Military Justice: DOD and the Coast Guard Need to Improve Their Capabilities to Assess Racial and Gender Disparities

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) was established to provide a statutory framework that promotes fair administration of military justice. Every active-duty servicemember is subject to the UCMJ, with more than 258,000 individuals disciplined from fiscal years 2013-2017, out of more than 2.3 million unique active-duty servicemembers. A key principle of the UCMJ is that a fair and just system of military law can foster a highly disciplined force.

House Report 115-200, accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, included a provision for GAO to assess the extent that disparities may exist in the military justice system. This report assesses the extent to which (1) the military services collect and maintain consistent race, ethnicity, and gender information for servicemembers investigated and disciplined for UCMJ violations that can be used to assess disparities, and (2) there are racial and gender disparities in the military justice system, and whether disparities have been studied by DOD. GAO analyzed data from the investigations, military justice, and personnel databases from the military services, including the Coast Guard, from fiscal years 2013-2017 and interviewed agency officials.

The military services collect gender information, but they do not collect and maintain consistent information about race and ethnicity in their investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. This limits their ability to collectively or comparatively assess these data to identify any disparities (i.e., instances in which a racial, ethnic, or gender group was overrepresented) in the military justice system within and across the services. For example, the number of potential responses for race and ethnicity across the military services' databases ranges from five to 32 options for race and two to 25 options for ethnicity, which can complicate cross-service assessments. The services also are not required to and, thus, do not report demographic information in their annual military justice reports—information that would provide greater visibility into potential disparities.

GAO's analysis of available data found that Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female members to be the subjects of investigations recorded in databases used by the military criminal investigative organizations, and to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all of the military services when controlling for attributes such as rank and education. GAO also found that race and gender were not statistically significant factors in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial for most services, and minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe punishment than White servicemembers or there was no difference among racial groups; thus, disparities may be limited to particular stages of the process. The Department of Defense (DOD) has taken some steps to study disparities, but has not comprehensively evaluated the causes of racial or gender disparities in the military justice system. Doing so would better position DOD to identify actions to address disparities and help ensure the military justice system is fair and just.

Note: These analyses, taken alone, should not be used to make conclusions about the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination. These multivariate regression analysis results estimate whether a racial or gender group is more likely or less likely to be the subject of an investigation or a trial in general or special courts-martial after controlling for race, gender, rank, and education, and in the Air Force, years of service. GAO made all racial comparisons to White servicemembers and all gender comparisons to females. GAO grouped individuals of Hispanic ethnicity together, regardless of race.

GAO is making 11 recommendations, including that the services develop the capability to present consistent race and ethnicity data, and DOD include demographic information in military justice annual reports and evaluates the causes of disparities in the military justice system. DOD and the Coast Guard generally concurred with GAO's recommendations.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) provides the statutory  framework of the military justice system and establishes the complete  code of military criminal law. It also outlines the jurisdiction and basic  procedure of the military justice system, and provides the legal framework  for conducting investigations and prosecutions of allegations of  misconduct by servicemembers. Every active-duty member of the Army,  the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard is  subject to the UCMJ. According to the Manual for Courts-Martial, the  purpose of military law is to promote justice, assist in maintaining good  order and discipline in the armed forces, promote efficiency and  effectiveness in the military establishment, and thereby strengthen the  national security of the United States. The Military Justice Review Group  elaborated on this purpose, stating that the current structure and practice  of the UCMJ embodies a single overarching principle: a system of military  law can foster a highly disciplined force if it is fair and just, and is  recognized as such by both members of the armed forces and by the  American public.

The military justice system has rules, proceedings, and consequences  that are different from the rights and obligations in the civilian criminal  court system. In addition to articles that punish traditional crimes such as  unlawful drug use and assault, the UCMJ includes unique military  offenses including desertion, failure to obey orders or regulations, and  misbehavior before the enemy, among others. These unique military  offenses are specifically proscribed in the military context because of their  deleterious effect on morale and mission accomplishment.

In 1995, we reported that studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s  showed no disparities—instances in which a racial, ethnic, or gender  group was overrepresented—in discipline rates between Black and White  servicemembers and found no evidence that minority groups received  courts-martial or nonjudicial punishments out of proportion to certain  types of violations. In that same report, however, we found that studies  published in the 1990s by the Navy and the Defense Equal Opportunity  Management Institute showed that Black servicemembers were  overrepresented in the number of servicemembers receiving judicial and  nonjudicial punishments. In 2017, a non-profit organization reported that  Black servicemembers were substantially more likely than White  servicemembers to face military justice action.

House Report 115-200, accompanying a bill for the National Defense  Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018, included a provision for us to  review differences in the way that the military services collect and  maintain information about the race and gender of servicemembers  convicted of violations of the UCMJ and to assess the extent that  disparities may exist in the military justice system. This report assesses  the extent to which (1) the military services collect and maintain  information about the race, ethnicity, and gender of servicemembers  investigated and disciplined for violations of the UCMJ that can be used  to assess disparities; and (2) there are racial or gender disparities in  investigations, disciplinary actions, and case outcomes in the military  justice system, and whether the Department of Defense (DOD) and the  military services have taken steps to study any identified disparities.

For our first objective, we reviewed service guidance, user manuals, and  other documentation to determine the types of data officials are required  to collect and maintain as well as internal procedures the services follow  to input information about race, ethnicity, and gender into their  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. For example, we  determined whether the collection of this information was mandatory, and  how this information was entered into and recorded in each database. We  also interviewed agency officials who manage and use the databases to  determine which fields in each database track the race, ethnicity, and  gender of the accused; how these data are input in the databases; and  their insights regarding the reliability of these data. We also analyzed the  data we received from the investigations, military justice, and personnel  databases to determine the completeness of the race, ethnicity, and  gender information that was recorded in each of the databases. We  assessed service systems and procedures for collecting data against  DOD and service guidance and relevant federal internal control  standards.

For our second objective, we analyzed military justice actions initiated  and recorded in service investigations and military justice databases  between fiscal years 2013 through 2017—the most recent data available  at the time of our review—as well as record-level data from each of the  military services’ personnel, investigations, and military justice  databases. To prepare the data for our analyses and ensure that we  had consistent profiles for the race, ethnicity, and gender of the  servicemembers, we merged records using unique identifiers, such as  social security number or DOD employee identification number, that were  common among a particular service’s databases. Based on discussions  with service officials, we treated the personnel databases as the  authoritative sources for servicemembers’ demographic and  administrative data. In addition, as part of our data preparation, we  consolidated the various race and ethnicity values in the service  personnel databases to the five groups for race and the two groups for  ethnicity established by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  standards for maintaining, collecting, and presenting data on race and  ethnicity for federal reporting purposes. When military service personnel  databases included different or additional possible options for race and  ethnicity than the groups established by the OMB standards, we  consolidated the options in accordance with the definitions for each race  and ethnicity option listed in the OMB standards. We grouped individuals  of Hispanic ethnicity together, regardless of their racial identification, so  that we could compare those of Hispanic ethnicity to other racial groups.  Throughout this objective in our report, we refer to the combined race and  ethnicity values as race.

We analyzed data from the military services’ investigations, military  justice, and personnel databases to determine the extent to which racial  and gender groups were the subjects of recorded investigations, tried in  courts-martial, and subject to nonjudicial punishments at higher or lower  rates than each racial and gender group’s proportion of the overall service  population. We analyzed data for trials in general and special courts- martial separately from trials in summary courts-martial because general  and special courts-martial result in a criminal conviction if the  servicemember is found guilty, while summary courts-martial are not a  criminal forum and do not result in a criminal conviction. Our analyses  only counted cases that were ultimately tried at general, special, or  summary courts-martial, and excluded those cases where charges were  dismissed, withdrawn, or subject to some alternate resolution.

We also conducted bivariate analyses to estimate the association  between select attribute factors (or independent variables) and the  outcome variables (the dependent variable) in a binary format. We  reviewed relevant literature and interviewed agency officials to determine  which demographic attributes would be most appropriate to include in our  analyses. Our bivariate analyses examined attributes such as race,  gender, age, rank, years of service, education, and offense. We then  conducted multivariate regression analyses to test the association  between servicemember characteristics, such as race and gender, and  the odds of a military justice action, while holding other servicemember  attributes constant, such as gender, rank, and education. Our  multivariate regression analyses controlled for attributes such as race,  gender, rank, years of service, and education. We conducted data  reliability assessments on the datasets we received from the databases in  our review. We examined the documentation related to the databases,  conducted electronic tests on the data we received, and discussed data  reliability with database managers. Based on these actions, for the  purposes of our analysis, we found the variables we ultimately reported  on to be sufficiently reliable. Our analyses of these data, taken alone, do  not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred, as that is a  legal determination that would involve other corroborating information  along with supporting statistics. Further, we did not identify the causes of  any racial or gender disparities, and the results of our work alone should  not be used to make conclusions about the military justice process. We  also reviewed publications about disparities in the military justice system  and the civilian justice system and summarized them in order to enhance  our understanding of the complexities of the issues, including how others  have attempted to measure disparities. A more detailed description of our  scope and methodology appears in appendix I.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to May 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

According to the 2015 report ordered by the Secretary of Defense and  issued by the Military Justice Review Group, the military justice system is  designed to ensure discipline and order in the armed forces, since crimes  committed by servicemembers have the potential to destroy the bonds of  trust, seriously damage unit cohesion, and compromise military  operations. The jurisdiction of the UCMJ extends to all places and  applies to all active-duty servicemembers. UCMJ jurisdiction applies to  other individuals as well, such as members of the National Guard or  reserves who are performing active-duty service; retired members who  are entitled to pay or are receiving hospitalization in a military hospital;  prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces; persons serving with or  accompanying the armed forces in the field in time of declared war or  contingency operations, such as contractors; and members of  organizations such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration and the Public Health Service when assigned to and  serving with the armed forces.

In creating the military justice system, Congress established three types  of military courts, called courts-martial: summary, special, and general.  Each of these types respectively is intended to deal with progressively  more serious offenses, and each court-martial type may adjudicate more  severe maximum punishments as prescribed under the UCMJ. In  addition, an accused servicemember can receive nonjudicial punishment  under Article 15 of the UCMJ, by which a commander can punish a  servicemember without going through the court-martial process. Table 1  provides an overview of nonjudicial punishments and the three different  types of courts-martial.

The Military Justice Act of 2016 enacted significant reforms to the UCMJ,  most of the provisions of which became effective on January 1, 2019.  These reforms included changes such as limitations on the types of  punishments permitted with nonjudicial punishments, changes to  required size of the panel, or jury, and changes to what judicial  outcomes are subject to automatic appeal. There are some areas where  individual services supplement but remain consistent with the UCMJ. For  example, the Air Force provides a right to counsel in certain forums where  the services are not required to do so.

In addition to the reforms affecting the UCMJ, the Military Justice Act of  2016 also directed changes to military justice data collection and  accessibility. Specifically, section 5504 of the Military Justice Act of  2016 directed the Secretary of Defense to prescribe uniform standards  and criteria pertaining to case management, data collection, and  accessibility of information in the military justice system. As a result, the  DOD Office of General Counsel authorized the establishment of the  Article 140A Implementation Subcommittee of the Joint Service  Committee on Military Justice to, among other things, assess each  service’s case management system, recommend what data fields the  services should collect, propose uniform definitions for the data fields the  services should collect, and recommend standardized methods and data  field definitions to improve the collection of data concerning race and ethnicity of individuals involved in the military justice system. The  subcommittee conducted a study and submitted its recommendations to  the Joint Service Committee Voting Group on July 2, 2018, and the  Voting Group submitted a report and its agreed upon recommendations to  the DOD Office of General Counsel on August 24, 2018. The Military  Justice Act of 2016 provides that the Secretary of Defense was to carry  out this mandate by December 23, 2018, and that the Secretary’s  decisions shall take effect no later than December 23, 2020. On  December 17, 2018, the General Counsel of the Department of Defense  issued uniform standards and criteria, which directed that each military  justice case processing and management system be capable of collecting  uniform data concerning race and ethnicity.

From fiscal years 2013 through 2017, more than 258,000 active-duty  servicemembers were disciplined for a violation of the UCMJ, out of more  than 2.3 million unique active-duty servicemembers who served across all  of the military services during this period. Figure 1 shows the number of  cases of each type of court-martial and of nonjudicial punishments in  each of the military services.

There are several steps in the discipline of a servicemember who  allegedly commits a crime under the UCMJ, which are summarized in  figure 2 below.

The military justice process begins once an offense is alleged and an  initial report is made, typically to law enforcement, an investigative entity,  or the suspect’s chain of command. Policies for initiating criminal  investigations by military criminal investigative organizations (MCIO) and  procedures for investigating criminal allegations are set forth in DOD and  service guidance. At this time, the commanding officer or law  enforcement will conduct an inquiry or investigation into the accusations  and gather all reasonably available evidence. MCIOs have the authority  and independent discretion to assume investigative jurisdiction, and do  not require approval from any authority outside of the MCIO to conduct  such an investigation—commanders outside of the organization are not to  impede or interfere with such decisions or investigations by the MCIO. If  an MCIO is involved in the inquiry, the investigative entity is to gather all  reasonably available evidence and provide the commanding officer with  unbiased findings that reflect impartiality as required by DOD  instruction. According to service officials, during the conduct of the  criminal investigation, the subject of the investigation has the right to  obtain legal counsel at any time.

After an investigation, the first step toward initiation of a court-martial is  when the accused is presented with a list of charges signed by the  accuser under oath, which is called preferral of charges; the accuser who  prefers the charges may be anyone subject to the UCMJ. After charges  are preferred, the charges are forwarded to an officer with sufficient legal  authority to convene a court-martial, also known as the “convening  authority.” The convening authority in receipt of preferred charges may,  among other actions and depending on the nature of the charges and the  level of the convening authority, refer the case to its own court or forward  the case to a superior commander for disposition, for example, to a  general court-martial convening authority. The general court-martial  convening authority would have similar options: to dismiss the charges,  refer them to a general or special court-martial, or take some lesser  action. Before any case is referred to a general court-martial, the case  must proceed through a preliminary hearing under Article 32 of the  UCMJ, unless waived by the accused. The Article 32 hearing is presided  over by an impartial judge advocate, or another individual with statutory  authority, who is appointed by the convening authority and makes a  recommendation to the convening authority.

We analyzed general and special courts-martial that were preceded by  investigations recorded in databases maintained by MCIOs, which we  refer to as recorded investigations, and general and special courts-martial  that did not have a record within an MCIO database. As shown in figure  3 below, the majority of general and special courts-martial, ranging from  53 percent to 74 percent across the services, had a recorded  investigation, while the remaining cases would have been investigated by  other sources, such as local civilian law enforcement, command  investigations, or in the case of the Air Force, their military law  enforcement forces.

Once referred to a general or special court-martial, an accused  servicemember may be tried by a military judge alone or by a military  judge with a military jury, referred to as members of the court-martial. If  the accused servicemember is tried by a military jury, the members of the  court-martial determine whether the accused is proven guilty and, if the  accused requests sentencing by the members, adjudicate a sentence.  Otherwise, the military judge adjudicates the sentence. If the accused is  tried by a military judge alone, the judge determines guilt and any  sentence. In a summary court-martial, a single commissioned officer who  is not a military judge adjudicates minor offenses and a sentence.

Convictions at the general and special court-martial level are subject to a  post-trial process and may be appealed to higher courts in cases where  the sentence reaches a certain threshold. For example, depending on the  forum and the adjudged sentence, the accused may be entitled to  appellate review by the service Court of Criminal Appeals, and may be  able to request or waive assignment of appellate defense counsel, or  waive appellate review entirely. Depending, again, on forum and  sentence, some cases that do not qualify for appellate review will receive  review by a judge advocate to, among other things, determine that the  court had jurisdiction and that the sentence was lawful. Some cases may  then be further reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces,  as well as by the U.S. Supreme Court at their discretion, if the case was  reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

The military justice system, like the civilian criminal justice system,  provides avenues for accused servicemembers to raise allegations of  discrimination, improprieties in investigations, improprieties in disposition,  and improprieties in the selection of panel members at the court-martial  proceeding, before a military judge and on appellate review. The Military  Justice Act of 2016 requires that legal training be provided to all officers,  with additional training for commanders with authority to take disciplinary  actions under the UCMJ.

Definitions of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has established standards  for collecting, maintaining, and presenting data on race and ethnicity for  all federal reporting purposes. These standards were developed in  cooperation with federal agencies to provide consistent data on race and  ethnicity throughout the federal government. OMB standards establish  the following five categories of race:

American Indian or Alaska Native: A person having origins in any of  the original peoples of North and South America (including Central  America), and who maintains tribal affiliation or community  attachment.

Asian: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of the  Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent including, for  example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan,  the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam.

Black or African American: A person having origins in any of the  black racial groups in Africa.

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander: A person having origins  in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other  Pacific Islands.

White: A person having origins in any of the original peoples of  Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.

The OMB standards also establish two categories of ethnicity.

Hispanic or Latino: A person of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican,  South or Central American, or other Spanish culture or origin,  regardless of race.

Not Hispanic or Latino: A person not having the above attributes.

In addition to defining race and ethnicity for federal administrative  reporting and record keeping requirements, OMB standards provide two  methods for federal agencies to follow regarding the collection of data on  race and ethnicity.  1.  Separate questions shall be used for collecting information about race  and ethnicity wherever feasible. In this case, there are 5 categories of  race noted above which individuals can select, and individuals can  identify with more than one category of race. In addition to race,  individuals can select one of the two ethnicity categories above.  2.  If necessary, a single question or combined format can be used to  collect information about race and ethnicity, where the following  categories are provided for individuals: American Indian or Alaska  Native, Asian, Black or African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native  Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, and White. In this instance,  individuals can also select more than one category.

Information collected on servicemembers’ gender is governed by DOD  guidance. DOD Instruction 1336.05 provides that information collected on  a servicemember’s gender is based on reproductive function. It provides  that there are three options that can be selected when inputting a  servicemember’s gender: male, female, or unknown.

Racial and Gender Disparities in the Civilian Justice System

Racial and gender disparities in the civilian criminal justice system have  been the subject of several studies in the past decade. While the civilian  and military justice systems differ from each other, we reviewed  information about racial and gender disparities in the civilian criminal  justice system to enhance our understanding of the complexities of the  issues, including how others had attempted to measure disparities. Some  studies have assessed the rates at which minority groups are policed. For  example, a Department of Justice study of data from the Bureau of  Justice Statistics’ 2011 Police-Public Contact survey found that Black  drivers were more likely than White or Hispanic drivers to be pulled over  in a traffic stop; specifically, the study found that 10 percent of White  drivers and 10 percent of Hispanic drivers were pulled over in a traffic  stop, compared to 13 percent of Black drivers. This study also found  that Black and Hispanic drivers were more likely to be searched once  they were pulled over by the police; specifically, the study found that 2  percent of White drivers stopped by police were searched, compared to 6  percent of Black drivers and 7 percent of Hispanic drivers.

In addition, U.S. government data shows that racial disparities exist  among individuals who are arrested. For example, data from the Federal  Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program, which  compiles data from law enforcement agencies across the country,  indicates that in 2016, Black individuals represented 26.9 percent of total  arrests nationwide, but comprised 13.4 percent of the U.S. population  according to U.S. census data estimates as of July 1, 2017. This data  also shows that 69.6 percent of all arrested individuals were White, while  White individuals comprised 76.6 percent of the U.S. population.

Studies have also identified racial and gender disparities in civilian justice  sentencing. In 2010 and 2017, the U.S. Sentencing Commission reported  that Black male offenders received longer sentences than similarly  situated White male offenders. Specifically, in 2017, the Commission  analyzed federal sentencing data and reported that Black male offenders  received sentences that on average were 19.1 percent longer than  similarly situated White males for fiscal years 2012 to 2016. This analysis  controlled for factors such as type of offense, race, gender, citizenship,  age, education level, and criminal history. This study also found that  female offenders of all races received shorter sentences than White male  offenders. Similarly, the Commission’s 2010 report found that Black  offenders received sentences that were 10 percent longer than those  imposed on White offenders from December 2007 through September  2009, and male offenders received sentences that were 17.7 percent  longer than female offenders, after controlling for the same factors as  noted for the 2017 study, among others.

Finally, racial and gender disparities have been identified among  incarcerated populations. According to data from the Bureau of Justice  Statistics, for prisoners with sentences of 1 year or more under the  jurisdiction of state or federal correctional officials in 2016, Black males  were six times more likely to be imprisoned than White males, and  Hispanic males were 2.7 times more likely to be imprisoned than White  males. The racial disparities were more pronounced for younger males,  where Black males aged 18 to 19 were approximately 11.8 times more  likely than White males of the same age to be imprisoned. The Bureau  also reported that Black females were imprisoned at approximately twice  the rate of White females. We did not assess the methodologies used in  any of these studies or the reliability of the data cited in the studies; these  studies are discussed here to provide broader context for the discussion  about racial and gender disparities in the military justice system.

The Military Services Collect and Maintain Gender Information, but Do Not Collect and Maintain Consistent Information about Race and Ethnicity, Limiting Their Ability to Collectively or Comparatively Assess Data to Identify Any Disparities

The military services collect and maintain gender information, but they do  not collect and maintain consistent information about race and ethnicity in  their investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. This limits  the military services’ ability to collectively or comparatively assess these  demographic data to identify any racial or ethnic disparities in the military  justice system within and across the services. The military services use  different databases to collect and maintain information for investigations,  courts-martial, and nonjudicial punishments. All of the databases collect  and maintain gender information, but the Coast Guard’s military justice  database does not have the capability to query or report on gender data.  While the military services’ databases collect and maintain complete data  for race and ethnicity, the information collected and maintained about  race and ethnicity is not consistent among the different databases within  and across the services. Moreover, the Coast Guard, the Navy, and the  Marine Corps do not collect and maintain complete and consistent  servicemember identification data, such as social security number or  employee identification number, in their respective military justice  databases, although DOD leadership recently directed improvements in  this area. Finally, the military services do not report data that provides  visibility into disparities in the military justice system, and DOD and the  services lack guidance about when potential racial, ethnic, or gender  disparities should be further reviewed, and what steps should be taken to  conduct such a review if needed.

The Military Services Use Different Databases to Collect and Maintain Information for Investigations, Courts- Martial, and Nonjudicial Punishments

Each military service uses a different database to collect and maintain  information on investigations and courts-martials, and, in some services,  nonjudicial punishments, as shown in figure 4. For three of the military  services—the Army, the Navy, and the Coast Guard—the databases  listed in figure 4 include information about some, but not all, of their  nonjudicial punishment cases.

Additionally, the nature of the information collected by each of the  services’ databases varies, as noted below.

Investigations. The Army collects and maintains information on  investigations conducted by the Army Criminal Investigation  Command in the Army Law Enforcement Reporting and Tracking  System database. According to Army officials, the Office of the  Provost Marshal General and the Army Criminal Investigation  Command developed this database to replace a 2003 system, the  Army Criminal Investigation and Intelligence System, and a significant  part of the military police’s 2002 system, the Centralized Operations  Police Suite. The officials said that the Army Law Enforcement  Reporting and Tracking System has been operational since 2015, and  has become the primary case management system for all Army law  enforcement professionals. However, Army officials said that cases  involving commander-led investigations are unlikely to be recorded in  this database.

Courts-martial and nonjudicial punishments. The Army uses  Military Justice Online and the Army Courts-Martial Information  System to collect data on court-martial cases. According to Army  officials, Military Justice Online, created in 2008, is a document- generating system that primarily is used by the Army’s judge advocate  general corps and promotes uniformity in case processing among the  Army’s staff judge advocate offices. Military Justice Online includes  information about courts-martial, some nonjudicial punishments,  administrative separations, and administrative reprimands of  servicemembers. Army officials said that the Army Courts-Martial  Information System, which has been used since 1989, serves as the  Army trial judiciary’s case tracking system and is used by the Army’s  trial judiciary to track court-martial cases.

Investigations. The Air Force military criminal investigative  organization, the Office of Special Investigations, uses a system  called the Investigative Information Management System to collect  and maintain information related to investigations. According to Air  Force officials, the Investigative Information Management System has  been in use since 2001.

Courts-martial and nonjudicial punishments. The Air Force uses  the Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System,  which is designed to be a case management system to collect  comprehensive information for both court-martial cases and  nonjudicial punishments. According to Air Force officials, the  Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System has  been in use since 1974.

Investigations. According to Navy officials, the Navy and Marine  Corps’ joint system for maintaining and collecting information related  to investigations is the Consolidated Law Enforcement Operations  Center, which has been in use since 2004. Navy officials said that this  database initially contained information regarding Navy and Marine  Corps law enforcement incidents and criminal investigations, but  began to include investigations conducted by the Naval Criminal  Investigative Service in 2012.

Courts-martial. The Navy and the Marine Corps both use the Case  Management System to collect and maintain information about  military justice matters with involvement by a Navy or Marine Corps  legal office, including special and general court-martial cases. This  system was initially developed by the Marine Corps to track  information about legal services provided by their legal offices.  According to Navy and Marine Corps officials, the system has been in  use by the Marine Corps since 2010 and by the Navy since 2013.  Officials from the Marine Corps said that although the Case  Management System has been in use since 2010, the system was not  widely used until 2012.

Nonjudicial punishments. The Marine Corps Total Force System,  the Marine Corps personnel database, collects and maintains  information on summary courts-martial and nonjudicial punishments  for cases where there was a conviction or punishment. According to  Marine Corps officials, this system has been in use since 1995. Navy  officials said that their personnel database records information about  nonjudicial punishments if the punishment involved a change in pay or  grade. The services’ military justice Case Management System  includes information on some nonjudicial punishment cases in the  Navy and the Marine Corps, which Navy and Marine Corps officials  said was for those cases that had involvement by their legal offices.

Investigations. The Coast Guard Investigative Service uses the Field  Activity Case Tracking System to collect and maintain information on  servicemembers investigated for violations of the UCMJ. According to  Coast Guard officials, this system has been in use since July 2014.

Courts-martial. According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard  uses Law Manager to collect and maintain administrative information  on court-martial cases. Law Manager has been in use since 2000, but  was not used for court-martial data until 2003.

Nonjudicial punishments. Coast Guard officials said that their  military justice database contains records of nonjudicial punishments  if a case involved their legal offices. In addition, according to Coast  Guard officials, Direct Access, the Coast Guard’s personnel database,  also collects and maintains information about some court-martial  cases and nonjudicial punishments if the punishment resulted in a  change in rank or pay or an administrative action against the accused  servicemember.

The Military Services Collect and Maintain Gender Data, but the Coast Guard Can Not Query or Report on Gender Data from its Military Justice Database

All of the military services collect and maintain gender information in their  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases, but are  inconsistent in whether they allow an unknown or unspecified gender, and  the Coast Guard’s military justice database does not allow Coast Guard  officials to query or report on gender data. Table 2 below summarizes  how data regarding the servicemember’s gender is entered into the  services’ databases and the number of potential gender options. Each  database identifies at least two potential options—male and female—for  data related to the servicemember’s gender, while about half of the  databases (8 of 15) provide a third option to indicate that the gender is  either unknown or not specified. Each of the military services’  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases maintained  gender data for almost 100 percent of servicemembers, except we were  unable to determine this completion rate for the Coast Guard’s military  justice database. We could not determine the completeness of the Coast  Guard’s gender data in its military justice database because, as  previously noted, its military justice database does not have the capability  to query on gender data.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should use quality information and obtain data on a timely  basis so they can be used for effective monitoring. However, the Coast  Guard does not have visibility over the gender of servicemembers  prosecuted for UCMJ violations without merging data from multiple  databases, which can be a labor-intensive and time-consuming process.  According to Coast Guard officials, information regarding the gender of  servicemembers prosecuted for UCMJ violations can be recorded in its  military justice database, but gender is not a field that can be searched on  or included in the reports they run using information from their military  justice database, because of the way the military justice module in the  database was designed. Coast Guard officials told us that the military  justice database—Law Manager—was designed to determine the status  of court-martial cases, and captures attributes that are generated by  relevant UCMJ documents. Those official documents do not require the  annotation of demographics such as gender, so this information is not  used in Law Manager. A Coast Guard official indicated that it would be  feasible to modify Law Manager to make it easier to run reports and  queries that include gender information. The ability to query and report on  the gender of servicemembers in its military justice database would  provide the Coast Guard with more readily available data to identify or  assess any gender disparities that may exist in the investigation and trial  of military justice cases.

The Military Services Do Not Collect and Maintain Consistent Data for Race and Ethnicity

Each of the military services’ databases collect and maintain complete  data for race and ethnicity, but the military services do not collect and  maintain consistent information regarding race and ethnicity in their  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. Additionally, the  military services have not developed a mechanism to aggregate the data  into consistent categories of race and ethnicity to allow for efficient  analysis and reporting of consistent demographic data. The number of  potential responses for race and ethnicity within the 15 databases across  the military services ranges from 5 to 32 options for race and 2 to 25  options for ethnicity, which can complicate cross-service assessments.  For example, the Army’s personnel database maintains 6 options for race  and 23 options for ethnicity, whereas the Coast Guard’s personnel  database maintains 7 options for race and 3 for ethnicity. Table 3  summarizes how the databases used by the military services vary in how  the servicemember’s race is entered and the number of potential race  options.

Table 4 shows that the military services’ databases also vary in how  information about servicemembers’ ethnicity is entered into the databases  and the number of potential ethnicity options that are collected.

Although the data collected and maintained was not consistent within and  across the military services, each of the military services’ databases  maintained race and ethnicity data for at least 99 percent of the  servicemembers, with the exception of the Coast Guard. The Coast  Guard does not track information about race or ethnicity in its military  justice database. Coast Guard officials stated that this is because Law  Manager was designed to determine the status of court-martial cases,  and captures attributes that are needed to generate relevant UCMJ  documents, such as court pleadings. Demographic information such as  race and ethnicity is not included in these official documents, so this  information is not input into Law Manager. Further, four of the databases  we reviewed—including both of the Army’s military justice databases, and  the Navy and the Marine Corps’ military justice databases—collect  information on race and ethnicity in a combined data field as shown in  table 4, whereas the other databases collect and maintain race and  ethnicity information in two separate fields.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that  management should use quality information to achieve the entity’s  objectives. Among other things, attributes of this internal control principle call for management to identify information requirements; obtain  relevant data from reliable sources that are reasonably free from error;  ensure that the data it receives is timely and reliable; and process the  data obtained into quality information— information that is appropriate,  current, complete, and accurate. In addition, federal internal control  standards call for management to design the entity’s information system  and related control activities to achieve objectives and respond to risks,  thereby enabling information to become available to the entity on a  timelier basis. Further, the Military Justice Act of 2016 required the  Secretary of Defense to prescribe uniform standards and criteria for  various items, including data collection and analysis for case  management at all stages of the military justice system, including pretrial,  trial, post-trial, and appellate processes, by December 2018.

On December 17, 2018, the General Counsel of the Department of  Defense issued the uniform standards and criteria required by article  140a of the Military Justice Act of 2016. As part of these uniform  standards, the services were directed to collect data related to race and  ethnicity in their military justice databases, and to collect racial and ethnic  data in separate data fields. The standards provide that the services may  have their military justice databases capture expanded ethnic or racial  categories; however, for reporting purposes, expanded categories will  aggregate to those categories listed in the standards. For race, the  services will choose from six designations: (1) American Indian/Alaska  Native, (2) Asian, (3) Black or African American, (4) Native Hawaiian or  Other Pacific Islander, (5) White, or (6) Other. For ethnicity, the services  will choose from two options: (1) Hispanic or Latino, or (2) Not Hispanic or  Latino. These categories are consistent with the OMB standards for  collecting and presenting such data. The military services are to  implement the Secretary’s direction no later than December 23, 2020.

However, DOD has applied these newly issued standards only to the  military justice databases and not to the investigations and personnel  databases. DOD officials stated that the investigations and personnel  databases do not fall under the charter of the DOD General Counsel,  which issued the standards for the military justice databases. Hence,  these uniform standards do not apply to the military services’  investigations and personnel databases. We were able to analyze data  across the investigations, military justice, and personnel databases by  merging data from these databases, but this took multiple, detailed steps  and would not be an efficient approach for routine analyses. Taking steps  to develop the capability to present the race and ethnicity data in the  military services’ personnel and investigations databases using the same  categories included in the December 2018 standards for the military  justice databases would allow for more efficient analysis of consistent  demographic data. This could be done through either collecting and  maintaining race and ethnicity data in the investigations and personnel  databases using the December 2018 uniform standards or developing a  capability to aggregate the data into the race and ethnicity categories  included in the standards.

The Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard Did Not Collect and Maintain Complete Servicemember Identification Data, but Improved Collection Has Been Directed

The Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard did not collect and  maintain complete servicemember identification data, such as social  security number or employee identification number, in their military justice  or investigations databases; however, DOD recently directed them to do  so. In the course of conducting our analysis, in some instances, we  could not match personnel records with military justice records because  the social security number or employee identification number in the  military justice database did not match the information in the personnel  database. In other instances, we could not match personnel records with  military justice records because the military justice records did not contain  a social security number or employee identification number to match with  information found in their personnel record. As shown in table 5, we  initially were unable to match 5 percent of Navy military justice cases, 12  percent of Marine Corps military justice cases, 18 percent of Coast Guard  investigation cases, and 6 percent of Coast Guard military justice cases.

On December 17, 2018, the General Counsel of the Department of  Defense issued the uniform standards and criteria required by article  140a of the Military Justice Act of 2016. As part of these uniform  standards, the services were directed to collect either the social security  number or DOD identification number in their military justice databases.  The military services are to implement the Secretary’s direction no later  than December 23, 2020.

The Military Services Do Not Consistently Report Data that Provides Visibility into Any Disparities, and DOD Has Not Identified When Disparities Should Be Examined Further

Although some military services report demographic information about the  subjects of military justice actions internally, the military services do not  externally report data that provides visibility into, or would enable an  analysis of, the extent of racial, ethnic, or gender disparities in the military  justice system. Service officials from all of the military services told us that  they compile internal quarterly or monthly staff judge advocate reports,  which include the total number of each type of court-martial handled by  their legal offices and of nonjudicial punishments. According to service  officials, in the Air Force and the Army these reports include demographic  information about servicemembers involved in these cases, such as the  total number of each type of case broken out by the subject’s race,  ethnicity, or gender, but the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard reports do not include this demographic information, and there is no  requirement to do so.

Regarding external reporting, the UCMJ directs the Court of Appeals for  the Armed Forces, the Judge Advocates General, and the Staff Judge  Advocate to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to submit annual  reports on the military justice system to the Congressional Armed  Services Committees, the Secretary of Defense, the secretaries of the  military departments, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. These  reports are to include information on the number and status of pending  cases handled in the preceding fiscal year, among other information. The  annual reports include the total number of cases each service handled for  each type of court-martial and for nonjudicial punishments. However,  these annual reports do not include demographic information about  servicemembers who experienced a military justice action, such as  breakdowns by race or gender, because the reporting requirement does  not direct the services to include such information. A DOD official  expressed concern about expanding the reporting requirement to have  public dissemination of race, ethnicity, and gender information due to the  potential for misinterpretation, but stated that such reporting requirements  for internal use would be beneficial. However, Congress and members of  the public have expressed an interest in this information.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should externally communicate the necessary quality  information to achieve the entity’s objectives. Furthermore, these  standards state that management should use quality information to make  informed decisions and evaluate the entity’s performance. According to  DOD guidance, the Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, a  committee comprised of representatives from each service’s legal office,  is responsible for reviewing the Manual for Courts-Martial and the UCMJ  on an annual basis. The Joint Service Committee can consider suggested  changes to the UCMJ or the Manual for Courts-Martial or its  supplementary materials from the services or from the general public. The  Joint Service Committee then determines whether to propose any desired  amendments to the UCMJ, or the Manual for Courts-Martial or its  supplementary materials. If the Joint Service Committee finds that an  amendment to either the Manual for Courts-Martial or the UCMJ is  required, the committee will provide the General Counsel of DOD with a  draft executive order containing the recommended amendments or will  forward a legislative proposal to amend the UCMJ. While it is unclear  whether the committee has ever considered or proposed an amendment  to the UCMJ or Manual for Courts-Martial that would require the external  reporting on an annual basis of demographic information about the race,  ethnicity, and gender of servicemembers charged with violations of the  UCMJ, no such change has been made. Reporting this information would  provide servicemembers and the public with greater visibility into potential  disparities and help build confidence that DOD is committed to a military  justice system that is fair and just.

Furthermore, DOD has not issued guidance that establishes criteria to  specify when any data indicating possible racial, ethnic, or gender  disparities in the investigations, trials, or outcomes of cases in the military  justice system should be further reviewed, and to describe what steps  should be taken to conduct such a review if it were needed. GAO’s  Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government provides that an  agency needs to establish a baseline in order to perform monitoring  activities. The baseline helps the agency understand and address  deficiencies in its operations.

While equal employment opportunity enforcement is a very different  context than the military justice system, other federal agencies have  developed such criteria in the equal employment opportunity context that  can indicate when disparities should be examined further. For example,  the Department of Justice, the Department of Labor, the Equal  Employment Opportunity Commission, and the Office of Personnel  Management use a “four-fifths” test to determine when differences  between subgroups in the selection rates for hiring, promotion, or other  employment decisions are significant. These criteria, though inexact,  provide an example of the type of criteria that DOD could consider using  as a basis for determining when disparities among racial or gender  groups in the military justice process could require further review or  analysis. By issuing guidance that establishes criteria for determining  when data indicating possible racial and gender disparities in the  investigations, trials, or outcomes of cases in the military justice system  should be further examined, and describes the steps that should be taken  to conduct such further examination, DOD and the services would be  better positioned to monitor the military justice system to help ensure that  it is fair and just, a key principle of the UCMJ.

Racial and Gender Disparities Exist in Military Justice Investigations, Disciplinary Actions, and Case Outcomes, but Have Not Been Comprehensively Studied to Identify Causes

Racial and gender disparities exist in investigations, disciplinary actions,  and punishment of servicemembers in the military justice system, and  gender disparities exist in convictions in the Marine Corps. Our analysis  of available data from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, which controlled for  attributes such as race, gender, rank, education, and years of service,  found racial and gender disparities were more likely in actions that first  brought servicemembers into the military justice system. Specifically, we  found that:

Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than  White and female servicemembers to be the subjects of recorded  investigations in all of the military services, and were more likely to be  tried in general and special courts-martial in the Army, the Navy, the  Marine Corps, and the Air Force.

There were fewer statistically significant racial and gender disparities  in most military services in general and special courts-martial that  were preceded by a recorded investigation than in general and special  courts-martial overall. We also found that statistically significant racial  and gender disparities in general and special courts-martial that did  not follow a recorded investigation were similar to those we identified  for general and special courts-martial overall.

Black and male servicemembers were more likely than White and  female servicemembers to be tried in summary courts-martial and to  be subjects of nonjudicial punishment in the Air Force and the Marine  Corps. The Army and the Navy did not maintain complete data, and  the Coast Guard had too few summary courts-martial for us to  analyze, and did not maintain complete nonjudicial punishment data.

We identified fewer statistically significant racial or gender disparities in  case outcomes—convictions and punishment severity. Specifically:

Race was not a statistically significant factor in the likelihood of  conviction in general and special courts-martial in the Army, the Navy,  the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, but gender was a statistically  significant factor in the Marine Corps.

Black servicemembers were less likely to receive a more severe  punishment in general and special courts-martial compared to White  servicemembers in the Navy but there was no statistically significant  difference for Black servicemembers in the Marine Corps, the Army,  and the Air Force. Additionally, there were no statistically significant  differences for Hispanic servicemembers in the Navy, the Marine  Corps, the Army, or the Air Force; and males were more likely than  females to receive a more severe punishment in the Marine Corps,  the Army, and the Air Force.

Finally, DOD and the military services have taken some steps to study  racial and gender disparities in the military justice system over the last  several decades, but they have not comprehensively studied the extent or  causes of any disparities.

Black, Hispanic, and Male Servicemembers Were More Likely to Be Subjects of Recorded Investigations and Tried in General and Special Courts-Martial

Black, Hispanic, and Male Servicemembers Were More Likely to Be Subjects of Recorded Investigations in All of the Military Services

Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White  or female servicemembers to be the subjects of recorded investigations in  all of the military services, after controlling for other attributes, as shown  in figure 5. Servicemembers in the Other race category were more likely  than White servicemembers to be the subjects of recorded investigations  in the Navy, but were less likely in the Army. Our analyses did not  identify any statistically significant differences for servicemembers in the  Other race category from the Air Force, the Marine Corps, or the Coast  Guard.

For the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force, Black,  Hispanic, and male servicemembers were more likely than White and  female servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial  after controlling for other attributes, as shown in figure 6 below.  Servicemembers in the Other race category were more likely than White  servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial in the  Navy, but we found no statistically significant differences in the likelihood  of servicemembers in the Other race category in the Army, the Marine  Corps, and the Air Force to be tried in general and special courts-martial  compared to White servicemembers. We could not analyze Coast  Guard cases due to the small number of general and special courts- martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal years 2013 through  2017.

More Statistically Significant Racial and Gender Disparities Found in General and Special Courts-Martial Cases without a Recorded Investigation than with a Recorded Investigation

When separating general and special court-martial cases into those that  either were or were not preceded by an investigation recorded in an  MCIO database, we found fewer statistically significant racial and gender  disparities in most of the military services in general and special courts- martial that were preceded by a recorded investigation. However,  statistically significant racial and gender disparities were also present in  general and special courts-martial that did not follow a recorded  investigation in all services included in this analysis, which would include  cases where the investigation was performed by the servicemember’s  command.

Specifically, as shown in figure 7 below, we found that Black, Hispanic,  Other, and male servicemembers in the Army, Hispanic servicemembers  in the Marine Corps, and males in the Air Force were more likely than  White or female servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts- martial following a recorded investigation, after controlling for other  attributes. We found no statistically significant differences in the  likelihood of any other racial or gender groups to be tried in general and  special courts-martial following a recorded investigation in any other  services. Our analyses of general and special courts-martial with a recorded investigation generally found fewer statistically significant  differences compared to the results of our analyses for all special and  general courts martial.

We also found that Black and male servicemembers in all of the military  services were more likely than White and female servicemembers to be  tried in general and special courts-martial without a recorded investigation  after controlling for other attributes, as shown in figure 8 below. Further,  Hispanic servicemembers in the Army were more likely than White  servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial without a  recorded investigation, but we found no statistically significant differences  in the likelihood of Hispanic servicemembers to be tried in general and  special courts-martial without a recorded investigation in the Marine  Corps, the Navy, or the Air Force. We found no statistically significant  differences in the likelihood of servicemembers in the Other race category  to be tried in general and special courts-martial compared to White  servicemembers in all of the military services. Our findings of racial and  gender disparities in general and special courts-martial without a  recorded investigation found statistically significant differences for Black  and male servicemembers consistent with the differences we identified for  general and special courts-martial overall, as shown in figure 6 above.

Black and Male Servicemembers Were More Likely to Be Subject to Summary Courts- Martial and Nonjudicial Punishment in the Air Force and Marine Corps, and the Other Services Lack Data

Black and Male Servicemembers Were More Likely to Be Tried in Summary Courts-Martial in the Air Force and Marine Corps, and the Army and Navy Lack Data

Black and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female  servicemembers to be tried in summary courts-martial in the Air Force  and the Marine Corps after controlling for other attributes, as shown in  figure 9 below. We did not identify any statistically significant differences  in summary courts-martial rates for servicemembers who identified as  Hispanic or in the Other race category in either the Air Force or the  Marine Corps. We could not determine whether there were racial or  gender disparities for summary courts-martial in the Army, the Navy, and  the Coast Guard due to data limitations.

We could not analyze Coast Guard cases due to the small number of  summary courts-martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from 2013  through 2017. We could not determine whether disparities existed among  servicemembers tried in summary courts-martial in the Army and the  Navy because the Army and the Navy did not collect complete summary  courts-martial data in their investigations, military justice, or personnel  databases. Specifically, as part of our data reliability checks, we identified  the total number of summary courts-martial that the Army and the Navy  reported in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces annual reports for  fiscal years 2013 through 2017, and compared these totals to the number  of cases we identified in their military justice databases. While our  comparisons are not exact, due to differences in the dates we used to  count the number of cases, we found that approximately 60 percent of the  Army’s reported summary courts-martial cases and less than 50 percent  of the Navy’s reported summary courts-martial cases were included in  their military justice databases.

Army and Navy officials cited several reasons why complete summary  courts-martial information was not collected. First, they said that the  services are not required to collect and maintain complete data on  summary courts-martial because these cases result in non-criminal  convictions under the UCMJ. Summary courts-martial are typically used  for minor offenses, and the accused is not guaranteed the right to be  represented by a military attorney. As a result, military attorneys may not  be involved in summary courts-martial. Army and Navy officials said that if  military attorneys are not involved in the case, there is not likely to be a  record of the case in their service’s military justice database. In contrast,  Air Force officials said that they provide a military attorney to represent  the accused in summary courts-martial; as a result, Air Force officials said  their attorneys create records for these cases in the Air Force’s military  justice database. The Marine Corps does not maintain summary court- martial data in its military justice database but tracks summary courts- martial in its personnel database.

Officials in the Navy and the Army told us that the lack of complete  summary court-martial data in their military justice databases is also in  part because these systems were not designed to serve as repositories  for complete military justice data. Instead, the officials said that the  military justice databases were primarily created to assist attorneys in  generating trial documents, meeting timeframes, and other aspects of  case management. Nevertheless, Army officials said they plan to start  collecting more complete summary court-martial information. Specifically,  Army officials said that the Army is encouraging their judge advocate  general staff to create records for all summary courts-martial in the  service’s military justice database.

The absence of complete summary court-martial data in the military  justice databases of the Army and the Navy limits these services’ visibility  into any disparities that may exist among servicemembers involved in  these types of military justice proceedings. On December 17, 2018, the  General Counsel of the Department of Defense issued the uniform  standards and criteria required by article 140A of the Military Justice Act  of 2016. As part of these uniform standards, the services were directed to  collect certain information about all cases in their military justice  databases, which a DOD official said includes summary courts-martial  cases. The military services are to implement the Secretary’s direction no  later than December 23, 2020.

Black and Male Servicemembers Were More Likely to Be Subject to Nonjudicial Punishments in the Air Force and the Marine Corps, and the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard Lack Data

Black and male servicemembers were more likely than White or female  servicemembers to be subject to nonjudicial punishments in the Air Force  and the Marine Corps, after controlling for other attributes, as shown in  figure 10 below. In the Air Force, we found that Hispanic  servicemembers were more likely than White servicemembers to receive  nonjudicial punishments, while we observed no statistically significant  differences in nonjudicial punishment rates for Hispanic servicemembers  in the Marine Corps. Servicemembers in the Other race category in the  Marine Corps were less likely to receive nonjudicial punishments, but we  observed no statistically significant differences in nonjudicial punishment  rates for servicemembers in the Other race category in the Air Force.

However, we could not determine whether there were racial or gender  disparities among servicemembers subject to nonjudicial punishments in  the Army, the Navy, and the Coast Guard because these services do not  collect complete nonjudicial punishment data, such as data on the  servicemember’s race, ethnicity, gender, offense, and punishment, in any  of their databases. As part of our data reliability checks, we identified the  total number of nonjudicial punishments that the Army, the Navy, and the  Coast Guard reported in the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces  annual reports for fiscal years 2013 through 2017, and compared these  totals to the number of cases we identified in their military justice and  personnel databases. As shown in figure 11 below, we found that 65  percent of the Army’s reported nonjudicial punishments, 8 percent of the  Navy’s reported nonjudicial punishments, and 82 percent of the Coast  Guard’s reported nonjudicial punishments were recorded in their military  justice databases.

Officials from these services cited several reasons why they did not have  complete information about all nonjudicial punishments. First, they said  that the services are not required to track nonjudicial punishment cases  because they are non-criminal punishments that are typically imposed for  less serious offenses. Army and Navy officials noted that complete  records of these punishments are not recorded at least in part because  nonjudicial punishments are not meant to follow servicemembers  throughout their career, but instead are intended to incentivize  servicemembers to correct their behavior. Because nonjudicial  punishments are not criminal punishments, the process afforded to  servicemembers in nonjudicial punishment proceedings differs as well.  For example, the servicemember is not guaranteed the right to  representation by a military attorney. Army and Navy officials noted that  their military justice databases contain records of nonjudicial punishments  if there was legal involvement by the Judge Advocate General’s Corps in  the case. Similarly, Coast Guard officials said that their military justice  database contains records of nonjudicial punishment if a case originated  as a criminal case involving a judge advocate, for example, if charges  were preferred. According to Air Force and Marine Corps officials, the Air  Force maintains complete nonjudicial punishment data in its military  justice database, and the Marine Corps maintains complete nonjudicial  punishment data in its personnel database.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management should use quality information to achieve an entity’s  objectives. Additionally, management should identify information  requirements; ensure that the data it receives are timely and reliable; and  process the data obtained into quality information. Officials from the  Army, the Navy, and the Coast Guard expressed concerns regarding the  feasibility of collecting and maintaining information about all nonjudicial  punishments. Army officials stated that the collection and maintenance of  all nonjudicial punishment data would be a substantial administrative  burden due to the number of nonjudicial punishments awarded to  servicemembers every week. Navy officials also stated that it would be a  significant challenge to collect and maintain information about all  nonjudicial punishments in either the Navy’s military justice database or  its personnel database. They stated that there are few individuals who  have access and can input data into the military justice database, and to  expand the scope of criminal justice data collected in that manner, more  people would have to be hired or assigned to assist with data entry.  Similarly, Coast Guard officials said that tracking all nonjudicial  punishment cases would be a difficult addition to their current data  collection and maintenance workload. Coast Guard officials further stated  that in addition to providing commanders with an essential means of  providing good order and discipline, nonjudicial punishment also may  promote positive change. Some Coast Guard officials stated concerns  that recording all nonjudicial punishments in a database may inhibit the  rehabilitative component of nonjudicial punishment.

While the Army, Navy, and Coast Guard officials expressed these  concerns, none of these military services had formally assessed the  feasibility of collecting data on nonjudicial punishments. The absence of  complete nonjudicial punishment data limits the military services’ visibility  into the vast majority of legal punishments imposed on servicemembers  under the UCMJ every year. Without such data, these three services will  remain limited in their ability to assess or identify disparities among  populations subject to this type of punishment.

Few Statistically Significant Racial or Gender Disparities Exist in Likelihood of Conviction or Severity of Punishment, but the Coast Guard Does Not Collect and Maintain Complete Data

Race Was Not a Statistically Significant Factor in Convictions in General and Special Courts-Martial, but Gender Was in the Marine Corps

Among the servicemembers convicted in general and special courts- martials, we found no statistically significant differences regarding the  likelihood of conviction among racial groups in the Army, the Navy, the  Marine Corps, and the Air Force, while controlling for other attributes, as  shown in figure 12 below. In the Marine Corps, male servicemembers  were more likely to be convicted compared to female servicemembers.  We found no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of  convictions between males and females in the Army, the Air Force, and  the Navy.

In the military services that maintained complete punishment data—the  Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air Force—we found that  minority servicemembers were either less likely to receive a more severe  punishment in general and special courts-martial compared to White  servicemembers, or there were no statistically significant differences in  punishments among racial groups. Our findings regarding gender varied  among the services. Male servicemembers were more likely to receive a  more severe punishment compared to females in the Marine Corps, the  Army, and the Air Force; for the Navy, we found there were no statistically  significant differences in punishments between males and females.

Navy and Marine Corps: Among servicemembers that were convicted in  general and special courts-martial in the Marine Corps, we found no  statistically significant differences regarding minority servicemembers  being more likely or less likely to receive a dismissal or discharge  punishment versus some other punishment, while controlling for other  attributes, as shown in figure 13 below. In the Navy, among  servicemembers that were convicted in general and special courts- martial, Black servicemembers were less likely than White  servicemembers to receive a discharge or dismissal. We found no  statistically significant differences regarding Hispanic servicemembers or  those of Other races in the Navy. In the Marine Corps, among  servicemembers that were convicted in general and special courts-martial, male servicemembers were more likely than female  servicemembers to receive a discharge or dismissal. In the Navy, there  were no statistically significant differences in punishments between males  and females.

Army and Air Force: We found no statistically significant differences  regarding Black or Hispanic servicemembers being more likely or less  likely to receive a more severe punishment in the Air Force or the Army,  while controlling for other attributes, as shown in figure 14 below. We  also found that servicemembers in the Other race group were less likely  to receive a more severe punishment compared to White  servicemembers in the Army, but punishment results for servicemembers  in the Other race group in the Air Force were not statistically significant.  Additionally, we found that male servicemembers were more likely to  receive a more severe punishment compared to female servicemembers  in the Army and the Air Force.

We could not determine disparities in case outcomes—convictions and  punishment severity—in the Coast Guard’s general and special courts- martial for fiscal years 2013 through 2017 because the Coast Guard did  not collect and maintain complete conviction and punishment data in its  military justice database. Specifically, 16 percent of all Coast Guard  cases were missing conviction and punishment data. When broken down  by court-martial type, 20 percent of general court-martial cases, 15  percent of special court-martial cases, and 4 percent of summary court- martial cases were missing conviction and punishment data. Coast Guard  officials acknowledged that incomplete conviction and punishment data  entry is a consistent problem. They said that data entry had improved  recently. On December 17, 2018, the General Counsel of the Department  of Defense issued the uniform standards and criteria required by article  140a of the Military Justice Act of 2016. As part of these uniform  standards, the services were directed to collect information about the  findings for each offense charged, and the sentence or punishment  imposed. The military services are to implement the Secretary’s direction  no later than December 23, 2020.

DOD and the Military Services Have Conducted Some Assessments of Military Justice Disparities, but Have Not Studied the Causes of Disparities

DOD and the military services have conducted some assessments of  disparities in the military justice system. We previously reported in 1995  on DOD studies on discrimination and equal opportunity, and found DOD  and the services conducted seven reviews of racial disparities in  discipline rates between 1974 and 1993. Since our 1995 report through  2016, DOD and service assessments of military justice disparities have  been limited. Officials in the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion  (ODEI) noted DOD has not conducted any department-wide assessments  of racial or gender disparities in military justice during this period. The  military services’ diversity offices also were not able to identify any  service-specific reviews of disparities in military justice.

However, the military services have some initiatives to examine and  address disparities in military justice. For example, Air Force officials said  that in May 2016, the Air Force conducted a servicewide data call to  solicit information about cases involving a challenge to a member of a  court-martial based on race or a motion for selective prosecution. The  officials said that a thorough review revealed no evidence of selective  prosecution in Air Force courts-martial. In addition, the Air Force has  conducted analyses of its own military justice data. Specifically, the Air  Force routinely analyzes military justice data using a rates-per-thousand  analysis to identify whether certain demographic groups are tried by  court-martial or subject to nonjudicial punishments at higher rates than  others. These Air Force analyses found that Black and male  servicemembers were more likely than White and female  servicemembers to be subject to courts-martial and nonjudicial  punishments from fiscal years 2013 through 2017, which is consistent  with what we found. However, the other services do not routinely  conduct such analyses.

Moreover, DOD has conducted climate surveys to address  servicemembers’ perceptions of bias. In 2013, for example, DOD  conducted service-wide equal opportunity surveys that queried  servicemembers on whether they believed they received nonjudicial  punishment or a court martial they should not have, and whether they  believed their race or ethnicity was a factor. The survey responses  showed that 1.3 percent of servicemembers indicated experiencing a  perceived undue punishment, a result that was unchanged from the 2009  survey. Minority members were more likely to indicate experiencing  perceived undue punishment than White members, but there were no  significant differences between racial or ethnic groups who indicated  experiencing undue punishment. ODEI officials told us that their office did  not make any recommendations related to military justice as a result of  these 2013 survey results because the findings were too small to warrant  such steps. Moreover, ODEI officials said that while they have not  completed their analysis of the 2017 survey data, the question about  receiving nonjudicial punishment or court-martial had been removed from  the 2017 survey. ODEI officials explained that the question was removed  because the perception of unfair punishment was not the goal of the  survey, although they said that the question could be reinstated for future  surveys if the goals for the survey change.

In June 2017, ODEI initiated a review of the military justice system  following the publication of a report by a non-profit organization that found  racial disparities in military justice actions. According to ODEI officials,  their review assesses disparities in the military justice system using a  similar analysis to that in the non-profit organization’s report, which  analyzed rates of military justice actions per thousand servicemembers.  ODEI officials told us they also observed racial and gender disparities  among servicemembers involved in the military justice system in their  own analysis of the service data. The officials said that the report on the  results of their review will not directly address the issue of whether bias  exists in the military justice process or the causes of any disparities, but  will serve as a precursor to a future research study that looks more  comprehensively into the issue of whether bias exists in the military  justice system. ODEI officials said that their report should be issued in  2019.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that  management uses quality information to make informed decisions and  evaluate the entity’s performance in achieving key objectives and  addressing risks. The standards further provide that management should  evaluate issues identified through monitoring activities and determine  appropriate corrective actions. Officials from DOD and the military  services acknowledged that they do not know the cause of the racial and  gender disparities that have been identified in the military justice system.  This is because they have not conducted a comprehensive evaluation to  identify potential causes of these disparities and make recommendations  about any appropriate corrective actions to remediate the cause(s) of the  disparities. By conducting a comprehensive analysis into the causes of  disparities in the military justice system, DOD and the military services  would be better positioned to identify actions to address disparities, and  thus help ensure that the military justice system is fair and just, a key  principle of the UCMJ.

The single overarching principle of the UCMJ is that a system of military  law can foster a highly disciplined force if it is fair and just, and is  recognized as such by both members of the armed forces and by the  American public. DOD and the military services collect and maintain data  on the race, ethnicity, and gender of all servicemembers. However, these  data vary within and across the services, limiting the ability to collectively  or comparatively assess military justice data to identify any disparities.  DOD has recently taken steps to address this issue by directing the  military services to, no later than December 23, 2020: collect uniform race  and ethnicity data in their military justice databases, or aggregate any  expanded ethnic or racial categories to the categories listed in the  standards; collect either the social security number or DOD identification  number in their military justice databases; and collect complete summary  courts-martial information. It will be important for the military services to  complete these actions to allow for efficient analysis and reporting of  consistent military justice data.

However, the newly issued standards apply only to the military justice  databases and not to the investigations and personnel databases. The  ability to query and report on the gender of servicemembers in its military  justice database would provide the Coast Guard with more readily  available data to identify or assess any gender disparities that may exist  in the investigation and trial of military justice cases without merging data  from multiple databases. Moreover, taking steps to develop the capability  to present the race and ethnicity data from the military services’ personnel  and investigations databases using the same categories included in the  December 2018 standards for the military justice databases would enable  DOD and the military services to more easily and efficiently assess the  extent to which there are any racial or ethnic disparities throughout the  military justice process.

Further, DOD’s annual reports about the number and status of pending  military justice cases do not include demographic information, such as  breakdowns by race or gender, about servicemembers who experienced  a military justice action. Reporting this information would provide  servicemembers and the public with greater visibility into potential  disparities and help build confidence that DOD is committed to a military  justice system that is fair and just. Moreover, DOD does not have  guidance that establishes criteria to determine when data indicating  possible disparities among racial, ethnic, or gender groups in the  investigations, trials, or outcomes of cases in the military justice system  should be further reviewed, or describes the steps that should be taken to  conduct such further review. By establishing such criteria, DOD and the  services would be better positioned to monitor the military justice system  to help ensure that it is fair and just, a key principle of the UCMJ.

Our analysis of available data identified racial and gender disparities in all  of the military services for servicemembers with recorded investigations,  and for four of the military services for trials in special and general courts- martial, but these disparities generally were not present in the convictions  or punishments of cases. These findings suggest disparities may be  limited to particular stages of the military justice process for the period  covered by our analysis. However, we were unable to determine whether  there were disparities among servicemembers subject to nonjudicial  punishments in the Army, the Navy, and the Coast Guard because these  services do not collect complete nonjudicial punishment data, such as  data on the servicemember’s race, ethnicity, gender, offense, and  punishment for all nonjudicial punishments, in any of their databases. The  absence of complete nonjudicial punishment data in the Army, the Navy,  and the Coast Guard limits their visibility into the vast majority of legal  punishments imposed on servicemembers under the UCMJ every year.  Without such data, these three services will remain limited in their ability  to assess or identify disparities among populations subject to this type of  punishment.

Finally, DOD recently conducted a study of racial and gender disparities  in the military justice system, and expects to complete its report in 2019.  However, this study will not assess the causes of the racial and gender  disparities identified in the military justice system. Our findings of racial  and gender disparities, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful  discrimination has occurred, as that is a legal determination that would  involve other corroborating information along with supporting statistics. By  conducting a comprehensive evaluation of the causes of these disparities,  DOD and the military services would be better positioned to identify  actions to address disparities, and thus help ensure that the military  justice system is fair and just, a key principle of the UCMJ.

We are making a total of 11 recommendations, including 3 to the  Secretary of Homeland Security, 3 to the Secretary of Defense, 2 to the  Secretary of the Army, 2 to the Secretary of the Navy, and 1 to the  Secretary of the Air Force.

The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commandant  of the Coast Guard modifies the Coast Guard’s military justice database  so that it can query and report on gender information. (Recommendation  1)

The Secretary of the Army should develop the capability to present  servicemembers’ race and ethnicity data in its investigations and  personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity  established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military  justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Army’s investigations and  personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with  the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data  into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards,  or (3) implementing another method identified by the Army.  (Recommendation 2)

The Secretary of the Air Force should develop the capability to present  servicemembers’ race and ethnicity data in its investigations and  personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity  established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military  justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Air Force’s investigations  and personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance  with the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the  data into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform  standards, or (3) implementing another method identified by the Air  Force. (Recommendation 3)

The Secretary of the Navy should develop the capability to present  servicemembers’ race and ethnicity data in its investigations and  personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity  established in the December 2018 uniform standards for the military  justice databases, either by (1) modifying the Navy’s investigations and  personnel databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with  the uniform standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data  into the race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards,  or (3) implementing another method identified by the Navy.  (Recommendation 4)

The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commandant  of the Coast Guard develops the capability to present servicemembers’  race and ethnicity data in its investigations and personnel databases  using the same categories of race and ethnicity established in the  December 2018 uniform standards for the military justice databases,  either by (1) modifying the Coast Guard’s investigations and personnel  databases to collect and maintain the data in accordance with the uniform  standards, (2) developing the capability to aggregate the data into the  race and ethnicity categories included in the uniform standards, or (3)  implementing another method identified by the Coast Guard.  (Recommendation 5)

The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Joint Service Committee  on Military Justice, in its annual review of the UCMJ, considers an  amendment to the UCMJ’s annual military justice reporting requirements  to require the military services to include demographic information,  including race, ethnicity, and gender, for all types of courts-martial.  (Recommendation 6)

The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the  military services and the Secretary of Homeland Security, should issue  guidance that establishes criteria to specify when data indicating possible  racial, ethnic, or gender disparities in the military justice process should  be further reviewed, and that describes the steps that should be taken to  conduct such a review. (Recommendation 7)

The Secretary of the Army should consider the feasibility, to include the  benefits and drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete  information for all nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Army’s  databases, such as information on the servicemembers’ race, ethnicity,  gender, offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 8)

The Secretary of the Navy should consider the feasibility, to include the  benefits and drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete  information for all nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Navy’s  databases, such as information on the servicemembers’ race, ethnicity,  gender, offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 9)

The Secretary of Homeland Security should ensure that the Commandant  of the Coast Guard considers the feasibility, to include the benefits and  drawbacks, of collecting and maintaining complete information for all  nonjudicial punishment cases in one of the Coast Guard’s databases,  such as information on the servicemembers’ race, ethnicity, gender,  offense, and punishment imposed. (Recommendation 10)

The Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Secretaries of the  military services and the Secretary of Homeland Security, should conduct  an evaluation to identify the causes of any disparities in the military justice  system, and take steps to address the causes of these disparities as  appropriate. (Recommendation 11)

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and the Department of  Homeland Security for review and comment. Written comments from  DOD and the Department of Homeland Security are reprinted in their  entirety in appendixes X and XI, respectively. DOD and the Department of  Homeland Security provided additional technical comments, which we  incorporated in the report, as appropriate. In written comments, DOD  concurred with six recommendations, and partially concurred with two  recommendations that were directed to the Secretary of Defense. The  Department of Homeland Security concurred with the three  recommendations directed to the Secretary of Homeland Security.

DOD concurred with our six recommendations to present  servicemembers’ race and ethnicity data in each of the military services’  respective investigations and personnel databases using the same  categories of race and ethnicity established for their military justice  databases; consider an amendment to the UCMJ’s annual military justice  reporting requirements to require the military services to include  demographic information for all types of courts-martial; and consider the  feasibility of collecting and maintaining complete information for all  nonjudicial punishment cases.

DOD partially concurred with two of our recommendations, agreeing with  the content, but requesting that we modify the recommendations to direct  them to more appropriate entities. Specifically, DOD concurred with our  recommendations that guidance should be issued to establish criteria  specifying when data indicating possible racial, ethnic, or gender  disparities require further review and the steps that will be taken to  conduct the review; and to conduct an evaluation to identify the causes of  any racial or gender disparities in the military justice system and, if  necessary, take remedial steps to address the causes of these  disparities. For both recommendations, DOD suggested that the  Secretary of Homeland Security be added, and that we remove the DOD  Office for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and the Commandant of the  Coast Guard, as they fall under the Secretary of Defense and the  Secretary of Homeland Security, respectively. We agree with DOD’s  suggestions, and we have modified both recommendations accordingly.  In an email correspondence, the Department of Homeland Security and  the Coast Guard concurred with the updates.

In its written comments, the Department of Homeland Security concurred  with our three recommendations to modify the Coast Guard’s military  justice database so that it can query and report on gender information, to  present servicemembers’ race and ethnicity data in its investigations and  personnel databases using the same categories of race and ethnicity  established for the military justice database, and to consider the feasibility  of collecting and maintaining complete information for all nonjudicial  punishment cases.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Acting Secretary of Defense, and the Acting Secretary of  Homeland Security. In addition, this report will also be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your members of your staff have any questions regarding this  report, please contact me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made significant  contributions to this report are listed in Appendix XII.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to assess the extent to which (1) the  military services collect and maintain information about the race, ethnicity,  and gender of servicemembers investigated and disciplined for violations  of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that can be used to  assess disparities; and (2) there are racial and gender disparities in  investigations, disciplinary actions, and case outcomes in the military  justice system, and whether the Department of Defense (DOD) and the  military services have taken steps to study any identified disparities.

To address both of our objectives, we analyzed data collection, data  maintenance, and military justice disciplinary actions involving active-duty  servicemembers in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force,  and the Coast Guard. Although the Coast Guard is part of the Department  of Homeland Security, the Coast Guard is a military service and a branch  of the armed forces at all times.

We analyzed military justice actions initiated and recorded in service  investigations and military justice databases between fiscal years  2013 through 2017. We chose this time period because it provided the  most recent history of available military justice data at the time of our  review.

We requested record-level data from each of the military services’  personnel, investigations, and military justice databases, which  resulted in a total of 15 data requests.

Table 6 below provides an overview of the databases included in our  review, broken out by database type.

We sent individual data requests that were tailored based on our  conversations with service officials and our own analysis of the availability  of data. In addition to requesting the race, ethnicity, and gender of  servicemembers subject to military justice actions, we also requested  other demographic and administrative attribute data—such as rank, age,  years of service, duty station, and occupation—from the services’  personnel databases to include in our statistical models. We identified  these attributes by reviewing relevant literature and interviewing agency  officials.

Personnel databases. We requested and received monthly snapshots  with record-level data on all active-duty servicemembers in each of the  military services from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. Specifically, we  requested demographic and administrative data, including race, ethnicity,  gender, rank, education, age or date of birth, years of service, occupation,  location or duty station, deployed status, administrative or disciplinary  actions and dates, character of service separation, and servicemembers’  unique identifiers (social security number and employee identification  number).

Investigations databases. We requested and received record-level data  on all investigations recorded in a military service military criminal  investigative organization (MCIO) database that were initiated from fiscal  years 2013 through 2017, where the subject of the investigation was an  active-duty servicemember. For each case, we requested certain attribute  data on the investigation subject, including race, ethnicity, gender, rank,  age or date of birth, service and component, offense(s) investigated, case  initiation date, investigation source, investigating entity, investigation  outcome and date, incident location, and the subject’s unique identifier,  such as social security number or employee identification number. In  some services not all of these attributes were available or requested. For  example, since the Air Force database only included investigations  conducted by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, we did not  request information about the investigating entity. In addition, the Navy  Criminal Investigative Service provided us with data about and we  analyzed closed cases only, whereas the Army and the Air Force MCIOs  provided us with data about and we analyzed all cases in their database  during the period of our review.

Military justice databases. We requested and received record-level data  on all cases where a servicemember was subject to disciplinary  proceedings under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) from  fiscal years 2013 through 2017. For each case where charges were  preferred against a servicemember during this period, we requested  demographic and administrative data on the servicemember as well as  key information related to their case, including race, ethnicity, gender,  rank, age or date of birth, component, case type and forum, offense(s)  charged, case disposition and date, appeals status, case outcome or  sentence, disciplinary action taken, date charges were first preferred, and  the servicemember’s unique identifier, such as social security number or  employee identification number. We received general and special courts- martial data from all of the services from their military justice databases.  For the Army, in addition to data from their military justice database,  Military Justice Online, we also received courts-martial data from a  separate database, called the Army Court-Martial Information System  (ACMIS), which is used by the service’s trial judiciary to track courts- martial.

For summary courts-martial and nonjudicial punishments, the services  varied in the extent that and the location where they collected and  maintained complete data for these two military justice actions, as is  discussed further earlier in this report.

In the Air Force, summary courts-martial and nonjudicial punishment  data is maintained in the service’s military justice database, the  Automated Military Justice Analysis and Management System.

The Marine Corps did not collect and maintain complete data about  summary courts-martial or nonjudicial punishments in its military  justice database, however, its personnel database included  information about all summary courts-martial and nonjudicial  punishments imposed on servicemembers during the period of our  review.

The Army and the Navy did not collect and maintain complete data  about summary courts-martial or nonjudicial punishments in their  military justice databases, or other databases. In these services,  summary courts-martial and nonjudicial punishments were recorded in  their military justice databases if these actions had involvement by the  services’ legal offices. Further, summary courts-martial and  nonjudicial punishments were recorded in the personnel databases  used by these services only if these actions resulted in an  administrative action against the accused, such as a forfeiture of pay  or reduction in grade.

The Coast Guard did not collect and maintain complete data about  nonjudicial punishments in its military justice database or other  databases; nonjudicial punishments were recorded in its military  justice database if a legal office was involved in the action. Further,  nonjudicial punishments were recorded in the Coast Guard’s  personnel database if they resulted in an administrative action against  the accused, such as a forfeiture of pay or reduction in grade.

Methods Used to Evaluate Collection and Maintenance of Data

To evaluate the extent to which the military services collect and maintain  race, ethnicity, and gender data about servicemembers investigated and  disciplined for violations of the UCMJ, we first reviewed service guidance,  user manuals, and other documents related to the services’  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases. We reviewed  these documents to determine:  the types of data officials are required to collect and maintain; and  the internal procedures the services follow in inputting information  about race, ethnicity, and gender data into each type of database.

For example, we determined whether collection of this information was  mandatory, and how this information was entered into and recorded in  each database. Specifically, we determined whether information about  race, ethnicity, and gender was entered into each database manually,  using a drop-down menu, or was auto-populated from another database.  Further, we identified the number of possible response options that each  database contained for each of these demographic fields.

Second, we interviewed service officials who manage and use the military  justice, investigations, and personnel databases to discuss: which fields in each database track the race, ethnicity, and gender of how these data are input and their insights regarding the reliability of  these data.

Specifically, we interviewed officials from the legal branches of the  military services, including the Army Office of the Judge Advocate  General, the Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps, the Marine Corps’  Judge Advocate Division, the Air Force Judge Advocate General’s Corps,  and the Coast Guard Office of the Judge Advocate General. In addition,  we spoke with officials in the military criminal investigative organizations  (MCIO), including the Army Criminal Investigation Command, the Naval  Criminal Investigative Service, the Air Force Office of Special  Investigations, and the Coast Guard Investigative Service. We also  interviewed officials from the manpower and personnel offices of the  services with responsibility for the services’ personnel databases,  including the Army’s Human Resources Command and the Office of the  Deputy Chief of Staff; the Navy’s Personnel Command; the Marine Corps  Manpower and Reserve Affairs Manpower Information Systems Branch;  the Air Force Personnel Center; and the Coast Guard’s Personnel  Service Center.

Finally, we analyzed the data we received from the investigations, military  justice, and personnel databases to determine the completeness of the  race, ethnicity, and gender information that was recorded in each of the  databases. We assessed the military services’ systems and procedures  for collecting data against DOD and service guidance and relevant federal  internal control standards.

Methods Used to Evaluate Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities

To evaluate the extent to which there are racial, ethnic, and gender  disparities in investigations, disciplinary actions, and case outcomes, we  analyzed data from the military services’ investigations, military justice,  and personnel databases to determine summary statistics and we then  conducted bivariate and multivariate regression analyses.

Investigations. We focused on alleged violations of the UCMJ that were  recorded in databases used by service-specific MCIOs. Investigations are  recorded in the MCIO databases when a servicemember is the subject of  a criminal allegation made by another person; for purposes of this report,  we say the servicemember had a “recorded investigation” to describe  these cases. We analyzed investigation information from the databases  used by each of the military services’ MCIOs. Specifically, we analyzed  data from the Army’s Criminal Investigation Command, which included  cases investigated by military police and Criminal Investigation  Command; the Navy and Marine Corps’ Naval Criminal Investigative  Service, which included cases investigated by the Naval Criminal  Investigative Service and military police; the Air Force’s Office of Special  Investigations, which included only Office of Special Investigations cases;  and the Coast Guard Investigative Service, which included only Coast  Guard Investigative Service cases. Our analysis of recorded  investigations data did not include investigations conducted by a  servicemember’s command, because those investigations are not  recorded in the MCIO databases.

Military Justice Discipline. We included in our definition of  servicemembers disciplined for a violation of the UCMJ those  servicemembers with cases that resulted in a trial in any type of court- martial (general, special, and summary), or servicemembers who were  subject to a nonjudicial punishment from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.  We analyzed data for trials in general and special courts-martial  separately from trials in summary courts-martial because general and  special courts-martial result in a criminal conviction if the servicemember  is found guilty, while summary courts-martial are not a criminal forum and  do not result in a criminal conviction. We analyzed general and special  courts-martial cases together due to the small number of cases for some  racial or gender groups. In addition, we also separated general and  special courts-martial into cases that either were or were not preceded by  an investigation recorded in an MCIO database. Our analysis of general  and special courts-martial cases without a recorded investigation included  those general and special courts-martial that were investigated by a  servicemember’s command or other law enforcement entities.

We used the preferral date, or the date when an accused servicemember  was first charged with a violation, to count the number of courts-martial  that occurred in a given fiscal year. However, each military service uses  the date in which the court-martial judgment was given when reporting the  number of each type of court-martial in their annual reports to the Court of  Appeals for the Armed Forces. As a result, the number of court-martial  cases in a given year analyzed for our review differs from what was  reported in the annual reports. In discussions with officials after we had  completed our preliminary analyses, they recommended that we use the  referral date instead of the preferral date, so that our total number of  cases would be more consistent with the number of cases that they  reported. However, changing the date for grouping cases would have  required us to request new military justice data from each of the military  services, and conduct additional work. Above all, using the preferral date  would not impact the findings of racial and gender disparities. In addition,  our analyses only counted cases that were ultimately tried at general,  special, or summary courts-martial, and excluded those cases where  charges were dismissed, withdrawn, or subject to some alternate  resolution. For nonjudicial punishments, we used the date that the  punishment was imposed.

To prepare the data for our analyses and ensure that we had consistent  profiles for the race, ethnicity, and gender of the servicemembers, we  merged records from the military services’ investigations, military justice,  and personnel databases. We merged records using servicemembers’  unique identifiers, such as social security number or employee  identification number, that were common among a particular service’s  databases. In some instances—a small proportion of cases—we could  not match personnel records with military justice records because the  social security number or employee identification number in the military  justice database did not match the information in the personnel database.  In other instances, we could not match personnel records with military  justice records because the military justice records did not contain a  social security number or employee identification number to match with  information found in their personnel record. We first tried to match these  cases using the servicemembers’ name and date of birth; however, in  some cases we were unable to match personnel records with  investigations or military justice cases. As a result, we compiled lists of  those cases we were unable to match, and we provided the services with  lists of these cases. Service officials manually looked up this data and  provided us with the missing social security numbers or employee  identification numbers for these cases so that we could complete our  analyses. These manual look up efforts increased our match rates so that  we had a data set that we determined was sufficiently complete to  perform our analyses.

For servicemembers who were the subjects of military justice actions, we  used the attribute data that was available in the personnel database at  the time an investigation or disciplinary action was initiated (the preferral  date for courts-martial). For our total service populations, which included  servicemembers who were not the subject of a military justice action, we  used their attribute data from the “median” snapshot of the five fiscal  years of personnel data we received. Based on discussions with service  officials, we treated the personnel databases as the authoritative sources  for servicemembers’ demographic and administrative data. For some  services when needed, if we identified a discrepancy in the race or  gender value for a servicemember between the data in the personnel and  military justice databases, we used the value recorded in the personnel  database because service officials had told us that the personnel  databases were the official sources for demographic data such as race  and gender, and would be more likely to contain more reliable data for  these fields than the investigations or military justice databases. For some  services where there were cases where an attribute value was missing in  the personnel database, we used the military justice or investigative  database as a secondary source for this information. In merging the  records from the personnel, military justice, and investigations databases,  we created a single data file for each service that contained attribute data  for all active-duty servicemembers, as well as complete information on  the investigation and discipline of servicemembers who were the subject  of a military justice action from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

In using this methodology to merge the records, the total number of  servicemembers we use in our report when discussing the total service  populations for each service is greater than the total active-duty force end  strength of that service in any given fiscal year. This is because our total  service populations represent the number of unique individuals who  served on active duty from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

In addition, as part of our data preparation, we consolidated the various  race and ethnicity values in the service personnel databases to the five  groups for race and the two groups for ethnicity established by Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) standards for maintaining, collecting,  and presenting data on race and ethnicity for all federal reporting  purposes. The five race groups in the standards are American Indian or  Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or  Other Pacific Islander; and White. The two ethnic groups are Hispanic or  Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. First, we collapsed race and ethnicity  data into a single combined field. Specifically, we grouped individuals of  Hispanic ethnicity together, regardless of their racial identification, so that  we could compare those of Hispanic ethnicity to other racial groups. We  did this in part because of the ways in which some of the services record  these data in their databases. For example, the Navy’s and the Marine  Corps’ military justice databases do not have separate fields for race and  ethnicity; instead, the values are tracked in a single field. Throughout the  discussion for objective 2 of this report, we refer to the combined race  and ethnicity values as race.

We then consolidated races to the five racial groups in the OMB  standards. When military service personnel databases included different  or additional possible options for race and ethnicity than the groups  established by the OMB standards, we consolidated the options in  accordance with the definitions for each race and ethnicity listed in the  OMB standards. Given the small number of cases in some racial groups,  we collapsed certain racial groups into an “Other” group in order to report  statistically reliable results. The “Other” group includes individuals who  identified as Asian, Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander, American  Indian/Alaska Native, and multiple races.

Summary statistics. We analyzed data from the military services’  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases to determine the  extent to which racial and gender groups were the subjects of recorded  investigations, tried in courts-martial, and subject to nonjudicial  punishments (for Army and Marine Corps, services for which we had  complete data) at higher rates or lower rates than each racial and gender  group’s proportion of the overall service populations. Other than our  analysis of recorded investigations, we did not analyze Coast Guard  cases due to the small number of general and special courts-martial  adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

To conduct this analysis, we used data on all active-duty servicemembers  to identify what proportion each racial group (White, Black, Hispanic, and  Other) and gender group (male, female) made up of the overall service  population from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. We then used data from  the services’ military justice or personnel databases to calculate the  representation of each racial and gender group as a percent of the  population subjected to each type of military justice action.

We also examined the rates at which certain racial and gender groups  were charged with drug offenses (Article 112a) and sexual assault  offenses (Article 120) compared to their proportions of the overall service  populations. See Appendix III for information regarding recorded  investigations and general and special courts-martial of drug and sexual  assault offenses. We analyzed these two specific UCMJ offenses  because officials from some services told us that an investigation into  these offenses may frequently be mandatory, and thus could potentially  mitigate the risk of bias. To conduct this analysis, we used offense data  from the services’ military justice databases to determine each racial and  gender group’s representation in the population that was the subject of a  military justice action for a drug, sexual assault, or other offense type.

Bivariate and Multivariate Regression Analyses. We developed a  logistic regression model using the data we received from the services’  investigations and military justice databases to determine the extent that  certain attributes were associated with higher rates of investigation or  discipline of servicemembers. We conducted bivariate logit analyses to  estimate the association between select attribute factors (or independent  variables) and the outcome variables (the dependent variable) in a binary  format, except for the two offense outcome variables. Table 7 below lists  all of the dependent and independent variables we used in our analyses.

To conduct our statistical analyses, we created groups for each  demographic and administrative attribute (independent variable) that we  tested in our regression model. We created these groups based on input  and guidance from service officials. While the modeling subgroups we  created are largely consistent across services, some values are different  for certain services. Table 8 summarizes the modeling groups we  constructed for each service for each attribute included in our regression  analyses.

When analyzing the severity of punishments, we developed two groups  for the Navy and the Marine Corps, and three groups for the Air Force  and the Army, as shown in table 9 below. We did not create a third  punishment group for confinement without dismissal or discharge for the  Navy and the Marine Corps because of the small number of cases with  confinement that did not also include some sort of discharge. Based on  discussions with service officials, we determined that a sentence resulting  in a dismissal or discharge was the most severe punishment outcome.

Typically, a logistic regression model is appropriate when the model  outcome is a binary (yes/no) response. Because the punishment groups  for the Army and the Air Force were not binary, they could not be  analyzed using a multivariate logistic regression. Instead, we used an  ordered logit model, also called an ordered logistic regression model, to  analyze punishment severity in the Army and the Air Force. An ordered  logistic regression is an extension of the logistic regression model that  applies to dependent variables where there are more than two response  categories. This model allowed us to examine the degree to which a  racial or gender group was more likely or less likely than another group to  receive a more severe punishment in general and special courts-martial,  while controlling for other attributes, such as gender, education, rank,  composition of panel, and offense type. To conduct this analysis, we  reviewed outcome data from the services’ personnel, investigations, and  military justice databases.

Based on our bivariate analyses, we determined which variables were  significantly associated with military justice actions, and that appeared to  be statistically significant predictors of an individual’s likelihood to be  subject to a military justice action. Appendix IX includes a summary of  those indicators for each of the services. We also examined correlation  matrices of the independent variables to determine where there were high  correlations between two variables. Where variables were highly  correlated, we chose one variable over the others or created a hybrid  variable combining those two variables. Specifically, we excluded age  and years of service for most of the military services, due to high  correlation with the rank variable. Based on our discussions with service  officials, they indicated that rank would be the preferred variable to  include in our analyses if selecting only one variable among rank, age,  and years of service. However, for the Air Force, based on discussion  with Air Force officials, we did control for years of service among the  lower enlisted ranks (E1-E4). In addition, we could not include education  for the Army due to variability and overlapping values in the data. Further,  we chose not to model attributes such as occupation and location due to  the great variability in these data and the difficulty in creating groups and  reaching agreement about those groups with service officials.

Based on these results, we then conducted a series of multivariate  logistic regression models. Multivariate logistic regression modeling is a  statistical method that examines several variables simultaneously to  estimate whether each of these variables are more likely or less likely to  be associated with a certain outcome. A multivariate regression analysis  analyzes the potential influence of each individual factor on the likelihood  of a binary outcome (e.g., a specific military justice action) while  simultaneously accounting for the potential influence of the other factors.  This type of modeling allowed us to test the association between  servicemember characteristics, such as race or gender, and the odds of a  military justice action (shown as the outcome variables in table 7 above),  while holding other servicemember attributes constant (such as gender,  rank, and education, shown as the independent variables in table 7  above). We conducted a separate regression for each of the military  justice actions listed as an outcome variable. We selected this type of  model because it could account for the attributes simultaneously. For the  purposes of consistency, in our multivariate regression analyses, we  made all racial comparisons with White servicemembers as the reference  category. Similarly, we made all gender comparisons with female  servicemembers as the reference category.

A logistic regression model provides an estimated odds ratio, where a  value greater than one indicates a higher or positive association; in this  case, between the race, ethnicity, or gender of a servicemember (the  independent variables) and the likelihood of being the subject of a military  justice action (the dependent, or outcome, variable). An estimated odds  ratio less than one indicates lower odds or likelihood of being the subject  of a military justice action when a factor—here, a specific demographic or  administrative attribute—is present. The statistical significance of the  logistic regression model results is determined by a p-value of less than  0.05. As a result, in our report we state that odds ratios that are  statistically significant and greater than 1.00 or lower than 1.00 indicate  that individuals with that characteristic are more likely or less likely,  respectively, to be the subject of a particular outcome or military justice  action. In cases where the p-value was greater than 0.05, we report that  we could not identify any statistically significant differences, which means  that we could not conclude that there was an association between race or  gender and the likelihood of a military justice action.

We report the results from our regression models as odds ratios. We  generally report multivariate results from testing associations between  key attributes—including race, ethnicity, gender, rank, and education—on  a servicemember’s likelihood of being investigated and disciplined for a  UCMJ violation. In the body of this report, we focused on race and gender  disparities among servicemembers investigated and disciplined for  violations of the UCMJ, while holding other factors constant; however, our  analyses of recorded investigations and general and special courts-  martial for drug and sexual assault offenses are discussed in Appendix III.  In all of these analyses for the Air Force, we also controlled for years of  service among the lower enlisted ranks (E1-E4). In the analyses we  conducted for the Army, we could not control for education, but we were  able to control for age.

All regression models are subject to limitations. For our analyses, the  limitations included:

Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal  relationship. We did not identify the causes of any racial or gender  disparities, and the results of our work alone should not be used to  make conclusions about the military justice process. Our analyses of  these data in finding the presence or absence of racial or gender  disparities, taken alone, do not establish the presence or absence of  unlawful discrimination, as that is a legal determination that would  involve other corroborating information along with supporting  statistics.

We could not assess some attributes that potentially could be related  to a servicemember’s likelihood of facing a military justice action in the  data analyzed for this review. For example, a servicemember’s  socioeconomic background or receipt of a waiver upon entering the  service could potentially be related to the likelihood of being  investigated, tried in a court-martial, or subject to a nonjudicial  punishment. However, we were unable to test these associations  because most services indicated they did not have information about  socioeconomic status or waivers in the databases that we requested  data from. Furthermore, while some other attributes may have been  available—such as marital status of the subject or the number of  dependent children—we did not include these attributes in our data  requests because we prioritized analyzing other demographic factors  based on our background research and conversations with service  officials.

As outlined above, we incorporated input from service officials to the  extent possible as we prepared our modeling groups for the  demographic and administrative attributes we tested, such as rank,  education, and years in service. However, this process was  necessarily imprecise. Our modeling results may have been impacted  by our discretionary decisions to include certain values in the groups  we created for these variables.

Data reliability. We conducted data reliability assessments on the  datasets we received from the databases in our review. We examined the  documentation officials provided to us on each database and conducted  electronic tests on the data we received to check for completeness and  accuracy. We also sent data reliability questionnaires to database  managers about how the data are collected and their appropriate uses,  and had discussions with database managers to discuss the reliability of  the data in their databases. When we determined that particular fields  were not sufficiently reliable, we excluded them from our analysis. For  example, we did not use data in our analysis where a substantial number  of values were missing. We also checked to see that the values for  variables were internally consistent and that results were not affected  unduly by outlier values that might suggest miscoded values. For the  purposes of our analysis, we found the variables we ultimately reported  on to be sufficiently reliable. Furthermore, due to the sensitivity of the  information analyzed in this report, we did not include information in  instances where the number of servicemembers subjected to a particular  military justice action was fewer than 20, to protect privacy.

Literature review. To assess the extent to which disparities in the military  justice system and the civilian justice system had been previously  assessed, we conducted a literature review. To identify relevant  publications about disparities in the military justice system and the civilian  justice system, we performed a literature search of a number of  bibliographic databases, including ProQuest Academic, ProQuest Dialog,  Scopus, EBSCO, and HeinOnline. We also searched two think tank  search engines: Policy File and the Think Tank Search (from the Harvard  Kennedy School). We received the following types of publications:  scholarly/peer reviewed material, dissertations, and association/think  tank/nonprofit publications. To identify publications by DOD and the  services related to the military justice system, we reviewed prior GAO  reports and asked officials at the DOD Office of Diversity, Equity and  Inclusion, and in the services’ respective diversity and inclusion offices to  identify relevant publications. We concluded our searches in October  2018. We also asked the service Judge Advocate General offices for  publications relevant to disparities in military justice. We also identified  publications in our own background information search. We reviewed  those publications that assessed racial, ethnic, or gender disparities  among servicemembers in the military justice system. While the civilian  and military justice systems differ from each other, we selected a few  nationwide studies examining disparities in the civilian justice system to  summarize in the background section of our report, in order to enhance  our understanding of the complexities of the issues, including how others  have attempted to measure disparities. We did not assess the  methodologies used in any of these studies or the reliability of the data  cited in the studies; the studies related to the civilian justice system are  discussed in our report to provide broader context for the discussion  about racial and gender disparities in the military justice system.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2017 to May 2019  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform an audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Summary Statistics and Bivariate Results for Regression Analyses

Rate and Likelihood of Recorded Investigations by Race and Gender

As shown in figure 15 below, our analysis of data contained in the military  services’ military criminal investigations databases found that Black  servicemembers were subjects of recorded investigations at a higher rate  compared to their proportion of the overall service population in all of the  military services. Hispanic servicemembers were the subjects of  recorded investigations at a higher rate compared to their proportion of  the overall service population in the Navy and the Air Force, at a lower  rate in the Marine Corps, and at the same rate in the Army. Additionally,  we found that males were the subjects of recorded investigations at  higher rates than their share of the general service population in all of the  military services.

In addition, figure 15 above also shows the results of our bivariate  analyses, which calculated the degree to which one racial or gender  group was more likely or less likely than another racial or gender group to  be the subject of recorded investigations. Our bivariate analyses found  that Black and male servicemembers in all of the military services were  statistically significantly more likely to be the subjects of recorded  investigations for alleged UCMJ violations than servicemembers of all  other races or females. Hispanic servicemembers were statistically  significantly more likely in the Navy, the Air Force, and the Coast Guard,  and were statistically significantly less likely in the Army to be the subjects  of recorded investigations than servicemembers of all other races.  Servicemembers in the Other race category were statistically significantly  less likely than servicemembers of all other races to be the subjects of  recorded investigations in the Army and the Marine Corps. Our bivariate  analyses did not show any statistically significant differences for  servicemembers in the Other race category in the Navy, the Air Force, or  the Coast Guard, or Hispanic servicemembers in the Marine Corps.

Rate and Likelihood of Trial in General and Special Courts-Martial

As shown in figure 16 below, Black, Hispanic, and male servicemembers  in all of the military services included in this analysis were represented at  a higher rate than their proportions of the overall service population.  White and female servicemembers in all of the military services were  represented at a lower rate than their proportions of the overall service  population. Servicemembers in the Other race category were represented  at a higher rate in the Navy, at a lower rate in the Army and the Air Force,  and at the same rate in the Marine Corps compared to their proportion of  the overall service population. We could not analyze Coast Guard cases  due to the small number of general and special courts-martial adjudicated  in the Coast Guard from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

The bivariate regression analysis results in figure 16 above calculate the  degree to which one racial or gender group was more likely or less likely  than servicemembers of all other races and genders to be tried in general  and special courts-martial. We found that Black and male  servicemembers in all of the military services were more likely to be tried  in general and special courts-martial than servicemembers of all other  races or females. Our bivariate analyses found that Hispanic  servicemembers in the Army were more likely to be tried in general and  special courts-martial than servicemembers of all other races. We found  no statistically significant differences in the likelihood of Hispanic  servicemembers to be tried in general and special courts-martial  compared to servicemembers of all other races in the Navy, the Marine  Corps, and the Air Force. White and female servicemembers in all of the  military services were less likely to be tried in general and special courts- martial than servicemembers of other races or males. Furthermore,  servicemembers in the Other race category were more likely in the Navy  and less likely in the Army to be tried in general and special courts-martial  than servicemembers of other races. We found no statistically significant  differences in the likelihood of servicemembers in the Other race category  to be tried in general and special courts-martial in the Marine Corps and  the Air Force compared to servicemembers of other races.

Rate and Likelihood of Trial in General and Special Courts-Martial Following a Recorded Investigation

As shown in figure 17 below, for trials in general and special courts- martial that followed a recorded investigation, Black servicemembers  were represented at a lower rate in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine  Corps, and at the same rate in the Air Force compared to their  proportions of the service population that had recorded investigations.  Hispanic servicemembers in trials of general and special courts-martial  following a recorded investigation were represented at a higher rate than  their proportion of the overall service population that had recorded  investigations in the Army and the Marine Corps, and at the same rate in  the Navy and the Air Force. White servicemembers were represented at a  lower rate in the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps, and at the same  rate in the Air Force compared to their proportions of the service  population with recorded investigations. Servicemembers in the Other  race category were represented at a higher rate in the Army, the Navy,  and the Marine Corps, and at the same rate in the Air Force compared to  their proportions of the overall service population with recorded  investigations. We could not analyze Coast Guard cases due to the  small number of general and special courts-martial adjudicated in the  Coast Guard from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

Male servicemembers with trials in general and special courts-martial that  followed a recorded investigation were represented at a higher rate in all  of the military services compared to their proportions of the service  population that had recorded investigations. Females were represented at  a lower rate in all of the military services compared to their proportions of  the service population that had recorded investigations.

As shown in figure 17 above, our bivariate regression analyses showed  that, in the Army, White servicemembers were statistically significantly  less likely to be tried in general and special courts-martial following a  recorded investigation than servicemembers of all other races, whereas  Hispanic servicemembers were statistically significantly more likely to be  tried following a recorded investigation. In the Navy, servicemembers in  the Other race category were statistically significantly more likely to be  tried in general and special courts-martial following a recorded  investigation than servicemembers of all other races. Males were more  likely, and females were less likely, to be tried in general and special  courts-martial following a recorded investigation in the Army and the Air  Force. The remaining odds ratios shown in figure 17 above were not  statistically significant.

Rate and Likelihood of Trial in General and Special Courts-Martial without Recorded Investigation

We identified racial and gender disparities in the rate and likelihood of trial  in general and special courts-martial in cases without a recorded  investigation in all of the military services. Specifically, as shown in figure  18 below, for trials in general and special courts-martial without a  recorded investigation, Black and male servicemembers in all of the  military services were represented at a higher rate than their proportion of  the service population that did not have a recorded investigation.  Hispanic servicemembers were represented at a higher rate in the Army  and the Marine Corps, and at the same rate in the Navy and the Air Force  compared to their proportions of the service population that did not have a  recorded investigation. Servicemembers in the Other race category were  represented at a lower rate in the Marine Corps and the Air Force, and at  the same rate in the Army and the Navy compared to their proportion of  the overall service population that did not have a recorded investigation.  White and female servicemembers in all of the military services were  represented at a lower rate than their proportions of the overall service  population without a recorded investigation. We could not analyze Coast  Guard cases due to the small number of general and special courts- martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal years 2013 through  2017.

The bivariate regression analysis results in figure 18 above calculate the  degree to which one racial or gender group was more likely or less likely  than servicemembers of all other races and genders to be tried in general  and special courts-martial without a recorded investigation. We found  that Black and male servicemembers in all of the military services were  more likely to be tried at special and general courts-martial that were not  preceded by a recorded investigation than servicemembers of all other  races or females. White and female servicemembers in all of the military  services were less likely to be tried at special and general courts-martial  that were not preceded by a recorded investigation than servicemembers  of all other races and males. We found no statistically significant  differences in the likelihood of Hispanic servicemembers or  servicemembers in the Other race category in any of the military services  being tried in general and special courts-martial without a recorded  investigation compared to servicemembers of all other races.

Rate and Likelihood of Trial in Summary Courts- Martial in the Air Force and the Marine Corps

We identified racial and gender disparities in the rate and likelihood of trial  in summary courts-martial in the Air Force and the Marine Corps.  Specifically, as shown in figure 19 below, Black and male  servicemembers were tried in summary courts-martial for UCMJ  violations at higher rates than their share of the overall service population  in the Air Force and the Marine Corps. White and Hispanic  servicemembers were tried in summary courts-martial at lower rates than  their share of the overall service population in both services.  Servicemembers that were included in the Other race category were tried  at higher rates in the Air Force, and at lower rates in the Marine Corps.  We could not determine whether there were any racial or gender  disparities for summary courts-martial in the Army and the Navy because  these services did not collect complete summary court-martial data— information about all summary court-martial cases, to include  demographic information about the subject—in their investigative, military  justice, or personnel databases, as discussed above in the report. We  could not analyze Coast Guard cases due to the small number of  summary courts-martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal years  2013 through 2017.

The bivariate regression analysis results in figure 19 above calculate the  degree to which one racial or gender group was more likely or less likely  than servicemembers of all other races and genders to be tried in  summary courts-martial. We found that Black servicemembers in the  Marine Corps and the Air Force were more likely to be tried in summary  courts-martial than servicemembers of all other races. We also found that  male servicemembers were more likely than their female counterparts to  be tried in summary courts-martial in the Marine Corps and the Air Force.  We observed no statistically significant differences in summary court- martial rates for servicemembers in the Other race category in either the  Marine Corps or the Air Force, or for Hispanic servicemembers in the  Marine Corps.

Rate and Likelihood of Nonjudicial Punishments in the Air Force and the Marine Corps

As shown in figure 20 below, we found that Black and male  servicemembers were subject to nonjudicial punishment for UCMJ  violations at a higher rate than their share of the overall service  population in the Marine Corps and the Air Force. White servicemembers  were subject to nonjudicial punishments at lower rates than their share of  the overall service population in both services, and Hispanic  servicemembers were subject to nonjudicial punishments in a proportion  equal to their share of the general service population in both services.  Servicemembers that were included in the Other race category were  subject to nonjudicial punishment at lower rates than their share of the  overall service population in the Marine Corps and the Air Force. We  could not analyze nonjudicial punishments in the Army, the Navy, and the  Coast Guard because these services do not collect complete nonjudicial  punishment information.

The bivariate regression analyses in figure 20 above calculate the degree  to which one racial or gender group was more likely or less likely than  another racial or gender group to be subject to nonjudicial punishment.  We found that Black and male servicemembers were more likely than  servicemembers of all other races or female servicemembers to receive  nonjudicial punishments in the Marine Corps and the Air Force. We also  found that Hispanic servicemembers in the Air Force were less likely to  be subject to nonjudicial punishment, but we observed no statistically  significant difference for Hispanic servicemembers in the Marine Corps.  Servicemembers in the Other race category were less likely to be subject  to nonjudicial punishment than servicemembers of all other races in the  Marine Corps and the Air Force.

Rate and Likelihood of Conviction in General and Special Courts-Martial

As shown in figure 21 below, we found that Black servicemembers were  convicted in general and special courts-martial at a lower rate in the Army  and the Air Force, and at an equal rate in the Navy and the Marine Corps  compared to their proportion of the overall general and special courts- martial population. In the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps,  Hispanic servicemembers were convicted in general and special courts- martial at an equal rate compared to their proportion of the overall general  and special courts-martial population. Compared to their proportion of the  overall general and special courts-martial population, Hispanic  servicemembers were convicted at a lower rate in the Air Force. We could  not analyze Coast Guard cases due to the small number of general and  special courts-martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal years  2013 through 2017.

As shown in figure 21 above, bivariate regression analyses found that, in  the Army, White servicemembers were statistically significantly more  likely to be convicted, whereas Black servicemembers were statistically  significantly less likely to be convicted in general and special courts- martial compared to all other servicemembers. White servicemembers  in the Air Force were also statistically significantly more likely to be  convicted in general and special courts-martial compared to all other  servicemembers. In the Marine Corps, we found that males were more  likely to be convicted than females, whereas in the Air Force, males were  less likely to be convicted than females. The remaining odds ratios shown  in figure 21 above were not statistically significant.

Rate and Likelihood of More Severe Punishment

As shown in figures 22 and 23 below, we found that Black  servicemembers received a more severe punishment at a lower rate  compared to their share of the convicted service population in the Army,  the Navy, and the Air Force. We also found that Hispanic  servicemembers received a more severe punishment at a lower rate  compared to their share of the convicted service population in the Air  Force, but at a higher rate in the Marine Corps. We found that male  servicemembers in the Marine Corps and the Air Force received a more  severe punishment at a higher rate, and at the same rate in the Army and  the Navy, compared to their share of the convicted service population.  Females received a more severe punishment at a lower rate in the Air  Force and the Marine Corps, and at the same rate in the Army and the  Navy, compared to their share of the convicted service population. We  could not analyze Coast Guard cases due to the small number of general  and special courts-martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal  years 2013 through 2017.

The bivariate regression analyses in Figures 22 and 23 above calculated  the degree to which one racial or gender group was more likely or less  likely than another racial or gender group to be dismissed or discharged  after a conviction in general and special courts-martial. In the Navy, we  found that Black servicemembers were statistically significantly less likely  to be dismissed or discharged after conviction in general and special  courts-martial compared to all other servicemembers. We found no  statistically significant differences regarding minority servicemembers  being more likely or less likely to be dismissed or discharged after  conviction in general and special courts-martial in the Marine Corps, or to  receive a more severe punishment in the Army or the Air Force. We  found that males in the Marine Corps and the Air Force were more likely  to be dismissed or discharged or receive a more severe punishment after  conviction than females, but we did not find any statistically significant  differences regarding male servicemembers in the Army or the Navy.

Appendix III: Analysis of Drug Offenses, Sexual Assault Offenses, and All Other Offenses

This appendix contains several figures that show the underlying data  related to drug and sexual assault offenses from fiscal years 2013  through 2017 for the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, and the Air  Force. Across most military services, Black, Hispanic, and male  servicemembers were the subjects of recorded investigations and tried in  general and special courts-martial at higher rates than their shares of the  overall service population for drug offenses, sexual assault offenses, and  all other offenses. We found that the likelihood of conviction varied  among the services for these two offenses. We analyzed these two  specific Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) offenses separately from  all other offenses because service officials told us that an investigation  into these offenses may frequently be mandatory, and thus could  potentially mitigate the risk of bias. We analyzed data for these offenses  for recorded investigations, trials in general and special courts-martial,  and convictions from fiscal years 2013 through 2017 to assess the extent  to which racial and gender disparities may exist. Our analyses of the services’ investigation, military justice, and personnel databases, as  reflected in these figures, taken alone, do not establish the presence or  absence of unlawful discrimination.

Recorded Investigations of Drug and Sexual Assault Offenses

We identified racial and gender differences in recorded investigation rates  for drug offenses, sexual assault offenses, and all other offenses  compared with the total service populations. Our analysis focused on  alleged UCMJ violations for these offenses that were recorded in the  Military Criminal Investigative Organization (MCIO) investigations  databases. Other investigations conducted within the military, such as  command investigations, were not considered in this analysis. For  example, as shown in figure 24 below, Black servicemembers were the  subjects of recorded investigations for drug offenses, sexual assault  offenses, and all other offenses at a higher rate than their share of the  overall service population across all military services. Hispanic servicemembers were the subjects of recorded investigations for drug  offenses, sexual assault offenses, and all other offenses at a higher rate  than their share of the overall service population in the Air Force, but  were the subjects of recorded investigations for drug offenses at a lower  rate than their share of the overall service population in both the Army  and the Marine Corps. Male servicemembers were the subjects of  recorded investigations for drug offenses and sexual assault offenses at a  higher rate than their share of the overall service population across all of  the military services.

General and Special Courts-Martial Trials for Drug and Sexual Assault Offenses

We found that White servicemembers were tried for drug offenses, sexual  assault offenses, and all other offenses in general and special courts- martial at lower rates than their share of the overall service population  across all of the military services. Black servicemembers were tried for  drug offenses, sexual assault offenses, and all other offenses in general  and special courts-martial at a higher rate than their share of the overall  service population in all of the military services. Hispanic servicemembers  were tried for drug offenses in general and special courts-martial at a  lower rate in the Navy and the Marine Corps, and at a higher rate in the  Air Force, compared to their share of the overall service population.  Hispanic servicemembers were tried for sexual assault offenses at a  higher rate than their proportion of the overall service population in all of  the military services. Female servicemembers were tried for drug  offenses, sexual assault offenses, and all other offenses in general and  special courts-martial at lower rates than their share of the general  service population in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and were  tried for sexual assault offenses and all other offenses at lower rates than  their share of the overall service population in the Marine Corps. Figure  25 below shows the gender and racial composition of general and special  court-martial trials for drug offenses, sexual assault offenses, and all  other offenses. We could not analyze Coast Guard cases due to the small  number of general and special courts-martial adjudicated in the Coast  Guard from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.

Likelihood of Conviction for Drug and Sexual Assault Offenses

We conducted multivariate regression analyses to calculate the degree to  which servicemembers charged with drug offenses and sexual assault  offenses were more likely or less likely than a composite variable  comprised of all other offenses to be convicted in general and special  courts-martial, while controlling for other attributes, such as race, gender,  education, and rank. As shown in figure 26 below, we did not identify any  statistically significant difference in conviction rates for drug offenses  compared to all other offenses in the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps,  and the Air Force. Sexual assault offenses were less likely to result in a  conviction in the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force, and there was no  statistically significant difference for the Marine Corps. We could not  analyze Coast Guard cases due to the small number of general and  special courts-martial adjudicated in the Coast Guard from fiscal years  2013 through 2017.

This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data and  analyses used throughout this report relating to Army personnel and  military justice disciplinary actions from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.  We did not include populations that contained fewer than 20  servicemembers in the total populations presented in these tables to  ensure the protection of sensitive information. As a result, the total  populations presented in this appendix may vary among the different  tables and may vary from the total populations presented in the body of  the report. Our analyses of the Army’s investigations, military justice, and  personnel databases, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not  establish the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.

Multivariate Regression Analyses of Army Data

The multivariate results listed below in table 17 show the odds ratios for  the multivariate regression analyses of the Army data. We used logistic  regression to assess the relationship between the independent variables,  such as race, education, rank, or gender, with the probability of being  subject to a military justice action. Logistic regression allows for the  coefficients to be converted into odds ratios. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and greater than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are more likely to be subject to a military justice action.  For example, an odds ratio of 1.55 for Black servicemembers would mean  that they are 1.55 times more likely to be subject to a military justice  action compared to White servicemembers. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and lower than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are less likely to be subject to a military justice action.  We excluded years of service from the Army analyses due to high  correlation with the rank variable.

This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data and  analyses used throughout this report relating to Navy personnel and  military justice disciplinary actions from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.  We did not include populations that contained fewer than 20  servicemembers in the populations presented in these tables to ensure  the protection of sensitive information. As a result, the populations  presented in this appendix may vary among the different tables and may  vary from the populations presented in other places in this report. Our  analyses of the Navy’s investigations, military justice, and personnel  databases, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish the  presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.

Multivariate Regression Analyses of Navy Data

The multivariate results listed below in table 26 show the odds ratios for  the multivariate regression analyses of Navy data. We used logistic  regression to assess the relationship between the independent variables,  such as race, education, rank, or gender, with the probability of being  subject to a military justice action. Logistic regression allows for the  coefficients to be converted into odds ratios. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and greater than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are more likely to be subject to a military justice action.  For example, an odds ratio of 1.55 for Black servicemembers would mean  that they are 1.55 times more likely to be subject to a military justice  action compared to White servicemembers. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and lower than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are less likely to be subject to a military justice action.  We excluded age and years of service from the Navy multivariate  regression analyses due to high correlation with the rank variable.

Appendix VI: Marine Corps Data and Analyses

This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data and  analyses used throughout this report relating to Marine Corps personnel  and military justice disciplinary actions from fiscal years 2013 through  2017. We did not include populations that contained fewer than 20  servicemembers in the populations presented in these tables to ensure  the protection of sensitive information. As a result, the populations  presented in this appendix may vary among the different tables and may  vary from the populations presented in other places in this report. Our  analyses of the Marine Corps investigations, military justice, and  personnel databases, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not  establish the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.

Multivariate Regression Analyses of Marine Corps Data

The multivariate results listed below in table 35 show the odds ratios for  the multivariate regression analyses of Marine Corps data. We used  logistic regression to assess the relationship between the independent  variables, such as race, education, rank, or gender, with the probability of  being subject to a military justice action. Logistic regression allows for the  coefficients to be converted into odds ratios. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and greater than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are more likely to be subject to a military justice action.  For example, an odds ratio of 1.55 for Black servicemembers would mean  that they are 1.55 times more likely to be subject to a military justice  action compared to White servicemembers. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and lower than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are less likely to be subject to a military justice action.  We excluded age and years of service from the Marine Corps multivariate  regression analyses due to high correlation with the rank variable.

Appendix VII: Air Force Data and Analyses

This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data and  analyses used throughout this report relating to Air Force personnel and  military justice disciplinary actions from fiscal years 2013 through 2017.  We did not include populations that contained fewer than 20  servicemembers in the populations presented in these tables to ensure  the protection of sensitive information. As a result, the populations  presented in this appendix may vary among the different tables and may  vary from the populations presented in other places in this report. Our  analyses of the Air Force’s investigations, military justice, and personnel  databases, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish the  presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.

Multivariate Regression Analyses of Air Force Data

The multivariate results listed below in table 45 show the odds ratios for  the multivariate regression analyses of Air Force data. We used logistic  regression to assess the relationship between the independent variables,  such as race, education, rank, or gender, with the probability of being  subject to a military justice action. Logistic regression allows for the  coefficients to be converted into odds ratios. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and greater than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are more likely to be subject to a military justice action.  For example, an odds ratio of 1.55 for Black servicemembers would mean  that they are 1.55 times more likely to be subject to a military justice  action compared to White servicemembers. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and lower than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are less likely to be subject to a military justice action.  We controlled for years of service among the lower enlisted ranks (E1- E4), but excluded age from the Air Force multivariate regression analyses  due to high correlation with the rank and years of service variables.

Appendix VIII: Coast Guard Data and Analyses

This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data and  analyses used throughout this report relating to Coast Guard personnel  and military justice disciplinary actions from fiscal years 2013 through  2017. We did not include populations that contained fewer than 20  servicemembers in the populations presented in these tables to ensure  the protection of sensitive information. As a result, the populations  presented in this appendix may vary among the different tables and may  vary from the populations presented in other places in this report. Our  analyses of the Coast Guard’s investigations, military justice, and  personnel databases, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not  establish the presence or absence of unlawful discrimination.

Multivariate Regression Analyses of Coast Guard Data

The multivariate results listed below in table 52 show the odds ratios for  the multivariate regression analyses of Coast Guard data. We used  logistic regression to assess the relationship between the independent  variables, such as race, education, rank, or gender, with the probability of  being subject to a military justice action. Logistic regression allows for the  coefficients to be converted into odds ratios. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and greater than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are more likely to be subject to a military justice action.  For example, an odds ratio of 1.55 for Black servicemembers would mean  that they are 1.55 times more likely to be subject to a military justice  action compared to White servicemembers. Odds ratios that are  statistically significant and lower than 1.00 indicate that individuals with  that characteristic are less likely to be subject to a military justice action.  We excluded age and years of service from the Coast Guard analyses  due to high correlation with the rank variable.

Appendix IX: Key Indicators for Military Justice Actions

We found that age, rank, length of service, and education were indicators  of a servicemember’s likelihood of being the subject of a recorded  investigation, court-martial, or nonjudicial punishment across the military  services. To analyze age, rank, length of service, and education, we  used bivariate regression analyses to determine which sub-population of  each attribute was most likely to be subject to a recorded investigation,  court-martial, or nonjudicial punishment. This appendix contains several  tables that show the rank, education, length of service, and age groups  most likely to be subject to a recorded investigation, tried in general and  special courts-martial, tried in summary court-martial, and receive a  nonjudicial punishment for all services from fiscal years 2013 through  2017. For the Coast Guard, we could not analyze age, rank, length of  service, and education as indicators for courts-martial or nonjudicial  punishment due to the small number of recorded military justice cases  from fiscal years 2013 through 2017. Our analyses of the services’  investigations, military justice, and personnel databases, as reflected in  these tables, taken alone, do not establish the presence or absence of  unlawful discrimination.

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Defense

Appendix XI: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov.

In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report  were Kimberly C. Seay, Assistant Director; Parul Aggarwal; Christopher  Allison; Renee S. Brown; Vincent M. Buquicchio; Won (Danny) Lee; Amie  M. Lesser; Serena C. Lo; Dae B. Park; Samuel J. Portnow; Clarice  Ransom; Christy D. Smith; Preston Timms; and Schuyler Vanorsdale.

We assessed whether there are racial or gender disparities in the military justice system.

Blacks, Hispanics, and males were more likely than Whites or females to be tried in general and special courts-martial in all military services

Race was not a statistically significant factor in the likelihood of conviction in general and special courts-martial

The services do not record information on race and ethnicity the same way, making it more difficult to identify disparities

We made 11 recommendations, including that DOD evaluate and take steps to address the causes of disparities in the military justice system.