Bill Overview
Title: A bill to require the Secretary of the Army to establish sex-neutral high fitness standards for combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs).
Description: This bill requires the Department of the Army to establish sex-neutral fitness standards for combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOSs) that are higher than those for non-combat MOSs and brief Congress on the established combat MOSs and the methodology for determining such MOSs.
Sponsors: Sen. Ernst, Joni [R-IA]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals in or aspiring to be in combat roles in armed forces worldwide
Estimated Size: 150000
- The bill concerns the United States Army, which is a branch of the U.S. Armed Forces.
- The active duty component of the U.S. Army currently consists of around 500,000 soldiers, with additional personnel in the Army National Guard and Army Reserve, who might be affected by future policy and standard changes.
- Given that the standards affect combat roles, the focus is on those in or aspiring to be in combat Military Occupational Specialties, which constitute a specific subset of Army roles.
- Not all Army personnel are in combat roles, so the immediate impact is likely on those currently serving in combat MOSs and those training or aspiring to join them.
- There are also potential implications for policy changes affecting recruitment and training, potentially influencing aspiring recruits, instructors, and military policy makers.
Reasoning
- The active duty component of the U.S. Army consists of approximately 500,000 personnel, but not all will be affected by the policy as it specifically pertains to combat MOSs.
- Combat roles are considered to be around 20-25% of the Army, therefore affecting between 100,000 to 125,000 personnel, plus National Guard and Reserve.
- Establishing higher fitness standards might be seen as a positive by those who value readiness and equality in standards, but it may also create challenges for some personnel who do not meet the new requirements.
- The budget constraints will focus on revising training programs and assessments, potentially reallocating some resources from other areas temporarily.
- Different perspectives such as current personnel, aspirants to combat MOSs, trainers, and policy makers need to be considered to gain a comprehensive understanding.
Simulated Interviews
Infantry Officer (Ft. Bragg, NC)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe the new policy will help ensure everyone meets the necessary standards for combat roles.
- There might be some growing pains as people adapt to new fitness requirements, but overall it's a positive change.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Military Trainer (Ft. Hood, TX)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could challenge some soldiers, especially those who are not primarily designated for combat roles.
- Implementing sex-neutral standards requires a rethinking of our training programs and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Aspiring Combat Medic (Colorado Springs, CO)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am preparing to meet the new standards, which I hope will make me a stronger soldier.
- It's daunting, but having clear expectations is helpful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Recruitment Officer (San Diego, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new policy may initially deter some recruits, but it ultimately emphasizes the importance of being combat-ready.
- We'll need to make sure that applicants understand the requirements from the start.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Policy Analyst (Arlington, VA)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is an important step for gender-neutral equality within our forces.
- The policy should enhance our readiness and effectiveness in combat roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Current Combat Medic (El Paso, TX)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I welcome the new requirements as it reflects what we already practice in field conditions.
- Some of my peers may struggle, but the support is generally positive.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Army Reserve (Washington, DC)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- These changes make sense for active-duty combat roles, but could be tricky for reserve components like mine.
- Failure to implement could lead to readiness issues, especially for reservists transitioning to active roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Psychologist specializing in military personnel (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 33 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Psychologically, higher standards can boost morale and foster a sense of accomplishment.
- However, the stress of meeting new fitness goals could also affect mental health in the short term.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Army National Guard (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new standards make our forces more uniform and efficient, especially if we are called to active duty.
- For non-combat roles like mine, there's little direct impact unless mobilized.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Civilian Contractor for Military Training (Seattle, WA)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transition to sex-neutral standards aligns with our broader societal shifts towards equality.
- Training programs will need compelling updates to communicate these changes effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $7500000 (Low: $5000000, High: $10000000)
Year 2: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $7000000)
Year 3: $4000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $6000000)
Year 5: $3000000 (Low: $2500000, High: $4500000)
Year 10: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $500000 (Low: $200000, High: $1000000)
Key Considerations
- Cost of designing and validating new fitness standards.
- Training and assessment costs for personnel affected by the new standards.
- Long-term health and operational savings due to enhanced fitness levels.