[House Hearing, 113 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] [H.A.S.C. No. 113-50] WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS __________ HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ HEARING HELD JULY 24, 2013 [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 82-465 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (800) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-214 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina SUSAN A. DAVIS, California JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota John Chapla, Professional Staff Member Debra Wada, Professional Staff Member Colin Bosse, Clerk C O N T E N T S ---------- CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 2013 Page Hearing: Wednesday, July 24, 2013, Women in Service Reviews............... 1 Appendix: Wednesday, July 24, 2013......................................... 25 ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2013 WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Personnel..................... 2 Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1 WITNESSES Beyler, Juliet, Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, U.S. Department of Defense......................... 3 Bromberg, LTG Howard B., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, U.S. Army........................................................... 4 Grosso, Brig Gen Gina M., USAF, Director of Force Management Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force....................................... 7 Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr., USMC, Deputy Commandant, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps......................... 5 Sacolick, MG Bennet, USA, Director, Force Management and Development, U.S. Special Operations Command................... 5 Sweredoski, RADM Barbara, USN, Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel Plans and Policy, U.S. Navy.................................... 7 APPENDIX Prepared Statements: Beyler, Juliet............................................... 31 Bromberg, LTG Howard B....................................... 37 Davis, Hon. Susan A.......................................... 30 Grosso, Brig Gen Gina M...................................... 67 Milstead, LtGen Robert E., Jr................................ 45 Sacolick, MG Bennet.......................................... 51 Sweredoski, RADM Barbara..................................... 56 Wilson, Hon. Joe............................................. 29 Documents Submitted for the Record: Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness.................................................. 75 Statement of Women In International Security, by Combat Integration Initiative Project Directors Ellen Haring, Anne Coughlin, and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat..................... 98 Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing: Ms. Bordallo................................................. 107 Mrs. Davis................................................... 107 Ms. Shea-Porter.............................................. 110 Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 107 Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing: Dr. Fleming.................................................. 116 Ms. Tsongas.................................................. 113 WOMEN IN SERVICE REVIEWS ---------- House of Representatives, Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on Military Personnel, Washington, DC, Wednesday, July 24, 2013. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:11 p.m., in room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL Mr. Wilson. The hearing will come to order. Everyone is welcomed to this Military Personnel Subcommittee hearing on Women in Service Reviews. The subcommittee today will focus on the implementation plans that the military services and the United States Special Operations Command have developed to expand the assigned opportunities for women. Over the last decade, women have served exceptionally in many positions in combat. The decision by the Secretary of Defense in January to rescind the direct ground combat exclusion policy has established a new dynamic. All positions are open to women unless the military services are granted an exception to policy. In June the Secretary of Defense released those implementation plans, which envision full implementation of the new policy by January 2016. Between now and then the military services and the U.S. Special Operations Command will develop the substantive basis for implementation. As is clear from the plans, implementation of the new policy will be incremental, with previously closed units and occupational specialties being opened as gender-neutral performance standards are validated, other issues related to the inclusion are addressed, and congressional notifications are completed. Implementation of decisions about Army and Marine Corps direct ground combat units, infantry, armor, and artillery, as well as specialties controlled by the Special Operations Command, will take place later in the process. The Secretary of Defense has made clear that standards will not be lowered, that they will be applied on a gender-neutral basis. This is a key commitment to the success of inclusion efforts. Our witnesses today include Ms. Juliet Beyler, Director, Officer and Enlisted Personnel Management, U.S. Department of Defense. We would like to welcome you to your first appearance before this subcommittee. Lieutenant General Howard B. Bromberg, Deputy Chief of Staff G-1, U.S. Army. Lieutenant General Robert E. Milstead Jr., Deputy Commander, Manpower and Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps; Major General Bennet Sacolick, the Director of Force Management and Development, U.S. Special Operations Command. And again your first appearance, you are welcome. Rear Admiral Barbara Sweredoski,and we want to thank you for your first appearance, Reserve Deputy, Military Personnel Plans and Policy, U.S. Navy. And finally Brigadier General Gina M. Grosso, Director of Force Management Policy, Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force. And indeed your first appearance. Thank you for being here. Mrs. Davis, did you have any opening remarks? [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 29.] STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also wanted to welcome all of our distinguished panelists and presenters today. Thank you very much for being here. We all are aware that in January, Secretary of Defense Panetta announced that the direct ground combat policy that prohibited women from serving in ground combat units was being rescinded, and as part of that announcement the Services were to provide the Secretary with plans on how they would proceed to implement women into ground combat units and positions. And those plans were to be provided by the Secretary by May 15th and focused on how the Services would open all positions to women by January 1, 2016. I am very pleased that the Secretary rescinded the policy to allow women to serve in all units and positions, including ground combat. Women have served with distinction, including under combat conditions in today's All-Volunteer Force, and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that future conflicts put all those who serve on the battlefield under the same threat. Opening positions in units to women to ensure that the best qualified are chosen not based solely on gender but on capabilities and experience will help to ensure that our military remains the best in the world. Establishing criteria based on the functions and responsibilities of each position will help to ensure that the most qualified will serve. Women want to ensure that they have equal opportunities to serve and excel into higher leadership positions and not be held back because they are prohibited from serving in specific fields. They do not want the rules and requirements to be different because they are women. What they want, is a fair and open opportunity. The elimination of the ground combat policy is the first step towards that equality. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having an open and productive dialogue on the issues and challenges of the Services, especially Special Operations Command, may have in this effort. Thank you all very much for being here today. [The prepared statement of Mrs. Davis can be found in the Appendix on page 30.] Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ranking Member Davis. I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Dr. John Fleming, Loretta Sanchez, and Duncan Hunter be allowed to ask questions during the hearing. Without objection, so ordered. Further, I ask unanimous consent that the following statements be entered into the record: the written statement of Women In International Security and the written statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness. Without objection, so ordered. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on pages 98 and 75, respectively.] Mr. Wilson. Ms. Beyler, we will begin with your testimony, followed by the witnesses as introduced. As a reminder to the witnesses, please keep your statements to 3 minutes. We have your written statements, all of which will be included in the record. Then each subcommittee member and visiting member will have an opportunity for 5 minutes of questions, with time monitored by professional staffer John Chapla. We now begin with Ms. Beyler. STATEMENT OF JULIET BEYLER, DIRECTOR, OFFICER AND ENLISTED PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Ms. Beyler. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. As previously mentioned, last month we released each Service and SOCOM's [U.S. Special Operations Command] plans for how they will manage the integration of women into previously closed units and occupations. Our goal is to ensure the mission is met with fully qualified and capable people regardless of gender. To that end, on January 24 of this year, then-Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey announced the rescission of the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and directed development of plans describing how each Service and SOCOM intends to execute the guidance to, one, review and validate all occupational standards to ensure that they are occupationally and operationally relevant and applied gender- neutrally by September of 2015; two, complete all studies by September of 2015; and, three, ensure full implementation by January 1, 2016. Each military Department Secretary, along with the SOCOM Commander, submitted their plans, which were then reviewed by both Secretary Hagel and Chairman Dempsey. I will let my colleagues talk to the specifics of their plans, but here are a few things that they each have in common. Each plan manages positions in two general categories: currently open occupations, which were previously restricted based on the unit of assignment, so, for example, a supply sergeant in an infantry battalion; and, secondly, currently closed occupations such as infantry and tanks. Each Service and SOCOM is working with research agencies to review and validate their occupational standards. Each is conducting thorough doctrine, training, education, facilities, and policy analyses to ensure deliberate and responsible implementation, and each has identified decision points by which they will make final determinations to open occupations and positions, or request an exception to policy to keep the position or occupation closed. Exceptions must be personally approved by both the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Department is proceeding in a measured, deliberate, and responsible manner to implement changes that enable service members to serve in any capacity based on their ability and qualifications. Over time, these incremental changes will enhance the readiness and combat effectiveness of our forces. Standards will be uncompromising, established for the task of defending our Nation, and rooted in carefully analyzed requirements. Secretary Hagel is committed to this process and will work closely with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to monitor and guide this effort. Implementation through 2016 will be an evolutionary process. We are committed to opening positions and occupations when and how it makes sense, while preserving unit readiness, cohesion, and the quality of the All-Volunteer Force. We recognize there will be challenges, but we will learn much from each step. By addressing issues head-on, capitalizing on lessons learned, and through open communication with Congress, we will institutionalize these important changes, integrating women into occupations and units in a climate where they can succeed and flourish. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today, and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Beyler can be found in the Appendix on page 31.] Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Beyler. And we proceed to General Bromberg. STATEMENT OF LTG HOWARD B. BROMBERG, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF G-1, U.S. ARMY General Bromberg. Chairman Wilson, Representative Davis, and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity today to discuss Women in Service Review plan that is incorporated in the Army's ``Soldier of 2020'' Plan. The ``Soldier 2020'' Plan implements and reflects upon the effort to have greater opportunities for women to ensure that we have the best soldiers for the future of our Army. Our goal is to integrate women leaders and soldiers into recently opened positions and units as expeditiously as possible. We will not sacrifice warfighting capability, the trust of Congress, or that of the American people as we seek to enhance force readiness and capability. We will select the best qualified soldiers regardless of gender for each job within the Army profession, ensuring our future force capability and readiness. We are currently validating occupational standards, both physical and mental, for all specialties, focusing first on those currently closed to female soldiers. As we continue this process, we may require adjustments to our recruiting efforts, assignment process, and other personnel policies. Further, we will continually assess trends and indicators as we assimilate female leaders and soldiers into the previously closed units. The process of evaluating a soldier's capabilities continues throughout his or her career. The Army assesses general recruits' physical capabilities very early in basic combat training. All Army courses that award occupational specialties have associated physical requirements. Initial military training physical requirements are based on the tasks new soldiers must be trained on in order to meet the minimum requirements to be awarded their specific occupation. These differ from the physical requirements associated with fully trained soldiers. Soldiers typically meet their full physical potential throughout subsequent individual and collective trainings when they are assigned in the operational force. The Army of the future will require more mental agility, teamwork, and resilience from all soldiers. The ``Soldiers 2020'' Implementation Plan reflects our efforts to ensure we maintain the world's premier land power, ready and capable to defend this great Nation at home and abroad. I assure the members of this committee that your Army's senior leaders remain focused on creating a climate of trust and respect in which every person is able to thrive and achieve their full potential and enjoy viable career paths regardless of gender. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I thank you again for your steadfast and generous support of the outstanding men and women of the United States Army and look forward to your questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of General Bromberg can be found in the Appendix on page 37.] Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General Bromberg. And we now proceed to General Milstead. STATEMENT OF LTGEN ROBERT E. MILSTEAD, JR., USMC, DEPUTY COMMANDANT, MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS General Milstead. Good afternoon. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is my privilege to appear before you today. The commandant and all of our Marine Corps leadership are dedicated to taking care of all of our marines. Our deliberate approach to increasing career opportunities for our females is an example of this. You have been provided the Marine Corps' implementation plan and my written statement, both of which provide the details on our road ahead. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of General Milstead can be found in the Appendix on page 45.] Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General Milstead. We now proceed to General Sacolick. STATEMENT OF MG BENNET SACOLICK, USA, DIRECTOR, FORCE MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, U.S. SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND General Sacolick. I would like to begin by stating SOCOM fully supports the decision to eliminate the Direct Combat Assignment Rule. Women have been attached to our combat units for several years as part of our cultural support teams, civil affairs, military information support teams, intelligence support, and a host of other occupational specialties, and they have performed magnificently. The question for SOCOM and the focus of our analysis is whether we can combine women into the special operation units whose occupation often requires deploying in small self- contained teams for long periods of time in austere, geographically isolated locations. Many of these units deploy in close proximity to or behind enemy lines, and they live and work in very close quarters with each other. Can we achieve this level of integration while preserving our unit readiness, cohesion, and morale? We have tasked our subordinate component commands to review their organization, training, education, and leader development programs, inclusive of providing the recommendation on how to generate a sufficient number of qualified officers and senior NCOs [Non-Commissioned Officers] to facilitate and complement integration. These reviews will include an evaluation of all performance standards. I want to take a moment to talk about standards. We have always maintained that our SOF [Special Operations Forces] standards are occupationally specific, operationally relevant, and gender-neutral. They are just the standards. Our review will be a good opportunity to verify this assumption. We will look at every single task in each of our entry level qualification courses to ensure they are decisively tied to an operational requirement. We will also look at the social aspects of integration on the effective functioning of small teams. Our concern about integration generally centers upon the impact of unit cohesion. These concerns include both social cohesion, referring to the extent team members feel emotionally bonded with each other, and task cohesion, referring to the mutual commitment among the individual team members in achieving the group objective. We have also tasked RAND Corporation to provide a nonbiased third-party analysis of our qualification core standards, as well as assist us in designing a comprehensive survey for every single SOF operator in order to assist in first identifying and then eliminating barriers to integration. Our implementation plan has only a handful of significant milestones. Our assessment phase will be accomplished by July 2014. We will then have an opportunity to analyze and develop a strategy, and by July 2015 Commander of SOCOM will provide his recommendation, in conjunction with the service chiefs, to the Secretary of Defense for a January 1, 2016, implementation. In conclusion, I just want to reiterate, we are absolutely not predisposed to any particular course of action. Our only concern is generating qualified SOF operators to support our country without regard to gender. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of General Sacolick can be found in the Appendix on page 51.] Mr. Wilson. And thank you, General Sacolick. We now proceed with Admiral Sweredoski. STATEMENT OF RADM BARBARA SWEREDOSKI, USN, RESERVE DEPUTY, MILITARY PERSONNEL PLANS AND POLICY, U.S. NAVY Admiral Sweredoski. Thank you. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for holding this hearing and for affording me the opportunity to testify on Navy's Women in Service implementation plan. Navy's plan is a continuation of our efforts over the past 19 years to steadily expand opportunities for women. Talented female officers, sailors, and civilians are a key component of our All-Volunteer total force. Our goal is to continue to ensure all men and women in the Department of the Navy have the opportunity to succeed and are set up for success with viable career paths while preserving our warfighting capability. Navy's implementation plan addresses all positions currently closed to the assignment of women. Navy expects to have no closed occupations, very limited number of closed positions, and equal professional opportunity for females in every officer designator and enlisted rating by 2016. Navy's implementation plan addresses assignment opportunities for women in the Coastal Riverine Force, submarines, and surface ships. Our plan also outlines a coordination with the Marine Corps for Navy personnel serving support of the ground combat element, and with U.S. Special Operations Command, to proceed in a deliberate, measured, responsible way to assign women to currently closed special operations positions as assessments are completed. Navy will open positions as expeditiously as possible while maintaining our high standards to preserve the quality of the force, as well as considering good order and judicious use of fiscal resources. Navy remains committed to working with Congress and thanks the members of the Personnel Subcommittee for your continuous and unwavering commitment to support our women and men. Thank you once again for holding this important meeting. [The prepared statement of Admiral Sweredoski can be found in the Appendix on page 56.] Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Admiral Sweredoski. We now proceed to General Grosso. STATEMENT OF BRIG GEN GINA M. GROSSO, USAF, DIRECTOR OF FORCE MANAGEMENT POLICY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE General Grosso. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for inviting me today to testify before you on behalf of the Secretary of the Air Force on this critical readiness issue. The Air Force is dedicated to continue the gender integration efforts initiated in 1993 when we lifted restrictions against women flying fighter aircraft and began assigning them to frontline combat aviation units. Today more than 99 percent of the nearly 500,000 Active Duty, Air National Guard, and Air Force Reserve positions are open to both men and women. In accordance with Office of the Secretary of Defense guidance, the Air Force is working to open the remaining 4,600 positions across seven career fields that are affiliated with special operations and long-range reconnaissance ground combat units. To meet this objective, the Air Force has partnered with our Army and Special Operations Command counterparts to develop a comprehensive plan complete with detailed tasks and timelines which ensures we will complete the necessary steps to open all remaining positions by January 1, 2016. To support this timeline, the Air Force is accelerating current studies to validate physical tests and standards for each of the closed career fields. Additionally, the Air Force is addressing critical assignment restrictions in the areas of health and welfare, training, assignment classification, and career development. Although these tasks are significant, we do not anticipate any major obstacles to opening all closed positions by 2016. Ultimately the initiative to eliminate all remaining gender-based assignment restrictions will improve our readiness and the Air Force's ability to recruit and retain a qualified and diverse force. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of General Grosso can be found in the Appendix on page 67.] Mr. Wilson. Thank you, General Grosso. We will now proceed to each member of the subcommittee and other visiting Members of Congress who may attend. We will have a 5-minute rule maintained by Mr. John Chapla. And the first question, for both General Bromberg and General Milstead, and this would be that both of your Services appear to be developing gender-neutral performance standards to be tested in the accession phase. That is somewhere between the recruiting station and the last day of the military occupational producing school. There is a problem with testing in the accession phase, however, related to the low physical ability of people seeking to enter the Services. In deciding when in the accession phase to test and what standards to apply, how are you addressing the fundamental challenge? Testing early in the accession process would require the adoption of proxy tests and standards that are below those required for qualification for military occupational specialty, and testing late in the accession phase, say during the military occupational specialty qualification training, could incur the costs necessary to allow the service member the time to develop the capacity to accomplish the test without significantly increased attrition. General Bromberg or General Milstead? General Bromberg. Thank you for this question, sir. I think that is exactly the point we are at right now in developing these and examining these tests. We haven't decided yet where we are going to do the testing. And as we know, there is certain levels of performance upon acceptance in the military, there is a certain level of performance when you complete basic training, and then a certain level of performance as you go throughout your career. So the first thing we are doing, that is why we are validating our tasks today, to make sure we clearly understand the tasks that we want performed, and then going through a scientific process using the Army's Research and Environmental Command to really identify those tasks and how they are performed. And then from that we will develop a very simple battery of tests that they are not going to represent the exact task, but the type of skills and the physiological capabilities that an individual would need, and then from that we will discern where we want to apply those tests. So I think we have more to see, more to develop, but that is exactly why we want this very incremental and scientific approach to doing that, so we have to pick the right place to do it, at the right time. It is definitely gender-neutral, but it also related to the tasks that the individual has to do, not just as a soldier, but also for that specific military occupational specialty. General Milstead. I think it is important, first, to say that there is two separate pieces to this. There is that initial physical capability that you have to demonstrate to join the Army, the Marine Corps, the Services. I mean, you have to be physically, you know, have to meet physical standards. Okay, that aside, then we are talking about whether you have the physical capabilities to successfully complete that MOS [Military Occupational Specialty]. In the Marine Corps we have 335 military occupational specialties, MOSs, and each one of these has anywhere from a minimum of one, mostly more performance-based tasks. Now, these performance-based tasks have been developed without any regard to gender, and within those performance-based tasks our Training Command has been able to identify somewhere close to 250 physically demanding tasks. These are physically demanding things like, you know, lifting a tank round, lifting a tow bar, these sorts of things that require some physical fitness to them. These, again, have been developed without any regard to gender. So presently if you complete the MOS school and those physical tasks, then you get the MOS. What we want to do, as we begin this implementation plan, is to see if we can't come up with some predictive capability somewhere earlier in the process that we can test people that will give us a predictive analysis, a predictive capability of whether that person has demonstrated that they may or may not have the capability to go on down that route and successfully make that MOS instead of just waiting until they graduate. Granted, today some fall out along the way, but we want to make sure that that is the exception and not the norm. Mr. Wilson. I would like to thank both generals for your response. And having gone through such tests myself, I think you are both approaching this in a very positive manner. And I want to thank Ms. Beyler. You, in effect, referenced this, too. And I just appreciate the thoughtfulness of all of you as how this is being approached. I now proceed to Mrs. Davis. Mrs. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again to all of you for being here. I know that it is easy for us to understand some of the physical performance standards that we are talking about and the ability to maintain those consistently. I wonder if you could speak also, though, to mental performance standards and how you are going to be looking at those for specific positions. Do you see anything that is more specific to certain roles or in general, and how would we move forward with those standards? Perhaps how is that different from today as well, which it may not be. General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. That is a great question. I think we are all realizing that the mental agility required of today's tasks are much more than we realized in the past. And so within each military occupational specialty that is an area we are examining. It is a new area for us. We are certainly not as conversant as we should be at this point, but it is something we have to take on, not just in terms of your ability to perform that task in a complex and stressful environment, but are there indicators we can look from. The behavioral health area, as you know, is one of our most challenged areas wherever we go. So we are going to take that on in this, not just physical standards, but how can we get after that area. I think this will be an area that will come much later for us than the physical standards because we know much more about the physical standards, but clearly what we want to see is how can people develop further, whether it be resilience, whether it be the ability to handle stress in adverse environments and perform under those environments. So more to follow on that, ma'am. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 107.] Mrs. Davis. Thank you. Anybody else want to comment on that? Some thoughts or discussions that you have already had? General Milstead. Well, I would just offer that you have heard several of us use ``deliberate, measured, and responsible.'' That is the way to go with this: deliberately, in a measured manner, and do it responsibly. And the social and psychological factors need to be studied equally as important as the physical. And we are doing that in the Marine Corps. We have our exception to policy that we have had almost a year now where we have got 48 officers and staff noncommissioned officers down in 19 units. This month we are collecting the feedback from that, from both them and their commanders. We have got the Center for Naval Analyses is involved, and we have got a fleetwide survey. So we are all looking at those sorts of things, recognizing that there is the psychological piece is equally important to this as the physical. Mrs. Davis. And maybe in the next responses, would you like to discuss what are the cultural issues that you are talking about? I know it has been mentioned in several different ways. General Bromberg. I would just start by saying that, particularly for units where women have never served before, we have to look at the impacts on the small teams and the environments to make sure we understand the cultural aspects of that as we go forward. I think in units where women have served already before, we already have a data call, we already have some history, and we know from our previous experience what we have learned. But in those units as we expand, I think it is worth a look. We want to continually assess, as we are doing all the time, every evolution like today. As we open up more positions to brigade combat teams, we continue to assess and find out the reactions of the males in the unit, as well as the females in that unit. I think that is a huge piece, just to make sure everybody is set for success. That is the goal here, is to create the environment for success. Mrs. Davis. Would you all like to comment on that? General Sacolick. It kind of reminds me of the statement, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts, when you talk about real small teams that often deploy. And I don't even want to use the term decentralized environments, but entirely alone by themselves. In many respects they may be the only American forces in a particular country, and just the dynamics associated on that team. And I don't want to say I have seen average teams do extraordinary things, but we have taken 12 basically normal individuals, and they perform magnificently together as a team. And so I don't want to do anything that affects that dynamic. That is why unit cohesion has been and continues to be so important. I don't know if that is going to be an issue at this point or not, but we are looking at it. Mrs. Davis. Any other comments? All right. Thank you. I think the other consideration that we have, and maybe we will get to that, is just some of the budgetary constraints that you have right now and how do you feel that those might impact us moving forward. Thank you all so much for being here. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Davis. We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada. Dr. Heck. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for being here to discuss this topic. And I don't envy you. As you know, there is not universal acceptance of this concept, although probably more so now today than there was 5, 10, or 15 years ago. And no matter what decisions you come up with, you are still going to have a very dissatisfied segment of the population, so in that regard you could probably join Congress because you would be in the same boat as we are. You know, there will be claims that as you reevaluate some of the physical standards in an essence to make sure that they are crosswalked to specific tasks, that a standard that exists today may actually be lessened because of the scientific basis of reviewing it. And then you are going to have somebody turn around and say, you see, they lowered the standard because they are trying to let females into this MOS or into this AOC [Area Of Concentration]. How are you going to answer that? Ms. Beyler. Sir, thank you for the question. The Services will probably speak to that individually, but what I would say across the Department is exactly, we are not going to lower standards, but it is not a matter of lowering or raising the standard. That is why all of the Services and SOCOM have been tasked to validate the standard in light of everything we have learned since 2001 and all the changing technology. The key is to validate the standard to make sure that it is the right standard for the occupation. So, again, it is not a matter of raising or lowering standards, but it is a matter of validating to ensure that the standard is right and then applying that across the board neutrally. Dr. Heck. Well, I understand that that is the process you are going through, but invariably you may find a standard that through the validation process is going to be made lower, easier, less than what is currently in place, and you are going to have somebody turn around and try to change that scientific validation into an argument of, you are artificially lowering a standard. So how are you prepared? How are you going to address that criticism because it is going to come? General Bromberg. Sir, I think the simplest way for us to address that is by a factual basis of how we are doing our testing. If we can show that this is the standard, and I am absolutely confident we will be, as we go through the validation of the tasks. We have had standards in place in some military occupations for years that we haven't gone back and looked at. So it is not just about the male or female because we are going to eliminate males in some cases. And so some people will say, well, how did you do that? Well, as General Grosso said, it is a fact, a standard is a standard, a tank round, 55 rounds, if that is the type of round it is, it weighs that, you have to turn a certain way, and I think our factual basis supported by scientific evidence will clearly lay that out for us. And I think the advantage from the Army perspective, this is about where we want to be with the high-quality force. And I know it is going to come, and we are just going to have to lay the facts out, and facts are stubborn. Dr. Heck. And I am sure you have looked at the experience of the fire service where we experienced this same thing in a civilian occupation where when females were allowed to compete for frontline firefighters and they had to complete all the same physical standards, they rose to the task and they did it, and now we have females that are rising through the ranks in the fire service because they were able to meet the standards. And, General Sacolick, you know, I think of all the entities, I think SOCOM is going to come under the most scrutiny by the general public. And you referenced measuring the social effects of integration. How are you going to do that? How do you measure the social effects of integration? General Sacolick. First, let me just spend a moment to address your last question because the criticism of our current qualification courses is relentless, and it is ongoing. I mean, we constantly have got to make adjustments to our standards, of our Special Forces Qualification Course, BUD/S [Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL School]. The conditions on today's battlefields routinely change, and we have constantly got to look at that. My previous job as the Commander of the Special Warfare Center, I ran the Special Forces Qualification Course, and I was looking at 80-percent attrition, and I had to analyze every single test to ensure that they made sense, to reduce male attrition. So the criticism is ongoing, the course is never as hard as somebody remembers it to be, and we deal with it often. Social implications, it is a tough one. I think the survey will be telling. Too often we hear those operators that speak the loudest that don't represent the majority of the silent professionals. So we are looking at it, and it is in the process of designing a very good, reliable, accurate survey that can truly get the opinion of those quiet professionals and how they feel about the integration of the female on their teams. I think that will be telling. Dr. Heck. Well, and I hope that all the Services are going to undertake that because obviously the physical standards are something that is going to be objectively able to be measured, whereas the social implications are something that are going to be very subjective and probably open to the greatest amount of scrutiny and criticism and probably receive the greatest amount of pushback. I appreciate what you are trying to do, I support where the Services are going, where DOD [Department of Defense] is trying to go on this, and I am sure Congress stands ready to assist you in any way possible. I yield back, Mr. Chair. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Dr. Heck. We proceed with Congresswoman Niki Tsongas of Massachusetts. Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all of you for being here today. I, like many, was so pleased when Secretary Panetta announced that DOD was mapping out how to integrate women into combat roles. This announcement really recognized our current reality that women are already serving in combat. I know on multiple trips to Afghanistan, as we have sought on our Mother's Day CODEL [Congressional Delegation] to meet with women, we have met many who have been serving in combat and certainly in harm's way, and we know that more than a hundred have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. I also think this announcement is helping us to build a stronger Armed Forces because we as a country cannot combat the threats of the future by excluding the potential talents and skills offered by half the U.S. population. So that is why I am so glad all of you are here today to talk about your plans. And while not my question, just a comment. As you look on the challenges of integration, of how to, especially in SOCOM, how to preserve the readiness and the sort of cohesiveness of the unit, that, yes, I think it is particularly important not just to look at women and the skill set that they bring into it, but to also look at sort of the optimal profile of the men so that you have success, you can go forward with great success. But my question is for all of you. I recently met a woman who was an Olympic athlete. She told me that while men and women can often meet the same athletic standards, they sometimes need a different way of training to meet those standards. So are the Services considering this factor when designing training for service members so that they can meet these gender-neutral goals? And this was reinforced to me by somebody I happened to meet who was part of the process of working on developing these standards, but her comment was that, yes, you want the standards to be gender-neutral, but you may need to train to these standards in different ways in order for women to have success. So I am wondering, and this is for all of you, if you all are looking at that as well. General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question. We are looking at that, and we are not looking at it just for the integration of women, we are looking at it for the total soldier, because just as you have the 110-pound male who may lack some type of physiological capability or physical capability, he or she may both need to be trained differently. We are trying to expand our understanding of how we train. For example, if you need more upper body strength to climb through a window or more lower back strength based upon the military occupational specialty, do we change the way we train? And also for injury recovery, we know that you can recover faster by doing certain types of exercises than doing other types of exercises. We are going to wrap that all together, and I will be happy to provide you more information on that. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 107.] Ms. Tsongas. And I appreciate that. But I do think even in that context you may also need to look at, yes, how you get that man to that place, but how you get a woman to that place, and they may be slightly different. General Milstead. General Milstead. Well, I think an excellent example of what you are talking about is our gender-separated boot camp. We don't start teaching MOSs there. Our boot camp is about the transformation of individuals, men and women, from being a civilian to being a United States Marine. And we have it separated for that reason, because we feel that this transformation, it goes on a separate track. It needs to be handled different, they need to be nurtured different, they need to be--they just need different steps as they go. They end up in the same place, they are United States Marines, and that is the point, then, when we begin their MOS training, and that is indeed gender-mixed. So, you know, like the Army, I will take that for the record and come back to you on the specifics, but we are doing that when it comes to our recruit training. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 107.] Ms. Tsongas. I would appreciate your followup on that. General Sacolick. Ma'am, I will offer, we are not doing that very well. I am a career special forces officer. I had six surgeries, and I am still broke. We need to do it better across the board. We are starting to invest serious time, effort, and money in our human performance program so we can train smarter. And we haven't, like I said, been very good at that, but we have recognized that, and we are looking at that very hard. We have some good empirical data, though, because we have female in our formations already, our civil affairs, our MISO [Military Information Support Operations], they trained in the same facilities as their special forces soldiers at Fort Bragg, and often together. So we do have some evidence that allows us to prepare those women, but we are not there yet, ma'am. Ms. Tsongas. Thank you. And I am running out of time, but I do think in the long run we want to maximize our success at this, and to put in place a training regimen that is ill suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see. So thank you, and I yield back. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Tsongas. And we proceed now to Congresswoman Jackie Walorski of Indiana. Mrs. Walorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The question I have, and I have thought about this since I saw this meeting coming up today, is have you analyzed that the potential risks of sexual assault are greater by placing women in roles where mostly men serve? We have been battling this, this whole Congress, and many of my colleagues have been battling this issue for years, and we have worked in a real bipartisan way to actually do something about it as much as we can in this Congress. But when you are talking, sir, about social integration, and Dr. Heck was asking about social integration, I am sitting here thinking the whole time, have you analyzed what is going to happen with these isolated, oftentimes--when you made the comment, sir, about, you know, sometimes they are the only Americans in the country, they are in covert missions, they are in special operations, close quarters, isolation. And we hear stories now about those things that we are trying to address. Where are you on preparing for that and what is in place? Ms. Beyler. Yes, ma'am. So Secretary Hagel has made it clear that there is no place in the Department for sexual assault, and we view this effort no different than any other. It requires leadership at all levels, bottom line, to ensure that sexual assault is not tolerated, condoned, or ignored in any way. And as mentioned previously, we think that expanding opportunities for women can only strengthen the All-Volunteer Force. As we go forward, the more we treat service men and women equally, the more likely they are to treat each other with respect. So again, this is no different than any other effort across the Department with regard to the issue of sexual assault. Mrs. Walorski. But I guess with all due respect, this issue of sexual assault has really exposed a broken system in the military. So my question is, I mean, have you researched it? Is there analysis of it? Is there a plan? Because what is happening now doesn't work. I mean, you know, the debate here is raging, and you are sitting here as the professionals about ready to embark on a whole new frontier here. And so my question is, I mean, is there research? Is there analysis? Is there a plan? Is there something more than the military is currently doing? Because it doesn't work. General Bromberg. Ma'am, as far as expanded roles of women in the Service, in the Army, that is part of our cultural examination that is ongoing as we speak. It is part of the continual assessment. The whole piece on the cultural side, not just for sexual assault, but inclusive of that, with a clear focus on sexual assault is being examined in detail. We are going to look at it not just in the broad context, we are going to zero in on it in each one of these career fields. Because some of these career fields, for example, engineers, women serve today in everything but one piece of engineer. So there are many women leaders and cadre throughout this organization. So if you open up that piece of the engineer force, we are going to examine the effect on that company and that squad, and we will make a very conscious decision as we move forward to see what we either have to do to change ourselves--and I commit to you that to change ourselves is one piece of it--but also then to how to also train and inform and enforce as we go forward. But that is part of our second piece as we are looking at the physical piece and the cultural piece. General Milstead. And we are working very hard to eradicate this from the Service. And we have to be careful that what we do with this implementation does not go counter to that, and that raises the issue on, as you open up these additional MOSs and they remain the bar, the standard remains what the standard is, and yet you get numbers of female marines that qualify, well, no, we don't plan on dropping a single marine in here or a single marine here. Our exception to policy program that we are doing right now, we have them in a minimum of two to three per unit. So we have got to, we are looking at that, and we are working at what is the right number, how can you ensure? You are going to have to have the leadership, you are going to have to already have officer and staff NCO female leadership in these units. So it is going to be a crawl-walk-run process, but we are looking at that to make sure that this effort doesn't go counter to the other effort that we are all working so hard on, on sexual. Mrs. Walorski. Right. And what is the ratio,it might be in your documents, I apologize for not finding it, but what is the ratio of men to women, say, in the Marines? General Milstead. In the Marine Corps, 7 percent of the Marine Corps are women. And I just leave you with that 7 percent is just as important to the commandant as the other 93. Mrs. Walorski. Sure, I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Walorski. And we now proceed to Congresswoman Madeleine Bordallo of Guam. Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the witnesses today for your testimonies and your interest in women in the military. I know we have covered this earlier, but I would like to address Lieutenant General Bromberg about the physical assessment demands for women in the military. Are they all the same, General, in all the Services, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines? Are they pretty much the requirements, physical requirements? General Bromberg. Ma'am, I think they are generally, for acceptance into the military they are generally about the same. Ms. Bordallo. Very good. General Bromberg. But when we get into the military occupational specialties, I think you will find variety, even with a specialty that appears the same because of how we all fight differently on the battlefield. Communication specialist requirements in an infantry unit would be different from an Air Force communications specialist. Ms. Bordallo. A followup question, General, then. What percentage of women are not really, you know, they are not able to stand up to the training requirements? Are there a lot of dropouts or? General Bromberg. Ma'am, I can't give you that right now. I will take that for the record. I know what our attrition is based upon---- Ms. Bordallo. Right, yeah. General Bromberg [continuing]. Males versus females, but I don't have that with me right now. But I can get you that. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 107.] Ms. Bordallo. And that goes for the other, does anybody have any information on that? Do you have quite a few women that are not able to--well, and the men, too, but I mean we are here for the women right now. General Milstead. We can take that for the record and get you attrition figures on both male and female. I mean, it is a matter of record that the female attrition rate percentage in boot camp is higher. Ms. Bordallo. That is right. General Milstead. But we can get you those figures for the Marine Corps on throughout the process. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 108.] Ms. Bordallo. Very good. And I would also like it for the Marines, Army, Navy, and the Air Force. If I could have that. I realize that there are men also that drop out, but I do know the ratio is higher for women, and this is something maybe we should take a look at. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on pages 108-109.] Ms. Bordallo. My other question is to Major General Sacolick. Can you address any concerns you may have with the integration of women in small, isolated career fields that typically operate in remote locations? Do you feel there are any operational risks that may be introduced if women were allowed to serve in special op roles? And what are the second and third levels of concern that we may not have addressed previously that warrant additional attention? General Sacolick. Ma'am, I don't know if concern is a strong word. It is something I want to look at, and it goes to unit cohesion. My personal feeling is if we can do this and we can do it right and we can integrate women into those small units that are operating in those environments, it will provide just a new dynamic, powerful enhancement to our capabilities. And this is the assumption we are proceeding. I just want to look at everything so we do it right. So I don't know if it is a concern or not at this point. I stated before I am less concerned with the physicality of our MOSs and more concerned with the interaction at the team level. And we are just looking at it. So I don't know if it is a valid concern or not at this point, ma'am. Ms. Bordallo. Thank you very much. And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Bordallo. We now proceed to Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire. Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you very much. I am holding in my hand from the Office of the Chief of Staff Army, the general officer announcement for December 13, 2012. I am not sure how to interpret it, but there are--well, let me just read it. ``Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta has announced that the President has nominated the following Army competitive category colonels for promotion to the rank of brigadier general.'' There are 34 names on it, and none of them are women, and I am not really sure how to interpret that. Can you do that for me, please? General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am. Clearly, I understand your concern, and I would like to follow up with a more detailed answer to you. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 110.] General Bromberg. And clearly that is not something that we are proud of in terms of the lack of women on that list, and it is something we will work for as we improve. Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. And would you like to comment also? Ms. Beyler. Again, ma'am, I don't have the details with regard to that specific case, but I can tell you that that is one of the reasons we view this effort that we are doing now, expanding opportunities for women, can only help to enhance leadership and maybe increase leadership at the highest levels of the Department. Ms. Shea-Porter. And I agree, but I do find it ironic that the rules and everything came out in January, and this is December 12th, and it seems like, you know, if somebody would have looked at this list and said maybe one. But I don't know. I mean, there may be perfectly good reasons, but I really would appreciate it if you would get back to me and let me know what that is. I just thought that was curious. General Bromberg. We will follow up in great detail on that. Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate it. And the other comment is that, you know that the women's uniforms have not really been wonderful for women, and as we ask them to do more and know that they want to do more, there is a thing about the uniforms. And I am hoping that they are going to be addressing that, that problem that you have. So would either or anybody like to comment on that as well? Ms. Beyler. I guess what I would say is that each of the Services and SOCOM, as we mentioned, are doing thorough--we call it the DOTMLPF [Doctrine, Organization, Training, Materiel, Leadership and Education, Personnel and Facilities] analysis doctrine, everything through training and facilities and logistics as well. And so I would imagine that--I will let the Services if they want to speak more specifically to it--but again the idea is to do a full-blown analysis and to consider everything that may impact this effort. General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am, we are continually looking at that, and I think the most recent example is we modified the body armor for females. That was just recently rolled out, and there is several other examples. And, again, we will follow up with that. But we have also made changes to the combat uniform as well. Continual process will go on with that. Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay, thank you. And I do have one last question. On that review board for the promotions, does that have to be unanimous? How does that work? Do you know? General Bromberg. Ma'am, that is a centralized selection board, and it would probably be best if we came and gave you full detail about how we do selection board. Voting members, blind votes, complete file review. I am sure all the Services have a similar process. But it is a very orderly, approved process that we go through. Total records are reviewed of those officers that are eligible, votes are made. And there are also sometimes some requirements for maybe a specific career field, such as maybe by law there is a requirement to have an acquisition officer or a lawyer or something of that nature. Those boards are very tight. And we are happy to come lay that out for you in great detail. Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. But does it have to be unanimous? General Bromberg. It goes by a point system, and then there is only so many that can be promoted. So you have to look at the board as a--it is not necessarily a unanimous vote, everbody has a blind vote, and when you total the score up, you have an order of merit list 1 through N, and then if you only can pick 10, it is the top 10 people on the list. Ms. Shea-Porter. Okay. So for the record, the number of women on that board, two. There were quite a few people on the board who voted, and there were only two of them were women. So I just wanted to also point that out. And I appreciate your getting back to me. General Bromberg. Yes, ma'am, we will get back in great detail. [The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on page 110.] Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. I yield back. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Mrs. Shea-Porter. We now conclude with Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez of California. Ms. Sanchez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for allowing me to sit in on this. Obviously this is an issue that I have been working for a long, long time, sitting here for 17 years on this committee. So I am excited that the Chiefs of Staff and that our former Secretary deemed that this was a good thing for the military and that we should move forward. And obviously I am one of those Members that wants to see it move forward. And one of the reasons I think it is important that our women be allowed to be in combat if they can perform in combat is that if they are not doing the number one job of the military, which is combat, then they are probably not going to be wearing stars on their shoulders. And I think looking at the new set of Army generals reflects that combat is an important issue when people are looking--combat performance is an important issue when people are looking at moving up in these organizations, in all of these Services. And I do believe that one of the things that Ms. Shea- Porter said that, you know, the fact that there were only two women on the panel makes a big difference. The more women we would have on there, the more likely we are--I know when I have seen, and I have looked at studies that, you know, people tend to hire in their own image. And if there is not enough women, well then we are probably not going to have enough women up in the flag officers level. So real excited to get this done. Here is my question. I am trying to get my ideas around how you populate leadership. I understand that most of you have come to the conclusion that you don't need whatever critical mass is, but that you need a certain amount of women in the fight together and not isolated, let's say. So if women have traditionally not had that combat role and they are more senior--and I understand that you are trying to populate senior with younger to sort of move a group through-- what is the process that you will use? What are the metrics? How will you choose the women who are already in the military who will be those senior role models, mentors to the people, to the women also being selected to come in to be the initial wave, if you will, of women in combat roles? How will you all do that? General Bromberg. Ma'am I think the first step is that there is many levels here. First of all, in many of the combat units there is positions that are already open to women today as we removed the collocation rule from last year. So there will be a cadre that are being assigned today in these first brigade combat teams, maybe it is a signal officer, an intelligence officer or signal NCO. So we will start moving those individuals in today to start that process, and then we will later on bring in the privates, as we have mentioned earlier. Then I think for the combat MOSs, as we make the decision to go forward, as we do with all MOSs, you have to look at what point within a career that somebody can transfer in. So maybe there is a first lieutenant who is a logistics officer that wants to be an armor officer, an artillery officer. Then we will open that up at the right time in their career, send them to training, and then send them to the unit. The advantage they will have is they will have experience as an officer earlier already, and then we will give them the training, the technical training they need to go with that skill set that is in place now. The same for noncommissioned officers. The tipping point is, for males or females, there is a certain point where you really aren't successful no matter who you are if you transfer in too late, because you miss developmental opportunities that are essential to you being successful later on. So those are the two methods that we will use as we go forward. Ms. Sanchez. And so do you think that that will be a problem, because there is something to be said about practice makes perfect and, you know, having had those maneuvers, and all of a sudden you are coming in 3 years behind your peer group. Do you see some problems with that? How early on will you populate into the leadership to try to move that? And if it is fairly early, how long before we see those types of leaders mature through the pipeline? I mean, how long is this going to take, I guess? I mean, you know, I am interested in that, too, because yesterday's too long, you know, it is not fast enough for me. General Milstead. Well, since you are looking at me---- Ms. Sanchez. I am looking at y'all. I mean, I know you are thinking about these things. General Milstead. We are. We are thinking about this. As General Bromberg said, you know, the easiest way to get at this initially is, you know, we have those closed MOSs. For instance, let's just use tanks. You know, we don't have women tankers right now. But in a tank battalion, we can take women that are in an open MOS, logistics, administration, those sorts of things, intelligence, and move them into the tanks. And that is where we have some of ours now in our exception to policy. Build up a cadre that are there. And then if we determine that tanks is indeed a unit we want to open to women, then when we start sending those young women in there, we have got some leadership in there. Now, this is not going to be overnight. This is going to take some time. And you are right, this has to be done smart. And I am not articulate enough to tell you how right now, but you hit on something. If you come into something 3 years behind your peers, your name is never going to end up on that list. You are behind the power curve. And so how do we do that? In this whole endeavor, we want to set up our women for success, not for failure. And that is the tough piece, and that is the piece we are working very hard on. Ms. Sanchez. Great. Anybody else want to say anything to that? Okay. If you will indulge me just 1 second, because this is a very important question I think you are all going to get, is if we open up combat to women, these MOSs, and women can succeed in them, will all women--if we decide we want that particular woman to go over there into that MOS combat thing, is she going to have to do it or is this going to be by choice, or over time how do you see that playing itself out? And thank you for indulging me on this, because I think it is a very--everybody's asking me this question. Who can answer that? What do you think? General Milstead. Well, for us, I will just use our exception to policy. Those 48 women officers and staff, noncommissioned officers that we have in those 19 units now, that was done through normal assignment process. That was involuntary. That is why they call them orders: You go there. And that is the way it is going to have to be. It is going to have to be the same, because it is not voluntary for the males, so it needs to be the same for all. And that is the way you will do it. That is the way you will have a level playing field and everybody will feel like they are being treated equally. General Bromberg. So two answers, ma'am. You volunteer to come into the military to begin with, that is the voluntary step, and then you select your MOS based upon your qualifications and what is available for that particular year, and you go in there. Once you are in that MOS, you are going to be assigned wherever the Army needs you regardless of gender. That is how we do it today and that is how we will continue to do it. As far as reclassification, we have plenty of people to reclassify. I think there will be plenty of people. If they are interested in that MOS, they will be able to volunteer and reclassify in there. And I think we will continue that process. Ms. Sanchez. And I guess the corollary to that is, if I am a woman coming into the military new as a private or what have you and I am choosing my MOS and I definitely know I don't want to be in a combat unit, can I choose an MOS and know that for-- pretty much that for the rest of my career if I decide to spend it in there, I am going to be a supply officer versus infantry, frontline-type of a person? General Bromberg. Once you enter the military and you are in that specialty, that is normally the specialty you stay with. And we have been blessed for years with our volunteer force, so we haven't had to make those harsh decisions. But we have had, as you have seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, we do remission people, and we will continue to remission people as the case is needed. But we generally don't change those MOSs unless we really force people into a varied situation we haven't had to face in the last several years. But those, once you are in, as General Milstead said, you are in, you have that MOS, you can be ordered into something else or some other position if you need to. I don't see that happening in the near term, though. I think we will be fine with that. Ms. Sanchez. Right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. And we have a concluding question with Mrs. Davis of California. Mrs. Davis. Just quickly, and you don't necessarily have to answer to this. But how early, I guess, in an individual's education do we want to think about how to inspire and how to help people to think about the options that they might have in the future? And I am referring to JROTC [Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps], partnering with sports and athletics, and how women particularly begin to think about what kinds of activities they could be involved in. We often say with women in politics, but even in other fields, you can't be what you can't see. And I think that there is an element of this. And a lot of young men, of course, learn through JRTC what their options might be. And I don't know whether we know anything more today about how we provide that pipeline from JRTC for women going into the Service as in other specialties. And, of course, going back and looking at, just as you said, women who are already part of a support team that have moved into more than support today in Afghanistan and Iraq, you know, is there anything that we know about what helped them to get to where they are and anything that we should learn from that. Thank you. Mr. Wilson. Thank you very much, Ms. Davis. And Ms. Shea-Porter had a concluding question. Ms. Shea-Porter. Thank you. I just want to urge all of you to make sure that when you move these women into these combat roles, that we don't make the mistake of isolating them. We have seen women that are just alone. And, you know, I have talked about the band of brothers, and there is no such thing as a band of sister. We should be thinking the same way to help provide them the supports. And I also would like to thank all of you for working so hard on this. I do appreciate it. And I yield back. Mr. Wilson. Thank you, Ms. Shea-Porter. As we conclude, I want to thank each of you for your service and your obvious dedication. I particularly am grateful. I represent Fort Jackson with the new recruits, I have represented Parris Island. I have seen the young people, the opportunities where they come in, I have gone to the graduations. It is just heartwarming to see opportunity provided, people transformed. It is awesome to see young people speaking with their family members, saying, it is me, it really is me.'' So thank you for what you do. And I just look at military service, as a veteran, as the proud dad of four people serving in the military today, it is a great opportunity. Thank you. And at this time, we shall be adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] ======================================================================= A P P E N D I X July 24, 2013 ======================================================================= PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD July 24, 2013 ======================================================================= Statement of Hon. Joe Wilson Chairman, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel Hearing on Women in Service Reviews July 24, 2013 Over the last decade women have served exceptionally in many positions in combat. The decision by the Secretary of Defense in January to rescind the direct ground combat exclusion policy has established a new dynamic--all positions are open to women, unless the military services are granted an exception to policy. In June, the Secretary of Defense released those implementation plans, which envision full implementation of the new policy by January 2016. Between now and then, the military services and U.S. Special Operations Command will develop the substantive basis for implementation. As is clear from the plans, implementation of the new policy will be incremental, with previously closed units and occupational specialties being opened as gender-neutral performance standards are validated, other issues related to the integration are addressed, and congressional notifications are completed. Implementation of decisions about Army and Marine Corps direct ground combat units (infantry, armor, artillery), as well as specialties controlled by the Special Operations Command, will take place later in the process. The Secretary of Defense has made clear that standards will not be lowered, and that they will be applied on a gender-neutral basis. That's a key commitment to the success of inclusion efforts. Statement of Hon. Susan A. Davis Ranking Member, House Subcommittee on Military Personnel Hearing on Women in Service Reviews July 24, 2013 Mr. Chairman, I would also like to welcome our witnesses. Thank you all for being here with us. In January, then-Secretary of Defense Panetta announced that the direct ground combat policy that prohibited women from serving in ground combat units was being rescinded. As part of that announcement, the Services were to provide the Secretary with plans on how they would proceed to implement women into ground combat units and positions. The plans were to be provided to the Secretary by May 15th, and focused on how the Services would open all positions to women by January 1, 2016. I am very pleased that the Secretary rescinded the policy to allow women to serve in all units and positions, including ground combat. Women have served with distinction, including under combat conditions, in today's All-Volunteer Force, and the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that future conflicts put all those who serve on the battlefield under the same threat. Opening positions and units to women to ensure that the best qualified are chosen, not based solely on gender, but on capabilities and experience will help to ensure that our military remains the best in the world. Establishing criteria based on the functions and responsibilities of each position will help to ensure that the most qualified will serve. Women want to ensure that they have equal opportunities to serve and excel into higher leadership positions and not be held back because they are prohibited from serving in specific fields. They do not want the rules and requirements to be different because they are women. What they want is a fair and open opportunity. The elimination of the ground combat policy is the first step toward that equality. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and having an open and productive dialogue on the issues and challenges that the Services, especially Special Operations Command, may have in this effort. Thank you again for being here today. [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ======================================================================= DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD July 24, 2013 ======================================================================= [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] ======================================================================= WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING July 24, 2013 ======================================================================= RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MRS. DAVIS General Bromberg. U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command is currently developing and validating gender-neutral physical standards for the currently closed occupations. The Armed Service Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is used by all services for cognitive evaluation. The ASVAB is a multiple-aptitude battery that measures developed abilities and helps predict future academic and occupational success in the military. [See page 10.] ______ RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS General Bromberg. U.S. Army Training Doctrine Command (TRADOC) trains Soldiers to meet the occupational requirements of their unique specialty. This will not change. Different Soldiers may use different techniques to accomplish tasks, however, many tasks are very prescriptive in the manner they are performed due to the equipment used. For example, vehicle mechanics must often perform maintenance tasks in a specific sequence. TRADOC has conducted gender integrated training successfully for many years and has no plans to return to gender segregated training. Training the males and females differently (separately), contradicts the intent of integrating the Army and can be perceived as training to different standards or inequitable treatment of Soldiers. [See page 14.] General Milstead. Our entry level training ensures Marines are screened and provided with the requisite training and skills to successfully meet the needs of the total force and the rigors of combat. The Marine Corps does this by first transforming civilians into ``Basically Trained Marines'' at Recruit Training; second by training all Marines in the basic combat skills necessary to perform the duties of a provisional rifleman at Marine Combat Training (MCT); and third by providing them the basic knowledge and skills at the MOS Schools required to perform the duties of their assigned Military Occupational Specialty (MOS). Male and female recruits train separately in Recruit Training in order to foster the transformation from civilian to Marine. This approach allows young female recruits the environment needed to focus and build self-confidence without distractions, embrace service core values, refine skills, and adjust to military life. It also provides a setting with confidentiality to address prior service sexual assault or harassment incidents and most importantly provides young female recruits a structured environment with strong female role models (drill instructors) to emulate. We feel this approach is necessary and beneficial to both female and male recruits and sets the foundation necessary for both male and female recruits to succeed as Marines during the rest of their entry level training and time in the Corps. After completing Recruit Training, female and male Marines assigned to an open MOS attend Marine Combat Training (MCT) at the School of Infantry (SOI)-East at Camp Lejeune, NC. Marines train side-by-side at MCT and learn the basic combat skills necessary to perform the duties of a Provisional Rifleman. Once they graduate from MCT, Marines train together at open MOS schools. As we open closed MOS schools to female Marines, male and female Marines will train together. As female Marines are integrated into the student population in previously closed MOS Schools, we will use their pre- and post-graduation performance data with our System Approach to Training (SAT) process to continually evaluate and improve their curriculums. This is the same process we follow for male Marines who attend these MOS schools. Following this process, the Marine Corps is confident we will continue to improve the quality of our formal Programs of Instruction, continue to advance mastery for both men and women and continue to meet the MOS/billet training requirements of the total force. [See page 14.] ______ RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO General Bromberg. During the period of 1 August 2012 to 31 July 2013, the overall active duty discharge rate from Basic Combat Training was 7.9%; for females it was 14.5% and for males it was 6.2%. During the year prior, 1 August 2011 to 31 July 2012, the overall active duty discharge rate from Basic Combat Training was 7.1%; for females it was 12.7% and for males it was 5.6%. [See page 17.] General Milstead. Entry level training attrition rates, by gender, for FY08 thru FY11 are annotated on the below table. It should be noted that after entry level training, the attrition rates for male and female Marines who do not complete their initial contract are similar with the female attrition rate at 5.2% and the male attrition rate at 5.1%. [See page 17.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attrition Rates % of Attrition due to medical/ ------------------------------------ psychological Entry Level Training ----------------------------------- Male Female Male Female ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recruit Training 9.0% 15.7% 43.0% 50.0% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Marine Combat Training 1.5% 1.7% 24.0% 49.0% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Officer Candidate School 19.6% 42.0% 27.0% 40.0% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Basic School 5.6% 11.0% 4.0% 14.0% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- General Sacolick. USSOCOM is still in the assessment phase of its Women in Service implementation effort, and therefore is still trying to ascertain what concerns are warranted regarding the integration of women into Special Operations Forces (SOF). Certain factors from a social cohesion and task cohesion stand point will be studied over the coming months to identify potential obstacles. For social cohesion, we will be looking at the human interactions that occur when people are placed in remote locations, in close proximity to one another, and forced to rely extensively, perhaps exclusively, on the other members of a small team in order to succeed in their tasks, and perhaps for their safety and well-being. We already know from our experience with our current force that these factors lead to the team members developing close bonds. Task cohesion factors of concern are: different reactions to stress, performance expectations, and the ability to engage in teamwork. These factors are going to be studied to gain a better understanding of the magnitude, nature, and scope of the potential concerns of SOF personnel. This will help us anticipate challenges that may arise and allow for a seamless transition. [See page 17.] General Sweredoski. Attrition rates at Navy Recruit Training Command: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Males Females Total ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year 10 8.0% 13.0% 9.0% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year 11 8.3% 14.6% 9.7% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year 12 9.6% 14.4% 10.5% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year 13 (YTD) 8.0% 11.3% 8.8% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Fiscal Year 13 Year to Date (YTD) attrition is from October 1, 2012 through July 31, 2013. [See page 17.] General Grosso. The following tables reflect Air Force attrition rates. ACRONYMS AD: Active Duty BMT: Basic Military Training BOT: Basic Officer Training COT: Commissioned Officer Training IST: Initial Skills Training OTS: Officer Training School ROTC: Reserve Officers' Training Corps ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD Enlisted BMT Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY12 Female 5,339 407 7.62% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 23,475 1,229 5.24% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 28,814 1,636 5.68% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD Enlisted IST Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY12 Female 4,921 305 6.20% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 23,301 1,414 6.07% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 28,222 1,719 6.09% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Active Duty (AD) Officers Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AY12 AF Academy Female 980 49 5.00% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 3,561 237 6.66% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 4,541 286 6.30% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY12 ROTC Female 471 48 10.20% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 1,576 233 14.80% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 2,047 281 13.72% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY12 OTS/BOT Female 69 2 2.90% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 495 44 8.89% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 564 46 8.16% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY12 COT Female 570 1 0.18% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 666 4 0.60% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 1,236 5 0.00% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total AD Officers Female 2,090 100 4.78% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 6,298 518 8.22% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 8,388 618 7.37% ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD Officer IST (not rated) Gender Entered Eliminees % Attrition -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- FY12 Female 445 12 2.70% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Male 1,381 44 3.19% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 1,826 56 3.07% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AD Rated Officer IST Female 180 8 4.40% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AY12 Male 2,868 94 3.30% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 3,048 102 3.35% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total AD Officers IST Female 625 20 3.20% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AY12/FY12 Male 4,249 138 3.25% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total 4,874 158 3.24% -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [See page 17.] ______ RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. SHEA-PORTER General Bromberg. The Fiscal Year 2012 Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board was conducted in compliance with law and regulation. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 617, the board carefully considered the record of each officer whose name was furnished to the board. The board found that, in the opinion of the majority of the members of the board, the officers recommended for promotion by the board were best qualified for promotion to meet the needs of the Department of the Army. The board membership, approved by the Secretary of the Army, complied with Title 10, United States Code, Section 612 and consisted of 19 general officers. The officers who were selected by the Fiscal Year 2012 Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board were the best qualified for promotion and it is an anomaly that, of the best qualified officers, none in this case happened to be female. The Department of the Army has reviewed the results of every Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category board for which we have record and, with the exception of the Fiscal Year 2012 board, find no previous board where no female was selected. In fact from 1989 until 2011, females have been selected at a higher rate (2.24) than males (2.16). [See page 18.] General Bromberg. The goal of a Brigadier General, Army Competitive Category Promotion Selection Board is to recommend the ``best qualified'' colonels for promotion to brigadier general who will make the greatest contribution to the Army and Department of Defense, regardless of ethnicity and gender. Board members are directed by the Secretary of the Army to consider all eligible colonels in the considered population. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 616(b), the Secretary of the Army establishes the maximum number of officers that the selection board may recommend for promotion from the officers being considered. Pursuant to Title 10, United States Code, section 622, this number is determined based on the number of positions needed to accomplish mission objectives, the estimated number of officers needed to fill vacancies in such positions, and the number of officers authorized by the Secretary of the Army to serve on active duty in that grade. Once the board has convened, the board members are briefed on the board process and the details contained in the Secretary of the Army's Memorandum of Instruction (i.e., number to be selected, specific requirements by skill set and other direction for the conduct of the board). The board process for a Brigadier General Promotion Selection Board is as follows: Each board member considers every eligible colonel in the considered population and votes to determine if the officer's performance record and qualifications merit further consideration. Based on this vote, an order of merit list is established. After the order of merit list is established, the board votes to determine the number of officers who will be further considered. The board then further considers those officers. During this phase of the board, board members may discuss their own personal knowledge and evaluation of the professional qualifications of eligible officers. Board members may not discuss or disclose the opinion of any person not a member of the board concerning an officer being considered unless that opinion is contained in material provided to the board. After discussion of the officers under consideration, the board members conduct a blind vote of each officer under consideration by designating a score for each officer. Each officer's collective score is tallied and that total score is used to establish an order of merit list. Using the order of merit list, the ``best qualified'' officers are determined based on selection requirements established by the Secretary of the Army. [See page 19.] ? ======================================================================= QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING July 24, 2013 ======================================================================= QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS Ms. Tsongas. Currently, women are being allowed to serve in previously closed units in open specialties in some units. This practice is being inconsistently applied across the Services. For example, women in the Army are being assigned down to the battalion level in open specialties but not to the company level in combat arms units. In the USMC, women are still prohibited from being assigned to the battalion level in most combat arms units. Will OSD establish a policy on women serving in previously closed combat units in currently open MOSs? Can women who serve in an open MOS be assigned to combat units at all levels, and if not, why not, and when will that change? Ms. Beyler. The Services and USSOCOM are required to open positions and units in a manner consistent with the Joint Chiefs' Guiding Principles. They are further required to meet interim milestones and goals. Due to differing force structures and operational requirements, the Services and USSOCOM have been given authority to implement rescission of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule as they determine necessary, consistent with the direction set out in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff memorandum of January 9, 2013. Integration of women into newly opened positions and units will occur as expeditiously as possible, considering good order and judicious use of fiscal resources, but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016. Any recommendation to keep an occupational specialty or unit closed to women must be personally approved by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then the Secretary of Defense. This approval may not be delegated. Exceptions must be narrowly tailored, and based on a rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills, and abilities for the position. Ms. Tsongas. Will OSD require each Service to brief OSD and Congress on how it is developing its gender-neutral occupational standards? Who is leading this effort within each branch, and what methods are they using to develop these standards? Will OSD also ask them to provide a briefing on their use of social science or ``cultural'' studies in the development of gender-neutral occupational standards? Ms. Beyler. Yes, the Acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Service Chiefs are monitoring the progress the Services and USSOCOM are making toward integration of women into previously closed occupations. The Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Services, and USSOCOM will provide periodic updates to Congress. Each Service and USSOCOM are working with various scientific and research agencies (U.S. Army Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Center for Naval Analyses, Air Education and Training Command, and RAND) to review and validate occupational standards to ensure they are current and operationally valid and are applied on a gender-neutral basis. Each Service and USSOCOM are conducting thorough doctrine, organization, training, materiel, leadership and education, personnel, facilities, and policy analysis to ensure deliberate and responsible implementation. This analysis also addresses the social science or cultural impacts as needed. However, at this time it is too early to draw any conclusions. Ms. Tsongas. Will the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) require the service branches to recognize and build upon the combat experience that current servicewomen gained in Afghanistan and Iraq? Will servicewomen who were attached to or otherwise served alongside combat units in Afghanistan and Iraq be eligible for leadership positions requiring combat specialties? Will the service branches develop a plan to enable such women to cross-train and compete for leadership positions in combat units? Could OSD build upon the already- existing ``cadre'' of women with OIF/OEF combat experience by encouraging women who were attached to combat units, served in FET/CST/ Lioness and so on to branch transfer or cross-train for newly opening leadership positions within previously closed units and even new MOSs? Could OSD ask the service branches to do a review and training to ensure that promotion boards, briefers, and those in charge of assembling the ``cadre'' are trained to recognize the often-hidden combat service of women who deployed with FET, attached to combat units, and so on? Could OSD send a memo to outline the criteria for assembling this cadre? Ms. Beyler. The Department believes the Services should explore all means to build upon the combat experience women have gained in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs guiding principle in regard to ``cadres'' seeks to provide mid-to-senior grade female leadership for women assigned to previously closed positions. Achieving sufficient numbers may require an adjustment to recruiting efforts, assignment processes, and personnel policies. Assimilation of women into heretofore ``closed units'' will be informed by continual in-stride assessments and incremental opening efforts. Each Service will develop criteria for sufficient cadres for each unique occupational skill as positions are opened. Additionally, as effective gender integration strategies are identified, through formal analysis the Department will ensure the data, lessons learned and best practices are shared across the Services. While assignment strategies are evolving, sufficient cadres may include senior female personnel that are co-located, but not necessarily in the same occupational skill. Leadership can be developed in a number of ways. One strategy is to place mid-to-senior level female leadership in the same organization, or co-located with junior service members assigned to previously closed positions. The Services will leverage a number of strategies, based in research, analysis and lessons learned, to set service members up for success in newly opened positions. A lack of MOS-qualified female mentors is not a reason to keep a position closed. No specified number of women required for assignment exists. In some cases, one qualified female may be sufficient. To entertain a pre-conceived ``critical mass'' suggests there is a quota, which would be a disservice to women entering these occupations. Since each Service is unique in organizational structure and mission, we believe the Services are in the best position to determine how to build a sufficient cadre to assimilate women into previously closed positions and occupations. Regarding promotion boards, the Secretaries of the Military Departments convene and provide guidance to officer promotion selection boards. Each of the Secretaries gives guidance to these boards to recommend the best qualified officers for promotion regardless of their gender. This guidance also includes wording on the importance of combat, combat related, combat support activities, and nation-building experience in our future leaders. Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no ``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? Ms. Beyler. Cadre is one of the five Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Guiding Principles and but one of many other considerations the Services will factor in as they implement the rescission of the Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule. The National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 1994, Section 543, specifically provides that the Department may not use a gender quota, goal or ceiling except as specifically authorized by law, with regard to qualifications of members of the Armed Forces, and for continuance of members in open occupational career fields. Cadre requirements will vary depending on the needs of the Services, the units, and the occupations. We do not envision that cadre alone will bar a woman from serving in a specific position. Ms. Tsongas. Will the Army expand on its rationale for not opening Ranger School in the early phase of its plan? It is well recognized that Ranger School is a prestigious leadership training course now available only to men in a range of occupational specialties. General Bromberg. While the Army has many courses and programs designed to provide leader development and training, the primary purpose of the Ranger Course is to provide Ranger Qualified Soldiers to meet Army Ranger authorization requirements. The training is voluntary and completion of the course is not required for service in any of the Army's basic Career Management Fields (CMF). Approximately eighty percent of the requirements for Ranger Qualified Soldiers are in the Infantry or Special Forces Career Management Fields; occupations currently closed to females. Therefore, the Army plans to open the Ranger Course with the opening the Infantry Career Management Field or as expeditiously as possible afterwards in coordination with USSOCOM. We will proceed in this deliberate manner to ensure we can capture lessons learned from the opening of the basic career management fields. This deliberate and informed approach is essential to ensure we comprehend the impacts on small unit missions normally associated with infantry/ranger squads and platoons, both the physical and cultural aspects of integration of it as we go forward. Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no ``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? General Bromberg. The lack of Military Occupational Specialty qualified female mentors is not a criterion to keep a position closed and women will not be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient. Sufficient cadre can be developed in a number of ways. One strategy is to place mid-to-senior level female leadership in the same organization, or co-located with junior service members assigned to previously closed positions. Assimilation of women into heretofore ``closed units'' and ``elite positions'' is evolving. The Army will leverage a number of strategies, based on research, analysis and lessons learned, to set service members up for success in newly opened positions. Ms. Tsongas. Based on its plan, does the possibility exist that the Marine Corps will close previously open units and MOSs? General Milstead. All units and MOSs that were open under the 1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule will remain open to women. Ms. Tsongas. The Marine Corps plan indicates that observation of the performance of a handful of women volunteers, less than 10, in the Infantry Officer Course (IOC) is being factored into the decision on whether to open previously closed MOSs. What is the purpose of allowing entry-level women to volunteer for the IOC course? What research organization is conducting this study and what is their research methodology? Have the physical tests in the IOC been validated as part of an occupational standards review for infantry officers? And, if so, can you describe the validation process including how the IOC tasks test the validated infantry officer occupational standards? General Milstead. To achieve a statistically significant sample based on the current female officer population, the Marine Corps requires 92 female officer volunteers for IOC. Their documented performance at IOC will provide data to leadership to make an informed recommendation on the Infantry Officer MOS (0302). Marine Corps' Training and Education Command is conducting this research under the Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). Women are not selected to attend IOC but must volunteer, per HRPP policy guidelines. Female lieutenants from each Basic Officer Course (BOC) are presented with two separate Informed Consent briefs and opportunities to volunteer; one at the beginning of their BOC and a second brief, prior to BOC graduation, to `reconfirm' their voluntary status. The occupational standards for the Infantry Officer MOS have been reviewed and validated. The validated Program of Instruction (POI) for IOC trains to, and tests for, the Infantry Officer occupational standards. All Programs of Instruction and Training and Readiness Manuals routinely undergo an established cyclical review to validate and update MOS performance standards. The IOC Program of Instruction (POI) was reviewed and signed in June 2012 by Training and Education Command (TECOM) as part of an established cyclical review (every three years) that all POIs and Training and Readiness (T&R) Manuals undergo. Ms. Tsongas. The Marine Corps has military occupations that are similar to other branches, particularly the Army. In fact the occupations are so similar that Marines attend MOS schools that are run by the other branches, for example Marines attend the armor school at Fort Knox, Kentucky, or the Artillery school at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, or the combat diver course at the Navy Diver and Salvage Training Center in Panama City, Florida. However, the Marine integration plan for these similar occupational specialties is strikingly dissimilar to the other Services. For example, the Marine plan specifically states (on page 4) that the Marines will not open maintainer MOSs until the operator MOSs become open, and cites as an example that the 2417 MOS (Light Armored Vehicle Repair/Technician) will only open if the 0313 MOS (Light Armored Vehicle Crewman) is opened. This is in direct contrast to the Army. The Army has already graduated 5 women from their Bradley Fighting Vehicle course as Bradley Fighting Vehicle System Maintainers (19M) even though the job of a Bradley crew member (19D) remains closed. What rationale would allow the Marine Corps to keep women out of jobs that are the same or virtually the same as jobs the other Services have opened or will open? And how would the Marines maintain the interoperability with the other Services that is so critical to the accomplishment of their mission? General Milstead. In the Marine Corps, the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) maintainers physically deploy with the vehicles and are in the fight with the rest of the vehicle crew. In a crisis response mission, the maintainers are forward and engaged in the initial fight along with the combat vehicle they support. Our other combat vehicle maintainers (AAV, Tanks) similarly deploy. Our plan is to consider both the operators and maintainers for each combat vehicle at the same time, when determining if the occupation should open for females. Interoperability with the other Services will not be impacted by the gender of the operator or maintainer. Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no ``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? General Milstead. Every unit within the USMC, to include those previously closed, currently has open MOS positions in which both male and female Marines could potentially serve. Female Marines filling these open MOS billets would comprise the requisite ``cadre'' both at the schoolhouses and the units to which female Marines qualified in an MOS that has previously been closed would be assigned. It will take generational growth to generate female Marine leadership in previously closed MOS positions. Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no ``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? General Sacolick. USSOCOM will closely examine the Secretary of Defense requirement to have cadre at the point of introduction. We are studying several courses of action that meet the intent of Secretary of Defense while providing professional development opportunities for both the women entering previously closed positions and occupations and those who will serve as cadre. USSOCOM's expectation is lack of sufficient cadre will not be sufficient basis for an exception to policy. Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no ``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? General Sweredoski. Navy execution plans will ensure women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions will not be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient. The Navy will assign female officers and enlisted personnel already qualified within their specialty to newly opened platforms and units before lower ranking enlisted women are integrated. Navy's integration policy ensures an experienced or warfare qualified female officer shall be on board prior to integration of junior officer or enlisted women, and a minimum of one female Chief Petty Officer shall be on board prior to junior enlisted women. The experienced or warfare qualified female officer and female Chief Petty Officer shall be voluntarily assigned through routine assignment policy. Ms. Tsongas. What happens in the short term if there is no ``sufficient cadre'' of mid-level and senior women available ``at the point of introduction''? Most crucially, will women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions be barred from serving in those positions on the grounds that the cadre is insufficient? General Grosso. The Air Force through its normal assignment process will ensure there is female leadership presence (enlisted and officer) in support cadre, training pipelines and operational units. While assignment strategies are evolving, sufficient cadre may include senior female personnel that are co-located, but not necessarily in the same occupational skill (i.e. First Sergeant, Medical Technician, etc.). If there are women who satisfy all other qualifications for elite positions, they will not be barred from serving in those positions. A lack of qualified female mentors is not criterion to keep a position closed. ______ QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING Dr. Fleming. With the DOD essentially eliminating the definition of combat on which the Court relied in making its decision--a lawsuit has already been filed in the lower courts--I want to know what timeline the DOD sees on this as it moves forward in implementation. Ms. Beyler. [The information was not available at the time of printing.] Dr. Fleming. A) Is it the official policy of the Pentagon and the Administration that women should be included in the selective service, i.e. subject to the draft, to serve in combat arms? If so, how will that impact readiness? B) Can you explain how the Department is going to review this as it considers the applicability of the 1981 Supreme Court decision? Are there a certain number of positions that need to be opened or is it more the type of positions to be opened that would make women similarly situated and therefore potentially required to register under the Selective Service Act, and therefore, to be drafted? Ms. Beyler. The Department believes there would be merit in an assessment of the Military Selective Service Act, to include a thorough review of the statutes and polices surrounding the current registration process and the registration of women. The Department believes such a review involves a much broader National discussion and should not be solely conducted by DOD. The Department stands ready to assist in any such review. Dr. Fleming. In February 2012, the DOD released a report to Congress on the Women in Services Review. I understand a lot of work was done at the service level on this report and would like to review the specific data collected by the Services in completing the review, such as the experience gained by the Marine Corps from assigning women to certain positions. In fact, there was language passed this year in the House NDAA that would require the DOD to present these findings. Does the Department have plans to provide Congress with the data collected at the service level? Will you provide the Committee with that data? Ms. Beyler. The Department conducted an internal administrative review to identify the laws, policies and regulations that restrict the service of female members of the Armed Forces. In addition to the administrative review to identify restrictive laws, policy and regulations, the Department consulted with the RAND Corporation, which conducted research to assess the equitable opportunity for women to compete and excel in the Armed Forces. Although the reports weren't publically available at the time of the Department's delivery of the 2012 Report to Congress, RAND subsequently released its report entitled, ``The Extent of Restrictions on the Service of Active Component Military Women'' and ``A New Look at Gender and Minority Differences in Officer Career Progression in the Military,'' which are now both publically available.