4|! CONGRESSKDNAL Universi ofMissouri-Columbia SERV|CE V A RESEARCH HW" Wmwml WWHW W UBRARY 0}: V ~ M 010-103940194 % CONGRESS WOMEN IN THE ARMED FORCES nf ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB7$O‘-$5 HEMBHNCBMQ AUTHOR: Collier, Ellen C. Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE HAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 9 DATE UPDATED 9 Lu: «\I\ l®+4 mum FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 0317 CRS- 1 1379045 UPDATE-03/1n/no 1 ( 302 nzznirzloi The immediate question facing the Congress is whether to include women if registration for a possible future draft is resumed, as President Carter has proposed. « Draft registration is only one aspect of the question of the role of women in the military which is confronting Congress in several interrelated forms. Difficulties in obtaining enough qualified males for the All-Volunteer ‘Force’ have already led to increasing recruitment of women. In addition, as part of its program to expand the numbers of and opportunities for women in the armed forces, the oDepartment of Defense ahas recommended repeal }of the law prohibiting the use of women on aircraft and naval .vessels assigned combat missions. A The two basic issues involve national security and the role of women in American society- would national security at some point be jeopardized by an increasing number of women in the armed forces, or would it be enhanced thy enlarging the pool of qualified people available? Should women have equal rights, opportunities, and responsibilities in national defense? or do role and physical differences between then sexes and them protection of future generations require special,efforts to limit the role of women in. the .armed forces? 0 Two major factors have led to the expansion of the role of women) in the fvarmed forces. First, since the end of the draft and the beginning? of the All-Volunteer Force in December 1973,) the military services have had qdifficultywin~ recruiting and retaining ‘enough qualified males, thereby turning attention to recruiting women. lsecond, the movement for equal rights for women has led to demands for equal opportunity in all fields, including national defense.f 9 women have been recruited in increasing numbers and assigned to a wider v'variety of occupations as one method of meeting shortfalls in enlistments‘ by qualified men.- The) number» of women in the armed forces has steadily increased from less than 2% at the end of FY72 to 7% on Apr. 30, 1979. (The Aapercentage varied among services: Army, 7.6% Navy, 5%; narines,a3%; and Air Force, 9%.)’ At the end of April 1979, of ad total strength. of 2,022,091 people in the active forces, 1u1,621 were wonen.A The current objective of . the Department of Defense is to increase the number of women on active .duty Ato 235,800 (11.5%) by 198h.~ Individual service objectives (both officer and enlisted women) for 1934 are: ‘Army, 10¢,600 (13.5%); Navy, 50,000 (9.5%); uarines, 9,000 (fl.8%); and Air Force, 100,200 (17.9%). [See tables .attached to printed copies of this issue brief.] 9 1 (Parallel with the increase in the‘ numbers of" women (inn the amilitary, ‘services has been a gradual removal of. restrictions wagainst them. During rld liar II,a women served ind the“ various iservices under» .temporary ’:arrangements and inconsistent policies. The Armed Forces Integration Act of 19fl8 (62 Stat. 356475) gave women a permanent place in the military vservices ‘by authorizing women in the regular Army, Navy, Air Force and auarine Corps. 0 However, it limited the number of enlisted women to 2% of enlisted) strength, CRS- 2 IB790fl5 UPDATE-03/14/80 the number of female officers (excluding nurses) to 10% off enlisted female strength, and the rank a female officer could achieve to Lieutenant Colonel (or Commander in the Navy). During the 1960s and 1970s, the movement for equal opportunity for women gave new momentum to efforts to eliminate discriminatory treatment of women in the armed forces. Changes were brought about by policy directives from ' the services, court decisions, and legislation. In 1967, P.L. 90-130 repealed the limitation of 2% for female enlisted strength. In 1969, by administrative action, the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) was’ opened to women for the Air Force, and for the Army and Navy in 1972. In 1973 the Supreme Court ruled in gggntiggg v. gighggdggg (411 U.S. 677) that spouses of female members of the armed forces were to be considered dependents in then same way as spouses of male members of the armed forces. In 1974 the age requirement for enlistment of women without parental consent was made) the same as for men (P.L. 93-920). In 1976 women were admitted to the three major service academies: Military, Naval, and Air Force (P.L. 94-106); women had already been admitted to the 0.5. Coast Guard and merchant Marine Academies by administrative action. In 1978 two major steps were taken. Congress, passed legislation (P.L. 95-#85) abolishing the Women's Army Corps as a separate unit and modifying section 6015 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code which had precluded women from serving on Navy ships. Under the modification, women could be permitted to serve permanent duty on vessels not expected to be assigned combat missions, and up to‘6 months temporary duty on other Navy ships. However, they were still prohibited from being assigned to ships or aircraft engaged in combat missions and, under section 8u59, to Air Force planes in combat missions. Moreover, the percentage of women in the higher officer and enlisted ranks continued to be lower than the percentage of women in service (see tables attached to printed copies of this issue brief). The disparity was much greater if medical officers, which includes nurses, were excluded. For , example, of 223 women at the 0-6 (Colonel) level in all services, only 41 are in line positions. The following figures are for Sept. 30, 1978: Grade Total female % of total - officers in m officers in grade, all grade, all eerzissa 1 Iserzises- 07—10 _ 7 1.2 06 223 1.6 05 77a 2.u on 1,770 3.6 03 6,137 6.7 02 " 3,912 11.0 01 3,779 10.9 =wo 103 0.6 Total 16,705 6.1 (Source: ‘Department of Defense) E92 mush sheuld 2he-Al;:!2l2n:esr Force egpang,re2rni:nen:.e£_29me.2 c:ns— 3 I.B79ou5 UPDATE-03/1n/30 Even greater difficulty in recruiting enough qualified men for the All-Volunteer Force is expected during the 1980s when, because of declining birthrates in the 1960s, the number of males reaching the generally accepted ime military recruiting age of 18 will decline each year. [For additional. lufOIRatiOD, see CRS Issue Brief 77032, Hilitary Manpower Policy and the All—¥oluntary Force.] To meet this problem, the Department of Defense has increased the recruitment of women and opened more occupational specialties to them, and it “ plans further steps in this direction. The Secretary of Defense reported that research and market analysis indicate that enough women are willing to enlist to meet the Department's objectives and that expanded utilization is 9 possible. At issue are the qualifications needed for modern armed forces, whether women meet these.gualifications, and the effect more women in the services would have on the ability of the armed forces to carry out their missions and on society in general. One qualification is education, which some believe is becoming more important with the growing complexity of modern weapons systems. The services have placed a high premium on high school completion because it is accepted as the best single measure of potential to adapt to military life. Research has established a consistent inverse relationship between the level of education and the incidence of disciplinary problems. much larger percentage of female recruits have been high school graduates than men. Following is the proportion of high school graduates among enlisted recruits for FY71—78 who had high school diplomas. Recruits 1971 1972 1973 197a ' 1975 1976 1977 .1973 Hale 68.3~ 66.8 66.5 53.1 62-5 66.7 75.0 Female 93.9 9u.u 95.2 91.7 9o.6 91.1 91.o Total p 63.9 J 67.8 66.9 60.8 65.0 63.7 69.0 77.o (Source: Department of Defense) In the past, the services have been able to establish higher standards for women recruits than for men because of the small recruitment levels for gvwomen. A principal argument in favor of increasing the numbers of women in the volunteer forces has been that it would be better to raise the number of women recruits who are better educated than to recruit less qualified men. As the number of women recruits is increased, however, the services will not be able to be as selective and the differences in ‘education ’level‘ between 1e and female recruits may be expected to narrow. After achieving only a .i.-.u%‘success rate in its femalew recruitment objective during the tperiod ‘October 1978-Harch 1979, the Army lowered its entrance standards tfor women. Since Oct. 1, 1979, the enlistment eligibility criteria of the Army has been the same for women as for men.« Both are able to enter with a score of 16% on In recent years an CRS- '4 IB79Qll5 UPDATE-03/141/EN‘) the entrance test if they have a high school diploma or with a score of 31% without a diploma. ' Aptitude tests have been the second measure of qualification used by 2 Defense Department, and this is closely related to the issue of the kind of jobs to which women should be assigned. In aptitude tests given by the Army, men as a group have consistently scored higher than women as a group in three areas: electronics, general mechanics, and motor mechanics. men and women have scored rough1y the same in the general technical and clerical composites, with women scoring slightly higher in the clerical. Some contend that these differences might be expected as a result of differences in the educational and cultural backgrounds of men and women, and that the tests do not reliably predict the performance of properly trained women in fields such as electronics and mechanics. The question is how much effort should be made to train women for jobs in the traditionally nonrfemale occupations. Most women have traditionally been assigned to the administrative and medical occupations in which their aptitudes are high» some favor continuing this policy since many women prefer these jobs and there is considerable room for more women in these areas. While 33% of the women in 1978 were in administrative and clerical positions, they occupied only 13% of the total positions in that category. The H% of the men in these categories held 87% of the positions. Moreover, studies by the Department of Defense have shown- that enlisted women have much higher rates of retention in the service when they are assigned jobs in the traditionally female skills (administrative and clerical, and medical and dental) and lower retention rates in traditionally non-female occupations (mechanical and electrical equipment repair.) The Defense Department has noted that concentrating on recruiting wor 1 into the traditional skills would have questionable implications for equal opportunity, so it has been making an effort to increase the number of women in non-traditional occupations. In the view of the Secretary of Defense, the expansion of women into non-traditional fields is progressing at a slow but satisfactory pace intended to minimize training and utilization problems. A third area of qualifications at issue involves the wentire range of physiological differences between men and women. one aspect is physical size T and strength. On an average, men are larger and have more muscular strength. The question is whether women can perform some of the physical tasks which a are required in some of the military occupations, such as lifting heavy objects and operating heavy machinery and especially whether they could fight in close combat, an issue which will be discussed separately. T Proponents of—awoment in the armed forces «favor a development and establishment of criteria for strength and other requirements for each occupation and then testing each member of the armed services for meeting, athese criteria, assigning individuals on the basis of their capabilities. They believe fthat those women who meet the criteria for performing occupations traditionally assigned to men should have the opportunity to enter those occupations. rhnother aspect of the physiological, differences involves pregnancy and childbirth. Some fear that because of these uniquely female conditions, and the related traditional.responsibility of mothers for child-care, women w L lose more time away from duty, be less able to deploy rapidly, and ,have atshorter service careers. The Department of Defense study, Use of Women in the Military, found that CRS- 5 IB790ll5 UPDATE-03/1'4/80 women on active duty were retained at about the same overall rates as men, although they had higher loss rates than men in occupations which were not traditionally for women. It listed as unanswered, questions the impact of * men with small children on deployability and the comparative lost time of men and women. Pregnancy was agreed to be the major cause for lost time for women in the services, with approximately 8% of the women becoming pregnant each year. Nevertheless it was not clear whether the overall rate of lost time for women was significantly more than lost time for men. A Defense Department study of sample group over a 6-month period showed that in all three services, men had a higher rate of absenteeism ‘from unauthorized absences (AWOL) and alcohol abuse, and in the Navy men had a higher overall rate of lost time than women.n The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services n(DACOWITS) recommended at its April 1979 meeting that the Department of Defense establish standardized criteria for data collection by all services regarding loss of duty for men and women. It noted the wide variance in criteria used by different services in previous studies. It also recommended a study of reasons for attrition and migration by membersy of each sex from fields normally traditional for that sex. Some look beyond individual qualifications to group performance and contend that even if they meet all necessary qualifications and can perform the necessary tasks, women will decrease the efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces. In their view, having women in large numbers might drive men away from the armed forces, or at least impair the morale and, efficiency of men who have taken pride in the masculinity of their profession. They contend that the United States already has a greater percentage of women in its armed forces than almostw all other countries and fear that other tcuntries will perceive the United States as militarily weak if it‘ increases the number of women greatly, especially if women are put in combat positions. Those who favor increasing the number of-women point to results of tests (called MAXWAC) conducted by the Army in 1976 to determine the effect of §. enld 99. <1ress..I;.:e_m°ve the legal. re§tri9ti9n§-e9a.i.n§t..women-in-22n.1s female participation in company size units. Field exercises were conducted with units containing as many as 35% women. According to the ‘Department oft Defense, the tests "showed no degradation in unit performance as a result of female content." Others question the nvalidity of the test or its interpretation and contend more experience is necessary before women can be extensively utilized in combat units without jeopardizing national security. I... Since the main mission of the armed forces is to deter‘ war by being prepared to wage one if it occurs, there is a limit to the extent to which the armed forces can increase the number and expand the assignments of women as long as there are restrictions on assigning women to combat posts. In naddition to barring women from the combat posts themselves, the restrictions prevent the utilization of women in many non-combat posts which are held for rotation purposes. At the present time there are ylegislative iprohibitions restricting the assignment of women to vessels and aircraft assigned combat missions for the Navy (10 U.S.C. 6015) and aircraft assigned combat missions 5 the Air Force (10 U.S.C. 8549). *While there is, no vsuch -legislative prohibition-for the Army, Army policy imposes similar restrictions on ground ‘combattassignments. on the basis of the combat restriction, the services bar women from many .gunnersmate, sonar technician, and electronics warfare system technician. cns- 6 13790115 UPDATE°O3/I141/SQ W occupational specialties and assignments. In the Navy, out of 99 ratings, eleven are closed to enlisted “women, including fire control technician, \\ Y . r’ Four of the 230 Air Force specialties are closed: defense gunner (B—52f, ‘para rescue recovery, radio operator/maintenance driver, which is .located with Army frontline units where Army policy excludes Army women, and security specialist, who guards planes loaded with nuclear weapons. Army policy prohibits women in 22 occupational specialties and in any infantry, armor, cannon field artillery, combat engineer, and low altitude air defense artillery unit of battalion/squadron or smaller size regardless of the occupational specialty. 1 Prior to 1978 many more occupational specialties were closed to women.i In 1977 in P.L. 95-79 Congress required the Secretary of Defense to submit ‘a definition of the term "combat" together with recommendations on expanding job classifications to which women might be assigned and any changes in law necessary. In his reply on Feb. 14, 1978, Deputy Secretary of Defense Charles Duncan defined combat to mean "engaging an enemy or being engaged by an enemy in armed conflict"; a person to be "in combat" when in a tgeographic area designated as a combat/hostile fire zone by the Secretary of Defense or other specific circumstances," and a combat mission as "a mission of a unit, ship, aircraft or task organization which has as ‘one of its primary objectives to seek out, reconnoiter, or engage an enemy." Subsequently, the. virtually absolute ban against women on Navy ships was modified and many new jobs in all services were opened to women. Deputy Secretary of Defense Duncan said the best longéterm solution /1) open still more assignments to women was to repeal both 10 u.s.c. 6015 and 2 85fl9. He proposed allowing the Secretaries of the Military Departments to set policy for, monitor, and review the assignment of women within their respective departments, with the Secretary of Defense reviewing the programs to insure compatibility among the services. on may 1a, 1979, the= Department of Defense transmitted to Congress a draft of proposed legislation (subsequently introduced as H.R. R256) to repeal the statutory restriction on the assignment of women. s A 1 The Defense Department made the following points: (1) Since 19n8 when the restrictions were enacted, military personnel policies, the role of women in society, and the nature of warfare .have changed dramatically. (2) Large numbers of women, properly trained and selected, have the physical and mental iahility tot serve in the entire ‘range of’ military. aclassifications- L '(3) Prohibiting Navy women in seagoing ratings from their fair share» of sea duty results in excessive sea duty for men, and inconsistent policies 7 between the Navy and the Coast Guard assignment of women to ships. 1 u(n) 10 U.S.C. e5u9 permitted female commissioned Air Force officers who were judge advocates, chaplains, or in medical wfields vto mserve wabo: i 1 aircraft engaged in combat missions while other female officers and enlisted women could not. (5) The legislation had no appreciable budget implications. wship cns- 7 IB79ou5 UPDATE—0 3/1!-I/810 modifications estimated tom cost approximately $10,300,000 over a 5-year period would be required. wé" Repeal of these provisions would not necessarily result in assignments of men to all combat units because it would be up to each service Secretary to set policy and assign personnel according to needs and abilities. Hearings - held by a subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee Nov. 12-16, 1979, indicates that the intention was not to put women into combat but to open up new jobs to them. In proposing that women be registered for the draft, on Feb. 8, 1980, President Carter said he had no intention of changing the policy that women are not assigned to units where engagement in close combat would be part of their duties. .Proponents of repeal believe it would remove a bar to many assignments which women could handle. Opponents feel that the statutory restrictions are the last protection against the services sending women into actual combat. ‘ Those who emphasize equal rights and responsibilities say women in the armed forces cannot advance to the top without experience in combat units. some go even beyond this, and say that women cannot be equal in society as long as they are barred from full participation in all levels of the national security system. In their view, modern weapons have equalizedi the t potentiality for women in combat since wars are less likely to be fought onia hand-to-hand basis, and have made it impossible to protect women from the destructiveness of combat. In any event, they claim, properly trained women ‘ would be able to fight successfully and exempting them ‘from combat lis not fair to men- i Those opposed to women in combat contend that the protection of women is'a ark of civilization and a method of safeguarding the human race. They poiut ,t that countries such as Israel and the Soviet Union, in which women haue- ; fought in emergencies, do not now place women in combat positions.m This vi w holds that the national security would be jeopardized because women are not as strong or aggressive as men and their presence would impair the individual p and group effectiveness of men. They disagree with the assumption that modern technology has significantly reduced the direct physical nature of combat, especially ground combat.t They see permitting women in combat as an is extreme deviation from tradition which would detract from tthe dignity iand femininity of women and disturb family cohesion to such» an aextentv that it might make society fal1.apart. n ‘ i W §..h9.2l§...!2men he-iu2luéed.i:flthe_draft-i§- reinstated: on Feb. 8, 1980, President Carter proposed to resume registration for the draft underxa plan that would include iwomen as well- as. men. Under. the , proposal, all men born in 1960 or 1961 would be required to register later in 1980 and legislation would be submitted seeking authority .to urequire- women born in the same years‘ to uregister. susucho authorityx already existsf for f registration of men. hIn future years, persons would be required to register "as they reached their 18th birthday. ,The. report. said that the’ pools of - eligible men was sufficient to meet projected wartime requirements" and that’ lit was doubtful that a female draft could be justified on the argument that . wartime personnel requirements could not be met without them. However, tit =iyidthat for reasons of equity women should be asked to serve in the ~armed -rces during a national emergency or war to the extent that they could umake ~ a contribution. The report said that it would not- necessarily mean* that ‘significant numbers of women would be drafted. iThe President's report was in response to a requirement to submit a ‘plan for, reform of the. Selective cns— 8 11379045 UPDAwTE--03/1!-l/80 , Service System, including a report on whether women should be included, under the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1980 (P.L. 96-107), signed How. 9, 1979. [See also Issue Brief 79ou9, Manpower for Mobilization: The Draft, Registration, and Selective Service.) The President said his decision to register women was a recognition of the reality that both women and men were working members of society, and that women were performing well in the armed forces and "have improved the level of skills in every branch of the military service." He said: "There is no distinction possible, on the basis of ability or performance, that would allow me to exclude women from an obligation to register." He added that women are not assigned to units where engagement in close combat would be part of their duties, and that he had no intention of changing that policy.w Several Members of Congress expressed doubt that the proposal to register women would pass and on Mar. 6, 1980, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel rejected the proposal by voting to table H.R. 6569, the bill which would authorize registration of women, making it unlikely that further action on the measure would be taken. During 1979, the Senate Armed ‘Services Committee had issued a report stating that the committee felt it was 1 not in the best interest of the national defense to register women for the 1 Hilitary Selective Service Act. The most important reason for not including women in the registration system, in the committee's view, was the policy precluding the use of women in combat, a policy _which the committee reaffirmed. It was in infantry and armor skills that manpower was short, the committee stated. other reasons. cited were the need for military flexibility, the additional processing and training problems, and the risk of experimenting with performance of sexually mixed units in war. 1 In a minority view, Senator Cohen ‘called for the legal views of tme Defense Department on whether the constitutionality of the draft might be undermined by a failure to include women and to clarify various issues befor _a final determination. These issues included: a 1 (1) would one or two pools of eligibles be established if both men and women were registered? (2) would women have to be drafted in equal number if conscription were required? (3) Could women be drafted for those positions for which they are presently eligible and not for the combat related job specialities from which they are excluded? (u)? Could women be excluded from voluntarily registering? TIn the past, women have not been drafted and this has been upheld? by the vcourts when it was challenged as discriminatory against men. For example, in 1969 in Qniggd_§§§tg§ v. Qggrig (319 F. Supp. 1306), they court held that wclassifications such as age and sex were not arbitrary or unreasonable pbut were justified by the interest of providing for the common defense with maximum efficiency and minimum cost. It also held that the qualifications t*were for the Congress to decide. ~uAt a hearing oni Jan. 29, 1979, Secretary of=~Defense Harold Brown recommended that any new legislation requiring registration for the draft be, mapplied to women as well as men.~ However, as xto whether they should be CRS- 9 IB79045 UPDATE-O3/1fl/80 drafted he said he would have one answer if there were a large additional requirement for non+combat people and another if the need vwas for combat fillers. v v The views of the Joint Chiefs expressed during 1979 varied somewhat from service to service. On Mar. 13, 1979, General Bernard Rogers, Chief of Staff of the Army, testified that he believed women should be registered in order to have an inventory of available personnel. However, the question of drafting depended upon the skills needed. In his view, the exclusion of women from certain combat skills should remain. General Lew Allen, Chief, of Staff of the Air Force, said the drafting of women would not have any unfavorable effect on the Air Force. Admiral Thomas Hayward, Chief of staff of the Navy, said that from a military point of view there was vno need of drafting women into the Navy, but that he thought it was a political decision. General Louis Wilson, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said he would be willing to have women drafted up to the 5% goal of the Marines. Others, however, have argued against both registering and drafting of women. They contend that registering women would double the number of people requiring registration each year from roughly 2 million males reaching the age of 18 to H million males and females, thus increasing the cost. Moreover, some hold, if women were registered they might have to be drafted in equal numbers. In their view this complicates conscription by adding problems such as dealing with pregnancies. In one view, a draft would solve the manpower problem and there would be no need to rely on women. In fact, some say, one of the problems with the All-Volunteer Force has been increasing the number of women and giving women ,‘obs they cannot handle. If a draft ended up increasing the number of women, .. that view, the problem might be worsened rather than solved. v y The basic arguments for and against drafting women are much the same as those relating to women in the All-Volunteer Force and women in“ combat. However, there are additional factors. First, drafting women would go beyond women who choose a career in the armed forces and impose-military service on other women. some who do not object to women serving on a volunteer basis might object if military duty were forced on women who preferred homemaking or some other more traditional occupation., Others would say that if men are liable to involuntary service, women should also be subjected to such service. A second factor involves what kind of service the drafting of women would involve. Some proposals for a draft which would ,include women would not necessarily involve women in the armed services at all but rather. make vthem ’liable for some type of national service, possibly in a civilian job. some who might not object to drafting women for civilian service or non-combat posts in the military service might object to drafting, women if they were w>subject to combat duty. *Again, others believe that women should have no more choice in the matter than men. Finally, a few contend that strong feelings on the subject have been used to reduce the likelihood of a draft, on one hand, or the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment, on the other. Women as well as men are divided on *‘e subject. = Ehat 92.1.31 be the e:.1:e2.t..2f. 121.1e..E'9:u<;1.1 Ri9hts_Amendmen1.=Z=’. jjjj j V Xe T TT 1 T :2 ‘cns-10 11379045 UPDATE-O 3/1_u/30 one question which has frequently been raised is what would be the effect of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) to the Constitution upon women with respect to their role in the military services. The amendment would provide that "equality of rights under the law shall not be denied : abridged by the United States or by any State on account‘ of sex." First passed by the Congress in 1972, the amendment fell short of being ratified by the required three-fourths of the States (38) by its original deadline. However, the 95th Congress voted to extend the deadline until June 30, 1982. The effect of the amendment on women's role in the military services has been one of the most controversial issues throughout the history of the Amendment. when the senate considered the measure in 1970, it adopted an I amendment to exempt women from compulsory military service. In 1971 the House passed the Equal Rights Amendment after rejecting a committee amendment to exempt women from the draft. Before its final passage of ERA in 1972, the Senate rejected two amendments by Senator Sam Ervin to exempt women from combat (defeated by a vote of 71-18) and from the draft (defeated 73-18). In reporting ERA favorably, the Senate Judiciary Committee said it seemed clear that the Equal Rights Amendment would require that women be allowed to volunteer for military service on the same basis as men, provided they qualified under neutral standards. Similarly, the committee reported, it seemed likely that the ERA would require men and women to be treated equally with respect to the draft, so that if there were a draft, both men and women who met the requirements would be subject to conscription. Once in the service, each person would be assigned according to his or her qualifications and the service's needs. ' b However. the committee said, women who were not qualifiedi or who wrie exempt because of their‘responsibilities, such as those with dependents, would not have to serve and the passage of ERA ‘did not mean that «mothers would be conscripted from their children. Congress would retain the power to define the exemptions from compulsory service which then would be applied to both men and women. The Senate Judiciary Committee took the position that the principle of equality did not mean that the sexes must be regarded as identical, and that it did not prohibit’states from requiring a reasonable separation of persons under some circumstances, such as in military barracks. The Equal Rights Amendment would affect a large number of federal laws relating to the armed services. The April 1977 report of the United States Commission on Civil Rights listed more than 1H0 provisions in Title 10 of the U.S. Code dealing with the armed forces which contain sex-based references. some of these were relatively minor, but bothers providedv for different treatment of women in such matters as promotion. Since 1977 members of a task force have been working with members of the armed forces to secure vpagreement on recommended changes in these provisions. Legal changes in the status of women in the armed forces could be brought about whether or not the Equal Rights Amendment takes effect. some of the legislative inconsistencies in the management of male and female officers by different services which were considered discriminatory were addressed by the Defense officer Personnel nanagement Act (DOPBA) proposed by. then Department .of Defense »inwm197fl. I The legislation was passed. by the. House yof Representatives in both the 9flth and 95th Congresses, but action. was i"t completed by the Senate. gIt was resubmitted to the 96th Congress, and has reported as S. 1918 from the Senate Armed Services icommittee on Oct. 22, 1979.l The report (S.Rept. 96-375) stated that one of the. major» results. of the legislation would be the equalization of the treatment of men and women CR5-11 IB790fl5 UPDATE-03/14/80 officers with “respect to the laws governing appointment, promotion, separation, and retirement. The committee report said the bill would repeal longstanding provisions of title 10 that specify different “but no longer justified" treatment of men and women officers. The bill would not revise -46 provisions precluding the assignment of women to duty on vessels or in aircraft engaged in combat., The committee held this was a fundamental and - important question which should be considered separately. Changes might also be brought about if the courts strike down laws which discriminate against women solely on the basis of sex. In Qggns v. ggggn (#55 F.Supp. 291 DDC, 1978), Judge John J. Sirica ruled that the Navy could not rely solely on 10 U.S.C. 6015 (which has subsequently been revised) as the basis for excluding women from- shipboard assignments. He said that because section 6015 operated to bar an entire sex from a wide range of career opportunities, the sweep of the statute was too broad and violated the w, equality principle embodied in the Fifth Amendment. Citing the decision in gggig v. Qgggg (H29 U.S. 199), a case in which an Oklahoma statute forbidding the sale of 3.2 beer to minors was held to be junconstitutional as the law defined women as minors under age 18 and men as minors until the age of 21, Judge Sirica said a single standard seems to have emerged that classifications by gender must be substantially related to the achievement of important objectives. While he found that the basic purpose of the section 6015 prohibition of women on ships, namely‘ to increase the . combat effectiveness of Navy ships, was unquestionably a government objective of the highest order, he found no evidence by the defendants that military preparedness was indeed the objective; instead it was ,related more to traditional ways of thinking about women. . i y ‘In that case as in others, courts have upheld the authority of the Congress or the Secretaries of the military departments to" assign women on the basis of military need and effectiveness. Judge Sirica concluded in Qxsna v - érnzn: However, nothing in this decision is meant to shape the contours of Navy policy concerning the utilization of female personnel... Those are essentially military decisions that are entrusted to executive authorities and the Court expresses no view whatever on ~ what their outcome should be. Traditionally courts have considered decisions in this area to be the realm of the military departments and Congress, as illustrated in the following excerpt from gilligan v. §9;ganw(u13 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1972)): - The complex, subtle, and professional decisions as to the composition, training, equipping, and control uof a military force are essentially professional military judgments, subject always to civilian control of the Legislative and Executive Branches. The ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability. It is this power of oversight and control of military force by elected representatives and officials which underlies our entire constitutional system. ecns-12 IB7 90 us UPDATE-03/1L1/80 Thus the courts appear to be leaving the basic decisions on how to employ women in the armed forces to Congress and the military departments so long as any classifications by gender they impose are based on legitimate military. objectives and needs. a ,\ Q2_i2n§ The proposed options for policy relating to women in the armed services range from keeping the status quo, with military service and combat primarily a male domain, to eliminating all differences.in treatment of men and women . except .where required for physiological or individual differences in .capability. For the current All-Volunteer Force, in which people choose the military service for a career, the practical question is how far and how fast to go in recruiting women and incorporating them into traditionally male occupations, and particularly whether to allow them into combat posts. If there is a draft, the question is how differently should women be treated from men. — T The Department of Defense is continuing to expand the number of ‘women in service and plans to assign them outside of traditionally female occupations at a pace measured to allow them to receive the necessary training and preparation. The Department has asked for the lifting of the combat restrictions currently existing in legislation, but it has not made clear to what extent it would actually utilize women in combat roles. Another option, suggested by Martin Binkin and. Shirly Bach \in their Brookings Institution study on women and the Military, is for separate legislation calling for the Department of Defense to set up an experimental program for each military service to integrate selected combat units whi now exclude women. The primary purpose of the experiment, which would take years to complete, would be to find out how many women would volunteer~ for the positions and what would be the effect on combat effectiveness, but it ' would also provide needed data on such questions pas the relationship of pregnancy to combat readiness. other options might be‘ based on the concept that because of the physiological differences between men and women it is possible for them to have equal opportunity and responsibility withouts necessarily having ‘ identical occupations. hone course within this option would be to expand the number of women win the _ armed services, increase their promotion opportunities, and remove any remaining restrictions without taking -any extraordinary means to train them in non-traditional skills unless they sought such placement. This would continue and even purposely increase the concentration of women in traditional occupations.- It would free, more men for combat posts although some men. might object on the grounds thatf it reduced the number of non-combat posts for men. i ostill another option might be based on the concept that the separate but equal principle, although ruled unconstitutional for racial segregation, is ivalid for certain situations involving both sexes. one course under wthis option would be to experiment with all-female combat units. The lpurpose of this would be to provide combat opportunity for women while meeting *some of othe primary objections which have been madef to women min combat.. These include the lack of privacy for both sexes in mixed units and concern ti ; prolonged contact between soldiers of different sexes in remote‘ or *isolated iareas could lead to sexual affairs and reduce the effectiveness of both men and women in combat. CRS"'13 IB790i45 UPDATE-03/11$/80% In summary, a wide number of alternatives are possible between .the ituo extremes of sharply limiting the role of women in the military forcesv and‘ recognizing no relevant differences between the sexes for military service. L§§l§Lé1;Q§ Department of Defense Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1980. Authorizes appropriations for FY80 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and weapons, and for research, development,, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces. Prescribes the authorized personnel strength for each active duty component and the Selected Reserve of each iaeserve personnel in the Department of Defense. Section 811 requests the President to submit his recommendations by Jan. 15, 1980, or three months after enactment, on various issues including the registration and induction of women. H.R. uouo was reported to the House (H.Rept. 96-166) from the Committee on Armed Services May 15, 1979. on Sept. 12, 1979, the House adopted an amendment by Rep. Schroeder, deleting the provision requiring 18-year-old males to register and substituting language requiring the President to report to Congress on reform of existing selective service legislation, including whether women should be subject to registration and induction. S. #28 passed the House in lieu Sept. 1a, with the language of H.B. uono inserted. Conference reports filed in the Senate (S.Rept. 96-371) and in the House (H.Rept. 96-521) Oct. 17, 1979. #A second conference report has filed in the House (H.Rept. 96-5&6) Oct. 23. V Senate and House agreed to conference report.l Measure was signed into law (gD.L.96*107) gov. 9, 1979. H.R. 561 (ficbonald) stipulates that only male individuals may be admitted to any of the United States service academies. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committees on Armed services and uerchant Marine and Fisheries. H.n. 2206 (nccloskey et al.) National Service Act. -Establishes the National Service System. Requires individuals at the age of 17 to register with such system to either volunteer for service in the armed forces, participate in a military lottery mfor induction .into the armed forces, or participate in civilian service employment for a specified time period. Establishes the. National[ Youth Service Corps for individuals who elect to participate in civiliani service and establishes the National Youth Service Foundation to oversee such Corps., Introduced Feb. 15, 1979; referred to Committees on Armed services, Education and Labor, and Veterans Affairs. A A H.R. 3171 (Strangeland et al.) Carries out the reconmendations of the Presidential Task force on, Women's 1aRights and “Responsibilities.~ ‘Introduced Fuar.~ 21, 1979; referred to Committees on Armed Services, Post office and Civil Service, the ‘Judiciary, fad Ways andneans. ‘ \ ’H.R. u255 (Price, by request) Repeals the provisions of law prohibiting female members of.the Navy and CBS-1fl IB79OH5 UPDATE‘03/1H/80 Air Force from being assigned to duty on vessels or; in aircraft— that are engaged in combat missions. Introduced May 30, 1979; referred to Cohmittee on Armed Services. 8 ~ H.R. 6569 (Price, by request) Amends the military Selective Service Act to authorize the registration of A all persons (both men and women). Introduced Feb. 21, 1980; referred to the Committee on Armed Services. Tabled by the committee Mar. 6, 1980. H.Con.Res. 260 (Real) Expresses the sense of Congress that women should not be subject to registration under the Military Selective Service Act. Introduced Jan. 28, 1980; referred to Committee on Armed Services. 5. 109 (Byrd of Virginia and Hunn et al.) Requires the reinstitution of procedures for ithe registration off ma1es only, under the military Selective; Service; Act. Reported owith amendment (S.Rept. 96-226) June 19, 1979. iDebated bye Senate Sept. 21 in open’ and‘ yclosed sessions, and returned tocalendar. A I 'S. 1918.(Nunn) Defense Officer Personnel Management Act. Revises laws governing management of commissioned officers and provides uniform laws with respect to .treatment of male and female officers. Reported to the Senate (S.Rept.l ‘96-375) from the Committee on Armed Services Oct. 22, 1979. Passed Senate ‘Nov. 30, 1979; referred to the House Committee on Armed Services Dec. 5. f§§A§lE§§ U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Armed Services. ~ hilitary posture and H.R. 10929, Department of Defense_ nauthorization for appropriations for fiscal year 1979, and H.R. 7u31, assignment of women on Navy ships. Hearings, 95th Congress, 2d session. washington,. U.S. Govt. Print. off., 1978. 1741 p. 0.5. gcongress.‘ House. Committee on Armed Services. asuhconmitteel Ho. 2. H.R. 9832, to eliminate discrimination based on sex with respect to the appointment and admission of persons to the service academies, and H.R. 10705, H.R. 11267,.H.R. 11268, H.R. 11711, and B.R. 13729, to insure that each admission to the service academies shall be made without regard to a candidate's sex, race, or religious beliefs. Hearings, 9uth Congress, 2d session. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. off., 1975. 300 p. U.S. Congress. vaoint Economic Committee.“ Subcommittee on Priorities and Economy in Government. The role of women 7 ‘in the military.v Hearings, 95th Congress, 1st session. Hashington, 0.3. Govt. Print. Off., 1978. 143 p. 19-9 / ( cns-156 IB79ou5 UPDATE-O3/14/80 22§z§-A§2-s9u§n§§§;9§A;-299nnr§2§ U.S. Congress. Senate.n Committee onahrmed Services. Defense Officer Personnel Management act; report to accompany S. 1918. [iashington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off.) 1979. 496 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. senate. Report no. 96-375) -~--- Requiring reinstitution of registration~ for certain persons under the Military Selective Service Act, and for other purposes; report together with additional and minority views to accompany S. 109. [Washington, 0.3. Govt. Print. off.j 1979. #6 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. hsenate. Report no. 96-226) 0.3. Congress. Senate. Committee on Armed Services. Subcommittee on Manpower and Personnel.‘ Reinstitution of procedures for registration under the Military Selective Service Act.p Hearing, 96th Congress, 1st session, on S. 109 and S. 226. Mar. 13, May 21, July 10, 1979. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 239 p. U.S. Congress. ~Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.v Equal rights for men and women; report together with individual views to accompany S.J.Res. 8, S.J.Res. 9, and H.J.Res. 208. [Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off.) 1972. 521p.‘ (92d 9 ( Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 92-689) 9 s§§9E9L9§:.9z.rz§n1§ 03/06/80 -lThe subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House Armed Services Committee voted to table H.R. 6569, the bill requested by the Administration to permit the registration of women, thus in effect killing the measure in the House. -P 1 02/08/80 - President Carter proposed that women as well as men born during 1960 and 1961 be required to register for the draft during 1980, and that thereafter all persons be required to register as they reach their 18th birthday. a ‘O1/23/80 —- In his State of the Union Message, President Carter 19 announced a proposal to resume registration for the draft. Later he indicated that a-decision would be nade on the inclusion of women by Feb. 9. * 01/04/80 --After a request from Representative Clarence Long, ‘11/13/799-9 ’ General Edward C. Meyer, Army chief of staff, ordered the Army Inspector General's office to send iinvestigators to.Port Meade to investigate alleged incidents of sexual harassment at the base reported in the Baltimore Sun. 1 The Subcommittee on Military Personnel of the House 10/17/79 06/19/79 05/21/79 05/1 u/79 Ofl/23/79 CRS—16 Armed Services Committee began four days of hearings on women in the military. Conference committee reported 5. #28, Department of Defense Authorization, 1980. Section 811 called for .President to submit a report in three months on selective service reform, including the question of registering and inducting women. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported 5. 109, a bill requiring the President to commence registrationi of male persons by Jan. 2, 1980. The committee recommended that women not be included in the requirement for registration. ‘It reaffirmed the policy precluding the use of women-in combat. 'The Assistant Secretary of the Army announced that, effective Oct. 1, 1979, the enlistment eligibility criteria for women would be the same as that currently in effect for men. The Department of Defense transmitted to Congress a draft of proposed legislation to repeal the statutory restrictions on the assignment of women in the Navy and Air Force. The bill was referred to the Committee on Armed Services. The Washington Post reported that Army civilian manpower chief Robert L. Nelson stated that women have not been joining the Army in the desired _numbers and were shunning many of the new jobs opened to them. In addition, he said, #25 of 7 enlisted women were now failing to complete 02/23/79 -° o1/2 9/79 10/20/78 - tours, compared to 37% in FY75, whereas the dropout rate for men with high school diplomas had fallen from 37% to 30% in that period. 57 women sailed on the U.S.S. Vulcan, the first ship in the Navy to go to sea with women as a regularly integrated part of the crew. Secretary of Defense Harold Brown recommended at a hearing that any new legislation requiring registration for the draft be applied to women pas well as men. The Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1979, was enacted as P.L. 95—fl85, amending 10 U.S.C. 6015 to permit Navy women to be assigned to temporary duty on all ships and permanent duty on ships not engaged in combat missions. The law also requires vsmilitary colleges to provide that qualified oi?/22/78 -- undergraduate women be eligible for military training. The Women's Army Corps was abolished, thus integrating women into the regular Army. In ggggs v. ggggg, Judge John J. Sirica ruled that the Navy could not rely on section 6015 as[ IB79ou5 upnmr-03/1a/so CBS--17 113790115: UPDATE-03/11$/830 the sole basis for excluding women from shipboard assignments. 02/19/78 *-'The Department of Defense, in response to reporting requirement in P.L. 95-79, defined combat as "engaging an enemy or being engaged by an enemy in armed conflict” and suggested the repeal of 10 U.S.C. 6015 and 8549 to permit the Secretaries of the military departments to set policy for the assignment of women. 07/30/77 —-P.L. 95-79 was enacted, requiring the Defense 1 Department to submit to Congress within 6 months a definition of the term "combat" and recommendations on expanding job classifications: to which women might be assigned, with recommendations ‘on changes in law necessary to carry out the recommendations. 10/O7/75 -r-P.L. 94-106 was enacted, providing that beginning in 1976 females will be eligible for appointment to the service academies. Academic and other standards for appointment, admission, training, graduation, and commissioning are to be the same as for males, "except for those minimum essential adjustments in such standards required because of physiological differences between male and female individuals." Adams, Jerome (Maj., 0.5. Army). Report-of the admission of twomen to the U.S- Military Academy (Project Athena III). June 1, 1979. West Point, N.Y., United States Military Beans, Barry C. Sex discrimination in the military. Military law.review, v. 67, winter 1975: 19-83. Bettle, G.R. Use of women as warriors threatens our g society. Marine Crops gazette, v. 62, Sept. 1978: 45-51. .Binkin, Martin, and Shirley J. Bach. Women and the military. Washington, Brookings Institution [c1977] 13fl p. (Studies in defense policy) ‘ Blumenson, Martin. The Army's women move out. Army, v. 28, Feb. 1978: 1u_23.. Bogas, Kathleen L. Constitutional law -— Fourteenth _ Amendment —- classification based on sex is inherently: suspect.v Journal of urban law, v. 51, Feb. 197$: 535-5&5. Clark, Albert P. Women at the service academies and combat leadership. Strategic review, v. 5, fall 1977: 6n-78. Galloway, Judith 3., and Edd D. Wheeler. Point counterpoint: CR5-18 11379045 :UPDATE—03/1'-I/80 women in combat; the need for cultural reconditioning. Air University review, v. 30, Nov.-Dec. 1978: 58-68. Gilder, George. The case against women in combat. New York times magazine, Jan. 28, 1979: 29~31, an, 46. v- Aisherds mmer 1973: Ginsburg, Ruth Bader. Comment: zrgn tier women's rights law reporter, v. 1, Q su Q2- 24*‘ Hoiberg. Anne, ed- Women as new "manpower." Armed Forces and society, v. H, summer 1978: whole issue. Huck, Susan L.n. The proposal to let them shoot women. American opinion, v. 21, Apr. 1978: 21—38. -Hatzio, Georgina. The future of women in the Armed Forces. RUSI Journal, Feb. 12, 1979: 2H-30. Quester, George H. women in combat. International security, v. 1, spring 1977: 80-91. Ruhl, Mary B.i Constitutional law -- equal protection - sex discrimination -— selective service laws. Wisconsin law review, v. 1976, no. 1, 1976: 330-351. Schreiber, E.u., and John C. Woelfel. Effects of women on group performance in a traditionally male occupation: the case of the U.S. Army. Journal of political and military socio1o9Y: v. 7, spring 1979: 121-134. Segal, David R., and John D. Blair, eds. Women in the military. Youth and society, v. 10, Dec. 1978: whole: issue. ~ 1- U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Sex bias in the U.S. Code; a report. [Washington] 1977. 230 p. U-S- Department of Defense. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Officers, and Logistics). Use of women in military; background study,n Hay 1977. 2d ed., September 1978. 9 A .U.S. vnefense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. Changing roles of women in the Armed Forces. [n.p., 197711 v. iU.S. 1General Accounting Office.‘ Job opportunities for women in the military: progress and problems. ’Department of Defense. Report to the Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. [Washington] 1976. 31 p. .U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. A legal analysis regarding the constitutionality of excluding women from registration and classification procedures under the Selective Service Act. ‘CBS report. June 1fl,*1979.= [Washington] 1979. 36 p. —+--- Women in the armed forces. mNov. 2, 1979. [Washington ACTIVE DUTY ENLISTED WOMEN END STRENGTHSA ‘FISCAL YEAR ARMY z NAVY z USMC Z USAF 2 TOTAL 2 64* 7,958 .92 5,063 .86’ 1,320 1.75 4,845 .67, 19,186 .82 69** 10,721 .80 5,752 .84 2,443 .86 7,407 1.02 26,323 .87 72 12,349 1.80 6,257 1.22 2,066 1.16 11,725 1.95 32,397 1.64 73*** 16,457 72.41 9,174 1.87 1,973 1.12 15,023 2.63 42,627 2.22 74 26,327_ 3.90 13,381 2.81 2,402 1.41 19,465 3.68 61,575 3.33 75 37,701 5.56 17,516 3.75 . 2,841 1.60 25,232 5.01 83,272 4.56 76 43,806 6.46 19,288 4.21 3,063 1.77 29,235 6.08 95,392 5.33 77 46,094 6.8 19,464 4.4 3,506 2.0 34,610 7.3 103,674 5.8 78 50,549 7.6 21,093 4.1 4,652 2.4 41,084 8.8. 117,597 1/ 6.61 79(Apr.)50,827 7.8 23,363 4.9 5,011 3.0 44,978 9.6 124,179 7. (Projected) 84 80,000 11.7 40,000 8.4 7,800 4.6 80,000 17.3 207,800 11. ACTIVE DUTY OFFICER WOMEN END STRENGTHS 64* 73,772 3.4 ',2,6787 3.5 128 .7, ~4,031 3.0 10,609 1 3.1 i69** 5,157 3.0 2,884 3.2 284 41.1 4,8S8« 3.6 13,183 3.1 7 72 4,422 3.6 3,185 4.4 263 1.37 4,766 ~ 3.97 12,636 ,3.8 73***, 4,279 3.7 3,454 5 4.9 1 315 1.6 4,727 4.1, 12,775 ' 4.0 74 4,388 4.1 3,649‘ 5.4 1 336 1.8‘ 4,767 4.3 13,140 4.3 75 4,594 .4.5 3,676 5.6 1»345 8+ 1.9 4,981 4.7 13,596 4.6 76 y4,844 4.8 3,544 5.6 386 ' 2.0 4,967 8 5.0 13,741 4.9 77. »A5,696.‘5.8' 1 3,791 6.0 422 2.3% 5,383‘ 5.6 15,292 5.5 78 6,292 6.4 3,980 6.4 433 1 2.4 6,010 6.3 16,7151 6.1 79 (Apr.) 6,462 6.7. 4,100 6.6 455 2.5 6,425 6.8 17,442 6.4 »(Projected) % 84 12,300 5,000 600 10,100 8 28,000 .*Last.pre-Vietnam.War fiscal year , **Peak of Vietnam War, during draft period ***Beginning€of All Volunteer Force 1/. Includes 219 Naval Officer candidates not included elsewhere. 7 Sources{erOffice1of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower, Reserve Affairs, and1Logistics). Use of Women in the Military. Background Study, May 1977. - iSecond Edition,-September 1978. -Department of Defense. Washington Headquarters Services. Directorate» 7 for Information. 1 \. FEMALE PARTICIPATION IN THE SELECTED RESERVED BY COMPONENT 4 SEPTEMBER 30, 1978 FY 1975 FY 1977 FY 1972 FY 1973 FY 1974 FY 1976 FY 7T FY 1975 Army National Guard Number ' 52 518 2.779 6,384 9,244 . 10,525 .l2,334 13,570 Percent 1 .0 ‘.1 .7 1.6 2.6 2.9 3.5 4.0 Army Reserve Number 1,197 2,487 4,668 15,682 18,425 19,335 21,660 22,379 Percent .5 1.1 2.0 7.0 9.5 10.1 11.4 12.0 Naval Reserve Number 1,405 1,616 1,814 2,058 2,965 3,323 3,865 3,754 Percent , 1.1 1.3 1.6 2.1 9 3.1 3.4 4.39 4.5 Mar1ne Corps Reserve. Number , a3 9 1022 171 390 493 520 713 914 Percent .2 .3 .5 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.3 2.8 National Guard Number 660 .%996 1,679 3,087 4,338 4,583 5,631 6,387 Percent .7 1.1 1.8 3.2 4.8 5.0 6.1 7.0 Air Force Reserve Number 1,0694 1,328 1,809 3,281 3,812 4,1019 5,148 6,268 Percent ‘ .2.2 3.0 3.9 6.5 7.9 8.4 A 10.2 11.6 TotaI Number 4,471 . 7,047 6 12,914 4 30,882 39,277 42,337 49,351 53,272 Percent .5 ‘.8 1.4 3.4 4.8 5 5.1 6.1 6.8 Asonrce: U.S. Department of Defense. Office, Deputy Assistant Secretary of \ Defense (Reserve Affairs).2 Reserve Forces Manpower Charts. // ' E-1 K.) ‘*1 011 O‘! ('3 U! W QOOOOOOOOOOO 022-! I _l I I 0 7:9»--t~Jc_,g.[:~u;C)\_\10)\ot-*0-4 JARRANT w-4 723 W41 UNK TOTAL DFFICERS TOTAL ZNLISTED E-9 E-8 E-7 E*6. 3 2-5 8-4 9 E? 3 E‘? UNK TOTAL. ERAND TOTAL 1 Cl-“ .AL 774 1,770 6,137 3,912 3,779 0 16,602 6 12 33 S2 0 103 16,705 39 146 647 2,444 17,443 34,386 29,476 13,498 16,5084 0 116,587 ,133,292 DISTRIBUTION OF ACTIVE DUTY WOMEN BY RANK AND PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL PERSONNEL IN EACH RANK SEPTEMBER 1978 2 ARMY 2 NAVY 2 MARINES. 2 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0‘ 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0. 0.0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 01 0.0 1.2 2 0.9 2 1.5 1 2.9 1.6 98 2.2 72 2.0 3 0.5 2.4 223 2.0 225 3.0 15 1.0 3.6 507 3.1 503 4.2 41 1.6 6.7 2,390 8.4 1,399 7.9 102 2.2 11.4 1,482 13.7 893 9.7 140 2.9 10.9 1,512 11.9 873 9.3 109 3.6 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 6.5 6,214 7.4 3,967 6.6 411 2.4 9 0.3 6 0.2 2 0.4 4 .3.7 0.5 2 16 0.3 8 0.5 9 2.4 1.4 431, 1.4 1 2.1 8 1.7 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 ’ 0 0.0 0.6 68 0.5 13 044 22 1.9 76.1 6,282 4 6.4 3,980. 6.4 433 2.4 0.3 21 0.6 3 0.1 4 0.3 o.4 .77 0.6 18 0.2 21 0.6 0.5 384 - 0.8 108 0.4 63 0.7 1.2 1,361 1.9 621 1.0 210 1.5 5.4 9,132 7.7 4,208 5.1 658. 3.0 8.5 15,170 8.5 5,857 6.4 2836 2.9 8.4 9,979 8.8 8 5,283 5.9 1,065 2.3 9.3 .5,709 10.6 2,561 4.8 .1,149 4.1 10.3 8,455 11.6 2,278 6.2 ~ 646 3.2 0.0 0 70.0 I 0 0.0 0 0.0 6.6 50,288 7.5 20,937 4.5 4,652 2.7 6.3 56,570 7.4 7 624,917 4.7 5,085 2.7 SOURCE: 3 MARDAC. 3035 AIR FORCE c>n;c>c>c>c> 311 719 2,246 1,397 1,283 16,010 6,010 11 30 92 1 252 3,445 12,523 13,149 6,079 ' 0 40,710 46,720 Department Of Defense ‘ OCDOOOCD §_.A...4...3§_4 33 9 O O ‘O O . r-41-4 o\ow4>t.nLaI\>r—«t-OOOO C. O wounooowxousoo-—-oooo O O0C>0\\.0b>r--QJCDOOO U U ~4.00\NO0ouaLnLuua-to (X) 9 V? ¢ LIBRARY OF WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY ST. LOUIS - MO.