[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

[H.A.S.C. No. 118-41]

MERITOCRACY IN THE MILITARY
SERVICES: ACCESSION, PROMOTION,
AND COMMAND SELECTION

__________

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

__________

HEARING HELD

SEPTEMBER 20, 2023

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

__________

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
54-213 WASHINGTON : 2024

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

JIM BANKS, Indiana, Chairman

ELISE M. STEFANIK, New York ANDY KIM, New Jersey
MATT GAETZ, Florida CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida MARILYN STRICKLAND, Washington
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
JAMES C. MOYLAN, Guam DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina
MARK ALFORD, Missouri TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama
CORY MILLS, Florida STEVEN HORSFORD, Nevada

Hannah Kaufman, Counsel
Ilka Regino, Professional Staff Member
Alexandria Evers, Research Assistant

C O N T E N T S

----------
Page

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Banks, Hon. Jim, a Representative from Indiana, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 1
Kim, Hon. Andy, a Representative from New Jersey, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel............................. 2

WITNESSES

Cheeseman, VADM Richard J., Jr., USN, Chief of Naval Personnel
and Deputy Chief of Naval Operations (Personnel, Manpower, and
Training), U.S. Navy........................................... 15
Greenway, Robert, Director, Center for National Defense, The
Heritage Foundation............................................ 4
Kelley, Katharine, Deputy Chief of Space Operations for Human
Capital, U.S. Space Force...................................... 18
Levine, Peter, Former Acting Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness........................................ 5
Miller, Lt Gen Caroline M., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for
Manpower, Personnel and Services, U.S. Air Force............... 17
Stitt, LTG Douglas F., USA, Deputy Chief of Staff, U.S. Army..... 15
Strobl, Michael R., Assistant Deputy Commandant for Manpower and
Reserve Affairs, U.S. Marine Corps............................. 16
Thibeau, William, Director, American Military Project, Center for
the American Way of Life, The Claremont Institute.............. 3

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

Banks, Hon. Jim.............................................. 33
Cheeseman, VADM Richard J., Jr............................... 69
Greenway, Robert............................................. 40
Kelley, Katharine............................................ 88
Kim, Hon. Andy............................................... 35
Levine, Peter................................................ 49
Miller, Lt Gen Caroline M.................................... 82
Stitt, LTG Douglas F......................................... 55
Strobl, Michael R............................................ 75
Thibeau, William............................................. 36

Documents Submitted for the Record:

[There were no Documents submitted.]

Witness Responses to Questions Asked During the Hearing:

Mr. Mills.................................................... 95

Questions Submitted by Members Post Hearing:

Mr. Gaetz.................................................... 99
Ms. Stefanik................................................. 99
Mr. Waltz.................................................... 100

MERITOCRACY IN THE MILITARY SERVICES: ACCESSION, PROMOTION, AND COMMAND
SELECTION

----------

House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Subcommittee on Military Personnel,
Washington, DC, Wednesday, September 20, 2023.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in
room 2212, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jim Banks
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JIM BANKS, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM
INDIANA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mr. Banks. The subcommittee will come to order. I ask
unanimous consent that the Chair be authorized to declare a
recess at any time. Without objection, so ordered.
The hearing will now come to order. I ask unanimous consent
that the Chair be authorized to declare a recess at any time
and, again, without objection so ordered.
I want to welcome everyone to this hearing of the Military
Personnel Subcommittee. Today's hearing is on meritocracy in
the military services, from recruiting and accession to
promotion and command selection.
I want to thank our witnesses for being with us today. I
hope this hearing provides an opportunity for our members to
have a productive exchange with our witnesses and provide
answers to their questions.
The questions we ask today may be focused on the military's
personnel system. However, they have much broader implications.
These questions go to our Nation's founding principles:
meritocracy, talent, and equality of opportunity. Across the
country, these principles are under attack. They have been
sacrificed at the altar of diversity, equity, and inclusion
bureaucracies, bureaucracies which demand racial and gender
quotas regardless of ability.
These performative social justice goals require government
agencies, large corporations, top-tier universities, and the
military to trade skill, productivity, hard work, and ingenuity
for a workforce which looks good on a brochure. This is
demeaning for all Americans, including those singled out by
those quotas. Millions of Americans are frustrated with the
social justice agenda that pervades our schools, corporations,
and now the Pentagon bureaucracy.
For example on August 9th, 2022, a memo from the Secretary
of the Air Force explicitly laid out quota goals for its
officer applicant pool. Apparently, Air Force officer
applicants should be 15 percent Hispanic, 10 percent Asian, 67
percent White, 36 percent female, and so on. Americans are fed
up with that. There is one place we simply can't afford to
trade equal opportunity for radical ideology, and that's the
United States military.
We must do whatever it takes to ensure that effort, hard
work, and results are the only relevant measure of our service
members, not only because every American deserves to be judged
by their character, but because no matter what our military
does in peacetime, lethality is the only standard that will
matter on the battlefield.
If these policies continue, we are placing military
readiness and our national security at risk, and we are putting
an end to one of the last great meritocratic systems in the
United States.
Today you will hear from two panels. The first panel is a
group of experts that will explain the cost of military
readiness associated with trading merit for diversity quotas.
In the second panel, we will hear from DOD's [Department of
Defense's] military personnel chiefs. They will describe the
factors and characteristics used to select military members for
promotion and command.
Additionally, they will address demographically targeted
recruiting and accessions. Before hearing from our witnesses,
let me offer Ranking Member Kim an opportunity to make opening
remarks.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Banks can be found in the
Appendix on page 33.]

STATEMENT OF HON. ANDY KIM, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW JERSEY,
RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL

Mr. Kim. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to our witnesses
for coming forward. And I just want to start by taking a step
back here to say, I believe all of us in this room want the
same thing. We want the strongest possible military to defend
our Nation. And that goal requires the best leaders to step up
and lead this military. And in pursuit of this absolute need,
we need a process of accession, retention, and promotion that
is fair and transparent, and based on skill and merit. All of
us want and demand a meritocratic system.
But let's keep in mind that meritocratic means weighing
both quantitative and qualitative qualities. There is no solely
quantitative way to identify the best leaders. Academic
achievement and tactical proficiency are easy to measure. You
either have a degree or you don't. You are either a marksman or
an expert with your assigned rifle. But assessing and defining
factors such as leadership, character, and integrity cannot be
perfectly reduced to a number.
I am interested in hearing from our witnesses how they
assess those hard to measure attributes across the spectrum of
service, how we recruit, how we retain, how we decide to
promote our service members.
I also hope to hear our witnesses' insights on what
improvements we need to make so our processes work as intended.
And I hope Congress, and the Department of Defense, make every
effort to encourage service from people of all types of
backgrounds as we engage in this process.
We should work together to foster a culture that encourages
and rewards excellence, creativity, innovation, and critical
thinking so our military can continue to meet emerging
challenges around the globe.
As I close, I also just want to say that our desire for the
promotion of the best military leaders should also encompass a
need for Congress to fulfill its own role in this process. And
holding up military promotions is not the right way to make a
political point.
I hope all of us in this room can agree that our national
security is vital and the threats we face are real. We need
fully qualified leaders in their jobs doing the work to secure
our Nation. We ask a lot of our service members. Now we need to
make sure that they know we are supporting them and their
mission.
Thank you to the witnesses again for being here. And I
yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kim can be found in the
Appendix on page 35.]
Mr. Banks. I thank the ranking member. Each witness will
have the opportunity to present his testimony. And each member
will have an opportunity to question the witnesses for 5
minutes. We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their
testimony in 2 minutes or less. Your written comments and
statements will be made part of the hearing record.
With that, Mr. Thibeau, you may make your opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM THIBEAU, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN MILITARY
PROJECT, CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE, THE CLAREMONT
INSTITUTE

Mr. Thibeau. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and the
members of this subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
testify this afternoon.
The military must only consider factors of policy that
better the Armed Force's ability to fight and win our Nation's
wars. Merit, or that which alludes to military professionalism
and competence, must not be the first consideration, but the
exclusive lens through which these leaders make decisions.
Race and gender diversity exists, supposedly, as something
that the military must embrace and promote as if the Armed
Forces march to the beat of a corporate or a university drum.
In reality, the existence of a professional, permanent military
in a democratic liberal society demands that the institution
must exist apart from the ideologies and politics prevalent in
modern-day America.
The military must balance functional considerations, or
those capabilities required to fight and win our Nation's wars,
with social considerations, or those ideologies which define
American life outside the military.
This means that the military must maintain such a strict
separation between values not specifically related to the
military profession and those other values that are more
prevalent.
A formal consideration of innate characteristics like race
and gender is toxic for military units because it redefines the
concept of standards. Standards are no longer how the military
selects and promotes the very best, but they are the minimum
floor of expectation before other considerations can be
evaluated.
This is a subtle but fundamental change. When we assume
that the military must reflect the demographics of the Nation,
we presume proportionalism into the experiences of everyday
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. Military leaders and
the institutions they lead embed the imperative of racial
representation into the lives of American service members,
which is never guaranteed. The integrity of our republic is in
tension with a military that evaluates matters of politics and
identity. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thibeau can be found in the
Appendix on page 36.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you, Mr. Thibeau.
Now, Mr. Greenway, you may make your opening statement.
Turn on your microphone.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT GREENWAY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR NATIONAL
DEFENSE, THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION

Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Chairman Bank, Ranking Member Kim,
distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to discuss issues vital to the defense of our
Nation.
As a veteran, the ability of our Armed Forces to protect
and defend us and those committed to serving in them is of
personal significance.
Like many of you, I see the unrelenting commitment to
competence, which has long established our military as the
finest in the world has ever known, being degraded by
pernicious ideologies which would replace merit and
demonstrated ability in our accessions and promotions systems.
The result is a less capable and ready force, struggling to
regain the trust of the public it serves and increasingly
challenged to face the full range of threats that confront us.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion, critical race theory, and
related ideologies are eroding the effectiveness of our
military by discarding that meritocracy and ensures our Armed
Forces are led by the most qualified.
Our military has encountered at least three periods of
personal turbulence and crisis before--since the adoption of
the All-Volunteer Force in 1973.
The first was in 1978 following the withdrawal from
Vietnam, the second in 1994 at the withdrawal from Somalia, and
we're currently experiencing the third after the disastrous
withdrawal from Afghanistan and the worst recruiting crisis we
have ever faced.
The present crisis bears hallmarks to those which preceded
it. All three reflect challenges in recruiting environments,
and a lack of focus on what matters--competence and
effectiveness--and a focus on distractions like the adoption of
corporate practices or the replacement of merit with various
other criteria.
In all three cases, the cause was clear. The recovery took
years. But it involved significant congressional oversight.
Ultimately, the primacy of competence was restored and the
force recovered.
War is an unforgiving enterprise. As a combat veteran with
multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, I can attest to it.
Without question, the only proven criteria for promotion in the
Armed Forces are character and competence as reflected by
demonstrated performance, recognizing the brutal reality of
combat in which they are tested. This approach ensures the
highest quality personnel enter and ultimately lead the force.
We don't maintain a military to participate in war but to
prevail.
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today and look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greenway can be found in the
Appendix on page 40.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
And finally, Mr. Levine, you may make your opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF PETER LEVINE, FORMER ACTING UNDER SECRETARY OF
DEFENSE FOR PERSONNEL AND READINESS

Mr. Levine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Banks,
Ranking Member Kim, and members of the subcommittee, thank you
for inviting me here this afternoon. Even more than technology,
our greatest military advantage over our competitors is our
people. The capability of our total force, officer and
enlisted, Active Duty and Reserve, military and civilian,
organic and contractor, is multiplied many times over by the
exceptional quality of our recruits and the unparalleled levels
of their training and education.
I would like to make three quick points today. First,
diversity strengthens our military and military leadership is
most effective when it appropriately reflects the force. Only
by recruiting in every region of the country and every
demographic group can the Department access the personnel and
talent that it needs.
A force that did not reflect the diversity of America would
not only be smaller, it would be significantly less capable.
Second, the military promotion system is merit-based, but
that does not mean that it could necessarily be as objective as
we would like. Federal law requires merit-based protection--
promotion decisions providing the selection boards convened by
military departments recommend those officers whom they
determine to be best qualified for promotion.
Board members and service members involved in the selection
process have described the process as exceptionally fair and
express the belief that board decisions are made based solely
on the strength of the record. There are no quotas, or
affirmative action, in today's military promotion system.
Third, the military has limited but important tools with
which to promote diversity without undermining merit-based
decisions.
The twin objectives of promoting on the basis of merit and
developing a diverse and inclusive leadership may sound
inconsistent but they are not. One step the Department can take
to build diversity without undermining merit is to ensure that
the pipeline of individuals who enter into the merit-based
promotion system is as diverse as possible.
A second step the Department can take is to ensure that the
boards that make the promotion decisions are themselves
diverse. This is why section 612 of title 10, United States
Code, requires that members of the selection board represent
the diverse population of the Armed Forces concerned to the
extent practicable. It matters who makes the decisions.
Taking these steps does not require--does not mean that the
services are now acting on a basis other than merit or
promoting less-qualified officers. Rather, it is an indication
that they are now able to recognize talent where they may not
have been able to do so before. The result is a better and
stronger force and one that draws on all of the many strengths
of our society.
Thank you for inviting me to participate in today's
hearing. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Levine can be found in the
Appendix on page 49.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you to each of you for your opening
statements. Each member will have 5 minutes to ask questions. I
will begin with that time now.
Mr. Thibeau, some people have claimed that a large portion
of potential recruits see the U.S. military as racist or
sexist. So that's why DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion]
training is necessary to correct their perception and to boost
recruitment. Do you agree with that assessment?
Mr. Thibeau. Mr. Chairman, I don't. I think when--if DEI
training or recruitment based on race and sex is seen as the
solution to perceived racism or sexism, that creates the
``bogeyman'' that the military seeks to eliminate with those
programs. Instead, the military should maintain absolute
objectivity and frankly almost indifference to those kinds of
ideologies to maintain a fighting force that is competent; not
competent to consider all viewpoints, but competent to fight
and win wars.
Mr. Banks. So you're saying it's a self-perpetuating
narrative?
Mr. Thibeau. I think so.
Mr. Banks. Interesting. Mr. Greenway, what policy or other
changes should be made to ensure that service members with the
most talent and ability get promoted regardless of their race,
gender, or other visible characteristics?
Mr. Greenway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one place to
start is instructions to promotion and selection boards. For
example, would you want the ``best qualified'' or a ``fully
qualified'' physician attending you for medical care? I think
the answer for most would be the ``best qualified.''
But current instructions allow, I think, for far too much
latitude and discretion against the subjective care and I think
a lot of things can creep into the criteria. And so I would
eliminate ``fully qualified.'' And I think we should look for
the ``best qualified.'' And I think promotion boards are
historically good at doing so.
Mr. Banks. Many have argued that the Army Combat Fitness
Test, the ACFT, results in disparate outcomes for women and
men. Can you address why the ACFT is a good test for combat
skill and fitness regardless of how it impacts women in the
Army, Mr. Greenway?
Mr. Greenway. I think the first point goes to the rigors of
the environment in which we must prepare our service members to
perform in. And I think it's always been a struggle for myself
and others to recognize why we have different standards.
And if the environment is the same, if combat in fact has
the same conditions expected to perform in, we should probably
have the same standard for everyone who is going to participate
in it. And so I think the degree to which we don't, we create
all kinds of problems for ourself, not least of which is
inability to perform in combat.
Mr. Banks. Mr. Levine, in your opening statement, you
mentioned that the promotion system was not as color-blind as
it should be. What concrete changes can the services make to
ensure promotion systems are more color-blind?
Mr. Levine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My point in the
statement was that the promotion system cannot, in fact, be
completely color-blind because even if we take photographs out
of promotion files, we've still got names, we've still got
histories, we've got seal associations, things that are on
somebody's resume that will indicate historic background,
including background of race. It's very hard to mask gender,
for example, if you can see the nominee's, the candidate's
name.
On top of that, the main meat of a promotion board is the
recommendations made by the officer's superiors and those
recommendations are not blind. They are made by somebody who
knows exactly who he or she is recommending or not
recommending. So as much as we would like it to be color-blind,
it can't be color-blind. And we just have to recognize that as
a fact.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. I will yield back the rest of my
time, and yield to Mr. Kim for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Kim. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks again to the
three of you for coming on out here. And, Mr. Levine, I wanted
to just kind of drill in a little bit more on what you were
just talking about here, just fleshing out some of your
testimony as well.
Just big picture, from what you see, is the process of
military promotion as it is now, is it meritocratic? Is it
based off of merit?
Mr. Levine. I believe that it is. I do not believe that it
is quota-based.
I have participated in reviews which have, and reviewed
studies in which people have interviewed numerous members of
selection boards and the virtually unanimous view of people who
participate in those boards is that they are merit-based. That
they are making decisions purely on the basis of the file and
extraneous considerations do not come into play.
Mr. Kim. You just mentioned this idea about quotas. And it
was raised as well in the opening. And I'm sure it will be
talked about. But I guess I just wanted to kind of clarify
this. What are we actually talking about here?
You know, there obviously could be aspirational goals or
other things like that. But just, when it comes to actual
quotas dictating requirements of the services, does such a
thing exist? Do those types of quotas exist in the current
process?
Mr. Levine. I will tell you that it would be against
current law, existing law. You don't need--you have a new
statute that would also prohibit. But existing statute would
prohibit having a quota saying that you to have a certain
percentage of nominations coming in based on race or gender or
any other characteristic like that.
So there are efforts to ensure, as I said, that the
pipeline is diverse so that the people coming into the process
start with--you start with a diverse group, but the decisions
that are made with regard to whom to promote within that group
are supposed to be made on the merits. And I believe that they
are made on the merits.
Mr. Kim. Oh, I see what you're talking about. So the idea
is that, you know, the more that we can do our best to try to
make sure that diversity is reflected writ large in the broader
force. But when it comes to the actual promotions, that there
is no quota. That that is done on that purely meritocratic
approach. Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Levine. Exactly. That is what I'm saying. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kim. So just to kind of clarify, you know, we had in a
previous hearing talk about affirmative action. Is any of that
involved in the promotion process?
Mr. Levine. I do not believe that there is affirmative
action as is generally defined involved in the promotion
process, no.
Mr. Kim. The chairman cited a quote of yours that I thought
was really interesting. Well, you said--I'll read it out. ``The
military promotion system is merit-based, but that doesn't mean
that we have been able to make it as color-blind or objective
as we might like.''
I just thought that was really interesting, what you just
said back to the chairman kind of piqued my interest. I guess
what I'm taking away from this in terms of what you just said
is that in our minds sometimes we are associating the idea of
meritocracy with objectivity. That that is what we should be
achieving and striving for. But it sounded like what you were
saying is that there is a limit to objectivity here. That there
is always going to be some semblance of subjectivity, judgment
because we're talking about things that are not always
quantitative in that kind of way. Am I summing that up right?
Mr. Levine. Yes. We want our evaluators and we want our
promotion boards to be as objective as they can possibly be.
But at the end of the day, we're relying on human judgment. And
human judgment on assessing characteristics like leadership,
communication skills, ability to work with others, key
characteristics that we expect our leaders to have in the
military and that we look to promote. And different people with
different experiences see those in different ways.
And, you know, the person I might see as a potential leader
might be somebody that I recognize from my own past, the people
that I've dealt with, the people that I have worked with, the
kinds of characteristics of leadership that I've seen in my
career.
Somebody else who has a different career and a different
background might recognize other characteristics of leadership.
So that's why I say that having a diverse group of people
making those decisions is important because you might recognize
talent that you would not otherwise recognize just as a result
of having a group--the group of people who were making those
decisions not be all out of the same rubberstamp----
Mr. Kim. Yeah.
Mr. Levine. [continuing]. And have the same set of views.
Mr. Kim. No, that's a really important point. And one that
I've been really meditating on is just this understanding of
just what does it mean to be a meritocracy? You know, what is
it that we're going at? And I think that it's important for us
to recognize that, you know, there are limits to what, you
know, just quantitative objective approaches can do.
And in fact, if we do it solely based off of those things
that we can measure in that kind of way, we'd be missing
incredibly important characteristics that actually are there to
help define and determine who is going to be the strongest
leader. So thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate that. And
I yield back.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. Mr. Gaetz, your 5 minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. So, Mr. Thibeau, is there anything that should
dictate whether or not someone gets a job in the DOD other than
who is most qualified?
Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman, for that specific job, no.
Whoever can do the job, whatever job it is best, should get it.
Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider whether or not the job is in
a red State or a blue State?
Mr. Thibeau. No.
Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider a State's critical race
theory perspectives?
Mr. Thibeau. No.
Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider a State's thoughts on gender
ideology?
Mr. Thibeau. No.
Mr. Gaetz. Should we consider our thoughts on a State's
abortion policy?
Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Greenway, can you think of anything other
than the person's skill and their quality to align with the job
that should be more important?
Mr. Greenway. No, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. None of the things I mentioned?
Mr. Greenway. None.
Mr. Gaetz. And why shouldn't a State's abortion policy
influence what person gets what job in the military?
Mr. Greenway. Because the military's unique responsibility
is to perform in circumstances where no other part of our
government can or is expected to. And that environment is
unforgiving. And so the standard has to be prerequisite. And in
this case, I don't think we can afford to fail in the defense
of our Nation and its citizens because we compromise on that.
Mr. Gaetz. Is that the same for like a State's maybe gender
policy if you don't want the third-grade teacher picking your
kid's gender, that shouldn't really impact who gets what job in
the military, should it?
Mr. Greenway. No, absolutely not.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Levine, do you share that perspective?
Mr. Levine. I absolutely do, Congressman. We have a very
diverse military. It reflects the diversity of American
society. And if we were to pick and choose based on the views
of people who were in the military, it would be very
destructive to the military.
Mr. Gaetz. And we shouldn't pick or choose based on the
views of a State legislature either, should we?
Mr. Levine. I can't see why we would.
Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, I can't either. I'm glad to hear that
universally presented. So, you know, Mr. Thibeau, if someone
were to say, look, first I look at who is most qualified, but
then I also look at maybe what a State's abortion policies or
gender policies are. What's the risk of melding those things
into one analysis about what jobs people do in the military?
Mr. Thibeau. I think it creates, you know, two sides to a
coin that doesn't exist, Congressman. You can either make it
about who is most qualified, not merely who is qualified, or
you can make it about other factors that a person doesn't
choose, like their race or sex or like the State in which they
may serve.
And you can either admit that those latter factors don't
matter and just choose who is most qualified anyways, or you
can make compromises on who is truly the best person for each
job based on other factors that have been deemed priorities
from some spot in the chain of command. And I think that's what
many of these diversity initiatives lead to.
Mr. Gaetz. And so as I understand that, you are presenting
a binary paradigm. Either it's the one most qualified, and then
we have a meritocracy. Or it's the one most qualified plus
anything else blended into that decision, you would say that is
not a meritocracy.
Mr. Thibeau. I think it creates a slippery slope to where
you are making a choice about something else. And I think
you're right, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. Mr. Greenway, do you agree that it is that
binary? That once you start bleeding into the decision-making
process, these other factors and other things, you can say that
you consider first the qualifications, but really once it
becomes muddled with something other than qualifications, the
meritocracy train has kind of left the station?
Mr. Greenway. Absolutely. And I will give two examples of
that. The first is in the 1970s corporate policy started to
influence promotion process and we suffered significantly. It
took us about 6 or 8 years almost for the force to recover.
And the second is in graduate degrees. It seems on the
surface of it, a good idea to have the professional
qualification of a graduate degree. And thankfully the pilot
who ejected from the F-35 in South Carolina survived, but----
Mr. Gaetz. Got it, got it, got it. I got that. With my
remaining minute, I'm going to play a video.
[Video shown.]
Mr. Gaetz. I yield back.
Mr. Banks. Mr. Waltz, your 5 minutes.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Does anyone disagree that
our level of diversity in the military, at least according to
race, exceeds that of the American public? We have more African
Americans in the military than the public? We have more
Hispanics in the military than broadly in the population?
Mr. Levine. Congressman, that's generally true. It's not
necessarily true if you look at all levels of----
Mr. Waltz. Right. So that's the next--that's what we tend
to hear is yes, yes, yes, ``but.'' That quick ``but,'' though,
touches all kinds of things we do in recruiting, enlistment,
DEI training, let's kind of brush aside. But the general
officers corps.
Does anyone disagree that at least across the services,
most of our general officers are chosen from within, for
example, in the Army combat ranks or the combat MOSes [military
occupational specialties]. And for a whole variety of reasons,
we tend to see more minorities in the service and the service
support usually because there is different skills or different
preferences there.
So at least in my experience and what I've seen is that the
generals are chosen from combat arms. And they tend to tilt
more towards men. And they tend to tilt more towards White men.
A reasonable explanation, one would say, right?
Mr. Levine. That's generally accurate.
Mr. Waltz. Okay. So then we start skewing that percentage--
sorry, Mr. Levine, what then in our general officer corps,
since it tends to be less diverse, is acceptable? Is it to
match the population?
Mr. Levine. I don't believe that there is a percentage
that's an acceptable percentage. I think that as we look at the
type of factor that you just described, the reaction of the
military has been a reasonable one which is why are we seeing
minorities go--minority officers go into support functions? Are
there things that we can do----
Mr. Waltz. Are support functions less important?
Mr. Levine. Not necessarily. But are there things we can do
in terms of mentorship, or encouragement, to persuade them that
perhaps they should look at the combat arms functions as well
because if they are more--as you indicated, if they are more
strongly represented in the lower grades in those functions,
they're more likely to fleet up to the upper levels.
And that is the kind of action that we take to encourage
diversity.
Mr. Waltz. So how do we then do that for females and
general officers? Let's just stick with that because there are
all kinds of places we could go with that. But let's stick with
that. How then do we do that, we encourage more females when--
particularly when physical fitness and the ability to perform
to a certain standard is a key metric, let's say in Army combat
arms, infantry, armor, what have you?
Mr. Levine. You don't necessarily have the fully ability to
do that with regard to women. And you have to defer to what--
which [simultaneous speaking].
Mr. Waltz. Would you agree then, really what this is about
it's about standards? And it should be, if we have a
meritocracy, and we've had some definition of meritocracy, it's
about standards period. It's the standard needed to be an
infantry man or woman. That may be a different as it applies to
physical than it would be to say be a cyber warrior.
Mr. Levine. We have----
Mr. Waltz. Different physicality needed to be in the
infantry than to type on a keyboard.
Mr. Levine. Yes, Congressman. We have physical standards
for specific MOSes. And those standards do not vary based on
whether you are a woman or a man.
Mr. Waltz. Actually, they do. Actually, that's just
blatantly incorrect. We have a dual standard. Myself and
Senator Tom Cotton have legislation to make them gender neutral
and to make them according to the standard required.
Mr. Levine. Let me be clear. We have two different fitness
standards. We have one fitness standard for an MOS. Those are
two different things. The fitness standard is a general
suitability to serve in the service, which you'll hear your--
you can ask the professionals in the next panel, but they will
explain to you that's about your general standard of fitness.
Mr. Waltz. Right.
Mr. Levine. There is a separate standard, which is a
standard for a combat arms MOS. And that does not vary. It does
not vary based on gender.
Mr. Waltz. But here is the issue with that. In order for
promotion points and all kinds of other things, for example,
you have a first female that goes through Ranger School, one
standard. Proud of her, absolutely earned it. But she goes to
command and infantry platoon and she has a now different
physical standard than the men and women that she's asked to
lead. That's unfair to her. That undermines her achievement.
And, and, last I checked, the enemy's bullets don't make a
distinction.
Mr. Levine. Again, she had to pass the same standard to get
through Ranger School. She didn't get a different standard
through Ranger School.
Mr. Waltz. Right.
Mr. Levine. She had the same standard through Ranger
School.
Mr. Waltz. That's right.
Mr. Levine. She has a different fitness standard which I
would think--what you think of as a health standard as a woman.
Mr. Waltz. No.
Mr. Levine. The body weight is different.
Mr. Waltz. No, it's called--it's deliberately called a
combat fitness test. These are the standards you must hit for
combat. They literally--the Army literally changed the name
from physical fitness test, which is wellness and health, to a
combat fitness test. And I think you are--frankly, I'm going to
move on, but you are making a distinction without a difference
there. And at the end of the day what I think we need to
settle, and why this committee under the chairman's leadership
is having so many hearings, it's about standards that we need
to win and fight wars, not about all of these other factors.
Mr. Levine. I agree with you, Congressman.
Mr. Banks. Time is expired. Mr. Mills, your 5 minutes.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will [Thibeau], you
went to Ranger School. You know all about the ideas of going to
Darby Phase and sitting up in Dahlonega, sitting in Florida
Phase. When you went through based on your height, your size.
or your physical strength, was your standards modified based on
those things?
Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
Mr. Mills. And do you feel that it would actually be
something which is fair to modify Ranger School standards based
on physical capability or capacity?
Mr. Thibeau. No, Congressman.
Mr. Mills. Mr. Levine, you just talked about, again, health
and welfare. I have deployed multiple times as has my
colleague, Mike Waltz, and our chairman. And I can tell you
that 180-, 200-pound man with full kit, when he is shot, and
you are actually trying to pull him off the X, it doesn't
matter your gender. It matters your capability, capacity, your
combat fitness and readiness.
So do you feel then that it should be based upon what your
capability is or what your gender or other type of distinction
is on whether or not you can perform those same duties?
Mr. Levine. So the performance in any MOS, in any
assignment should be based on your capability for that
assignment. And I agree with you, and I agree with Congressman
Waltz, that that should be absolutely standard-based.
The question is whether the standard for fitness for
participating in the armed services as a whole should also be a
single standard or whether it is okay for that to be a dual
standard. And my view is we have lots of jobs that are as you
describe them where you have to carry a 140-pound kit or 200-
pound kit, or whatever it is, and you better be able to carry
it if you're going to carry it.
We also have desk jobs. We also have jobs operating----
Mr. Mills. But we have people who are actually having a
different standard who are in those combat arm positions.
Mr. Levine. I understand. So the question is can we let
somebody into the service based on a fitness standard that is a
gender-based standard for admission into--for accession into
the service. It doesn't get you into a particular assignment
because for that assignment, you have to meet the physical
criteria for that assignment.
Mr. Mills. Well, let me ask this question, because this is
about meritocracy. This is about putting meritocracy over the
ideas of DEI and all these other criterias.
And in August of 2022, the memo from the Secretary of the
Air Force detailed percentage goals based on race and gender.
What any reasonable person would see as an absolute quota, but
yet we try to say that we don't have a quota.
Can you explain where these resources were redirected from
in order to reach the race-based quota set out by the Biden
administration? Anyone?
Mr. Thibeau. So, Congressman, this is, you know, where I
see a disconnect between the supposed premise of merit and the
insistence that quotas don't exist because that memo you
reference establishes percentage-based goals not based on where
people live or how--you know, what their income level was
growing up but based on their skin color and their sex.
And so, again, that goes back to this two-sided coin that I
don't think exists. Either we can admit those goals are
meaningless, and the Department of the Air Force and the
subordinate units don't do anything to make sure they meet
those goals for White men or Black men, or we can acknowledge
that those are quotas. I don't understand what the difference
is other than the label we give that policy.
Mr. Mills. Mr. Thibeau, I absolutely agree with you. And I
would argue the fact that most of this body actually believes
in completely eliminating DEI, which is part of what's led to a
deterioration, not just in the promotion of meritocracy, but
also I think it's had a dire impact on our recruitment. And I
think that we can acknowledge that we are at our lowest
recruitment level since I believe it was 1973.
And so, my question to all three of you then would be how
do you see pronouns, and by the way, of course, we are the
greatest when it comes to the battlefield, we can out-pronoun
any of our enemies. We can out he/her and she/him all day.
But how does pronouns, quotas, and DEI strengthen or
diminish our Armed Forces. And I will start with you, Mr.
Levine.
Mr. Levine. What I would say about pronouns is that there
is a fundamental part of our military culture and our military
values, which is treating others with dignity and respect.
And I believe that that fundamental principle should apply
in the case of somebody who wants to have different pronouns
used, which is don't disrespect them, don't intentionally
insult them.
Now do I think that somebody should be directed to use a
specific set of pronouns whether they believe it or not? No,
not particularly. But should we treat somebody with dignity and
respect?
Mr. Mills. I don't think it's about dignity or respect. I
think that it is absolutely the idea of trying to put ourselves
into these individual sectors and boxes for division when the
military is about cohesion, unification, not division.
Mr. Greenway, same question if you would.
Mr. Greenway. I don't see any benefit. But ultimately,
these ideas lead exactly to that, to quotas that ultimately
come at the expense of performance and merit. And when the
Secretary of the Air Force promulgates written guidance, it is
not seen as something that would be nice to achieve, at least
unless the military has changed radically, and I don't think
that it has.
Promulgated written guidance means that that is exactly
what you are supposed to do. And so aspirational though they
may be, instructions issued to subordinate commands means they
need to be followed.
Mr. Mills. I absolutely agree. My time has expired, but I
thank you gentlemen. Again, I hope our Armed Forces gets back
to not serving political agendas but serving our Nation and
that we can actually identify that meritocracy is the most
important thing. With that, I yield back.
Mr. Banks. I want to thank the first panel. This was a
great substantive healthy discussion that will precede another
panel discussion that we will have with some of our senior
leaders in the military.
So with that, we'll take a 3-minute recess, change panels.
My hope is that we can get through the opening testimonies
before members are called to vote and then we'll come back and
ask questions. Thank you.
[Recess]
Mr. Banks. All right. The hearing will now come to order. I
would like to again welcome our witnesses. Each witness will
have the opportunity to present his or her testimony. And each
member will have an opportunity to question the witnesses for 5
minutes. We respectfully ask the witnesses to summarize their
testimony in 2 minutes or less. Your written comments and
statements will be made part of the hearing record.
With that, Lieutenant General Stitt, you may make your
opening statement.

STATEMENT OF LTG DOUGLAS F. STITT, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF,
U.S. ARMY

General Stitt. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking
Member Kim, distinguished members of this committee. Thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the
United States Army.
The Army's mission is to deploy, fight, and win our
Nation's wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained land
dominance as part of the joint force.
Accomplishing this mission requires placing the right
soldier into the right assignment at the right time. This
starts with recruiting across the United States, casting a wide
net to ensure that all who want to serve and to meet our
standards are afforded that opportunity.
Programs such as the Future Soldier Preparatory Course
provide our applicants the means to further develop themselves
for successful enlistment, and completion of initial entry
training.
Our promotion system operates under the construct of
statute and DOD policies, ensuring that we consider all
eligible soldiers and select only the best for advancement. As
a standards-based organization, promotion board members
consider each soldier's file and select only those who are best
qualified based upon merit.
Our structural requirements determine how many of those
best qualified soldiers on an order of merit list will advance
for promotion to the next rank.
For the Army's most impactful leadership positions, our
officers and NCOs [noncommissioned officers] undergo an
additional assessment. Leaders who compete for brigade and
battalion command as well as other select critical positions
attend the Command Assessment Program, which ensures that we
are selecting the right leaders, who in turn have the greatest
impact upon the soldiers in our formations.
Our Army is ready because our accessions, selections, and
promotions ensure that we are a force comprised of quality
leaders and soldiers at all levels.
Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, members of this
committee, I thank you for your generous and unwavering support
to our talented soldiers, civilian professionals, and family
members. I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of General Stitt can be found in
the Appendix on page 55.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Vice Admiral Cheeseman, you may make your opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF VADM RICHARD J. CHEESEMAN, JR., USN, CHIEF OF
NAVAL PERSONNEL AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
(PERSONNEL, MANPOWER, AND TRAINING), U.S. NAVY

Admiral Cheeseman. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking
Member Kim, and distinguished members of this subcommittee. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to discuss
meritocracy in the United States Navy.
In everything we do, our primary objective remains taking
care of our people in order to produce and preserve the best
combat-ready naval forces in the world.
To do that, our Navy will always maintain, train, and equip
a combat-credible, dominant naval force to keep the sea lanes
free and open, deter conflict, and when called upon, decisively
win our Nation's wars.
Our entire Navy must leverage the best of our Nation by
investing in trained, resilient, and educated sailors that are
self-assessing, self-correcting, and always learning toward one
goal, delivering warfighting advantage.
Our process for accessions, promotions, and command
selections supports this by being solidly founded upon merit.
The Navy has a deliberate process for recruiting
candidates, advancing our sailors, and selecting our personnel
for leadership positions, which is constantly reviewed to
ensure the finest Americans are available for service at all
ranks, in all pay grades. These processes are rooted in law and
sound policy.
I look forward to working with you as we continue shaping
our Navy to meet future challenges and thank you for your
unwavering support. I stand ready to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Admiral Cheeseman can be found
in the Appendix on page 69.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Dr. Strobl, you may make your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. STROBL, ASSISTANT DEPUTY COMMANDANT FOR
MANPOWER AND RESERVE AFFAIRS, U.S. MARINE CORPS

Dr. Strobl. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim, and members
of the subcommittee, your United States Marine Corps is a
meritocracy. We take pride in our commitment to recognizing and
rewarding excellence in a fair, transparent, and methodical
way, whether it is accessing, assigning, promoting, or awarding
and retaining Marines, the Corps is dedicated to merit-based
treatment of our warriors.
Marines understand that their advancement and opportunities
depend on their excellence, creating an environment where
everyone has an equal opportunity for success.
In our accessions, the Marine Corps' primary requirements
are that an applicant wants to be a Marine, wants to defend our
Constitution, and can meet our high standards of intellect,
fitness, and character.
We welcome individuals of any race, religion, color,
gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation from anywhere in
our country who can meet these standards or wants to try.
Everyone will be given a fair shot at the opportunity to become
a Marine.
Similarly, we assign, promote, and select for command based
on merit. Our officer promotion selection boards are grounded
in law. For all our boards, both statutory and non-statutory,
we use a standardized briefing format and conduct anonymous
voting. Our explicit standard is to always select the best and
fully qualified.
The success of the Marine Corps' meritocratic approach is
reflected in Marine satisfaction. Marines demand fairness and
accountability. Our historically high retention rates suggest
that they believe the Corps treats them fairly, cares about
their satisfaction, and values their careers.
Marines choose to stay Marines because they have confidence
that their careers will be determined by their excellence. This
trust in our meritocratic principles is a driving force behind
our sustained success.
Thank you and ``Semper Fidelis.''
[The prepared statement of Dr. Strobl can be found in the
Appendix on page 75.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Lieutenant General Miller, you may make your opening
statement.

STATEMENT OF LT GEN CAROLINE M. MILLER, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF OF
STAFF FOR MANPOWER, PERSONNEL AND SERVICES, U.S. AIR FORCE

General Miller. Good afternoon, Chairman Banks, Ranking
Member Kim, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. I am
honored to have this opportunity to appear before you today to
focus on the most significant competitive advantage the Air
Force has over its adversaries, our airmen.
Air Force talent management is focused on one simple
principle: having the right airmen in the right job at the
right time.
To successfully achieve that principle, we rely on the
strength of individual merits in all facets of our personnel
system from accessions to promotions to selection for command.
This year, the Active Duty Air Force is projected to fall
short of recruiting goals by 11 percent. This is due to factors
such as low propensity to serve and a decline in the eligible
population.
To counter, we are increasing our direct engagement with
citizens in areas of the country that are underrepresentative
in our service.
To increase the eligible pool of applicants, we are
modernizing our accessions policies to better align with the
Department of Defense. Overall, our primary focus remains
attracting and retaining individuals with superior abilities
and talents.
Meritocracy is the foundation of the Air Force promotion
system. In accordance with law and DOD policy, promotion boards
for commissioned officers recommend to the Secretary the best
fully qualified officers based on a whole-person concept.
Each officer selection record is assessed on its own merit
without regard to race, gender, or ethnicity, using factors
that demonstrate exceptional job performance and leadership
potential.
Although non-statutory, command screening boards use the
same review process for selecting senior officers for command.
Within the enlisted ranks, airmen are promoted to
noncommissioned officer based on their objective cumulative
score within the weighted airmen promotion system. Promotion to
senior noncommissioned officer ranks follow a promotion board
process similar to officers.
Three- and four-star general officer [GO] positions are
nominatively filled using a slate of highly qualified
candidates produced by the GO Future Assignment and Strategy
Tool. The tool objectively analyzes each position's
requirements against qualifications of all general officers.
To preserve our supremacy in today's world against our
adversaries, the Air Force must ensure the airman is in the
right job at the right time.
Thank you for your continued advocacy for our airmen, both
military and civilian, and their families.
[The prepared statement of General Miller can be found in
the Appendix on page 82.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you.
Ms. Kelley, you may make your opening statement.

STATEMENT OF KATHARINE KELLEY, DEPUTY CHIEF OF SPACE OPERATIONS
FOR HUMAN CAPITAL, U.S. SPACE FORCE

Ms. Kelley. Thank you. Chairman Banks, Ranking Member Kim,
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
leadership and support you have provided to the United States
Space Force. Your Guardians, both military and civilian, are
preserving freedom of action in an increasingly contested space
domain. It is a privilege to come before you today.
Developing a combat-credible force, ready for contested
action in space is our imperative. To ensure that, we select
the best, incorporating education, training, leadership,
abilities, team building, and capabilities for past performance
to generate the talent necessary to fight and win our Nation's
wars.
We have also established in the Space Force values of
character, connection, commitment, and courage.
The Space Force promotion system is grounded in statute and
Air Force policy. Our program fulfills the requirements of
section 619 of title 10, U.S. Code, and Secretarial policy
focused on selecting and promoting the best qualified
commissioned and noncommissioned officers to serve in positions
of increased responsibility and increased authority.
Promotion boards are charged with recommending the best
qualified based on whole-person concept, which includes their
record, their education, their performance, and demonstrated
potential.
We assign Guardians to team roles and leadership positions
based on the needs of the service and the qualifications for
the job.
As we continue to grow our foundation as the newest
service, we are instituting policy and process to ensure we
continue to attract the best our Nation has to offer.
Through partnerships with our sister services, and the
excellent support of the Air Force, we are pleased that today
we are achieving our recruiting targets, our accessions goals,
and our authorized end strength.
Space is no longer a benign domain, and we know that. I am
proud of the more than 13,000 military and civilian Guardians
in the Space Force. Together we are building a force
unilaterally focused on securing our Nation in, from, and to
space.
I look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Kelley can be found in the
Appendix on page 88.]
Mr. Banks. Thank you to each of you. I will begin with
questions and yield myself 5 minutes.
I understand that boards are done based on U.S. Code.
However, this administration has made DEI front and center
through Executive order and that affects the Department of
Defense. This question is for each of you. Lieutenant General
Stitt, we will begin with you. How do you balance requirements
by the President for diversity with your duty to a talent-based
system?
General Stitt. Chairman Banks, the Army does not utilize
demographic goals or quotas in its promotion system. And every
individual who is eligible for consideration is viewed by the
merits of their file, which contains both their educational,
their performance, and their assignment data that is available
to all board members to review.
Those board members review that. They vote on a 1 to 6, 1
being the worst, 6 being the best. Those votes are tabulated.
And those that are best qualified are deemed and come forward
for final advancement.
Mr. Banks. Vice Admiral.
Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman, thank you very much for that
question. Much like my Army counterpart, our process is based
solely on the best and most fully qualified standard.
That being said, we do recognize that the Navy is made up
of, you know, many people with diverse backgrounds. It is
important to understand that. Indeed, we do operate throughout
the entire globe. So being able to operate with folks from all
walks of life is pretty important to us.
But that being said, the standard is the best and most
fully qualified, and the process is exactly the same as my
counterpart mentioned.
Mr. Banks. Doctor.
Dr. Strobl. Thank you for the question. The Marine Corps'
overarching objective is to be ready, most ready when the
Nation is least ready, and to be most lethal on the
battlefield.
In order to do that, we follow the imperative to select the
best and most fully qualified candidates for promotion, for
command, for assignments, and for accessions.
Mr. Banks. Lieutenant General.
General Miller. Thank you, yes. Similar to my colleagues,
we are a standard-based organization in the Air Force. And we
are looking for the right person at the right time. And for
promotion, we look at their career record and their
performance. And we want to make sure that they are the best
candidate for that position that is available.
Mr. Banks. Ms. Kelley.
Ms. Kelley. Chairman, it is based on the best qualified.
It's based on their past performance. It's based on how well we
think they are ready to advance to that next level of
performance inside the service.
We take into account education, but basically we are
picking the best and the brightest inside the Space Force.
Mr. Banks. So is it fair to say that all of you are
ignoring the President's Executive order. Can anyone respond to
that?
Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman, thanks for the question. I
don't think we are ignoring any specific Executive order. In
the Navy, we do recognize diversity can be, you know, a force
for good. As we are mining talent throughout the country, we
are making sure we have the best and most fully qualified
available.
That must be the standard. The standard is who is capable
of performing at the next higher administrative milestone or
for the statutory position they are being considered for and
that always will be the standard.
Mr. Banks. Anybody else?
General Stitt. Chairman Banks, under current statute, we
provide board members guidance on considering diversity in
assignment, educational background, and experiences when
reviewing all eligible candidates for promotion. And that board
member utilizes that in their own internal board voting
philosophy, and resulting in selection of best qualified once
the votes are tabulated.
Mr. Banks. I think I will leave it at that and yield to
Ranking Member Kim for his 5 minutes.
Mr. Kim. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I just wanted
to kind of pick up and make sure I kind of got it because over
the course of the last panel there is a lot of criticism saying
that you all are doing something. You're saying, I'm guessing,
the opposite of that.
So I guess I just want to start here with the Army and go
down the line. Is the promotion process meritocratic and based
solely off of capabilities? Army.
General Stitt. Ranking Member Kim, the promotion process is
fair and based on the merits assessed by the board members to
determine those who are best qualified for advancement to the
next rank.
Admiral Cheeseman. Chairman, I can confirm that it is
exactly a meritocracy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kim. Okay. Sir.
Dr. Strobl. Yes, for the Marine Corps, the promotion
selection boards are based on merit.
Mr. Kim. Air Force.
General Miller. Yes, the promotion board is based on merit.
Ms. Kelley. It's the same in the Space Force.
Mr. Kim. Now, if you don't mind, I'll go the reverse way
just to kind of get this on the table. Is race or gender or
sexuality, is that at all a part of the consideration being
judged for a promotion?
Ms. Kelley. It is not in the Space Force.
Mr. Kim. Air Force.
General Miller. It is not in the Air Force.
Mr. Kim. Marines.
Dr. Strobl. No.
Mr. Kim. Navy.
Admiral Cheeseman. No, sir.
Mr. Kim. Army.
General Stitt. It is not, sir.
Mr. Kim. So thank you. I just wanted to kind of clear that
up. I guess I just wanted to also kind of hone in. I'm not sure
if you heard some of my questions in the first round, but, you
know, I think sometimes on this committee, you know, I really
do believe we're all trying to get to that place where we have
the best leaders. I think a lot of us have that same goal in
mind. I think there are difference of opinions on whether or
not we're actually doing that. But it's often kind of used in
this way of saying, look, we want an objective process. That we
want to get rid of the subjectivity.
But in the first panel, there was an interesting comment
sort of saying, look, when we are assessing leadership, that is
not something that numbers alone are going to tell you. So I
guess I just wanted to kind of go down one more time, is that
something that you would agree with, that there is still--you
know, that we try to be objective as much as we can, but there
is going to be certain elements of this in terms of qualities
of leadership. So if you don't mind, just kind of--do you agree
with that and can you give me an example of some question of
leadership that you feel like does require some judgment? Army.
General Stitt. Ranking Member Kim, utilizing the Command
Assessment Program that I had spoke about in my opening
statement, that's where we start to peel back and look at
cognitive and non-cognitive abilities of those individuals
before we place them into brigade, battalion command or a
senior noncommissioned officer billet at the brigade or
battalion command level.
We look at information from their peers and subordinates.
These candidates participate in a double-blind panel before
general officers who ask them a series of questions to
determine their readiness and fitness for command.
Mr. Kim. Navy.
Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, similar answer from the
Navy. We have developed pilot programs, Navy Leader Assessment
Program modeled off of the Army's lead.
We are doing exactly that on the front end of the selection
process to really get at that character determination on the
front end so we can mentor and train, you know, future naval
officers to do the things we need them to do in positions of
higher authority.
As mentioned in the first panel, character is hard to
assess, and we do everything we can through our processes to
ensure we have an accurate understanding of that before we
place folks into positions of leadership.
Mr. Kim. Great. If you don't mind, I just want to pause
since I'm kind of running a little low on time. I just want to
get to one last question here. To the Air Force, in a previous
testimony, there was some talk about this August, I guess, 2022
Air Force leadership memo detailing new diversity and inclusion
goals for the Air Force officers.
This was criticized as setting quotas. The memo talks about
aspirations. I guess I just want to ask you to explain what
impact this memo had on the promotion board processes since it
was signed. What changed because of that memo? What changed at
all in that process?
General Miller. Yeah, thank you for the question. Actually,
for the promotion process, absolutely nothing changed. I mean,
we still are merit-based. We are looking for the whole person.
That memo that General Brown signed essentially was talking
about goals for accessions. There was, you know, we want to
make sure that we have the best and brightest. That everybody
across the United States has an opportunity to serve. And so he
was just making sure that we did not eliminate----
Mr. Kim. Just to be clear here, nothing changed in the
process after that memo.
General Miller. In the promotion process, nothing changed.
Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Kim. Okay. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Banks. Mr. Gaetz, 5 minutes.
Mr. Gaetz. So I guess I have the same question that I had
for the last panel, and I will start with you, General Miller.
Should a State's gender policy affect who is aligned to what
position in the military?
General Miller. Absolutely not.
Mr. Gaetz. Should it----
General Miller. It's the needs of the Air Force.
Mr. Gaetz. Yeah, so it shouldn't mean the abortion policy
either?
General Miller. It's the needs of the Air Force and where
[inaudible].
Mr. Gaetz. I just want to be really--I want to draw a fine
point on it. The needs of the Air Force----
General Miller. Yes.
Mr. Gaetz [continuing]. Do not require the Air Force to
consider a State's abortion policy or gender policy before
assigning a service member to a position in that particular
State?
General Miller. We do not.
Mr. Gaetz. So what was that general in that video talking
about when she said that there are 400 anti-LGBTQ [lesbian,
gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] laws that have to be
considered before she aligns an applicant to a position?
General Miller. Congressman, I cannot speak for General
Burt and what she was talking about there.
Mr. Gaetz. You're both in the Air Force, right?
General Miller. Sir, she's in the Space Force.
Mr. Gaetz. Oh, Space Force, maybe you can tell us, Ms.
Kelley. What was she talking about?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, my understanding of what her intent behind
those comments is that she is really describing the assignments
matching process in the Space Force.
Mr. Gaetz. Okay.
Ms. Kelley. And that is what I believe she was describing.
Mr. Gaetz. Right. Okay. So when we--I get that. That is
pretty evident. But in that assignments matching process,
should a State's abortion policy come into play?
Ms. Kelley. So I don't want to speak for her, sir, but I
will tell you----
Mr. Gaetz. I am asking you.
Ms. Kelley. And I will----
Mr. Gaetz. Should a State's abortion policy come into play?
Ms. Kelley. What we take into account in the Space Force is
the needs of the service, the Guardian themselves and whether
they are qualified for the job.
Mr. Gaetz. Do you take into account a State's abortion
policy?
Ms. Kelley. We take into account the preference of the
individual if they are interested in the particular job.
Mr. Gaetz. Okay. Fascinating. I am not asking about those
things. I am asking about whether or not you take into account
a State's abortion policy.
Ms. Kelley. We do not because it needs----
Mr. Gaetz. Do you take into account a State's LGBTQ policy,
whatever that is?
Ms. Kelley. No. We do not, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. Okay. So why did your fellow space warrior with
a bunch of stars on her, you know, lapel, stand up and give a
speech that said, when she is aligning someone to a particular
job, she is evaluating these 400 anti-LGBTQ policies? Why did
she say that?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, I can't speak for why she said that.
Mr. Gaetz. Was that a mistake?
Ms. Kelley. It certainly doesn't reflect what our processes
are and what I know them to be.
Mr. Gaetz. All right. Okay. So this is a moment here. This
is a bit of a moment. Because we heard a senior person in the
Space Force say one thing, and then you are here in front of a
congressional committee saying that this is not what the Space
Force believes.
So I got to get to the bottom of this. So I sent a letter
to General Burt saying, you said there are these 400 anti-LGBTQ
policies that you are actively considering when you are
aligning people to jobs. So I said, list them. If there are 400
of them, I would love to read them. And the answer that I got
back from someone called Alex Wagner is that to answer your
specific request, the Department of Air Force does not maintain
a list of pending or enacted laws that impact military
readiness.
So does the Space Force have such a list?
Ms. Kelley. No, we do not, Congressman.
Mr. Gaetz. We are policymakers that have to make decisions
based on the representations of people who work at the
Pentagon, right? And what you are providing us are conflicting
and irreconcilable representations. And then when we ask
follow-up questions so that we might be able to reconcile those
things, the answer is we don't have a list.
So as you are here today, can you just clear it up by
denouncing those comments and saying that they are not the
practice of what you all do?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, I've described the practice that we do.
And we do ask Guardians for their preferences on duty
assignments. And we try to match Guardians to----
Mr. Gaetz. Okay. So if one of those preferences is someone
saying I don't like Florida's views on critical race theory.
Would you consider that in whether or not to send that person
to Florida?
Ms. Kelley. No. The Guardian would----
Mr. Gaetz. So what if they said the abortion policy. Would
you consider that?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, the Guardian would have to prove that
there is some sort of hardship to them, which----
Mr. Gaetz. You don't accept as a de facto hardship that a
6-week abortion ban is a hardship, right?
Ms. Kelley. That is not in our policy, no, sir.
Mr. Gaetz. I am just trying to figure this out, Mr.
Chairman. And I think we might have to do further investigative
work to maybe get General Burt here to--it is unfair to ask you
to characterize those comments. But at the end of the day, we
have to figure out where to send the money and what authorities
and restraints to put on that money. And if General Burt has
gone rogue and engaged in some ultra vires act to create a
secret list of 400 policies that she deems discriminatory, I
would sure like the committee to see them. Thanks, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Banks. Mr. Waltz.
Mr. Waltz. Thank you. Just to build on that for one more
minute. I am also from Florida. So essentially what you are
saying is you described the policy today; Lieutenant General
Burt violated that policy, or at least what she described as
her efforts as a senior commander to reassign people based on
series of criteria. That's not in accordance with your policy--
with the policies you described for the Space Force, correct?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, I described our policies as you have
heard.
Mr. Waltz. But her statements, as you heard today, in
accordance with your policy.
Ms. Kelley. Well, she said she is compelled to consider.
She did not say that she had.
Mr. Waltz. Even if they are less qualified, was her
statement.
Ms. Kelley. We have multiple Guardians who are qualified
for our positions, sir.
Mr. Waltz. So, and you mentioned preferences, if--I mean,
just to build on Representative Gaetz here, if perhaps their
family feels unsafe because of a gun control policy, and they
don't feel like they can appropriately buy firearms to protect
them, would you consider that?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, there is an exception to the process. But
the Guardian would have to prove that there is some sort of an
undue hardship on them.
Mr. Waltz. Okay.
Ms. Kelley. I would highly doubt that would meet the, you
know, standard.
Mr. Waltz. I would hope. Because I think what we have--what
we are trying to demonstrate here is we have opened--statements
from the senior leaders like that opens a Pandora's Box of
political issues put on the table, enacted by State elected
officials that in our view should not be considered. I am
reassured to hear you say they should not be considered.
But when you have three-star generals saying not only
should they be, she is doing it. Do you see how that introduces
doubt into our constituents, and the American people, that the
senior leaders of the Space Force or the rest of the services
are following the law?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, I certainly see how that could be
construed, yes.
Mr. Waltz. Is she still in her position?
Ms. Kelley. She is.
Mr. Waltz. So there was no consequences for that statement,
which is not in accordance with the policy that you have
outlined?
Ms. Kelley. Again, she did not make a statement publicly
that she has actually reassigned anyone.
Mr. Waltz. No. She made a statement that she is considering
it. And specifically State law in Florida, I mean, specified a
State, specified a law that she is considering in furtherance
of her command, and she is still in command.
Ms. Kelley. I did not hear a specific State law specified.
Mr. Waltz. Well, as it pertained. It was a pride event as
it pertains to LGBTQ. That was specific.
Ms. Kelley. She was speaking at a DOD event, sir.
Mr. Waltz. Okay. I think the broader issue is we are
hearing your testimony today. But when we have events like
that, when we have a non-quota quota memo, goals, from the
Secretary of the Air Force; when we have an orientation at the
Air Force Academy, a slide that with a woman holding a picture
saying ``if you don't see my race, you don't see me''; when it
instructs cadets to not use the term ``color-blind,'' yet you
are testifying that race isn't a factor; when the
Superintendent of the Air Force Academy tells me in a meeting
that he finds the term color-blind offensive; then we have
either some massive disconnects or what my suspicion is is you
have an informal set of policies that may not be specifically
in writing. You may not call it a quota. You may call it a
goal, where these factors are being considered.
General Stitt, you just testified that guidance is given in
furtherance--or during the promotion board of how to
incorporate diversity. That may not be directive, per se, but
guidance is often taken as such.
So let me just ask you this in the time I have remaining.
Does anyone on the board today have any data that you can
provide the committee that shows that a more diverse or less
diverse--let's take a submarine in the Navy, a crew, is more
effective, is more ready?
Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thanks for the question. We
do not have any specific data right now that talks about any
diversity, equity, inclusion efforts and how it relates to
combat effectiveness.
Mr. Waltz. Okay.
General Stitt. We do have an ongoing study at the Naval
Post-Graduate School that is reviewing inclusion and how it
relates to the topics that we are discussing. And we expect
that study in the January 2024 timeframe.
Mr. Waltz. General Miller, we have the non-quota quota
memo. Do you have any data that a squadron, a bomber crew, any
unit in the Air Force is more or less ready based on the
percentages of their racial diversity?
General Miller. No, sir, not on the percentages. No, sir.
Mr. Waltz. Does anyone have any data showing--I mean, I
understand the narrative that, you know, diversity of thought
leads to a better unit. But do you have any data that shows
that?
Mr. Banks. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Waltz. I didn't think so, because it doesn't exist.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Banks. Thank you. Mr. Mills, quickly.
Mr. Mills. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to
follow-up on two things. One, I am pretty sure that everyone is
aware of Henry II who had made the very popular statement where
he said ``can no one rid me of this turbulent priest ,'' or
``no one rid me of this troublesome priest,'' which resulted in
his knights going off and killing an archbishop.
I bring that up because as my colleague, Mr. Waltz, just
pointed out, General Stitt, things like ``we are providing
guidance'' could very much be perceived as an actual directive.
And so that is something that we might want to be very cautious
of because that does lead--when you have as many stars as you
do, sir, and being a noncommissioned officer as I was--as a
directive more than it is just a basis of guidance.
I would also like to go back to General Burt because I am
curious still on why there was no actual counseling,
disciplinary actions, or at least something that had led to the
statement of you may need to be cautious with what you are
saying because it is against our actual policies and how we run
things. Why was nothing done after that statement?
Ms. Kelley. Sir, it is quite possible that a conversation
like what you just described did happen.
Mr. Mills. On record and it is in her file?
Ms. Kelley. I am not aware of it.
Mr. Mills. Okay. And General Miller, in August of 2022, the
Secretary of the Air Force set the new race and gender goals
for the Air Force's commissioned officer applicant pools, which
we heard about earlier in my testimony. Can you please describe
the steps and how you have taken to meet those goals?
General Miller. These are accession goals--are you talking
about the memo from the Chief of Staff, right?
Mr. Mills. Mm-hmm.
General Miller. They are accession goals. And they are just
aspirations to make sure that we reach everybody across the
United States.
Mr. Mills. And can everyone--and I will let you
individually go, and I will talk with you first, General Stitt.
How does redirecting resources away from critical needs and
towards DEI initiatives deter adversaries like China?
General Stitt. I believe that our force today is ready,
sir, to answer the Nation's call and take on a peer or near-
peer adversary around the globe.
Mr. Mills. Sir, I appreciate that. I am going to go back
and ask for a more defined answer than just that. How does
redirecting resources away from critical needs towards DEI
initiatives help us prepare for China?
General Stitt. Representative Mills, in order to give you a
more detailed answer, may I take that question for the record,
please?
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
on page 95.]
Mr. Mills. Please do. Vice Admiral.
Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, thanks for the question.
The Navy is focused on making it a place where all Americans
can see themselves succeeding. And to do that, we want to be an
inclusive environment. We want to make sure that every American
who can meet the standard has a place in the Navy because we
know the people are the ones that will fight and win our
Nation's wars. So that's what we are focused on.
Mr. Mills. You are talking about inclusiveness as if that
didn't exist. So I guess when I was in the military, then it
didn't exist back then and we had to frame an entire funding
pool towards DEI to ensure inclusiveness that didn't exist
previously?
Admiral Cheeseman. Congressman, I'm not saying that at all.
I'm certain it did exist. I've enjoyed that for 34 years in my
service.
Mr. Mills. That is exactly my point.
Admiral Cheeseman. It absolutely is. My point is that we
have areas of the country where we are underserved, where our
word has not gotten out. And we need to mine talent from every
possible ZIP Code to get the mission [inaudible].
Mr. Mills. All right. Thank you very much. And to the
Marine Corps, look. I almost don't need to ask the question.
You know, hoorah Marines. You guys are the ones who are
actually getting to your recruitment goals and continue to
maintain. So I will let you comment on it, but we know what you
guys are doing.
Dr. Strobl. Thank you, Representative. The Marine Corps is
interested in being inclusive and exploiting the talents of all
Americans who are willing and qualified to serve. And that
focus on inclusivity, I think, has contributed to our historic
high retention rates over the last 2 years, which will directly
help us in any conflict with any adversary in the future.
Mr. Mills. So you feel that additional resources was
necessary for that?
Dr. Strobl. I don't know that they were additional. I think
we already were resourcing.
Mr. Mills. Well, I can tell you by the line items, it was
definitely additional funding.
Mr. Banks. Mr. Mills, in the interest of time, we will
never make it to votes if we don't leave right now.
Mr. Mills. All right.
Mr. Banks. So I want to thank all of the panelists. I am
going to save my closing statement. A very important
conversation today. Thank you for joining us once again. Thank
you for your service. The hearing is over.
[Whereupon, at 2:14 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

=======================================================================

A P P E N D I X

September 20, 2023

=======================================================================

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

September 20, 2023

=======================================================================
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

=======================================================================

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING

THE HEARING

September 20, 2023

=======================================================================

RESPONSE TO QUESTION SUBMITTED BY MR. MILLS

General Stitt. Our Army is a superior fighting force on all
accounts--and its true strength is in its people. The diversity of our
Force does not detract from deterring our adversaries, but instead is a
critical foundation for readiness and mission effectiveness. In 2022,
RAND published research showing that integrated and diverse teams
produce positive operational impacts, including exchange of a wider
range of information, enhanced ability to project influence, and
improved engagement with partners, allies, and domestic and
international audiences. A more representative institution can also
help to increase trust and legitimacy between the military and the
society it serves. When people feel that the military is representative
of them, they are more likely to trust it and be supportive of its
actions. Ultimately, a diverse Army that represents its nation
demonstrates the superiority of American democracy.
As the Nation becomes increasingly more diverse, the Army must
continue capitalizing on the ideals of inclusion, embracing the
opportunity to innovate, focusing on excellence, and expanding
capabilities. We must acquire, develop, employ, and retain the best and
brightest of America's talent pool. Our increasingly complex global
responsibilities require that we not only acquire people with different
skillsets, experiences, values, and backgrounds, but also invest in the
development and employment of all our Soldiers and Civilians.
Investment in our people as our strongest asset directly influences our
ability to successfully execute the mission, as research shows that
highly unequal armies suffer higher casualty rates and attrition than
more inclusive ones. Failing to account for the human elements of war
presents risks to mission success. [See page 26.]

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING

September 20, 2023

=======================================================================

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. STEFANIK

Ms. Stefanik. To address the current recruitment crisis, the US
Army is currently operating the Army Future Soldier Prep Course. In
your testimony, you highlighted the success of this course graduating
95% of the over 10,000 participants. Can you provide additional insight
into your assessment of the Future Soldier Prep Course program?
Additionally, how can Congress support the expansion of this program?
General Stitt. The Army's Future Soldier Prep Course (FSPC) aims to
provide Soldiers the academic and fitness capabilities to be successful
in the Army. This program is holistically intended to invest in
individual Soldiers so they can overcome obstacles and serve in a
capacity they previously didn't see as a possibility. While initial
results of the pilot program have been promising, the Army's Research
Institute is utilizing longitudinal data collection measures and
methodology to perform a comprehensive assessment of the Army's
academic portion of the Future Soldier Prep Course. By performing
comparative methods of similar populations of non-FSPC Soldiers, the
Army can make lasting policy decisions for the program. The Army will
continue to assess and scale the course to ensure we are successfully
preparing and building quality Soldiers who will thrive in the Army's
all professional force. If further expansion is planned, congressional
support for this as part of the President's budget would assist the
Army's accession efforts.
______

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. GAETZ
Mr. Gaetz. Based on the response of the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (AF) Alex Wagner, dated September 8th, 2023, the Department
of the AF (DAF), ``does not maintain a list of pending or enacted
[state or federal] laws that impact military readiness. Additionally,
the Department does not declare state laws to be ``anti-any
demographic.'' Yet LTG. DeAnna Burt made political statements that do
not reflect DAF or the Department of Defense (DOD) policy. She made
these comments at an official DOD event in her official capacity as a
General Officer and a Commander within Space Force. Did her actions
violate DOD Directive 1344.10, ``Political Activities of the Armed
Forces on Active Duty?'' Furthermore, section 4.1.5. prohibits
activities that may reasonably be viewed as directly or indirectly
associating the DOD with a partisan political activity or is otherwise
contrary to the spirit or intent of this directive. Lastly, section
4.3.3.2. prohibits making statements or answering questions to the
media regarding political issues or regarding government policies or
activities unless specifically authorized by an appropriate supervisor
or commander. After todays hearing we know, the comments made by LTG.
Burt were not authorized and don't reflect the DOD or DAF's policy. Why
hasn't she been punished and will the DAF pursue accountability and
corrective actions based on violations of DODD 1344.10 against LTG.
Burt?
General Miller. Lt Gen Burt is a member of the U.S. Space Force and
is, therefore, subject to a separate chain of command outside of my
purview. As the Deputy Chief of Staff for Manpower, Personnel, and
Services, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, I am the senior Air Force
officer responsible for comprehensive plans and policies covering all
life cycles of military and civilian personnel management for Airmen
and civilians assigned to the Air Force. Personnel matters and
management of Guardians and civilians assigned to the Space Force fall
under Ms. Katharine Kelley, the Space Force's Chief Human Capital
Officer, and I refer you to her to address any Space Force personnel
management questions you may have.
Mr. Gaetz. Based on the response of the Assistant Secretary of the
Air Force (AF) Alex Wagner, dated September 8th, 2023, the Department
of the AF (DAF), ``does not maintain a list of pending or enacted
[state or federal] laws that impact military readiness. Additionally,
the Department does not declare state laws to be ``anti-any
demographic.'' Yet LTG. DeAnna Burt made political statements that do
not reflect DAF or the Department of Defense (DOD) policy. She made
these comments at an official DOD event in her official capacity as a
General Officer and a Commander within Space Force. Did her actions
violate DOD Directive 1344.10, ``Political Activities of the Armed
Forces on Active Duty?'' Furthermore, section 4.1.5. prohibits
activities that may reasonably be viewed as directly or indirectly
associating the DOD with a partisan political activity or is otherwise
contrary to the spirit or intent of this directive. Lastly, section
4.3.3.2. prohibits making statements or answering questions to the
media regarding political issues or regarding government policies or
activities unless specifically authorized by an appropriate supervisor
or commander. After todays hearing we know, the comments made by LTG.
Burt were not authorized and don't reflect the DOD or DAF's policy. Why
hasn't she been punished and will the DAF pursue accountability and
corrective actions based on violations of DODD 1344.10 against LTG.
Burt?
Ms. Kelley. Active duty Service members are prohibited from
participating in partisan political activities, which is defined in
Enclosure 2 of DODD 1344.10 as ``activity supporting or relating to
candidates representing, or issues specifically identified with,
national or State political parties and associated or ancillary
organizations or clubs.''
Lt Gen Burt's remarks at the official DOD Pride Month observance
did not constitute direct advocacy for or against a political party,
candidate, or partisan cause. She spoke hypothetically on the possible
effect of certain policies on readiness. This type of statement is not
partisan political activity as defined by DODD 1344.10.
The Space Force regularly reinforces the obligations of its members
to abide by DODD 1344.10 and its prohibitions on certain political
activities and takes disciplinary action for violations of DOD and DAF
regulations when it is appropriate to do so.
______

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WALTZ
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
Mr. Thibeau. JROTC expansion is an important step for the military
to incentivize to alleviate recruitment goals. Many enlisted and
officer recruits start to consider military service in high school, and
JROTC programs can provide an early ``net'' into more serious
discernment. A recent article in Real Clear Defense makes clear how
JROTC offers one of the more cost-effective means of military
recruiting. JROTC provides for a recruit acquisition cost of
approximately $8,500 per recruit, while other recruiting strategies
average almost $20,000 per recruit. (1)
Even more, JROTC can serve an essential cultural mission to re-
establish our conception of the military as an institution in civil
society. In culture, school, and in media, young Americans are
surrounded by a sense of individualism. JROTC programs can offer a
critical alternative of teamwork, sacrifice, and professionalism that
is essential to the flourishing of the military as an institution.
(1) https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2023/10/20/
solving_the_ recruiting_ crisis_reaching_the_next_generation_through_
jrotc_987591.html#::text=Roughly%
2020%25%20of%20all%20recruits,or%20%248%2C500%20per%20JROTC%20
recruit.
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
Mr. Greenway. Yes, expanding the JROTC program to more communities
could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls the services are
currently facing. The program would educate young Americans in civics
and patriotism, as well as exposing them to what military life looks
like, and both would have a positive impact on improvement. JROTC
programs have many benefits for American young people, like encouraging
physical fitness, learning leadership and conflict resolution skills,
as well as teaching important values like discipline and
accountability. Expanding them would be a win for America's youth, as
well as the services hoping to recruit them. The recruitment challenge
could be helped if more young Americans were patriotic and understood
the important role the military plays in defending the United States
and Americans' way of life. It is no secret that young people today are
woefully ignorant of even basic civics, and many do not express much
pride about being an American. Patriotism and a willingness to serve a
cause larger than oneself are important factors in motivating someone
to join the military. Our society in general could use more patriotic
young Americans, but especially needs them to fill the ranks. Expanding
the program to more communities would have a positive impact here, as
more students would be exposed to patriotism, and see examples of
service.
Those examples of service are perhaps the most important benefits
the program would add to the recruitment challenges. Research has shown
that 79% of young people who join the military had family members who
served before them. This shows the importance that exposure to the
military has on young people when deciding to serve. Many are simply
unaware of what military life and its many benefits actually looks
like. Having more servicemembers in more communities engaged in
supporting JROTC programs would expand the number of young people who
would see examples of service, and would also expand their
understanding of what life in the military would actually look like.
This would have a positive impact on recruiting, as well as society.
Too many Americans are woefully ignorant of the men and women who make
up our military services, and the only inputs to their perceptions come
from the media, movies, and social media. These sources do not reflect
the reality of military service.
Additional reading and sources:
Tom Spoehr and Isaac Tang, ``Why Junior ROTC Programs in U.S. High
Schools Are Needed Now More Than Ever,'' The Daily Signal, May 23,
2023, https://www.heritage.org/defense/commentary/why-junior-rotc-
programs-us-high-schools-are-needed-now-more-ever (accessed October 24,
2023).
Mackenzie Eaglen, ``The Secret to Fixing the Army's Recruiting
Troubles,'' AEI, March 30, 2023, https://www.aei.org/foreign-and-
defense-policy/the-secret-to-fixing-the-armys-recruiting-troubles/
(accessed October 24, 2023).
Kyle Rempfer, ``Army leaders weigh expanding JROTC in high
schools,'' Army Times, November 7, 2019, https://www.armytimes.com/
news/your-army/2019/11/07/how-increased-footprint-in-high-schools-may-
help-army-fix-recruiting-shortfall/(accessed October 24, 2023).
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
Mr. Levine. I agree with your statement that lack of familiarity
with and exposure to the military in many of our communities
contributes to military recruiting difficulties. A large variety of DOD
programs, including JROTC, seek to address this problem by making young
people more aware of the Armed Forces and what they do. Expansion of
these programs should help build propensity to military service and
provide a more favorable background for recruiting. In general,
however, significant trends in military recruiting appear to be
attributable to larger economic and cultural developments that will be
difficult to overcome through enhanced recruiting efforts alone.
Mr. Waltz. In 2011, Army Chief of Staff Martin Dempsey and Sec Arm
John McHugh signed the Army's Equal Opportunity and Discrimination
Policy stating in part ``Soldiers will not be accessed, classified,
trained, assigned, promoted or otherwise managed on the basis of race,
color, gender, religion, or national origin, except as required by
Federal law. Such discriminatory behaviors and practices undermine
teamwork, loyalty and the shared sacrifices of the men and women of
America's Army.''
Is this still Army policy, or has it been revised or replaced?
The statement contains the qualification ``except as required by
Federal law.'' Can you identify which Federal law, if any, ``requires''
the Army, or DOD at large, to use race, gender, religion, etc. in
accessing, classifying, training, assigning, or promoting military
service members?
General Stitt. The 2011 Army Equal Opportunity and Discrimination
Policy is no longer directly relied upon as a source of current Army
policy. The current Army policy is the Military Equal Opportunity and
Harassment Prevention and Response Policy dated 7 March 2022. The
current policy does not include the phrase ``except as required by
Federal law.'' The current policy strives to maximize human potential
and ensure fair treatment for all Soldiers based solely on merit,
performance, and potential in support of force structure,
modernization, and readiness.
Eleven Title 10 statutes mention or relate to race, gender,
religion, and other demographic categories in the context of accessing,
classifying, training, assigning, or promoting military service
members. Of these 11 statutes reviewed, none require or mandate the use
of demographic categories when accessing, classifying, promoting,
training, or assigning Soldiers.
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
General Stitt. Across all the Services, the presence of a JROTC
program in high schools where a geographical military presence is
small, helps reconnect those communities with our Armed Forces. Within
statute, recruiters maintain access to high schools and the Army
routinely works with OSD to ensure the execution of that program. JROTC
Cadets have higher attendance, graduation rates, and GPAs than their
peers who do not participate in the program. While JROTC is not a
recruiting program, a large portion of Army enlistees came from a
school with a DOD JROTC program. Army JROTC expanded to 1,729 programs
in FY23 and will expand to 1,734 programs in FY24. The Army's JROTC
program is an overwhelmingly positive youth citizenship program
supporting more than 272K Cadets at more than 1,700 high schools across
our nation. The Army will continue to ensue this initiative and explore
all options.
Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand);
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial
integration correlates with combat readiness?
General Stitt. In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender
are measured? No. Demographic data is captured and recorded in the
Human Resources systems.
Is race or gender a component of combat readiness? As noted above,
DRRS data does not include race or gender.
Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial
integration correlates with combat readiness? It is not in DRRS, but
the Department does study these issues, and we can connect you with the
proper points of contact for further information.
Mr. Waltz. Navy Aviation Incentive Pay is a retention tool, but the
Secretary of the Navy is not following his own instructions on flight
pay with regards to retaining aviators coming from Tactical Air Control
Squadrons. I've read the Navy's report to Congress on the issue and it
doesn't tell the whole story behind the self-inflicted problem that has
effected dozens of Naval Aviators.
What is the Navy doing to retain Naval Aviators who serve past
their department head tours and why is the Navy stripping flight pay
from aviators who are perfectly capable and willing to do flying jobs?
Admiral Cheeseman. The Navy's primary tool to retain Naval Aviators
is the Aviation Bonus which is currently offered at two critical points
in a Naval Aviator's career. The Aviation Department Head Retention
Bonus (ADHRB) is offered to aviators who have selected for Lieutenant
Commander (LCDR) and is contingent on selection for aviation department
head. This bonus generally obligates an officer for five years past the
obligated service that resulted from flight training. However, three-
year contracts (sufficient to carry an officer through the department
head tour) are also offered. In FY23, seven-year contracts were offered
for the first time.
Post-DH retention through the aviation command milestone is
generally good and a retention bonus is not required to meet billet
requirements involving flying at this stage of the career. The most
common flying assignments at this point in aviation careers are
commanding officer/executive officer of a squadron and permanent flight
instructor, both of which hold competitive boards to select the best
qualified officers for the limited opportunities. However, DH-served or
serving aviators do receive a higher rate of Aviation Incentive Pay
(AvIP) than those not selected for DH ($1,000 per month versus $840)
The second critical career point for aviation retention is the
post-command commander tour. The Navy pays the Aviation Command
Retention Bonus to incentivize retention past retirement eligibility
for command served aviators to complete critical tours at sea and
ashore that require command experience and the skills of an aviator,
although these billets generally do not involve flying as a pilot or
aircrew.
In addition to the Aviation Bonus, Navy offers education
opportunities such as War College, a wide range of shore tours, and
flying opportunities in the production pipeline to incentivize
retention.
With regard to AvIP, also known as flight pay, 37 USC 334 permits
the payment to an aviator not currently engaged in operational or
proficiency flying duty under regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense when the Secretary Concerned determines it is in the best
interests of the Service. The Secretary of Defense has established a
gate system that permits continuous payment of AvIP for officers who
accumulate sufficient flying duty prior to the gate. The DOD
regulations permit the Secretary Concerned to waive the gate
requirements when in the interest of the Service. The Report to
Congress explained the criteria used to determine if a waiver is in the
interest of the Navy. A willingness to return to a flying job, medical
qualification, and continued designation as an aviation officer are
necessary conditions for a waiver, but they are not sufficient.
Officers whose waivers are denied for continuous AvIP remain eligible
for AvIP if and while assigned to flying duties past their flight gate
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
Admiral Cheeseman. The Junior Reserve Officers' Training Corps
(JROTC) program has historically had a positive impact on the Navy's
recruiting efforts. JROTC instills a sense of patriotism and a desire
for younger individuals to serve their country. This early exposure
significantly increases the likelihood of students to consider a career
in the Navy. JROTC emphasizes leadership skills by fostering personal
growth and self-discipline in its participants. These qualities are
highly valued in the Navy.
By nurturing leadership abilities, JROTC prepares students for
future Naval Service, making them more attractive candidates to
recruiters. Most importantly however, the program's strong presence in
high schools facilitates recruiter access to the student population by
developing relationships with school administrators and their faculty.
These relationships provide Navy recruiters with an easier path to
engage with school officials, thereby gaining access to the student
population. This access allows recruiters to provide firsthand
information about Navy opportunities, career paths, and benefits to
students who may be curious about the Service and those who may already
be interested in serving.
Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand);
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial
integration correlates with combat readiness?
Admiral Cheeseman. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS)
does not track or measure race or gender to determine C-level ratings.
For personnel readiness, DRRS measures authorized billets and assigned
number of personnel filling the billets, tracking whether they are
Active Duty, Reservist, enlisted, or officers filling the billets. For
DRRS specifically, race or gender is not a component of combat
readiness. DRRS determines combat readiness based on a unit's status in
the maintenance, training, or sustainment phase of the Optimized Fleet
Response Plan.
The Navy is deepening and broadening its ability to use data to
measure our culture, analyzing from the broader community level down to
our units. In doing so, the service will train leaders on how to build
great people and great teams that work together to enhance unit
effectiveness by targeting risk factors (e.g. toxicity, hostility, and
harassment), and building protective factors (e.g. inclusion and
connectedness). As part of this, Naval Postgraduate School is working
on a study entitled ``Assessing the Relationship Between Diversity,
Inclusion and Navy Unit Performance.'' The study will look at the
relationship between diversity and inclusion and objective unit
performance measures in the Surface Warfare community and is
anticipated to be complete in January 2024. The Navy will provide an
update to Congress once the report is ready
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
General Miller. An expanded AFJROTC presence increases knowledge of
the military to youth who may not otherwise have influencers with
military experience available. This expansion could grow the propensity
to serve.
Investments in JROTC beyond what is included in the FY 2024 would
require tradeoffs in other areas. Further, any expansion of the AFJROTC
program would require careful selection by the Air Force of new unit
locations. This ensures that new AFJROTC locations are not established
ad hoc but follow a strategy based on a careful analysis of multiple
factors intended to ensure sustained unit success.
Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand);
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial
integration correlates with combat readiness?
General Miller. The Defense Readiness Reporting System, the
readiness reporting system of record, does not contain demographic
information on assessable units with respect to gender or race, nor
does the system factor such demographics when analyzing and/or
measuring combat readiness of assessable units.
The DAF draws upon the broadest possible set of backgrounds,
talents, and skills to maximize our warfighting capabilities, deter
threats and challenges, and take advantage of new opportunities to
strengthen the Total Force. With recruiting and retention challenges
shaped by a competitive labor market and decreasing propensity to
serve, attracting and retaining a wide range of skilled candidates is
more important than ever. Reinforcing unit cohesion and mission
effectiveness through evidence-backed policies and programs can help
ensure we maintain the combat readiness of the Total Force.
RAND research noted that highly integrated and diverse teams
produce positive operational impacts, including the exchange of a
broader range of information and the generation of original ideas
through different communication styles. It also found that a diverse
force has the potential to foster external legitimacy, enhance the
ability to project influence, and improve engagement with partners,
allies, and domestic and international audiences. Research shows
diverse groups of problem solvers can outperform high-ability problem
solvers since solely high-ability groups tend to congregate and
experience groupthink.
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
Dr. Strobl. JROTC is among the largest youth development programs
in the United States, and one of many ways we can reconnect the
military with our communities. These programs instill the value of
citizenship and civic responsibility, service to our country (including
opportunities within the military, national, and public service
sectors), personal responsibility, and a sense of accomplishment in
participating students. Over the last decade, Marine Corps JROTC has
served over 27,000 students in 254 high schools. The program seeks to
provide a safe learning environment that fosters opportunities for
personal development and skill building through co-curricular and
extra-curricular activities, such as drill, cyber competitions, and
physical training. It also helps students improve their career
readiness by introducing them to emerging workforce careers in science,
technology, engineering, math, computer science, and cybersecurity.
Although recruiting is not the purpose of JROTC, our historical data
continues to demonstrate a benefit of the program to service. The data
from our last four cycles of graduates show the following:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduation Year 2020 2021 2022 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduating Seniors 4849 4683 4442 3652
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Academy Appointments 35 29 40 38
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROTC Scholarships 88 75 143 150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Enlistments 1011 853 1119 955
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Military Service 1134 957 1302 1143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage Military Service 23.4% 20.4% 29.3% 31.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand);
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial
integration correlates with combat readiness?
Dr. Strobl. No, neither race nor gender are not metrics captured
within DRRS. The Personnel (P-Level) is based on the unit's ability to
provide deployable, Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) qualified
personnel and DOD civilians to accomplish the unit's missions.
No, neither race nor gender are components of combat readiness.
Marines are trained and qualified to perform MOSs specific to the
design and capabilities of the unit to which they are assigned. It is
the correct mix of these MOSs that contributes to the combat readiness
of a unit.
No, we have not compiled empirical data demonstrating units with
greater gender and racial integration correlate with combat readiness.
Unit and combat readiness are accomplished through the aggregate of
investments in personnel, training, and equipment to ensure units are
prepared to perform missions at any time. In order to achieve this
state of personnel readiness, we are committed to recruiting qualified
candidates from across all populations of the United States.
Mr. Waltz. As you know, the Navy is going to miss its recruiting
goals by 7000 sailors this year. The Air Force will miss its recruiting
goals for the first time since 1999 by 2,700 airmen. The Readiness
Subcommittee heard earlier this year that the Army was anticipating a
10,000 soldier shortfall.
I believe part of problem is lack of familiarity with and exposure
to the military in too many of our communities. One way that could help
would be to expand the JROTC program to more schools.
The JROTC program is a citizenship training program designed to
educate and train high school students in citizenship, promote
community service, and self-discipline. While not the goal of the
program, it can serve as a natural recruitment pool.
Do you agree expanding the program to more communities across the
country could help alleviate the recruitment shortfalls?
Ms. Kelley. JROTC is a valuable program promoting citizenship,
public service, and offers an avenue to reach the Nation's youth who
may not have contact with influencers who have military experience.
While expanding the program to more communities is a laudable goal, it
is unlikely to alleviate recruitment shortfalls as experienced within
DOD. In FY23, 35 of 517, or 6%, of USSF recruits had JROTC experience.
The percentage of recruits with JROTC experience was about the same for
FY22. While we may gain additional recruits with a broader
institutional cohort, it is my professional opinion that an expansion
is unlikely to fully mitigate shortfalls the Services experience.
Mr. Waltz. The Defense Readiness Reporting System (DRRS) is the
tool our military uses to monthly measure & assess combat readiness of
all battlions/squadrons and above. The ``C-Level'' is the overall
rating of a unit's ability to execute its wartime mission and has four
specific subordinate ratings: P-Level (Personnel Authorized & On-Hand);
S-Level (Equipment and Supplies Authorized & On-Hand); R-Level
(Equipment Condition); T-Level (Training Status).
In DRRS, is there a provision where race and gender are measured?
Is race or gender a component of combat readiness?
Is there any empirical data compiled by your service department
which demonstrates that units with greater gender and racial
integration correlates with combat readiness?
Ms. Kelley. The Defense Readiness Reporting System, the readiness
reporting system of record, does not contain demographic information on
assessable units with respect to gender or race, nor does the system
factor such demographics when analyzing/measuring combat readiness of
assessable units. The captured demographic data is limited to a
population break down between officer and enlisted populations within a
unit.
The Department of Defense Readiness Reporting System does not
factor demographics such as race and gender when analyzing/measuring
combat readiness of assembled units. The Space Force's greatest
strategic advantage over the Nation's adversaries is our people. We
strive to recruit and retain the best talent from across America in
order to maintain and increase the effectiveness of our combat
readiness. We recognize diverse units, groups, and teams come up with
innovative ideas for solving problems. While the Space Force does not
track diversity data within our readiness factors, we do recognize the
diversity of our force increases productivity and innovation as
validated in studies from the private sector.
The DOD's current efforts are heavily grounded in existing research
and data from a range of fields directly related to people, culture,
the warfighting and security missions, and combat effectiveness. This
research and data have repeatedly identified how diversity and
inclusion lead to greater effectiveness and directly support DOD
mission accomplishment by enabling the development of qualified and
capable teams and organizations; driving innovation; increasing access
to the most talented and skilled people possible; informing
comprehensive, effective problem-solving in conflict conditions; and
enabling effective operational decision-making.
Finally, research, data, and lessons learned demonstrate inclusive
leaders are more effective enhanced performance, and best match to the
mission at hand. Absent these leaders, DOD may fail in adequately
leveraging the strengths of its people, maximizing cohesion and trust,
and fielding the most capable, ready Total Force.

[all]