Office of the Secretary of DefenseSummary Report of the Military Working Group
1130 1 July 1993
CONTENTS
A. Guidance
1. On 29 January 1993, the President directed the Secretary of Defense
to develop a policy "ending discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
in determining who may serve in the Armed Forces of the United States."
The President further directed that the policy be implemented in a manner
that is "practical, realistic, and consistent with the highest standards of combat
effectiveness and unit cohesion our Armed Forces must maintain."
2. On 5 April, 1993, the Secretary of Defense directed that a Military
Working Group (MWG) be formed to develop and assess alternative policy
options to meet the President's requirements.
B. Perspective in formulating this policy. Although the all volunteer military
is drawn from civilian society, and generally reflects society's norms, the
military institution differs in several important ways. These differences were
an essential part of MWG's perspective in formulating this policy.
1. Military mission. Ultimately, the military's mission is to fight and win
the nation's wars.
a. The "terms of employment" for an individual servicemember
include the real possibility that he or she will be called upon to make the
ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. For military leaders, the moral
imperative is to accomplish the mission with the least loss of life possible.
Accordingly, any change to the military institution must be weighed in light
of this responsibility.
b. Similarly, there is no "right to serve" in the Armed Forces. Military
service is clearly a privilege afforded only those who are qualified. There
are many features that are disqualifying, such as height, weight, prior
conduct record, membership in groups with certain objectives, or mental
category. These disqualifying factors are directly related to combat
effectiveness and apply whether the force is all-volunteer or conscript.
2. Institutional values. Values are important to any institution, but they
are critical to the military of a democratic nation.
a. The nation calls upon its military to be prepared to kill and destroy
-- acts which, in any other context, would be immoral. The shared moral
values of the institution -- the collective sense of right and wrong -- provide
the foundation which ensures that license will not be abused. This
foundation is the essential difference between a professional armed force
and a mercenary force. It also provides to individual servicemembers the
moral basis for personal service, commitment, and sacrifice in a profession
which is demanding in the extreme.
b. As citizen soldiers, military members bring their values with them
when they enter the Service. Whether based on moral, religious, cultural, or
ethical considerations, those values and beliefs are often strongly held and
not amenable to change. While we indoctrinate and train recruits, leadership
and discipline cannot -- and generally should not -- attempt to counter the
basic values which parents and society have taught. Indeed, efforts to do so
will likely prove counter-productive.
3. Military environment. Military operations are team operations -- units
win wars, not individuals.
a. The rights and needs of the group are emphasized while individual
rights and needs are often set aside or sacrificed for military necessity. For
example, if military members aren't satisfied with the conditions of their
environment, they have no right to quit and, in fact, are subject to
prosecution if they do. Similarly, members of the military often are not able
to separate their private lives from their working environment. They may be
required to work, eat, recreate, sleep, and bathe in cramped spaces for
prolonged periods of time, sometimes in the most remote parts of the world.
Indeed, separation of the sexes is often the only concession to privacy.
b. In the short term, the military is facing a number of issues --
budget reductions, early retirements, reorganizations, health care worries,
base closures, reductions in force -- that have had a severe negative impact
on morale. Any change in policy which would further exacerbate this
"misery squeeze" must be carefully weighed.
A. Composition and organization. The MWG, composed of a general or flag
officer from each Service and a support staff of approximately 50 officers,
enlisted personnel, and civilian employees convened on 6 April 1993. To
facilitate examination of various options, the staff was organized into four
functional panels: military operations, service life, personnel policy, and
legal.
B. Policy boundaries. The MWG worked within specific limitations which
were confirmed with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Returning to
the pre-29 January 1993 policy of "asking the question" was not an option;
nor was changing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. These limitations
defined the boundaries within which the MWG developed its recommended
options.
C. Deliberations. Fairness and objectivity were major aims of the MWG's
process. In pursuit of those aims, the MWG met with individuals and groups
holding a broad spectrum of views on the subject. This included meetings
with uniformed and civilian experts from inside and outside the Department
of Defense (DoD), including the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast
Guardsmen who would be most affected by the policy. To broaden
understanding of the issue, the MWG also compared experiences of the
militaries of other countries, researched available literature, and performed
statistical analyses of military separation data obtained from the Services.
D. Results. Several policy options were developed and assessed. After
extensive review and consultation, the MWG ultimately focused on a single
policy recommendation and a plan to implement that policy. This policy,
discussed in detail below, meets the President's guidance, maintains combat
effectiveness, and is sustainable for the foreseeable future.
E. Definitions. The public debate over homosexuals in the military has often
been further confused by a lack of a common usage of terms. For clarity,
the MWG used the following definitions:
1. Bisexual. A person who engages in, desires to engage in, or intends
to engage in both homosexual and heterosexual acts. (DoDDir 1332.14 of
28 January 1982)
2. Homosexual. A person, regardless of sex, who engages in, desires to
engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts. (DoDDir 1332.14 of 28
January 1982)
3. Homosexual act. Bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively
permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying
sexual desires. (DoDDir 1332.14 of 28 January 1982) (This includes
sodomy and acts other than sodomy, such as kissing and dancing between
members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.)
4. Homosexual conduct. Evidenced by homosexual acts and attempts or
solicitations to engage in such acts, statements by a member that her or she
is homosexual or bisexual, or homosexual marriage or attempted homosexual
marriage. (OSD MWG)
5. Homosexual marriage. When a member has married, or attempted to
marry a person he or she knows to be of the same biological sex (as
evidenced by external anatomy). (OSD MWG)
6. Homosexual statement. The member has stated that he or she is
homosexual or bisexual. (DoDDir 1332.14 of 28 January 1982)
7. Homosexuality. The quality, condition, or fact of being a homosexual.
(OSD MWG)
8. Sexual orientation. A sexual attraction to individuals of a particular
gender. (OSD MWG)
Following extensive review, the MWG made the following findings:
A. Combat effectiveness. The Armed Forces of the United States serve an
important role in our society by furthering our national interests abroad,
defending our borders, and protecting the American way of life. To
accomplish this unique mission, the military must be fully combat effective.
Combat effectiveness is the sine qua non of any armed force and any
prospective change must be assessed first and foremost in light of its effect
on the military's ability to fight. High combat effectiveness embodies a
synergistic mix that can be best expressed as the product of unit cohesion
and readiness.
1. Unit cohesion. Unit cohesion encompasses a number of factors
which, although often intangible, are fundamental to combat effectiveness.
These include:
a. Bonding. The essence of unit cohesion is the bonding between
members of a unit which holds them together, sustains their will to support
each other, and enables them to fight together under the stress and chaos of
war. The MWG found that the presence of open homosexuals in a unit
would, in general, polarize and fragment the unit and destroy the bonding
and singleness of purpose required for effective military operations. This
phenomenon occurs whether or not homosexual acts are involved. By
simply stating that he or she is a homosexual, the individual becomes
isolated from the group and combat effectiveness suffers.
b. Leadership. In addition to tactical and technical competency,
effective leadership depends on mutual respect, fairness, and concern for the
well-being of subordinates. If the values and lifestyle of a leader are
perceived as contrary to those of the unit the leader will be, at best,
ineffective. That ineffectiveness would be further undermined by
perceptions of unfairness or fraternization. The MWG found it would be
extremely difficult for an open homosexual to exercise authority or serve
effectively as a leader in the Armed Forces of the United States.
c. Good order and discipline. Good order and discipline refers to
behavior based on respect for authority, other servicemembers, established
laws, and regulations and is critical for the effectiveness of leadership and
the ability of the unit to carry out its mission. Information presented to the
MWG clearly indicated that the introduction of individuals identified as
homosexuals into the military would severely undermine good order and
discipline. Moral and ethical beliefs of individuals would be brought into
open conflict. Leadership priorities would, of necessity, be reoriented from
training for combat to preventing internal discord. Additionally, the military
would be perceived as "turning a blind eye" to conduct proscribed by the
Uniform Code of Military Justice and regulations, thereby undermining the
very basis for good order and discipline.
d. Privacy. Sexual orientation alone is, and should remain, a personal
and private matter. However, once an individual's homosexual orientation
becomes known, privacy becomes a significant issue. Military members give
up many rights -- including the right to free association -- upon joining the
military. When deployed on ships or overseas, members often work, eat,
relax, bathe, and sleep together in close proximity 24 hours a day. Further,
the space individuals can call their own -- their personal sanctuary -- may be
only slightly larger than a coffin. For many members, the presence of openly
homosexual individuals in that environment constitutes a major and
unacceptable invasion of what little privacy remains.
e. Morale. Lifting the ban on homosexuals serving in the military
would be perceived by many servicemembers as the imposition of a political
agenda by a small group -- an agenda which is seen as having no military
necessity and as being, in fact, destructive to the finest fighting force in the
world. Morale would suffer accordingly.
f. Core values. The core values of the military profession would be
seen by many to have changed fundamentally in homosexuals were allowed
to serve. This would undermine institutional loyalty and the moral basis for
service, sacrifice, and commitment for those members.
2. Readiness. Readiness includes traditional hardware areas such as
technology, equipment, and spare parts as well as the training, education,
and fitness of quality personnel. The presence of homosexuals in the military
would impact readiness in several ways.
a. Medical. The readiness of the military to deploy and perform its
combat mission is directly linked to the medical well-being of the force. The
homosexual lifestyle has been clearly documented as being unhealthy. Due
to their sexual practices, active male homosexuals in the military could be
expected to bring and increased incidence of sexually transmitted diseases
and other diseases spread by close personal contact. Additionally, the
association of the homosexual lifestyle as a high risk behavior in contracting
AIDS could create the perception of an "enemy within" which has the
potential to harm not only other servicemembers, but family members as
well.
b. Recruiting. Open homosexuality in the military would likely reduce
the propensity of many young men and women to enlist due to parental
concerns, peer pressure, and a military image that would be tarnished in the
eyes of much of the population from which we recruit.
c. Retention. Discharges for homosexual conduct account for only
about one-third of one percent of all United States military discharges.
Conversely, recent surveys indicate a significant number of servicemembers
say they would not reenlist if open homosexuals were allowed to serve.
These views were supported by military personnel who appeared before the
MWG. Of note, the members most likely to leave the service would be those
with the best options for employment elsewhere -- i.e., the most skilled ==
and those with strong moral beliefs.
3. All homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The effect on
combat effectiveness is not limited to known homosexuals.
a. Even if officially unknown, individuals who engage in homosexual
conduct can undermine combat effectiveness through, for example, high risk
behavior and the formation of "sub cultures" outside the chain of command.
Further, they may not remain unknown over the course of several years of
an enlistment or for a full military career. For example, an "unknown"
homosexual can become "known" overnight as a result of a police blotter
entry or any other incident by which his or her homosexuality becomes
officially known. The resultant effect on readiness can thus manifest itself
quickly and without warning.
b. Currently unknown and non-practicing homosexuals are also cause
for concern. Homosexual activist groups argue that the productivity of
individual homosexuals is reduced by virtue of having to hide their true
orientation. While the immediate impact on combat effectiveness for those
individuals is limited, it nonetheless exists. Further, by definition, even non-
practicing homosexuals either intend to engage in homosexual acts or desire
to engage in homosexual acts. Some may remain celibate for a time, but it
is reasonable to presume that, over a period of years, many will engage in
homosexual conduct.
c. The salient point is that what the military doesn't know can -- and
over time will -- negatively impact combat effectiveness. While the
immediate effect on combat readiness varies depending on whether a
homosexual is known or unknown, and whether or not the servicemember
engages in homosexual conduct, it is nonetheless true that all homosexuality
is incompatible with military service and has some measure of negative
impact.
B. Practical considerations. In addition to the direct effects on combat
effectiveness described above, a number of practical considerations were
examined in assessing policy options.
1. Longevity of the policy. One of the tests for an effective policy is
that it withstand the test of time.
a. A key element is the likelihood of surviving challenge in the courts.
A central finding of the MWG is that statements that one is a homosexual
are inextricably linked to homosexual acts. To suggest otherwise is contrary
to logic, MWG research, and the publicly expressed view of homosexual
advocates. Authorities on military law expressed concern that drawing an
artificial distinction between homosexual statements and homosexual acts
would undercut the legal precedent upholding the military's homosexual
policy. Conversely, a policy which correctly includes as its underlying
premise the linkage between homosexual statements and homosexual acts
can draw from established precedent and is therefor likely to endure.
b. Any policy that condones homosexual conduct would require
congressional action to change the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Failure
to do so would establish an untenable situation, creating a perceived conflict
between stated policy and military law. This would, in turn, create
leadership and legal problems and ultimately would have to be resolved.
2. Personnel policies. Military personnel policies are designed by
necessity to manage large groups or categories of people, as opposed to
individuals, for the purpose of achieving maximum combat effectiveness.
During its deliberations, the MWG found that current DoD policy, directives,
and regulations regarding homosexuality generally are not well understood.
a. Accessions. The questions formerly asked during the accession
process regarding an applicant's sexual orientation appear to have been
ineffective either in deterring homosexuals from entering the military or in
articulating DoD policy on homosexuality.
b. Assignments. The issue of assignment restrictions poses a
particular dilemma. On the one hand, there are significant problems with
overall combat effectiveness associated with assigning open homosexuals to
units that require higher degrees of cohesion (e.g., combat units, special
forces) or close quarters berthing. On the other hand, restricting their
assignments would cause resentment among those who must serve in their
place while tending to concentrate open homosexuals into a narrow selection
of skill fields. Since assignment to combat skills and combatant vessels is
career enhancing, excluding homosexuals from these duties would inhibit
their promotion and advancement opportunities and bring a new set of
problems.
c. Berthing/billeting. The presence of known homosexuals in a unit
will create tension which may require them to be berthed/billeted and
segregated from the remainder of the unit in order to maintain good order
and discipline. This would entail additional and unbudgeted costs. On the
other hand, segregating certain members of the group will isolate those
individuals, possibly highlighting them as a special class, and further degrade
unit cohesion. Additionally, there are situations where separate
berthing/billeting -- such as aboard ships -- is not practical at any cost.
3. Investigations
a. DoD has no written, uniform policy guidelines for investigating
cases involving allegations of homosexuality. This lack of policy may have
contributed to a misperception that the military's investigative agencies
conduct "witch hunts" to weed out suspected homosexuals.
b. Commanders must have the discretion to inquire and investigate
when there is credible information of misconduct or basis for discharge.
However, a balance must be struck. While servicemembers set aside certain
individual rights while they serve, they still retain freedom from unwarranted
intrusion into their private lives.
4. Military family issues. Service life is all encompassing. While
spouses and children obviously do not serve in the Armed Forces, military
policies and personnel touch every aspect of family life. Servicemembers,
both single and married, are often involved as leaders in military youth
activities -- for example, scouting, little league, church youth groups, and
social clubs. Indeed, most Morale, Welfare, and Recreation programs rely
almost exclusively on these volunteers. Many military families would object
to the participation of open homosexuals in these programs -- programs to
which they entrust their children. Additionally, family members are worried
about the same issues that concern their military sponsors -- such as,
encumbered privacy during deployments, medical risks, and the breakdown
of the unit -- because they are perceived as a threat to their loved ones.
5. Common misperceptions concerning homosexuals in the military
a. Foreign militaries
(1) The policy and practice of foreign militaries regarding
homosexuals actively serving do not always match. In countries where
policies are "accepting," practice typically involves exclusion of homosexuals
for medical/psychological reasons. Even where policy and law allow
homosexuals to serve, few servicemembers declare their
homosexuality due to fears of baiting, bashing, and negative effects on their
careers.
(2) Extended deployments and berthing/billeting privacy are not
significant issues for most foreign militaries. Additionally, no country has as
high a proportion of its servicemembers billeted/berthed together on military
installations and deployed aboard ships or overseas at any given time as
does the United States. Most importantly, no other country has the global
responsibilities, operational tempo, or worldwide deployment commitments
of the Armed Forces of the United States.
b. Police/Fire departments. Parallels cannot be accurately drawn
between the experiences of police and fire departments and the Armed
Forces. While there are some organizational similarities, there are also some
very fundamental differences in the areas of mission and related training,
deployments, work environment, authority of the commander over
subordinates, living conditions, and personal privacy.
c. Discharge and discipline of homosexuals in the Armed Forces.
Incorrect perceptions exist that the military discharges large numbers of
personnel for homosexuality and that most of those discharges are for
reasons of homosexual "status" only -- i.e., statements alone that one is a
homosexual, with no homosexual acts involved. Additionally, some believe
the military prosecutes homosexual sodomy cases but does not prosecute
heterosexual sodomy cases.
(1) Analysis of Armed Forces separations over the four-year
period of fiscal years 1989 through 1992 reveals:
(a) Only one-third of one percent (0.3 percent) of all
separations were for homosexuality.
(b) Of those discharged for administrative or punitive reasons,
only 1.5 percent were for homosexuality.
(c) Drug and alcohol abuse discharges were nine times greater
than those for homosexuality. Overweight discharges were five times greater.
(d) Of all discharges for homosexuality, at least 79 percent
clearly involved homosexual conduct. There was insufficient documentation
to determine whether conduct was involved in the remaining 21 percent.
(2) Similarly, a review of 1,141 military courts-martial involving
Article 125 (sodomy) indicated that heterosexual sodomy cases outnumbered
homosexual sodomy cases by a 4 to 1 ratio.
After extensive research and prolonged deliberations, the MWG concluded
the following:
A. Since it is impossible to determine an individual's sexual orientation
unless he or she reveals it, sexual orientation alone is a personal and private
matter.
B. Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in
the military of individuals identified as homosexuals would have a
significantly adverse effect on both unit cohesion and the readiness of the
force -- the key ingredients of combat effectiveness. If identified
homosexuals are allowed to serve, they compromise the high standards
of combat effectiveness which must be maintained, impacting on the ability
of the Armed Forces to perform its mission.
C. For practical reasons, servicemembers should be discharged only when
their homosexuality is manifested by objective criteria -- homosexual acts,
homosexual statements, or homosexual marriages.
D. Applicants for military service should be clearly advised of the military's
policy regarding homosexuals prior to their entering active duty. Specifically,
applicants should be briefed and acknowledge in writing that they
understand: (1) homosexuality is incompatible with military service; (2)
they may be denied enlistment or separated if they have engaged in
homosexual conduct (acts, statements, or marriage); or (3) they are not
required to reveal their sexual orientation, even if asked, but if they do, it is
of their own free will and can be used as a basis for separation from the
Armed Forces.
E. A single, clear investigative policy should be adopted to provide uniform
guidance to the Services for conducting inquiries and investigations into
allegations of homosexual conduct.
F. All serving members should be educated on the military's policy on
homosexuals. This education should be factual in nature and should not
include sensitivity training or attempt to change deeply held moral, ethical, or
religious values.
A. Overview. After extensive research and assessment of several options,
the MWG submitted the following policy for consideration by the Secretary
of Defense on 8 June 1993. In the judgment of the MWG, the policy
represented the only option which complied with the President's guidance to
end discrimination while maintaining high standards of combat effectiveness
and unit cohesion.
B. Key policy features
1. Sexual orientation will be considered a personal and private matter.
The Armed Forces won't ask and servicemembers will not be required to
reveal their sexual orientation.
2. The presence in the Armed Forces of persons who engage in
homosexual acts, who state they are homosexual or bisexual, or marry or
who attempt to marry persons of the same gender remains inconsistent with
the requirement to maintain high standards of combat effectiveness and unit
cohesion.
3. Sexual orientation alone is not a bar to military service or continued
service unless manifested by homosexual acts, statements, or marriages.
4. Neither commander's inquiries (normally for minor offenses) nor
military criminal law enforcement investigations (normally for criminal
violations) will be conducted absent credible information. Commanders will
continue to initiate inquiries or investigations, as deemed necessary, when
credible information that a basis for discharge or disciplinary action exists.
5. Servicemembers will be discharged if they are found to have engaged
in homosexual conduct.
6. An education plan will be developed to inform servicemembers,
commanders, and military investigators about this policy so as to reinforce
the principle that all service-members can serve without fear of unwarranted
intrusion into their personal lives.
C. Discussion of the policy
1. Military personnel policies are designed by necessity to manage large
groups or categories of people for the purpose of achieving maximum
combat effectiveness. The basis for our personnel policy regarding
homosexuals has been and remains that homosexuality is incompatible with
service in the Armed Forces.
2. For practical reasons, we implement that policy by discharging
servicemembers only when their homosexuality is manifested by objective
criteria -- homosexual acts, statements, or marriage. As a practical result of
the implementation of this policy, homosexuals who keep their sexual
orientation private have served and will continue to serve.
3. While maintaining the de jure basis of the previous policy, this policy
acknowledges the de facto situation that some homosexuals have served,
and presumably will continue to serve, in the Armed Forces under the unique
constraints of military life. These constraints require members of the Armed
Forces to keep certain aspects of their personal life private for the benefit of
the group.
D. Implementation
1. Accession policy. Applicants for service in the Armed Forces will
not be required to declare their sexual orientation or answer questions about
their orientation. They will be briefed on departmental policies governing
conduct proscribed for members of the Armed Forces. All applicants will
sign a statement acknowledging they understand these policies.
Additionally, homosexual behavior will no longer be listed as a mental
disorder in the DoD Physical Standards directive.
2. Investigative policy. Commanders may initiate investigations or
inquiries into homosexual conduct as defined by DoD policy. However, no
investigations or inquiries will be conducted solely to establish and individual's
sexual orientation, nor will servicemembers be required to answer questions
concerning their sexual orientation. This provision does not create a
protected class. Acknowledgment by a member that he or she is a
homosexual -- even in reply to a question asked in error -- continues to be a
basis for separation. No investigations or inquiries will be conducted absent
credible information of the commission of a crime or basis for discharge or
disciplinary action. Military investigative agencies, at the direction of a
commander, may investigate misconduct and violations of the Uniform Code
of Military Justice. Investigations will not go beyond establishing the
elements of the offense or basis for discharge. There will be no stake-outs,
sting operations, or round-ups absent specific allegations of proscribed
conduct.
3. Discharge policy. Homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the high
standards of combat effectiveness and unit cohesion our Armed Forces must
maintain. Servicemembers will be discharged if they engage in homosexual
conduct. Homosexual conduct is evidenced by any act involving bodily
contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the
same sex for the purpose of sexual gratification, and attempts or solicitations
to engage in such acts; a statement by the member that he or she is a
homosexual or bisexual; or homosexual marriage or attempted homosexual
marriage. Normally, administrative separations involving homosexual
conduct will be under honorable conditions, unless there are aggravating
circumstances -- such as acts with a minor.
4. Education policy. Each Service will provide training to their personnel,
at every level, to explain the new policy regarding homosexuals. The DoD
will provide an education plan for the Services to use as a guideline in their
separate training programs. The education package will focus on the
changes to the DoD policy and will not be an attempt to change any deeply
held religious and ethical beliefs; that is, sensitivity training.