the Crucible, was devised. An additional week of training was added and portions of Basic Warrior Training were transferred to Marine Combat Training (MCT). The Marine Corps was no longer just training recruits; with a focus on the leadership provided by Drill Instructors, it was "transforming" them.

December 1996 brought the first official running of the Crucible by a company of female recruits and a company of male recruits. The Crucible, and other new aspects of the Program of Instruction, continued to be refined over the next year. In January 1998, training at the Marine Corps Recruit Depots Parris Island and San Diego was standardized. A 10 percent difference in the POIs is attributed to environmental and geographical differences.

Starting in October 1998, women were required to complete the same 1.5-mile run as the men, as part of the Initial Strength Test.

D. Conclusions and Recommendations

After an extensive review of the Initial Entry Training programs of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, we reached the following conclusions and recommendations:

1. Where there is good leadership and a positive command climate, the training environment is healthy, appropriate and accomplishing that which is expected. Commanders need to be allowed to do their jobs. Overly restrictive requirements take away the authority of Commanders to make sound judgments (something we trust them to do with the lives of their men and women) and act on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, the Commission recommends: Let the Commanders command.

  • Unanimous Approval

2. Current Armed Services personnel shortages and increased OPTEMPO appear to be adversely impacting readiness, deployability and sustainability. Throughout our visits to both basic training organizations and the operating forces of all Services, we heard about the adverse effects of personnel shortages caused by downsizing and increased OPTEMPO. Personnel shortages in the noncommissioned officer ranks, E-5 to E-7, were noted by all. Attrition of these mid-level leaders results in more senior leaders assuming their duties, with the result that they have no time to guide, mentor or groom newly arrived trainees from Initial Entry Training into the operating forces organizations.

  • Unanimous Approval

3. Each Service should maintain as much as feasible an active pre-training program that encourages the beginning of military socialization process for recruits in the Delayed Entry Programs (DEP).

  • Unanimous Approval

4. Recruiter assistance duty should not occur before a trainee has completed Initial Entry Training and should not extend beyond a 14-day period. Trainee participation in recruiter assistance programs should be monitored and regulated.

  • Unanimous Approval

5. Provide career-enhancing incentives so that the best personnel seek a tour of duty in recruit training. Screen, select, train, and assign only outstanding enlisted personnel and commissioned officers for this duty.

  • Unanimous Approval

6. Recruit trainer continuity is considered essential. We recommend that the Services give priority to full staffing of recruit trainer billets and to keeping the same trainers with the same unit from beginning to end of the training cycle. Additional duties and / or details that remove trainers from their units during the cycle should be minimized.

  • Unanimous Approval

7. Initial Entry Training should emphasize military socialization and the inculcation of Core Values. Values training is very important to the trainees and must be sustained throughout the training continuum and in the operating forces. Today, as in the past, some recruits enter the military having had life experiences that may increase the challenge of transforming them into Service members. Effective transformation can still take place if the Initial Entry Training strongly emphasizes military socialization and inculcation of Core Values.

  • Unanimous Approval

8. It is important to continue "military training" (e.g., physical training, military customs and courtesies, values) throughout the training continuum of each Service from accession until delivery to the operating forces.

  • Unanimous Approval

9. Leader expectations are an issue across the Services. The Commission recommends that each Service should have formal systems through which the operational force can send feedback to schools and training programs on the quality of trainees they produce. Each Service needs a "leadership expectations" program that clearly tells all leaders what Initial Entry Training is supposed to accomplish and what standards recruits and new trainees must meet.

  • Unanimous Approval

10. Each Service should establish an oversight program to ensure that recent improvements to recruit training will be sustained over time.

  • Unanimous Approval

11. The Services should continue to study and improve their physical fitness standards and programs. The Services have come far in studying and incorporating improved fitness standards and better understanding of job performance requirements. These studies should be continued and fitness/performance programs should be continually reviewed and improved. There needs to be clearly stated objectives about physical fitness tests and physical performance standards.

The Services should take steps to educate Service members about the meaning of "physical fitness" and how it differs from job performance standards. There is a widespread misunderstanding about the purpose of the Services' physical fitness tests. The tests are designed to measure physical health and well being. Measures of physical fitness must take account of age and gender, as the Services' tests currently do. Physical fitness tests are not measures of job-specific skills. The Services should maintain this distinction and should communicate it to all levels of personnel, including basic trainees.

  • Unanimous Approval

12. There is a need for a Department of Defense forum where all Services periodically exchange ideas, concepts, etc., for sustaining and improving Initial Entry Training.

  • Unanimous Approval

13. Reasonable security measures for barracks are appropriate, but Services should avoid creating the impression of a prison lock-up.

  • Unanimous Approval

14. The Commission recommends that the Services develop longitudinal studies as part of their ongoing research programs. Such longitudinal data, recognized in social science research as the best way to measure change and its causes, would provide the Services with valuable information.

  • Unanimous Approval

  1. The Commission encourages the proper resourcing of the training establishment to enhance current improvements to basic training being implemented by the Services.

  • Unanimous Approval


A. Statutory Requirements

Subsection 562(b) of the Statute requires the Commission to review the basic training policies and practices of each of the Services with regard to gender-integrated (GI) and gender-segregated (GS) basic training and, for each of the Services, the effectiveness of gender-integrated and gender-segregated basic training. As such, the Commission was required to review a specific list of items set forth in Section 562(b)(2) and to make both factual determinations and qualitative assessments, as well as recommendations on the subject of gender-integrated and gender-segregated training.

B. The Review

In our review pertaining to GI and GS training, we received briefings from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and the Services concerning their responses to the Kassebaum Baker report's recommendations and their current practices and views concerning GI and GS training. We also obtained information from OSD and the Services through several rounds of written questions and responses.

The Commission heard from numerous experts knowledgeable in the areas of the physiology of men and women; the GI and GS training practices of government agencies and other organizations including other countries' militaries; and the history of the assimilation of women in the U.S. Armed Forces. We assembled a bibliography of publications relevant to GI and GS training. We also sponsored new studies that included surveys designed to elicit information about attitudes toward GI and GS training held by trainees, trainers, Service members, potential recruits and operational leaders.

As part of our review of GI and GS training, we performed field investigations at both training and operational units, during which we engaged in discussions with hundreds of Service members. In addition, our researchers conducted focus groups and surveys. The scientific analysis of their findings will be in the Final Report.

C. Discussion

This section provides an overview of the issues addressed by the Commission in its review of gender-integrated and gender-segregated training under Section 562(b)(2). In some areas we reached unanimous agreement, while in others we differed. This section contains a brief general summary of the major findings and assessments. We will provide substantial, detailed, service-specific findings and assessments in our Final Report.

Section 562(b)(2) addresses five general areas: (1) structure and policies applicable in GI and GS basic training; (2) historical and current rationales for decisions to use GI or GS training; (3) readiness implications; (4) comparative studies; and (5) feasibility and implications of GS proposals. Our major findings and assessments in these areas are summarized below.

(1) Structure and Policies

We asked each Service to define what it meant by "gender-integrated" (GI) or "gender-segregated" (GS) training, to describe how it assigns male and female instructors, and to state whether performance standards in basic training are the same for men and women.

In general, two-thirds of Army training is gender-integrated, and one-third (combat arms) is gender-segregated. The Navy trains all recruits at its Great Lakes Naval Training Center, and the Air Force trains all recruits at Lackland Air Force Base. In the case of the Army, Navy and Air Force "gender-integrated" means that men and women train together at the lowest unit level of organization (squad or platoon/division/flight). Because of the difference in numbers of male and female trainees, some platoons (or their equivalent) may be all male, even though the company/ship/squadron as a whole is gender-integrated. The Marine Corps separates male and female recruits by battalion during boot camp. During Marine Combat Training (MCT) a "partially gender-integrated" company may include one all-female platoon and three all-male platoons. For all the Services, their specialty training is gender-integrated, except for those specialties that remain all male.

The Army assigns 12 Drill Sergeants (DS) to each company, and a minimum of 2 female DSs are assigned to each company that includes females. The Navy assigns Recruit Division Commanders (RDCs) without regard to gender, but at least one female RDC is assigned to each division that includes female recruits. The Air Force assigns Military Training Instructors (MTIs) without regard to gender. Marine Corps Drill Instructors (DIs), as well as all company personnel, are the same gender as their recruits. However, recruits may receive specialized instruction (e.g., swimming, marksmanship, self-defense) from trainers of the opposite gender. In MCT, the platoon-level staff is the same gender as the Marines under training, with an infantry (male) Staff Non-commissioned Officer as the platoon commander. Company-level personnel are a combination of male and female officers and non-commissioned officers.

The Services apply the same performance standards to all recruits, male or female, in basic training. Physical fitness standards are normed for gender and age, but job performance standards are applied without regard to gender.

(2) Historical and Current Rationales

We reviewed historical and current rationales cited by the Services for their decisions to adopt (or not to adopt) either GI or GS training, including the Service-unique requirements that could affect those decisions, and the availability of data or other objective measurements to support the decisions. The Final Report will contain the results of our review of these subjects.

(3) Readiness Implications

We invited each of the Services to present a briefing on its definition of readiness and the implications for GI or GS training. In general, readiness is a concept that applies primarily to operational units. In the context of basic training, the number and quality of personnel who are trained to standards and available to operational units is an important factor in readiness.

We obtained considerable data from OSD and the Services concerning attrition. The results are not conclusive for any discussion comparing GI and GS training. We recognize that some attrition is normal and inevitable, but attrition rates that are too high or too low are problematic.

The readiness implications will be addressed in the Commission's Final Report.

(4) Comparative Studies

We reviewed the practices of the military Services of other industrialized nations and non-military sector training as required by the statute.

The United States is the only remaining superpower, and no other nation has military requirements directly comparable to those of the United States. For purposes of a comparative study of gender-integrated training in other countries, we assembled a bibliography, reviewed selected literature and consulted with knowledgeable scholars. Based on that review, we decided to concentrate on the experiences of the Netherlands and Israel. Both are industrialized nations with strong ties to the United States, and each employs different methods of accommodating both men and women in its armed forces.

To address non-military sector initiatives, we conducted a literature review and invited experts to testify. The Final Report will include a copy of the comprehensive bibliography of studies and materials relating to our subject matter, including a section on women's integration into non-traditional civilian occupations. We heard from representatives from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Coast Guard, and experts on all areas of physical fitness including fire and police department requirements, athletics, and standards for employment. The Final Report will summarize the information of interest obtained from these experts.

(5) Feasibility and Implications of GS Proposals

We asked each Service Secretary to respond in writing to the provisions of subsections 562(e)(2): "The report shall specifically set forth the views of the Secretaries of the military departments regarding the matters described in subparagraphs (O) and (P) of subsection (b)(2)." Appendix D contains each Service Secretary's reply as it relates to the issues of separate basic training at the company level and below, and same-sex trainers for basic training units.

D. Conclusions and Recommendations

As a result of its investigations and review, the Commission reached several conclusions and recommendations concerning GI and GS training. In certain areas, the Commission's views were not unanimous. Following are the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the votes indicated.

1. The Commission concludes that the Services are providing the soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines required by the operating forces to carry out their assigned missions; therefore, each Service should be allowed to continue to conduct basic training in accordance with its current policies. This includes the manner in which basic trainees are housed and organized into units. This conclusion does not imply the absence of challenges and issues associated with the dynamics found in a gender integrated basic training environment. Therefore, improvements to Initial Entry Training that have been made by the Services or are currently being considered must be sustained and continually reviewed.

VOTE: Yeas: Cantor, Christmas, Dare, Pang, Pope, Segal

Nays: Moore

Abstentions: Blair, Keys, Moskos

Minority statements are included in Appendix E

This recommendation is based on our conclusion that, in general, the ways in which the Services are currently conducting their training, including the gender formats, sustain mission readiness. This is supported by evidence from the visits conducted by the Commission to installations along the training continuum of each Service, including basic training (BT), advanced or technical training, one station unit training (Army OSUT), and operational units. It is also supported by results of the Commission-sponsored research. In this statement, we highlight just some of the supporting findings.

While all of the Services have much in common with each other, each is unique in many ways. They differ in mission, tradition, size, force structure, rank distribution, gender composition, and positions open to women. The differences combine to create different goals and needs in basic training. Rather than striving for uniformity across the Services in the degree of gender-integration in basic training, each Service should have structures and processes in basic training that are compatible with its characteristics. The continuum of training for each Service is currently, and should remain, based on its operational requirements.

The current gender formats in basic training are consistent with the current combat exclusion policies which the Commission accepted as a given. Men training for direct ground combat positions (Army and Marine Corps), that are open only to men, train in all-male units. Men and women training to serve in positions that are open to women do so in gender-integrated basic training units or in the rheostat approach practiced by the Marine Corps. In all cases, this creates a training environment that is as close as feasible to the operational environment in which these first-term personnel serve.

During visits to operational installations, commanders, senior enlisted personnel, and immediate supervisors of first-term personnel have informed us that they are generally satisfied with the vast majority of new Service members they are receiving from Initial Entry Training. This includes their sense that current gender formats in basic training are working well in preparing these young people for their first operational assignments. When asked if they would take these young men and women into battle, the vast majority of these leaders, without hesitation, said "Yes!"

When asked about their major issues, problems, and concerns, leaders did not mention gender until we asked specifically about gender issues. Rather, their major concerns center around sustainability. Throughout our visits to both basic training organizations and operating forces, we heard about the adverse effects of personnel shortages caused by downsizing and increased operational tempo (OPTEMPO). When asked what the Commission should tell the Congress, a mid-grade Marine officer clearly stated, "personnel or OPTEMPO, fix one or the other."

At the training bases, we did hear concerns about specific issues regarding gender-integrated training. However, we were struck by the generally positive attitudes expressed about training by both trainers and trainees, and the effective training that we observed.

We observed and had discussions with trainees in all phases of basic training, including graduation. We also observed recruits experiencing their "defining event" and were impressed with the transformation from civilian to soldier, sailor, airman, and Marine. With few exceptions, recruits said that the training was challenging and difficult. Most were quick to tell us that they had experienced significant changes as a result of the training experience in terms of self-confidence, physical fitness, trust in and respect for their Service, their fellow recruits, and most importantly, their leaders.

Trainers generally supported the basic training format for their respective Service. They emphasized the need for new recruits to learn the culture of their Service from the beginning. Most trainers in gender-integrated units opined that gender-integrated training is effective. They noted challenges and problems, but in the final analysis, they believed that the format was preferable. Similarly, trainers in gender-segregated units (male and female trainers in the Marine Corps and male trainers in the Army responsible for male recruits in the all-male combat arms) expressed their strong support for that format for basic training. Those trainers who expressed dissatisfaction with gender-integrated training tended to be those who were trainers during a period when significant changes were being made; thus, their daily "routine" was disrupted. The trainers who expressed more positive views of gender-integrated training tended to be those who became trainers after those changes.

Data collected by the Commission directly measured the effect of the current training format of each Service on the degree to which graduating recruits express attitudes of commitment, teamwork, and group identity. In general, the data show that the preferred training environment is the environment one experiences during recruit training. Our conclusion is supported by a great deal of additional evidence in observations and research that will be presented in the Commission's Final Report.

The observations of the Commission and the results of its research show conclusively that it is leadership and command climate that determines the success of Initial Entry Training. The degree of separation has less of an impact on the outcomes of basic training than does the behavior of the leaders. Experienced leaders are especially important. When they effectively communicate with their subordinate leaders, listen to the concerns and recommendations of their trainers, implement training and policy changes appropriately and consistently, their training environments are effective and consistent with the core values of the Service. It will continue to be these leaders and their command environment that sustain the mission readiness of the Services.

2. The Services should review their regulations and policies concerning gender relations, to insure that they are clearly stated, and with the aim of achieving consistency in practice across their training bases and throughout the training continuum.

  • Unanimous Approval

3. Initial Entry Training issues, to include gender, must continue to be discussed openly at all levels of the Services' chains of command and legitimate feedback (both positive and negative) from trainers must be encouraged and acted upon.

  • Unanimous Approval


Mr. Chairman, we thank you and the members of the Subcommittee for inviting us to appear before you today. Obviously, there is still work to be done, but the Final Report will be completed as expeditiously as possible. Meanwhile, we will be happy to answer any questions.



Congressional Commission on

Military Training and Gender-Related Issues

Commission Members

Source of Appointment

Anita K. Blair, Esq.*

Senate Armed Services Committee

Honorable Frederick F.Y. Pang** Senate Armed Services Committee
Nancy Cantor Ph.D. Senate Armed Services Committee
LtGen George R. Christmas, USMC (Ret.) House National Security Committee
CSM Robert A Dare, Jr., USA (Ret.) House National Security Committee
LtGen William M. Keys, USMC (Ret.) Senate Armed Services Committee
Thomas Moore House National Security Committee
Charles Moskos, Ph.D. Senate Armed Services Committee
Honorable Barbara Spyridon Pope House National Security Committee
Mady Wechsler Segal, Ph.D. House National Security Committee


**Vice Chairman


Born in Washington, D.C, Nov 15, 1950; married to Douglas Welty.

Education: B.A. (with high honors), University of Michigan 1971, J.D., University of Virginia School of Law, 1981. Executive Editor, Virginia Journal of International Law.

Bar Memberships: District of Columbia (1981) and Virginia (1988).

Public Appointment: Virginia Military Institute Board of Visitors (term: July 1,1995-June 30, 1999).

Attorney in Private Practice of Law: Co-founded Welty & Blair, P.C., in October 1991. Formerly associated with Brownstein Zeidman and Schomer (1981-1984) and Crowell & Moring (1984-1997), both Washington, D.C. law firms. Also, formerly Vice President and General Counsel, Precision Tune, Inc., Sterling, Virginia (1988-1991).

Areas of Concentration:

Constitutional Law, Nonprofit Corporations.

Executive Vice President and General Counsel of Independent Women's Forum Arlington, VA, (1992-present).

In addition to executive management duties oversee IWF's participation as amicus curiae in constitutional equal protection cases including United States v. Virginia (U.S. 1996); Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson (9th Cir. 1997 cert. denied 1997). Board of Education of the township of Piscataway v. Taxman (3d. Cir. 1996; U.S. appeal dismissed 1997); Cohen v. Brown University (1st Cir. 1996, cert. denied 1997).

Author and commentator on legal and economic issues concerning women, including affirmative action, "gender" issues, women in business, women in the military, single-sex education and violence against women.

Publications include articles in the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Washington Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times. Media appearances include CNN's Crossfire, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, NBC's Today Show, and PBS's NewsHour. Testimony before Congressional Committees. Frequent public speaking engagements.

Blair (cont'd)

Business Franchise, Licensing and Distribution Law.

Professional Associations:

American Bar Association Forum on Franchising (1981-present)

Virginia State Bar Section on Antitrust, Franchise and Trade Regulation (Member, Board of Governors, 1991-present; vice chairman 1997-1998).

International Bar Association Committee on International Franchising (1983-1996).

Union Internationale des Advocats Commission de la Franchise (Vice-President, 1988-1992).

Government/Industry Advisory Committees:

North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA) Franchise Advisory Committee (1990-1996).

American Arbitration Association Panel of Commercial Arbitrators (1985-present).

International Franchise Association Legal/Legislative Committee (Vice-Chairman, 1989-1990); Council of Franchise Suppliers(1991-1996).


Mr. Pang is the President and founder of Fred Pang Associates (FPA), Inc. FPA provides professional and technical services to business and government. These services include matters involving: the substance and processes of human resource management; corporate and business development; government relations; and the operation and management of healthcare systems.

Prior to founding FPA, Mr. Pang served as the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Force Management Policy. As Assistant Secretary he acted on matters pertaining to military and civilian manpower and personnel in the Department of Defense. In this position Mr. Pang had Defense-wide policy responsibility for the recruitment, training, career development, compensation, retention, quality of life, equal opportunity, and readiness of Defense personnel. In addition, Mr. Pang was designated as the Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness.

Previously Mr. Pang served as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Manpower and Reserve Affairs where he acted on matters pertaining to Navy and Marine Corps personnel, reserve, and medical policies and programs within the Department of the Navy.

Before his appointments in the Executive Branch, Mr. Pang served as a professional staff member on the Senate Armed Services Committee. In this key role, he exercised policy and legislative oversight on Defense-wide personnel, reserve, and medical programs.

Prior to joining the Senate Armed Services Committee, Mr. Pang served as a regular officer in the United States Air Force. He attained the grade of colonel before retiring with 27 years of service in 1986.

During his Air Force career, he served in a variety of operational and staff assignments including tours of duty in Vietnam, Headquarters United States Air Force, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In the Office of the Secretary of Defense, he served as the Director of Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management and as the Director of Compensation before he retired from active duty.

Mr. Pang grew up in Honolulu, Hawaii. He graduated from McKinley High School in 1954, and graduated from the University of Hawaii in 1958 with a Bachelors Degree in Education. He earned a Masters Degree in Business Administration in 1972 from the University of Hawaii under the Air Force Institute of Technology Civilian Institutions Scholarship Program, and completed the National and International Security Program at Harvard University in 1988.

Mr. Pang is married to Brenda W. I. Tom, of Honolulu, and they reside with their daughter, Susan, in Arlington, Virginia. Their son, Douglas, is a Lieutenant in the United States Navy. His mother, Mrs. Henry K. Pang, lives in Honolulu, Hawaii.


Dr. Cantor received her A.B. from Sarah Lawrence College in 1974 and her Ph.D. in Psychology at Stanford University in 1978. She currently serves as Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs at the University of Michigan. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Cantor served as Vice Provost for Academic Affairs-Graduate Studies and Dean of the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at the University of Michigan.

Prior to July, 1996 she served as Chair of the Department of Psychology and Professor of Psychology at Princeton University. Dr. Cantor spent ten years as a faculty member in the Department of Psychology and the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, serving as Associate Dean for Faculty Programs at the Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies from 1989-1991 when she left Michigan to join the faculty at Princeton. Among her many publications in the area of personality and social psychology, she has contributed a monograph with John Kihlstrom (Personality and Social Intelligence, 1987) and a recent review article (Life Task Problem Solving: Situational Affordances and Personal Needs, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1994). Dr. Cantor received the Distinguished Scientific Award for an Early Career Contribution to Psychology of the American Psychological Association (1985), and was President of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology (Division 8, APA 1992-1993). She has served as Associate Editor of Psychological Bulletin (1986-1989), Journal of Personality (1986-1988), and Personality and Social Psychology Review (1996-98).

Dr. Cantor has been a member of study sections and advisory boards at the National Science Foundation, and served on the task force that recommended establishing a new directorate of Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (1990-1991). She served as a member of the National Research Council Committee on National Needs in Biomedical and Behavioral Science Research (1992-1993), and as a member (1993-1996) and Vice-Chair of the National Research Council Committee on Women in Science and Engineering (1995-1996). She recently served as a member of the National Research Council Advisory Committee for the Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel (1997-1998), and is currently of the board of the Woodrow Wilson Fellowship Foundation.


Lieutenant General George R. Christmas retired from the U.S. Marine Corps on July 26, 1996. His last active duty assignment was as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington, D.C.

LtGen Christmas was born on March 11, 1940 in Philadelphia, PA. Upon graduation from the University of Pennsylvania with a B.A. degree in 1962, he was commissioned a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps Reserve through the NROTC program. He also holds a M.S. degree from Shippensburg University (1982).

After completion of The Basic School at Quantico, VA, LtGen Christmas was assigned as a platoon commander in Company L, 3d Battalion, 2d Marines, 2d Marine Division, Camp Lejeune, N.C. He later served as the Battalion Personnel Officer. While at Camp Lejeune, he was promoted to first lieutenant in December 1963. He augmented into the regular establishment in 1965.

In May 1965, he was assigned to the Marine Barracks, 8th & I Sts., S.E. Washington, D.C. where he served as the Executive Officer, and upon promotion to Captain in June 1966, as Commanding Officer, Headquarters and Service Company.

He transferred to the Republic of Vietnam in July 1967 where he served successively as Commanding Officer, Service Company, Headquarters Battalion, and Commanding Officer Company H, 2d Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division, FMF. During the Battle for Hue City, Tet '68, LtGen Christmas was severely wounded and evacuated to the Philadelphia Naval Hospital. For his actions in Hue City, he was awarded the Navy Cross.

After hospitalization, he was assigned to the staff of the Basic School, MCDEC, Quantico, VA, in October 1968 and subsequently attended the Amphibious Warfare School graduating with distinction. Following graduation in July 1969, he was assigned as an instructor at the U.S. Army's John F. Kennedy Institute for Military Assistance, Ft. Bragg, N.C.

Transferring to Headquarters Marine Corps, Washington D.C. in July 1971, LtGen Christmas served as the Special Assistant and Aide to the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, until April 1973. During his assignment at Headquarters, he was promoted to Major in February 1972.

He returned to The Basic School where he served successively as the Company Tactics Chief, Commanding Officer, Student Company A, and the Tactics Group Chief. From The Basic School, he transferred to the Marine Corps Command and Staff College as a student.

Christmas (cont'd)

LtGen Christmas returned overseas in July 1975, for duty as the Operations Officer and later, Executive Officer 3d Battalion, 4th Marines, 3rd Marine Division, FMF, on Okinawa. He transferred back to the States in August 1976 and was assigned as the Commanding Officer, Marine Barracks, Annapolis, MD. While there, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel in September 1978.

From August 1979 until May 1981, he was assigned as the Commanding Officer, First Recruit Training Battalion, Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C. He was selected to attend the Army War College at Carlisle Barracks, PA and participated in the Cooperative Degree Program at Shippensburg University, leading to his Master's Degree in Public Administration.

In July 1982, LtGen Christmas served for a year as a Naval Operations Officer, J3 Directorate, USCINCPAC. Camp H.M. Smith Hawaii, and upon selection to colonel assumed duties as Chief of Protocol, USCINCPAC. In September 1984, he was reassigned as Commanding Officer, 3rd Marine Regiment (Reinforced), 1st Marine Amphibious Brigade.

In July 1986, LtGen Christmas was assigned duty as Director, Amphibious Warfare School. While serving in this capacity, he was selected for promotion to brigadier general in December 1987. He was advanced to brigadier general on May 13, 1988 and assigned duty as the Assistant Division Commander, 3rd Marine Division, FMF/Commanding General, 9th Marine Expeditionary Brigade Okinawa, Japan in June 1988. He assumed command of the 3rd Force Service Support Group on August 18,1989. On 18 May 1990, he again took command of the 9th MEB in addition to his duties as Commanding General 3rd FSSG. He was advanced to Major General on June 27th, 1991.

General Christmas was assigned duty as the Director for Operations (J3), U.S. Pacific Command, Camp H.M. Smith Hawaii on July 26th 1991. He was advanced to Lieutenant General on July 8th 1993 and assumed duties as Commanding General, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, California the same day. On July 15, 1994, he assumed duties as the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

His personal decorations and medals include: the Navy Cross; Defense Distinguished Service Medal; Navy Distinguished Service Medal; Defense Superior Service Medal; Purple Heart; Meritorious Service Medal; and three gold stars in lieu of consecutive awards; the Army Commendation Medal and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry with palm.

Lieutenant General Christmas is married to the former Sherrill J. Lownds. They have four children, Tracy, Jim, Kevin and Brian. His current projects include being a

Christmas (cont'd)

Senior Mentor for Marine Corps and Joint Training; serving on various advisory boards; and as President, Marine Corps Heritage Foundation.


Command Sergeant Major Robert A. Dare Jr., USA (Ret.) was born in Lansing, Michigan on 9 September 1950. He joined the Army in June 1968 after graduation from high school. He served in numerous assignments during his 28 year career including tours with the 24th Infantry Division at Forts Riley and Stewart, the 23rd Infantry Division (AMERICAL), Republic of Viet Nam, the 82nd Airborne Division, the 25th Infantry Division, Hawaii and the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea.

CSM Dare served as a drill sergeant from 1974 to 1978 at Fort Ord, California and Fort Gordon, Georgia. He served as First Sergeant of Company A, the Commander in Chief's Guard, 3rd U.S. Infantry, The Old Guard, Washington D.C. from April 1983 through June 1986. He served as an instructor at the Operations and Intelligence course U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy, Fort Bliss, Texas, from January 1987 through December 1987. He served in every NCO leadership position from team leader through Command Sergeant Major. Including Command Sergeant Major, Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Corps Support Command, Wiesbaden, Germany, Sergeant Major, 5th Battalion (Mechanized), 8th Infantry Division, Germany. Command Sergeant Major 2nd Brigade, 8th lnfantry Division. Division Command Sergeant Major, 2nd Brigade 1st Armored Division.

In September of 1987 CSM Dare was selected to serve as Command Sergeant Major, 25th Infantry Division (light) and United States Army, Hawaii. He served in that position until 31 January, 1994 when he was selected to serve as Command Sergeant Major, United States Army, Pacific. In June 1995, CSM Dare was selected to serve as Command Sergeant Major, United States Army, Forces Command. He served in that position until his retirement on 1 July, 1996.

CSM Dare is a graduate of the 25th Infantry Division NCO Academy, Airborne School, Infantry Advanced NCO Course, Master Fitness Trainer, Operations and Intelligence Course and Class 28 of the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy. He has a liberal arts degree from St. Leo College. His awards and decorations include: the Combat Infantryman's Badge, the Distinguished Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star, the Meritorious Service Medal and the Army Commendation.

CSM Dare and his wife Karen, reside in Duluth, Georgia. Their son Matt is a Ph.D. Candidate at the University of Wyoming. Their daughter Wendi is married to Sergeant Shawne Maile, a New York State Trooper.

Since his retirement from the Army in 1996, CSM Dare (Ret.) has served as a Marketing Manager for an Atlanta-based technology company.


Lieutenant General William M. Keys (Ret.) was the Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Atlantic; Commanding General Fleet Marine Force, Atlantic; Commanding General II Marine Expeditionary Force; Commander, Marine Striking Force, Atlantic, Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, South (Designate); and the Commander, U.S. Marine Corps Forces, Europe (Designate). He was advanced to his present grade and assumed his duties on June 25, 1991.

A native of Fredericktown, PA, LtGen Keys was commissioned a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps upon his graduation from the U.S. Naval Academy with a B.S. degree in June 1960. His professional education includes The Basic School; Amphibious Warfare School and the Command and Staff College, all at Quantico, VA. LtGen Keys is also a graduate of the National War College in Washington, D.C. and holds a M.S. degree from American University and an honorary Ph.D. in Public Service from Washington and Jefferson College.

Designated an Infantry officer, LtGen Keys has served at every level of operational command: initially as a platoon leader with 3d Battalion, 2d Marine Regiment; as a company commander with the 1st Battalion, 9th Marine Regiment in Vietnam; as Commanding Officer, 3d Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment; as Regimental Commander of the 6th Marines; and as Commanding General, 2d Marine Division during DESERT STORM combat operations in Southwest Asia. There he led the Division in its successful assault across the Kuwaiti border, breaching Iraqi barriers and minefields, and into Kuwait City. He also served an early tour with the Marine Detachment aboard the USS Long Beach, and a second tour in Vietnam as an advisor

to the Vietnamese Marine Corps.

He has held the following principal staff assignments: Infantry Officers' Monitor, Personnel Management Division, Headquarters Marine Corps, Marine Corps Liaison Officer to the US. Senate; Special Projects Directorate in the Office of the Commandant; Aide de Camp to the Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps; Deputy Director, and subsequently Director, Personnel Management Division, Manpower and Reserve Affairs Department, HQMC; and the Deputy, Joint Secretariat, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, D.C.

LtGen Keys' decorations and medals include: the Navy Cross; Distinguished Service Medal with one star, Defense Distinguised Service Medal, Silver Star Medal; Legion of Merit with Combat "V"; Bronze Star with Combat "V'; Defense Meritorious Service Medal; Combat Action Ribbon; Presidential Unit Citation; Navy Unit Commendation; Meritorious Unit Commendation; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze stars: Southwest Asia Service Medal with three bronze stars; Republic of Viet Nam Cross of Gallantry with Palm and Silver Star; Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal (First Class); Republic of Vietnam

Keys (cont'd)

Meritorious Unit Citation (Gallantry Cross Color); Republic of Vietnam Meritorious Unit Citation (Civil Actions Color); the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal, and Kuwait Liberation Medal.


Thomas Moore is a Washington-based writer, military historian, and national security analyst. Currently, he is Director of International Studies (formally, Director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Center for International Studies) at The Heritage Foundation, one of America's leading public policy research institutions. He is responsible for the day-to-day management of national defense and foreign policy studies. Prior to joining Heritage, he was a Professional Staff Member on the Armed Services Committee of the United States Senate, where he was responsible for defense policy, global strategy, inter-national security, and military operations abroad. Before taking the Committee staff position, he was Senator Malcolm Wallop's (R-WY) chief aide on defense and foreign policy, and served six years in the Reagan Administration, ending his Executive branch service in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

A native of Charleston, South Carolina, Moore was graduated from The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina; studied in France under the Fulbright program, and earned a Masters degree in national security affairs from Georgetown University. He has lived in Europe, speaks French and German; and has traveled throughout the Middle East, Russia, the Far Fast, the Caribbean, and South America. He was an Army Reserve officer (Major, Armor), and held numerous troop unit and staff assignments in the U.S. and Germany.


Charles Moskos is professor of sociology at Northwestern University at Evanston, Illinois where he holds the Anderson Chair in the College of Arts and Sciences. He received his bachelor's degree, cum laude, at Princeton University in 1956. After graduation from college, he served as a draftee in the U.S, Army combat engineers in Germany. Following his military service, he attended the University of California at Los Angeles where he received his Ph.D. in 1963. Since 1988, he has been chairman of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society.

Professor Moskos is the author of many books including The American Enlisted Man, The Military-More than Just a Job? Soldiers and Sociologists, The New Conscientious Objection, A Call to Civic Service, and Reporting War when there is No War. His latest book (with John Butler), All That We Can Bear, Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way, has attracted national political attention and won the Washington Monthly award for the best political book of 1997. In addition to over one hundred articles in scholarly journals, he has published pieces in the New York Times, The Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, and The New Republic. His writings have been translated into fourteen languages.

The Wall St. Journal calls Dr. Moskos the nation's "most influential military sociologist.' His research has taken him to combat units in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Germany, Panama, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia, Dr. Moskos testifies frequently before Congress on issues of military personnel policy. He was appointed by George Bush to the President's Commission on Women in the Military (1992). In 1993, he advised Nelson Mandela on ways to racially integrate a post-apartheid military in South Africa. In 1994, President Clinton cited Professor Moskos on national television in announcing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy on homosexuals in the military and again in 1996 as the inspiration for his national service program.

The Department of Defense awarded Dr. Moskos a medal for his research in DESERT SHIELD/STORM. He holds the Distinguished Service Medal the U.S. Army's highest decoration for a civilian. Dr. Moskos has also been decorated by the governments of France and the Netherlands for his international research on armed forces and society. Dr. Moskos has appeared on national television numerous times including Night Line, Cross Fire, and Larry King Live.

Charles Moskos has been a Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, an Annenberg Fellow, and a Guggenheim Fellow. He is listed In Who's Who in America and Who's Who in the World.


Barbara Spyridon Pope is president of The Pope Group, a management firm committed to developing client-tailored programs in the areas of human resource management and government liaison. She is a management expert with 20 years of leadership experience, who serves as a Title VII expert for the Department of Justice. Pope is certified as a federal mediator and as an administrator of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator.

The Pope Group has successfully assisted its clients in the design, development and implementation of innovative programs to address executive development, leadership, work force "diversity," sexual harassment and other management issues. Mrs. Pope has an extensive record of developing creative solutions to difficult problems and coalescing disparate groups to generate unified policies.

Mrs. Pope utilizes the Ethical Arts Players, a unique educational performing troupe of skilled professional actors, to present real-life workplace situations involving harassment, diversity, ethics and other leadership issues. In contrast to traditional lectures and panel formats, presenting hypothetical scenarios using dramas comedy and improvisation allows the most subtle and complex issues to be raised. This format has proven to turn the most dreaded training seminars into memorable sessions that are as effective as they are popular.

The first female Assistant Secretary and senior female in the Navy's 217 year history, Mrs. Pope served from 1989 to 1993. She was responsible for recruiting, educating, housing, childcare, medical delivery, and discipline for the nation's sailors, Marines, civilians and their families.

As the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Family Support, Education and Safety), from 1986 to 1989, Mrs. Pope was responsible for the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (ninth largest U.S. school), the Family Policy Office, the DOD Explosive Safety Board, and the Safety and Occupational Health Policy Office. Prior to 1986, Mrs. Pope served as the Acting Chief of Staff for the Small Business Administration and the Executive Director to President Reagan's Advisory Committee on Women Business Ownership. She began her career on Capitol Hill on Senator Barry Goldwater's staff.

Mrs. Pope is a frequent speaker for conferences, seminars, television and radio including CNN, McNeil/Lehrer, Crossfire, National Public Radio, Canadian Public Radio, Australian Dateline and the Larry King Radio Show.


While Mady Wechsler Segal has spent most of professional life in the academic world, in positions ranging from Lecturer on Sociology at Eastern Michigan University to Professor of Sociology and Associate Dean at the University of Maryland, her career has been punctuated by involvement with the American armed forces over a twenty-five year period.

*In 1973-1974--the first years of the volunteer force--she was a Senior Research Scientist at the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences conducting research on manpower accession.

*From 1980-1982 she was a Research Sociologist and from 1982-1990, she was a Guest Scientist in the Department of Military Psychiatry, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, conducting research on military families and on women in the military.

*In 1981-1983, she was a member of the U.S. Delegation to the Committee on Women in the NATO Forces.

*From 1983-1989 she was a member of the National Research Council/Academy of Sciences Committee on the Performance of Military Personnel which dealt with the appropriateness of criteria used to select and assign first-term occupational specialties.

*In 1988-1989, she was Distinguished Visiting Professor in the Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the United States Military Academy, West Point.

*In 1992-1993, she served as a Human Resource Consultant Army, to the Secretary of the Army, advising the Secretary on issues of diversity.

*From 1993-1994, she served as a special assistant to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, dealing with family separation of soldiers on peacekeeping missions.

*In 1996, the President of the United States appointed her to the Board of Visitors of the United States Military Academy, West Point. In 1997, she was appointed to the executive committee of the West Point Board of Visitors.

*In 1996-1997, the Secretary of the Army appointed her as a consultant to the

Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel on Sexual Harassment.

*In 1998, she was appointed by the U.S. House of Representatives to the

Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues

Segal (cont'd)

In addition to numerous academic honors, in 1989 Professor Segal was awarded the Department of the Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal. Professor Segal currently serves as Associate Director of the Center for Research on Military Organization at the University of Maryland.

Mady Wechsler Segal earned her Ph.D. at the University of Chicago. She is Professor of Sociology at the University of Maryland, faculty affiliate of the Women's Studies Program and the Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM), and Associate Director of the Center for Research on Military Organization. Professor Segal was appointed by President Clinton to a 3-year term on the Board of Visitors of the U.S. Military Academy in 1996. She has been Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies at the University of Maryland, a guest scientist at the Walter Read Army Institute of Research, and a visiting Professor at the United States Military Academy, West Point. She has served as chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee for the U.S. Army Research Institutes Army Family Research Program, as a member of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on the Performance of Military Personnel, as a Human Resource Consultant to the Secretary of the Army, as a Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, and as a consultant to the Army's Senior Review Panel an Sexual Harassment. She is currently on the Council of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society (IUS), on the Executive Committee of the Research Committee on Armed Forces and Conflict Resolution of the International Sociological Association, and the Council of the Section on Peace and War of the American Sociological Association.

Mady Segal's recent research has focussed on military personnel issues, with particular attention to military women and military families. She is currently studying family impacts of peacekeeping duty for reserve and National Guard soldiers. Her publications include "Value Rationales in Policy Debates on Women in the Military: A Content Analysis of Congressional Testimony, 1941-1985". (Social Science Quarterly, 1992;) 'The Military and the Family as Greedy Institutions" (Armed Forces and Society, 1986); "Military Women in NATO" (Armed Forces and Society, 1988); 'The Nature of Work and Family Linkages: A Theoretical Perspective" (in Bowen and Orthner, eds. The Organization Family, 1989): 'Women's Military Roles Cross-Nationally: Past, Present, and Future" (Gender and Society, 1995): and "Gender Integration in Armed Forces: Recent Policy Developments in the United Kingdom' (Armed Forces & Society, 1996). Dr. Segal is the primary author of a report for military leaders on the policy implications of research findings on military families. ("What We Know About Army Families") and a co-author of How to Support Families during Overseas Deployments: A Sourcebook for Service Providers (both published by the Army Research Institute). She has written (with David R. Segal) a book on Peacekeepers and their Wives. She has a chapter on "Gender and the Military" forthcoming in the Handbook of Gender Sociology (edited by Janet Chafetz).

Segal (cont'd)

Among the courses Professor Segal teaches at the University of Maryland are Military Sociology, Women in the Military, Military Families, and Introductory Statistics for Sociology. She was named Distinguished Scholar-Teacher in 1985, and was honored as the university's Outstanding Woman Faculty Member in 1988. In 1994 she was awarded the first Teaching Mentorship Award by the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences. She holds the Department of the Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal. She was named the 1994 Helen MacGill Hughes Lecturer on Women and Social Change by Sociologists for Women in Society.








PUBLIC LAW 105-85, SEC. 562.(e)(2)



January 25, 1999

Ms. Anita K. Blair


Congressional Commission on Military Training

and Gender-Related Issues

1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 940

Arlington, Virginia 22202-3283

Dear Chairman Blair:

In your correspondence dated December 31, 1998 you requested that I respond to two questions ((O) and (P)) set forth in Section 562(e)(2) of your charter. I appreciate the opportunity to provide my views on these important issues. The questions and responses are set forth below:

(O) Assess the feasibility and implications of conducting basic training (or equivalent training) at the company level and below through separate units for male and female recruits, including the costs and other resource commitments required to implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and the implications for readiness and unit cohesion.

While it may be feasible to conduct basic combat training at the company level and below through separate units for male and female recruits, it would be detrimental to readiness and cohesion and result in increased costs during a time of constrained resources.

The U.S. Army trains in segregated units in those military occupational specialties (MOSs) that are not open to women. Virtually all of our combat MOS soldiers (about 30 thousand a year) are trained in a gender-segregated environment. Therefore, the question for the Army is the feasibility, costs, and implications of training men and women in separate units with respect to those combat support and combat service support MOSs in which both men and women serve.

Empirical studies show that women perform better, and men perform equally well, in gender-integrated basic combat training. Moreover, gender-integrated training is an important part of the soldierization process for soldiers who will serve in gender-integrated units.

Basic combat training is a critical period of time when we transform young men and women into soldiers. During this time, the ratio of leaders (drill sergeants) to soldiers is higher than at any other point in a soldier's career. During this period, soldiers must learn "the rules" of being on the Army team, including treating every soldier, regardless of race, gender, or creed, as a valued member of the team. Our experience is very clear-it is best to begin from "day one" learning acceptable behavior

for the environment our soldiers will face daily, throughout their term of service. Postponing the integration of male and female soldiers only defers this responsibility to either advanced individual training or our operational units. There is no reason to believe that "later" is an easier or better time to introduce this concept. Indeed, there is reason to believe it is the wrong time.

Segregated training creates perceptions of inequality of desire, ability, and achievement. It runs counter to the imperatives of teamwork and cohesion, which are at the heart of why soldiers are willing to sacrifice for each other. In other words, perceived inequality erodes unit cohesion and tears at the spirit of a fighting force. Integrated training causes soldiers to learn to rely on each other and builds confidence in each other's training and abilities. The Army cannot afford to foster in its new soldiers the prejudices that can result from segregated training.

Separating trainees at the company level and below virtually eliminates gender- integrated training. Indeed, basic combat training is primarily conducted at the platoon level and below. Gender segregation by company or platoon would create two separate and different training experiences, resulting in the perception that the others training was inferior-competition and divisiveness would likely replace cooperation and team spirit.

The cost of segregating basic training units depends on the level at which the segregation occurs. Gender segregation at the company level only minimally increases facility costs, but significantly increases operating costs. At the platoon level, the facilities cost is significant. After a preliminary analysis of the training load, the Army estimates it would require approximately an additional $271 million (M) to house recruits in a segregated manner at platoon level. The breakout is as follows:

Location No. & Type of Building Cost

Fort Jackson 2 Starships $90M

Fort Leonard Wood 2 Starships $90M

1 Modified Starship (RS) $23M

Fort Sill 1 Starship $45M

1 Modified Starship (RS) $23M


Notes: Starship: Building with 5 wings with platoon areas separated by

doors that may be secured. Usually a 3-story building.

RS: Reception Station.

1 Starship Barracks costs approximately $45M.

1 Modified Starship Barracks costs approximately $23M.

Segregating male and female recruits by company does not allow for the full and best utilization of the barracks or manpower. During the summer months, when the greatest numbers of recruits undergo basic training, the gender composition of the new recruit classes is not predictable. With fixed, gender-segregated facilities, logistical and morale problems would result when one group is crowded and the other has more

space, or when large groups of trainees and drill sergeants experience significant down time while awaiting sufficient soldiers to fill a gender-segregated company. Equity of treatment is important when recruits are struggling to adjust to the rigors of the basic training environment. Furthermore, a workload imbalance in gender-segregated training will create divisiveness between the cadres of the segregated companies.

(P) Assess the feasibility and implications of requiring drill instructors for basic training units to be of the same sex as the recruits in those units if the basic training were to be conducted as described in subparagraph (0).

Army readiness will be degraded if drill sergeants are required to be of the same sex as their trainees. Implementing such a proposal would require a significant increase in the number of women assigned as drill sergeants and a decrease in women serving in operational units. The alternative, recruiting fewer women, is unacceptable.

The Army would have to move female non-commissioned officers (NCOs) from operational units to assignments as drill sergeants. The Army is already struggling with a complex array of personnel readiness challenges, including a shortage of as many as 6,000 NCOs. Pulling qualified female leaders out of the field will create turbulence in our personnel system and exacerbate the skill imbalances caused by the shortage of NCOs. Additionally, it would create MOS shortfalls in such skills as Signal, Quartermaster, Military Intelligence and Ordnance that cannot be filled by displaced male NCO drill sergeants holding primarily combat arms MOS. In short, requiring drill sergeants to be the same sex as their trainees will have a profound, detrimental impact on the readiness of our warfighting units at a time when they are already contending with serious readiness challenges.

We estimate the Army will require 245 additional female drill sergeants if drill sergeants are required to be the same sex as their recruits. We simply do not have enough female NCOs to assign to the training base without depleting the ranks of female soldiers from the operational jobs that represent their primary military mission. To do so would impact their opportunities, morale, and willingness to serve.

Additionally, the separation of drill sergeants by gender would negatively affect the training of women soldiers. In the majority of cases, basic training is our sole opportunity to establish a baseline training of combat skills by a mix of drill sergeants from the combat, combat support and combat service support branches. Separating women drill sergeants, to train women recruits, takes from that mix the combat arms experience that we deliberately intersperse into our training base. This does a disservice to both the female soldiers trained, the drill sergeants training them, and the operational units that will receive them after training. Additionally, restricting female drill sergeants to training female recruits precludes male recruits from experiencing female leadership and authority-an experience that is important for all soldiers, but especially for those recruits who grew up in male-oriented environments.


The United States Army has been successful on the battlefield and in countless other missions the Army is asked to perform around the world. This success is the direct result of the skills and teamwork of trained and ready soldiers.

Without question, the Army's method of integrated training produces world class soldiers for our country. The commissioned and noncommissioned officers who will be called to lead these soldiers in combat are convinced they are doing gender-integrated training right and respectfully ask to be able to continue to train in the manner they think best: in the manner they will fight.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to provide my views and I hope that as the Commission completes this difficult but important work, its recommendation will preserve the Army's flexibility to train America's soldiers in the way experience has taught us works best.





WASHINGTON, D.C. 20350-1000

22 JAN 1999

The Honorable Anita K. Blair

Chairman, Congressional Commission on Military Training and

Gender-Related Issues

1235 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 940

Arlington, VA 22202-3283

Dear Madam Chairperson:

Thank you for your letters of December 31, 1998 to the Secretary of the Navy requesting information from Navy and Marine Corps pertinent to your final set of hearings on 28-29 January 1999. Service responses appear as enclosures to this letter.

ASN (M&RA) points of contact are CDR E. Carson, 693-0696, and LCDR D. Goodwin, 693-0229. If I may be of further assistance, please let me know.



Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Manpower

and Reserve Affai



H. R. 1119. 562 (b) (2) (o) - Assess the feasibility and implications of conducting basic training (or equivalent training) at the company level and below through separate units for male and female recruits, including the costs and other resource commitments required to implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and the implications for readiness and unit cohesion.

Recruit Training Command, Great Lakes does not have the facilities, land or manning to accommodate segregation of genders at the recruit and staff levels. Based on existing facilities, the minimum cost for separate recruit training facilities is in excess of $350M. This does not include the cost for acquisition of land, nor the utility infrastructure required to support these new facilities.

The gender integrated recruit training environment has been established as the Navy's most effective means to best prepare Sailors to live, deploy, operate, fight, and win aboard gender integrated ships and squadrons. The rigorous evolution prepares the recruit for follow-on training and ultimate assignment to fleet service. The process ensures the recruit is physically

and mentally ready for the rigors of the fleet environment by instilling discipline and proper behavior and emphasizing wellness and physical fitness. Each recruit must demonstrate dedication, teamwork and endurance through practical application of basic Navy skills and Core Values of Honor, Courage and Commitment.

Early experiences are relevant. Recruits are taught from day one that the Navy's business is to deploy and to arrive on station ready to fight. The initial training program is designed to enable men and women to report to their first ship/squadron fully prepared to meet that challenge. The Navy's basic training requirements and objectives maximize training opportunities for replicating life aboard fleet operational units and instilling and enforcing the warrior's ethos of sacrifice, endurance, teamwork and dedication. The CNO directed, Recruit Training Blue Ribbon Panel reinforced this training philosophy in 1993. The panel determined that the Navy's gender integrated training, which had begun in 1992, was very successful in promoting professional relationships between men and women. The unique relationship established during recruit training between shipmates is exclusive of gender, and is an essential contributor to follow-on Navy unit cohesion.

Deferring gender-integration until after recruit training transfers the burden to the fleet or follow-on technical training commands. If the Navy forestalls gender integration of its Sailors until they enter the fleet or begin follow-on technical training, the impact at Recruit Training Command would be as follows:

Gender Segregated Berthing and Facilities. Based on projected female accessions, gender segregated berthing at RTC Great Lakes would require the use of three barracks buildings. Extensive modifications of existing structures would be necessary. The estimated cost for these renovations would be $1.1M.

Separate training creates numerous scheduling and facility utilization inefficiencies. There will be built in inefficiencies of berthing assignments, classroom utilization, etc., due to arrival numbers and population onboard. Two sets of classrooms, labs, instructors, etc., would have to be used to support gender segregation when only one would be necessary with integrated divisions. During surge months (May-November), boot camp capabilities are stretched to the limit. Scheduling must be even more precise. Gender segregated berthing would create unoccupied spaces at the time when space is needed most.

Manning. Gender segregation would require a significant increase in female RDC billets (from 88 to 114). The Navy is already severely challenged to provide numbers of female RDCs for current operations; there simply are not enough females available for this demanding duty.

Training. Gender segregated training at the division level and below would impose dramatic limitations on the existing training plan. Currently, classroom instruction is provided for two divisions simultaneously, regardless of gender, and is scheduled based on the divisions' DOT for the particular lesson being taught. Segregating training by gender would impose inefficiency when odd numbers of male or female divisions require instruction on the same lesson topics. Fourteen additional instructors would be required to provide adequate training in the Naval Orientation, Fire Fighting and Seamanship courses. To facilitate single- division instruction, two additional fire fighting classrooms would be required (approximate cost $1.2M). To facilitate training of basic seamanship skills, construction of a second Marlinespike trainer (ship mock-up) would be required (approximate cost $1.4M) or a reduction in the amount of hands-on training currently provided would be necessary. These basic skills are used extensively during Battle

Stations; a reduction in the amount of hands-on training would significantly degrade the recruit's ability to successfully complete this culminating event of recruit training.

Training separately, in areas such as fire fighting, would deprive recruits of the team building that is essential for warfighting readiness. Navy ships do not employ separate male and female fire fighting parties. Many recruits are only weeks away from assignment to deployed units and squadrons. Gender integration in training labs and during Battle Stations allows all recruits to develop the synergy required for working in gender integrated units. In post-Battle Stations surveys of recruits the male recruits reported having learned analytical skills from female counterparts; females reported having learned to develop and use their physical strengths.

Readiness and Unit Cohesion. In 1987 and 1990, noting the increasing need to improve integration of women into the fleet, SECNAV directed initial and follow-on Navy Women's Study Groups. The 1990 study indicated that "non-acceptance of women began at the training centers;" this finding prompted implementation of a 1992 pilot program to integrate accession training in Orlando.

Habitability considerations are the sole factor in determining moments assignability to combatant ships. As a result, even in peacetime as a routine part of the Navy's forward-presence responsibilities around the world, men and women live and work in close proximity, sharing the unique challenges of serving aboard a warship.

Navy recruit training is designed to minimize differences between recruits; they must meet the same performance standards. The only required variant is physical readiness testing. Navy physical fitness standards for both age and gender apply to all Service members. The standards were recently revised to make the minimum standards for the female run more challenging, in line with male standards. All recruits are required to pass the Navy's physical fitness test with a score of 'good' or better in each category (pushups, curl-ups and run), based on the standards for the recruit's age and gender.

The morale of a unit is a function primarily of the leadership of that unit. Gender integrated training commenced in FY95. Graduates of this format are 'first-termers" (our most junior personnel), who have not yet assumed positions of leadership, and whose influence on the morale of a unit would be minimal.

However, since these individuals are so junior, they are ideally positioned to be positively influenced by both male and female role models and respected leaders. This influence is essential in preparing recruits to become Sailors who will progress through their Naval careers and gradually assume higher positions of leadership. Following their experience as Recruit Division Commanders and Instructors, experienced Petty Officers return to fleet leadership positions, where they can continue to convey the positive aspects of gender integrated training.

The Navy has found the integrated training experience ideal to train recruits for the integrated environment they will meet in the fleet.

H. R. 1119.562 (b) (2) (p) - Assess the feasibility and implications of requiring drill instructors for basic training unit to be of the same sex as the recruits in those units if the basic training were to be conducted as described in subparagraph (O).

To be fully prepared to enter an operational unit, Sailors must understand, from day one, that the Navy is gender integrated throughout all levels of the chain of command. It is essential that RDCs be allowed to train recruits of the opposite gender. It is useful both for the men and the women to see women in authority positions and as valued and qualified instructors throughout the recruit training environment. Without exposure to an RDC of the opposite sex (whether it is male or female) the training foundation could be adversely impacted and ultimately impact the development of unity, trust and teamwork.

Gender segregation would require a significant increase in the number of female RDCs (from 88 to 114) assigned to Great Lakes for duty.





29 JANUARY 1999

Good morning, Madame Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Commission. In response to part one of your 31 December, 1998, letter regarding "revisions or updates" to initial entry level training, we can simply say that we have made no changes since our brief to you in June, 1998. You have seen our training at the Recruit Deports, Schools of Infantry and some of our MOS producing schools. Nothing has changed since your visits and we do not anticipate making any changes in the foreseeable future.

In part two, you asked for an assessment of the "feasibility and implications" of training men and women in separate units at the company level and below. As you well know, we have historically done just that and we continue to do it that way today. You also asked about "requiring Drill Instructors…to be the same sex as the recruit." Again, as you know, that is how we conduct our gender segregated recruit training at the Marine Corps Recruits Depot, Parris Island, South Carolina.

For us then, there are no assessments to make. As a result, I am prepared to answer your questions.



JAN 2 7 1999

Ms. Anita K. Blair

Chairman, Congressional Commission on Military and Training

and Gender-Related Issues

Dear Ms. Blair:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide an assessment regarding the feasibility and implications of providing separate basic military training for male and female recruits at the flight level and below in separate units. Our response covers the issues of readiness and unit cohesion, as well as the feasibility and implications of requiring drill instructors to be of the same sex as the recruits.

Since this is a final request for information and culminates your inquiry, our expanded response provides a restatement of our training philosophy, a historical perspective, as well as the specific information requested in the congressional language. We believe you will find this a useful summary of the Air Force position on gender integration throughout our training continuum and into our operational units.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to your questions. We have and will continue to support the efforts of your commission in this most important inquiry.


Air Force Response

Air Force Response

to the

Congressional Commission on Military Training

and Gender Related Issues


Required by PL 105-85, Section 562(b)(2) and (e)(2), and at the behest of the Congressional Commission, the Air Force was asked to provide a written assessment regarding the feasibility and implications of conducting basic training at the flight level and below through separate units for male and female recruits. The response is required to include an assessment of the costs and other resource commitments required to implement and conduct basic training in such a manner and the implications for readiness and unit cohesion.

Also, we were asked to assess the feasibility and implications of requiring drill instructors for basic training units to be of the same sex as the recruits in those units if the basic training were to be conducted as described in the previous paragraph.


During the 1970s, the number of women in the military began to increase as a result of changing societal views on the role of women in America and the transition of the military to an all-volunteer force. The Air Force faced labor force constraints brought about by the abolition of conscription in 1973. Women began to enter the Air Force in increasing numbers after the inauguration of the all-volunteer force, and this was consistent with the rise of women in the U.S. labor force, which also began a sustained increase in the 1970s.

The rising number of women meant that the investment in training women in a segregated environment was growing proportionately. The senior leadership of the Air Force noted that continuance of separate, redundant systems of basic training required overlapping organizational structures, facilities, and training cadre that were both inefficient and costly. While records are not exact on documenting the reason for going to integrated training, it was intuitive that it was a more efficient way to employ our training resources and more economical to develop and maintain the supporting infrastructure (i.e., training staff, living quarters, classrooms, etc.).

Over time our process has evolved and has been institutionalized and instilled in our philosophy which is, " we train the way we operate/fight". . . integrated from day one. We now have more than twenty years of experience with gender integrated training and our training effectiveness measures indicate it works well. Today, approximately 35,000 raw recruits begin basic training each year. Last year, 8.3 percent did not graduate from basic training and an additional 5-6 percent failed to make the cut in technical school, for various reasons. This is in line with historical averages and the best success rate in DoD.

The implications of gender separate training

The current rationale for the use of gender integrated Basic Military Training (BMT) is based on the fact that readiness is impacted by our airmen's ability to conduct themselves appropriately at all times, especially under stressful conditions. Appropriate conduct involves accepting opposite gender airmen as both peers and leaders. It involves knowing how to interact with the opposite sex, because our operational environments are also mixed gender; and it involves being able to discipline one's self in the conduct of professional relationships so that personal behavior does not impair unit discipline or mission accomplishment. Foundations are built at the beginning, not in the middle or at the end of any construction process. Therefore, the Air Force prefers gender integrated basic training in order to teach and reinforce these standards of appropriate conduct from the first day of duty. From this starting point we establish a strong and correct foundation upon which to build further training and insure that the highest possible level of Mission Ready Airmen (MRA) arrive at operational units.

Young recruits of opposite gender may well be challenged to focus on training and to maintain a professional decorum. But singling out sexuality as too difficult or distracting to control during basic training sends the wrong message to recruits. It also argues that, if it's too difficult to do during basic training, in a tightly controlled training environment, it will be far more difficult in advanced skill training or when they are manning critical positions in operational units.

We also feel it is essential to expose both men and women to female Military Training Instructors (MTIs) during basic training. This not only affords a positive role model for women but also allows young men to accept the fact that women will routinely and successfully occupy high positions throughout the USAF rank structure. Mixed gender flight formations promote inter-gender teamwork, training standardization, and a mutual acceptance of each other as peers.

The implication of a gender segregated training environment is to risk losing the opportunity to expose our recruits to the reality of military life from a social and operational perspective from the first day of active duty.

Implications for readiness and unit cohesion

Trainees who can demonstrate gender discipline and work well with members of the opposite sex are more ready to operate in a gender integrated environment. Gender integrated training operations are consistent with Air Force employment and deployment scenarios, and because this is so, basic training is the best preparation for professional life. Since 99 percent of our career fields are open to women, they stand shoulder to shoulder with male airmen daily in the routine execution of our mission. To conduct basic training in a segregated environment, therefore, would be to prepare trainees for a false reality and thus would place a burden on operational units to expose and re-educate new airmen about technical and operational
environments. The impact of gender segregated basic training would be to shift the burden of making airmen "mission ready" from BMT to technical schools and first duty stations.

BMT shares a training continuum with advanced schools, so another measure of merit with regard to the current practice of gender integrated training is the technical school's survey of their graduate effectiveness as evaluated by operational units. Of all who graduate basic and advanced training, 94 percent are rated satisfactory or higher by their first line supervisors in both job-related skills and military bearing. This suggests that graduates of our schools are extremely well prepared to make a positive contribution to unit readiness.

Also, as previously discussed, the evidence supporting a positive link between our decades-long practice of gender integrated training is our long record of success across the spectrum of operations. This is no accident. Gender integrated training ensures airmen are

better prepared for the challenges of the real Air Force when trained as they will operate--in units that are diverse in nature. The training requirements for basic training are similar to those of operational units because our Service employs reality-based training scenarios whenever possible in order to demonstrate learning objectives. Separating the genders in events such as our field training exercise, confidence course, M-16 qualification, and soon to be implemented Warrior Week would impact resource scheduling and imply different standards and a different culture for men and women.

Finally, gender integrated basic training has been validated and linked to readiness by the BMT Review Committee whose members are senior officers and enlisted personnel throughout the Air Force. Every aspect of the basic training Plan of Instruction (POI) is based on operational requirements which are established and validated by line officer and enlisted senior leadership through the BMT Review (a sort of board of directors) which is accomplished at least every three years.

Implications for safety and security

The Air Force approaches the security and safety of its new recruits with the same seriousness it applies to training. Again, we start early in BMT teaching the discipline of living and training together so problems with distraction can be corrected early. Strong, well-trained leadership and good discipline policy, not reorganizing, is the key to producing MRA. Our data show no evidence of discipline problems as evidenced by the fact that less than one in thirty-four hundred BMT airmen (0.03%) have had misconduct requiring UCMJ discipline.

In BMT, security is tight in the one thousand person living quarters with strict, but fair, rules of social conduct and access control. Men and women live in separate bays and are separated by steel doors, locks, and permanent party monitors twenty-four hours per day. Control rosters and identification badges limit access to the building and routine/random inspections are performed to ensure compliance. BMT leadership is actively involved to ensure trainee security and safety and hold the permanent party personnel and students themselves accountable to properly manage the barracks' security programs. Security is a top priority, and we continue to seek new and innovative ways, with enhanced technology, to improve.

While BMT's billeting procedures do not put male and female recruits in totally separate buildings, we believe the gender separation by floor or bays, coupled with strict entry procedures and validated by the very low rate of disciplinary actions, meet the highest standards reasonably possible to ensure safety and security for our trainees. There is no evidence that providing separate living quarters for men and women will provide a measurable improvement in the safety or security for our recruits.

Cost and resource commitments and resulting inefficiencies

Gender integrated basic training fosters more effective and efficient resource management. Conversely, gender separate training would impose artificial barriers to resource effectiveness. A good example may be found in dormitory utilization.

Each of our squadrons is housed in a self-contained facility, which sleeps up to 1,000 trainees, referred to as Recruit Housing and Training Facilities (RH&T). With the activation of the 324th Training Squadron on 1 March 1999, BMT will utilize six of the seven available facilities. The unused RH&T will be rotated until the remaining three RH&Ts can complete renovation in FY02. In the short term, placing males and females in separate facilities would require use of the seventh RH&T and would preclude this phase renovation program from being completed. Long term, it would result in under-utilization and uneconomical dorm loading since only 26 percent of recruits are women. It is estimated that gender segregated training would result in approximately a 65 percent average occupancy rate.

In addition, the cost to activate a new facility is roughly estimated to be $1.4M. The annual operating cost would be $1.3M. Finally, we would also need two officers and four enlisted personnel to staff an additional command structure.

Human resource commitments and implications of requiring drill instructors to be the same sex as their recruits.

Modern notions of human resource management involve selecting, training, and employing people with the right talent/job match. A segregated training environment would force us to put trainees into student leadership positions based on gender and not on the best use of their potential. It would make us assign MTIs according to gender and not best utilization. It could lead to the widening of gaps between genders in the standardization of their training and in their readiness to meet Air Force standards and would not be reflective of operational realities.

It would also pose training force management barriers and place disproportionate burdens on the training cadre. For example, it is feasible to provide same sex drill instructors. However, to do this, we would have to restrict our assignment of female training instructors at flight level positions due to staffing constraints. Currently, women comprise 18 percent of the USAF. Female MTIs make up 18 percent of our cadre. However, currently 27 percent of the basic trainee population is female. Assignment restriction would ultimately hurt female MTI advancement into supervisory and other career enhancing leadership positions. In our opinion, this factor alone would hurt female instructor recruiting.

Same sex drill instructors would not allow recruits to routinely interact with role models of the opposite gender. A crucial aspect of learning and internalizing values involves practice and learning through observation. The absence of an opposite gender role model sends the

strong message that diversity is too tough to deal with in basic training and therefore must be too tough to deal with at the operational level. This postpones and transfers the need to deal with the inevitability of later gender integrated interactions that will occur in the field, adding an extra burden on the field commander. Same gender training does not reflect the reality of the Air Force.

The overriding goal and rationale of the basic training process is to transform civilian recruits into airmen-warriors whose behavior is consistent with the standards, values, and beliefs of the Air Force. Entry-level training molds the individual's personal approach to military duty, ethics, and relationships with others, and it serves as the foundation for building this airmanship. Gender integrated basic training provides the smoothest transition into the operational, gender integrated Air Force.

As the controlled environment of basic military training is the starting point for military professionalism, the teaching of discipline and professional relationships must not exclude

related gender issues generated by the interaction of men and women at the most basic unit in their training--that of the flight. Such training prepares young airmen for the realities of a gender integrated Air Force where 99 percent of all career fields are open to women. It also prevents passing the burden of responsibility to do this on to technical training and operational commanders.




ANITA K. BLAIR, LTGEN WILLIAM M. KEYS, USMC (RET.) and THOMAS MOOREStatement of Commissioner Moskos

This is to explain my abstention from the Commission's Recommendation #1 on page 34 that each Service be allowed to conduct Initial Entry Training (IET) as it presently does. I do concur with the general finding of Recommendation #1 on page 34 that the Services are, by and large, providing the trained personnel to carry out their assigned missions. But I am not in full accord with the overall tone of Recommendation #1 as it implies there are no serious problems in IET beyond those identified by the Services.

My evaluation is based on information the Commission collected from a variety of sources: quantitative survey data, analyses of comments written on surveys, focus groups, field observations, and training statistics. I was particularly struck by the overwhelming consensus among trainers that something is seriously flawed in gender-integrated training. At the same time, it must be noted that recruits in gender-integrated settings are much more positive about IET than are the trainers.

To be sure, many of the problems noted by the trainers - quality and attitude of trainees, excessive time spent on supervisory activities, understaffed training base, etc. - are of a non-gender nature. Indeed, the unanimous recommendations of the Commission go a long way toward addressing these problems. I commend my fellow Commissioners for their hard work and judgment on these complex issues.

But we ought not ignore the recurrent theme among trainers that a core set of problems does derive from gender-integrated settings. These include physical strength differences between the sexes, maintenance of privacy of the sexes, sexual distractions, and perceptions of double standards applied to men and women in disciplinary actions and accusations of sexual harassment.

Although the overall state of gender relations in the Services is positive, this should not exclude consideration of alternatives in the physical training of men and women at the IET level. What the precise nature of such partial separation for physical training might be, I cannot state. But testing some alternate models from the status quo on a limited basis ought not be ruled out. I am particularly perturbed by the high physical injury rate of women trainees compared to men. Likewise, I am put off by the double-talk in training standards that often obscures physical strength differences between men and women. The extraordinarily high dropout rate of women in IET cannot be overlooked. The bottom line must be what improves military readiness.

Finally, I note that a persistent complaint among the trainers is that their concerns are not attended to by the higher command or oversight groups such as the Commission. Rather than ignore the widespread concerns of the trainers, I abstain from Recommendation #1 on page 34.

Statement of Commissioners Blair, Keys, Moore

We agree with the Statement of Commissioner Charles Moskos. We write separately to add our view that, not only is there evidence of serious problems in gender-integrated training, but there is also substantial evidence that gender-separate training produces superior results. The Marine Corps is the only service that uses only gender-separate basic training. The Army, Navy and Air Force have made it clear to this Commission that they are satisfied with their current training and do not plan to change from gender-integrated to gender-separate basic training, even in view of the Kassebaum-Baker recommendations (the vast majority of which were readily adopted by those Services). We believe the Army, Navy and Air Force should (a) collect data to permit objective evaluation of existing gender-integrated training; and (b) test alternate models to generate comparative data on the military effectiveness of gender-integrated versus gender-separate training. These studies should be performed under the auspices of qualified, impartial outside organizations.