The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1995 (Public Law 103-337, Section 533) requires that the Department annually submit this report of readiness factors by race and gender as part of the annual Department of Defense posture statement. This appendix responds to that reporting requirement.
The Department has continued to address the issue of nondeployability in relation to readiness. Earlier this year, the Department reviewed permanent and temporary limitation factors with the Services. However, since DoD has not required the Services to collect or report individual nondeployability data in the past or utilize a standard reporting system with standardized definitions, comprehensive historical data was not available for this report. To address this issue for future reports, under the leadership of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Force Management Policy), the Department contracted the Logistics Management Institute to perform a comprehensive analysis of the impact of nondeployable personnel on readiness and equity. This study also will look at the degree to which individuals in active component units, who are not deployable, are adversely affecting readiness. The objective of this study is to review and enhance the capacity of Service personnel management systems to track individual deployability. Over the past year, Logistics Management Institute has made substantial progress in working with the services to develop an effective system to collect data on nondeployability rates. The Department is committed to studying nondeployables aggressively with the Services to facilitate an analysis for future reports.
The Services assign individuals and deploy units. When a unit deploys, the individuals assigned to that unit are expected to participate in that deployment, and the overwhelming majority do, regardless of personal circumstance. That was an important finding of the Department's December 1993 study titled Family Status and Initial Term of Service. When a unit is called upon to deploy, however, it is inevitable that some of its members may not be able to accompany the unit. A temporary medical condition or a family emergency, for example, may temporarily prevent a member from accompanying his or her unit. Each problem is unique to the service member and to the circumstances of his/her unit, and is properly managed at the unit level. Current Department policy recognizes Service-unique and unit-unique circumstances, and provides the Services with the flexibility to manage those situations to meet readiness goals. Accident, illness, and family emergencies are inherently unplanned and pose the greatest challenges to commanders of units about to deploy. Permanent medical limitations (HIV-positive, cancer, heart disease, asthma, diabetes, and other progressive illnesses) are a small part of the medical problem. The actual number of members with permanent limitations is small -- around two-tenths of one percent of the active force -- and is far too small to exert a significant impact on readiness.
This small number is manageable through the assignment process. Since only a very small number of service members have medical conditions that preclude them from taking certain assignments, when such a medical condition is diagnosed, the service member is given as assignment limitation. These individuals are not assigned to deploying units; if an assigned member becomes permanently restricted, he or she is reassigned and replaced. If that individual's medical condition affects duty performance, he or she is referred to the Physical Evaluation Board to determine retainability.
The Department will continue to aggressively review existing Service methods designed to account for individuals in a nondeployable status, to enhance and standardize the personnel accounting systems designed to track availability for deployment, and to develop necessary policy changes to improve deployment capacity by monitoring individual availability.
DoD policy clearly prohibits discrimination and sexual harassment. Furthermore, the Department is building a diverse force, a force reflecting the rich tapestry of this nation. Diversity can serve as a source of vitality to an organization.
The composition of the U.S. military is a positive statement about what is possible in a multiracial, multiethnic society. Most nations are multiracial, and most nations are divided along lines of race, religion, or language. When the U.S. military is deployed, whether for warfighting or peacekeeping, it shows that diversity can be a strength. To achieve and manage a diverse force successfully, DoD leaders must promote fair treatment, and prohibit discrimination and sexual harassment.
The Department has made substantial progress in addressing equal opportunity issues -- first with the full integration of African Americans and more recently with enhanced and expanded opportunities for military women. Nevertheless, the Services have experienced increases in reported incidents of discrimination and sexual harassment. The discrimination complaint processing systems currently used by the Services work well most of the time. The chain of command is effective in administering these systems; however, evidence of mishandling indicates that systemic improvements are justified. In April 1994, the Department developed a five part plan for addressing the issue. One of the major components of the plan established a special task force co-chaired by the Secretary of the Air Force and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to:
In May 1995, the special task force completed its work and sent to Congress its report. The report set out 48 recommendations for improvements in military discrimination and harassment prevention programs. These recommendations were approved, and in August 1995, the Department issued DoD Directive 1350.2, Department of Defense Military Equal Opportunity Program, implementing the report's 48 recommendations. Congressionally requested information concerning discrimination and sexual harassment cases for previous years is provided in Tables G-1 and G-2.
While DoD has established reporting requirements and historical data on discrimination and sexual harassment complaints, no similar reporting requirement has been established for reporting the number of such cases that resulted in disciplinary cases. Consequently, there currently is no mechanism to correlate the existing discrimination complaint data with disciplinary action to give reliable information on disposition of discrimination and sexual harrassment cases.
DoD has recognized the problem, and it is being addressed through the implementation of the Defense Incident Based Reporting System (DIBRS). DIBRS is being designed to capture incidents of unlawful discrimination through bias motivation indicators, and incidents of sexual harassment through a special designator. DIBRS will include reporting requirements for FBI's National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) of crime which includes bias-motivation indicators for offenses. In addition, DIBRS will track and correlate disciplinary action on bias-related offenses. DIBRS will come on-line in 1996-97, beginning with the Air Force in the summer of 1996.
The skillful management of the force drawdown since FY 1992 has allowed the Department to maintain the key foundation of U.S. armed forces -- quality people. During this period of personnel turbulence, there have been minimal variations in retention rates among the Services. FY 1994 and FY 1995 Army and Navy retention rates remained basically the same. At the end of FY 1994, the Marine Corps drawdown was completed. Their overall retention rates increased by 2 percent in FY 1995. The Air Force overall retention rate decreased by 3 percent in FY 1995. Their retention rates were artificially depressed by expanded voluntary separation programs. The Department has improved the quality of U.S. forces and its readiness while maintaining the commitment to treat people fairly. The Services will continue to use the personnel drawdown and management strategies that have proven to be successsful for the reduction planned for FY 1996.
Trends in Propensity to Enlist
Since 1975, the Department of Defense annually has conducted the Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS), a computer-assisted telephone interview of a nationally representative sample of 10,000 young men and women. The survey provides information on the propensity, attitudes, and motivations of young people toward military service. Enlistment propensity is the percentage of youth who state they plan to definitely or probably enlist in the next few years. Research has shown that the expressed intentions of young men and women are strong predictors of enlistment behavior.
Enlistment Propensity Trends
Results from the 1995 YATS show propensity was slightly higher than in 1994. In 1995, 28 percent of 16-21 year-old men expressed positive propensity for at least one active-duty Service, up from 26 percent in 1994. Propensity for the Army and Navy also increased while propensity for the Marine Corps and the Air Force did not change.
Propensity of 16-21 year-old women for active military service in 1995 was generally unchanged from 1994. However, 7 percent of 16-21 year-old women expressed propensity for the Air Firce, a statistically significant increase from 5 percent in 1994, but the same as the level observed in 1992 and 1993.
In 1995, 23 percent of 16-21 year-old White men, 32 percent of 16-21 year-old Black men, and 44 percent of 16-21 year-old Hispanic men expressed propensity for at least one Service. In 1994, the comparable percentages were 22 percent for Whites, 32 percent for Blacks, and 39 percent for Hispanics.
Over the past several years, enlistment propensity has declined (see attached tables) as the Services experienced serious cuts in recruiting resources. In 1994-95, recruitment advertising was increased, and the 1995 YATS results indicate that the decline in propensity may have abated. Continued investment in recruiting and advertising resources is required, however, to assure that the pool of young men and women interested in the military will be available to meet Service personnel requirements in the future.
Factors Influencing Propensity
YATS provides some information about what youth cite as reasons they would or would not want to join the military. As shown in the attached tables, 16-21 year-olds cite some common reasons for propensity to join the military and also for not wanting to join the military.
Reasons cited to join the military include educational funding, job training/experience, duty to country, pay, travel, and to develop self-discipline. Looking at the responses for 16-21 year-old youth from 1993 to 1995, a larger percentage of males and females across all racial categories express wanting to join for educational funding in 1995 than in 1993. Also, notably a greater proportion of Hispanic males and a smaller proportion of Black and Hispanic females express wanting to join for job training/experience. The influence of duty to country as a reason to join is down for all gender and racial groups with the exception of Black females who indicate an slight increase from last year. The influence of pay as a reason to join the military among young Black males is down from 1994, which is also true for Black and Hispanic females. Opportunity to travel appears to be more of an influence among Black and Hispanic females in 1995 than is 1993-94. Likewise, the opportunity to develop self-discipline is given by a larger percentage of Hispanic males and females, white females, and smaller percentage of Black females since 1994. Young women and men of all racial groups give educational funding and job training and experience as their primary reasons to join the military.
Reasons cited for not wanting to join the military are that they do not like the military lifestyle, have other career interests, too long a commitment, danger and threat to life, family obligations, and military service is against their beliefs. In 1995, a larger percentage of Black males and all racial groups of females since 1994 give not liking the military as a reason for not wanting to enlist. A smaller percentage of White and a larger percentage of Hispanic females express that they have other career interests as a reason for not wanting to join the military. Similarly, a larger percentage of Black males and a smaller percentage of females across all racial groups state that danger and threat to life have turned them away from considering service. Finally, a larger percentage of females than males in 1995 provide family obligations as a reason for not wanting to serve in the military but responses are similar to 1993 and 1994. The proportion of young males who cite the military as being against their beliefs as a reason to not join is down from 1994 but is the same as 1993; however, it is a slightly less common response for females across-the-board.
Preliminary Funding of Focus Group Research
In addition to propensity information and reasons to join or not join, YATS also shows where youth get their perceptions of the military. The majority of young men report conversations with their friends, parents, and acquaintances of their parents' generation as a major source of perceptions of military service. Unfortunately, YATS provides little detail on the nature of these conversations, or of the actual perceptions formed. To obtain this detailed information, the Defense Manpower Data Center convened focus groups with young men and the parents of young men to obtain information on their views of military service for young men graduating from high school.
Twenty-four focus groups were conducted with young men in four cities: Raleigh, Dallas, Detroit, and Baltimore. In each city, four types of groups were convened: White high school seniors; White, recent high school graduates; Black high school seniors; and Black, recent high school graduates. Young men meeting the educational criteria were further screened for military experience. Classified as ineligible were those youth currently in the DoD Delayed Entry Program or previously in the military. Also, the number of youth whose parents were veterans was limited. These criteria were implemented so groups would be representative of the male population from which DoD recruits.
Twelve focus groups were conducted with parents in three cities: Detroit, Baltimore, and Raleigh. These involved parents of young men who were eligible, but not selected for inclusion in the earlier youth focus groups. In each city, four types of groups were convened: Black fathers, White fathers, Black mothers, and White mothers. Parent groups included people whose sons met the youth screening criteria; who were not currently serving in the Reserves or on active duty; and who had not been career military members.
Focus group sessions lasted two hours and discussion leaders used a loosely structured agenda that elicited information from youth and parents on young men's (1) current world, e.g., work, go to school; (2) future plans and lifestyles; (3) types of work/job that appeals to them and the job attributes that would be important, e.g., helping others, mental challenge; (4) perceptions of the military and who joins and why; (5) where they obtain their information and perceptions of the world of work and the military; (6) who influences their decisionmaking; and (7) the nature of parent/youth discussions.
Analysis of the 24 male youth focus group discussions is currently under way. In general, an interesting picture of today's youth and their perceptions of the military is evolving -- youth knew the Services are hiring; every participant was familiar with recruiters and many reported, sometimes in a very negative way, repeated contacts with recruiters. Most young men thought college was their next step in life but, when asked how they would obtain money for college if conventional sources such as parents, scholarships, and loans were not available, few mentioned joining the military to obtain educational funding. Youth knew the military had programs to fund college expenses, but they generally felt the sacrifices were too great, e.g., four years too long a commitment, loss of control of daily life, boot camp experience too demanding. Those who expressed an interest in the military or viewed it as a possibility if going to college became difficult often had members who had served or were currently serving in the military. Young men reported learning most about the military from other family members who had served, and older friends or youth in their neighborhood who had enlisted; media sources also were mentioned, e.g., ads and movies. Parents usually had the greatest influence on youth decisions, including joining the military.
Analysis of the 12 parent focus group discussions also is underway. These parents had personal, draft-era military experiences. Some served in Vietnam or had spouses/friends who had. They clearly understood the military has significantly changed in the All-Volunteer Force era. In addition, parents of young men were aware the Services are recruiting and the DoD is downsizing and closing facilities. They believed college or post-high school training is important. Most parents viewed their influence on son's choices as nurturing and supportive. Both moms and dads indicated they wanted their sons to be happy with their educational and job/career choices. Parents generally did not believe the military was the best choice for their sons, but indicated they would support their sons's decision to enlist if the son really wanted to do it. Parents, however, were leery of military recruiters painting a rosy picture of military life and their sons making decisions based on inaccurate information.
Most focus groups had parents who discussed specific cases where youth they knew had enlisted and had not gotten what they thought was promised to them, e.g., occupational specialty, training, geographic assignment. Parents were quite positive about the military academies and youth joining the military as officers. The parents knew educational benefits were available to youth who enlisted but seemed confused about what the benefits actually were. No parents expressed knowledge of in-service educational benefits available to youth who enlist. They thought the military would be good for youth who need discipline, are not mature enough, are indecisive about their future, or are unable to finance their educational or vocational goals. They believed the military is different since Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Many parents expressed fear that if their sons enlisted, they could be harmed since the military most likely would continue to be involved in hostile skirmishes in foreign places. Parents generally were not supportive of this evolving role for the United States military. Most parents largely believed that racism and gender discrimination still exist in the military.
In the long-term, DoD must improve the military image and culture so enlistment remains an attractive post-high school option for young people. The best way to sell the military is to treat people right. DoD must fight for equitable pay and benefits, provide solid training, support the military family, improve health care, and reduce discrimination. Collectively, these tangible and intangible actions boost morale and enhance the attractiveness of military service. In sum, the best recruiters are the soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen themselves. If DoD treats them right, they will sell their profession to the next generation of military men and women.
Equal Opportunity Discrimination Complaints
Trends in Enlistment Propensity
Trends in Enlistment Propensity Continued
Trends in Enlistment Propensity Continued
