1. Soldier 2020
“Soldier 2020 is about a standards-based Army. The mission is to match the right Soldiers - regardless of whether they are men or women - to jobs that best correspond to their abilities. This makes for a stronger Army and allows all Soldiers to best reach their full potential.”
Command Sgt. Maj. Daniel Dailey, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command
2013
SGA Note: This is a quote from the former TRADOC CSM who is now the Sergeant Major of the Army.
Allow students sufficient time to read and reflect on the slide.
c. Publish and Process (5 minutes):
Q: What did you feel when you read this quote?
Q: What are your thoughs about the final line?

2. Soldier 2020

3. Lesson Scope
In this two-hour lesson, students will understand Soldier On 19 April 2013, HQ, Department of the Army, issued strategic guidance for (Army gender) integration implementation planning. Designated Soldier 2020, this initiative reflects the Army’s effort to address policies on women in combat and to evaluate all positions in the Army to determine their requirements – physical, mental, and emotional - regardless of gender. The goal of Soldier 2020 is to enhance force readiness and capability by applying a scientific approach for evaluating and validating MOS-specific standards. This will aid leadership in selecting the best-qualified Soldiers regardless of gender for each position. The long-term development of leaders is the focus. The result is a warrior leader who masters and exemplifies the attributes and core leader competencies from a life-long learning process.
SGA Notes:
In February 2016, TRADOC tasked CAC with leading the effort to:
1) Lead for the Educate Line of Effort for TRADOC and the Army.
2) Develop and deploy leader education plans focused on the findings and recommendations of gender integration studies; to include, the TRAC Gender Integration Study, and the Army Research Institute (ARI) integration studies.
3) NLT 1 April 2016, assess and train all officer and enlisted AOCs/MOSs against gender-neutral occupational standards.
This lesson was developed to support to the tasks above of educating the force in PME by providing information on final GIS findings and recommendations associated with the impact of integrating women into previously closed specialties.

4. Lesson ELO ELO: 400-SMC-1011.21, P930.13, Soldier 2020
Action: Discuss the Army’s cultural and institutional risk factors in the Gender Integration Study (GIS) associated with full integration of women into the Armed Forces.
Condition: As a member of a small discussion group or through Interactive Multimedia Instruction and drawing on past training, education, personal experience, and individual learning while faced with ambiguous, ill-structured problems characteristic of the operational environment.
Standard: Discussion includes:
Background to integration
Soldier 2020 mission
Policy changes
Components (OPAT/HPDT)
Risk factors
Mitigation strategies
Barriers to successful integration
Way forward (GIS)
End state
Learning Domain: Cognitive
Level of Learning: Understanding

5. Soldier 2020
Background: Initiative began?...and affected what branches?
Soldier 2020 Mission
To match the right Soldiers - regardless of whether they are men or women - to jobs that best correspond to their abilities. This makes for a stronger Army and allows all Soldiers to best reach their full potential.
Policy changes
OPAT - Series of physical performance tests used to assess a Soldier’s physical capabilities.
Provides a measure of upper and lower body muscular strength and endurance, power output, and aerobic capacity.
Standards are not adjusted for age and physiological differences between the sexes.
Made up of four events designed to help determine whether or not a male or female recruit has the physical aptitude to perform demanding tasks in combat arms occupations.
Performance tests include the standing long jump, medicine ball put, dumbbell squat and the beep test, all completed on the same day. Soldiers should be wearing a PT Uniform for all events.
HPDT – consists of a series of physically demanding tasks associated w/the branch and/or MOS. Branch schools have the task to ensure that the most demanding tasks are being training and tested in OSUT, AIT and BOLC
SGA Note: Background: refer and ask what the student discovered when they read the Soldier 2020 FAQ handout? Answers should include that this initiative began in 2011 and progress throughout the past years to today’s actions.
Mission: is to match the right Soldiers - regardless of whether they are men or women - to jobs that best correspond to their abilities. This makes for a stronger Army and allows all Soldiers to best reach their full potential.
Policy changes: OPAT/HPDT – implement NLT 31OCT16 OPORD
HPDT – branch schools have the task to ensure that the most demanding tasks are being training and tested in OSUT, AIT and BOLC NLT 1 APR. (TASKORD is IN160363
Background:
In 2011, the Army began assessing barriers to service for women. In 2012, over 14,000 positions were opened with the elimination of the co-location restriction and the assignment of women to maneuver battalion headquarters in nine Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) as an exception to the Direct Ground Combat Assignment Rule (DGCAR). In January 2013, the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, announced the rescission of 1994 DGCAR and the assessment of all positions in the Armed forces for possible integration of women.
In May 2013, the Army submitted its implementation plan to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). The Secretary of Defense and the CJCS have reviewed the plan and directed the Army to proceed in a measured and responsible way.
In August 2013, the Army opened approximately 6,000 additional positions in 17 Active Component (AC) BCTs, nine National Guard (NG) BCTs, and Special Operations Aviation for assignment of women.
In January 2014, the Army notified the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Congress of its plan to open an additional 33,000 positions in already open occupational specialties in additional maneuver battalions.
On June 17, 2014, the Army opened approximately 33,000 previously closed positions in 132 open occupations across the Army. On September 3, 2014, the Army opened 1,562 positions in the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment, U.S. Army Special Operations Command. By the end of 2014, 109,011 positions remained closed to females in the conventional Army. There were also 3,831 positions closed to females in special operations units.
On 7 January 2015, the Army authorized women to attend the Ranger Course as an assessment to inform future decisions. All of the women participating in the study were required to successfully complete the Ranger Training Assessment Course (RTAC), a two week course conducted by the U.S. Army National Guard Training Center at Fort Benning, GA.
On February 25, 2015, the Army opened 4,131 positions for Military Free Fall Additional Skill Identifier and various positions in the headquarters of Special Operations battalions. On
March 24, 2015, the Army opened the Skill Identifier 3X (Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle Commander course).
On June 16, 2015, the Army opened 12B (Enlisted Combat Engineer) and associated additional skill identifiers, approximately 20,563 positions. This represented the first true ground combat MOS opened to women and the complete opening of the Engineer career field.
On July 21, 2015, OSD notified Congress of the Secretary of the Army’s request to open Army Artillery specialties 13B (Cannon Crew Member) and 13D (Automated Field Artillery Tactical Data System Specialist) with associated additional skill identifiers, approximately 19,716 positions. The Congressional notification period was complete at the end of October 2015.
The Army shifted its decision point to September 2015 for Field Artillery MOS 13F (Fire Support Specialist) and Armor and Infantry to incorporate lessons learned from opening previously closed positions, coupled with the results from the GIS.
On August 31, 2015, the Secretary of the Army opened the Ranger Course to female Soldiers, followed by the September 2, 2015, all Army activities (ALARACT) 146/2015 – Ranger Course Attendance.
On October 28, 2015, the Army opened 13B (Cannon Crewmember) and 13D (Field Artillery Automated Tactical Data System Specialist).
These actions required the Army to plan for the expansion of opportunities for women by opening all remaining closed Areas of Concentration (AOC), Military Occupational Specialties (MOS), units and positions as expeditiously as possible, but no later than 1 Jan 2016.
Policy changes:
OPAT/HPDT: TRADOC is responsible for two key efforts of the Army’s Soldier 2020 implementation plan; the physical demands study – that verified physical performance requirements in the Army’s most physically demanding combat arms occupations and led to developing a predictive physical aptitude tests for accessions; and the gender integration study – conducted to identify and understand institutional and cultural factors associated with the integration of women into previously closed positions and units.
The physical demands study gave us actual, validated physical tasks all Soldiers perform in our most physically demanding occupations. These tasks helped us design a test to predict each recruit’s physical aptitude to succeed in our most physically demanding jobs.
The Occupational Physical Assessment Test is a predictive test made up of four events – standing long jump, seated power throw, strength deadlift and interval aerobic run. In others words, think of the OPAT as the ASVAB for physical aptitude, predicting whether or not a recruit will be physically able to succeed in a combat arms occupation by the end of their training.
It is similar to how the ASVAB helps predict a recruit’s future academic success and aligns them to a particular MOS. Although the exact date for beginning the OPAT in our recruiting centers has not been determined, a large-scale validation test is underway until mid-2016.
The physical demands study is part of Soldier 2020, which will help the Army determine the standards necessary to perform combat-related MOS’s, including those in armor, infantry, field artillery and combat engineering. Soldier 2020 is an initiative designed to integrate women into once-closed MOS’s. “Soldier 2020 is about a standards-based Army ─ upholding the standards of our profession ─ the Army Profession,” said Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel A. Dailey during the 2013 unveiling of the initiative, when he was TRADOC senior enlisted advisor. “Our work will allow us to match the right Soldiers, regardless of whether they are men or women, to jobs that best correspond to their abilities.”
Physical demands study researchers have logged thousands of miles in travel to test hundreds of Soldier volunteers at various Army installations including Fort Bliss, Texas; Fort Sill, Okla., and Fort Carson, Colo. They have also tested hundreds of Soldiers in the human research volunteer pool at Natick. After identifying 31 common and physically demanding tasks in combat-related MOS’s, researchers got to work.
“What we hope to do in the end is come up with a battery of five or six tests of these physical fitness tests and predictor tests, which will predict performance in your MOS,” Sharp said. “That way we can say in order to be qualified as combat engineer you need to [perform] these five tests, and this is what you need to score on those tests or you probably are not going to make it in that job. That’s the bottom line.”
Instructor Note: Instructors should take time here to discuss branch specific concerns, requirements, and tasks w/respect to the Soldier 2020 mission and OPAT/HPDT. This discussion should also serve as a good transition to the 17 risk factors as identified in the GIS.

6. GIS Findings Risk Identification and Mitigation
To address integration risk factors in the Near, Mid, and Far, Army leaders must mitigate the risk of each factor with prioritization on Standards & Policy, Leadership and Time.
Force 2015
Force 2025B
Near (2015)
Mid ( )
Far (2020)
Standards & Policy
Leader Development
Time
Factor Risk
Initial
Final
Physical Standards SH SA
Pregnancy
Field environment
Reclassification
Fraternization
Professional Stds of conduct
Physical
proximity
Factor Risk
Initial
Final
Differences in leadership styles
Combat arms unit culture
Stereotypes about women
Tokenism
Role models
Factor Risk
Initial
Final
Consensual sex
Men as protectors
Spouse concerns
SGA Note: The GIS study identified 17 factors expected to affect the integration of women in previously closed MOS and units. The study also placed the risk factors into near, mid, and far term challenges.
This report also recommended that the Army proceed with gender integration of all previously closed AOCs, MOSs, units, and positions. Analysis determined that the mitigated risk of the identified study factors to unit morale, cohesion, and readiness is moderate if the Army can appropriately address two high-risk factors: Soldier concerns about sexual harassment (SH) and sexual assault (SA).
Background: After completing the initial risk assessment, the TRAC study team executed the second step – develop mitigation controls. The team convened 9 student seminars consisting of 124 Master Sergeants (MSG) and Sergeants Major (SGMs) at USASMA to assist with refining the initial mitigation strategies. The study team decomposed these strategies into three control types – physical, education/awareness, and avoidance/elimination – by factor and presented these controls to seminar groups. Through structured facilitation, the study team elicited feedback to accept, reject, or refine the proposed controls. The seminar groups also recommended additional controls. Following this activity, seminar group members individually voted on the refined set of controls. The study team consolidated the voting results and prepared for the third step: risk assessment with mitigation controls in place.
Instructor note: mitigation slides do not depict/capture all of the (GIS) mitigation strategies. Intent is for instructors to the initial mitigation information as a spring-board to other GIS findings or individual (audience generated) recommendations of how to mitigate the identified risk.
Risk
Extreme
High
Moderate
Low
Reduction
Minor
Major
The identified factors are not mutually exclusive – they are inter-related. Addressing a factor now has downstream implication for other factors.
Risk assessed by ~400 MSG/SGMs and command teams in 4 BCTs
Initial – Risk if the Army integrates and takes no action.
Final – Risk if the Army executes GIS recommendations.

7. Mitigation Strategies (Major Factors)
Physical standards – Develop MOS-specific physical standards.
Pregnancy – Educate currently closed MOSs about Army pregnancy policy.
SH/SA – Leader involvement and command emphasis. Assign women together at the company level in previously closed units. Plan and resource physical security control in barracks, offices, common areas. (Areas received the highest concern to MCR.)
Combat Arms Culture – Establish, communicate, and enforce boundaries of what is and is not acceptable language and behavior. Plan and resource a long-term leader development initiative that focuses on team building.
Field Environment – Disseminate regs./policies on personal hygiene and leverage best practices from currently integrated units.
Fraternization – Educate/enforce Army fraternization policy, plan/resource physical security controls, increase NCO oversight of barracks.
Consensual Sex - Educate/enforce Army frat policy, plan/resource controls.
SGA Note: Potential Impacts to Morale, Cohesion, and Readiness. Overall, analysis indicates a high level of concern that the current combat arms unit culture is incompatible with gender integration. Here are some of the major concerns:
Discuss each bullet briefly

8. Mitigation Strategies (Major Factors – cont’d)
Stereotypes about Women – Assign men/women together to heighten awareness in order to mitigate the effect, educate commanders in closed units on specific policies related to women i.e., prior to arrival.
Differences in Leadership Style – Continue to open combat-oriented schools (Sapper Leader Course, Ranger School) IOT expose all to leadership styles
Men as protectors – Train men/women together; ensure leaders assign duties and responsibilities consistently/equally to soldiers to avoid segregation.
Reclassification – counsel candidates, allow only volunteers, access only those soldiers who meet MOS-specific physical standards.
SGA Note: Discuss each bullet briefly

9. Mitigation Strategies (Minor Factors)
Spousal Concerns – Leaders should continue to use current Army programs to help strengthen unit families and reduce impacts.
Tokenism – Leader awareness and education are key.
Roles Models – Unit leaders should strive at a minimum to serve as role models while actively pursuing mentorship opportunities w/junior Soldiers.
Physical Proximity – Leaders must acknowledge and set the conditions for professional conduct in close quarters.
Professional Standards of Conduct – Leaders must emphasis appropriate conduct and the professional military ethic.
SGA Note: Here are some of the identified minor factors: Discuss each bullet briefly
Instructors should take time here to discuss the risk factors (from both a general and specific branch concern) using the questions below.
1. What is your initial reaction to the list?
2. Which are most relevant to NCOs?
3. How are we as NCOs addressing these?
4. What do we need to do to prepare to address the risk factors identified in the GIS?
5. What is your reaction to the GIS finding that places Sexual Harrassment/Sexual Assault in a high-risk category?
6. How can/could we/you mitigate? What recommendations would you add/make to the list?
Risk factors and mitigation strategies: The TRAC study draws upon wide-ranging research activities that the TRAC study team conducted from early 2013 through The study used a multimethod research design and identified institutional and cultural factors anticipated to affect gender integration. TRAC also surveyed eight critical subpopulations in the Army and received more than 60,000 responses from men and women across the force, ranging from junior Soldiers to senior general officers. Additionally, TRAC interviewed hundreds of Soldiers in small focus groups at various TRADOC, Forces Command (FORSCOM), Army National Guard (ARNG), and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) locations. GIS identified these factors through four sources: 1) literature review of 200+ works; 2) eight surveys including Army women and combat arms Soldiers (over 60k participants); 3) 130 focus groups conducted across the Army; and 4) subject matter expert elicitation from numerous senior leaders and the Army Education Advisory Committee.
Upon identification of 17 study factors, the GIS team solicited feedback from the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy to assess each factor’s initial risk and residual risk with refined mitigation controls. This analysis leveraged nearly 400 senior non-commissioned officers (NCOs) who assessed the risk of integration to unit morale, cohesion, and readiness as moderate if the Army can appropriately address Soldier concerns about sexual harassment and assault. Next, the GIS team conducted site visits with four brigade combat teams (BCTs) and interviewed 35 command teams to assess the feasibility and acceptability of proposed controls. These combined activities leveraged the experience of Army leaders to build the study’s recommendations based on unit-level risk. Additionally, the study conducted 35 separate engagements with senior Army leaders (general officer/SES-level) to collect additional guidance and feedback.
These combined activities supported TRAC’s identification of the factors expected to impact the integration of women in previously closed MOSs and units. Given these results, TRAC conducted a risk assessment for each factor and developed a series of mitigation controls leveraging the professional military judgment of 373 senior NCOs at the U.S. Army Sergeants Major Academy (USASMA). Through three engagements at the academy, TRAC used composite risk analysis to assess the probability and severity that each factor posed to unit morale, cohesion, and readiness. Once this assessment was complete, TRAC interviewed command teams ranging from company to brigade level in four BCTs to weigh the feasibility and acceptability of the developed mitigation controls. Analyzing data from these study-related events, TRAC derived findings and recommendations.
This report recommends that the Army proceed with gender integration of all previously closed AOCs, MOSs, units, and positions. Analysis determined that the mitigated risk of the identified study factors to unit morale, cohesion, and readiness is moderate if the Army can appropriately address two high-risk factors: Soldier concerns about sexual harassment (SH) and sexual assault (SA). Given these findings, the assignment of women to specific positions and occupational specialties does not conflict with the guiding principles that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff outlined.
The team identified 17 factors expected to affect the integration of women into previously closed MOSs and units. For each factor, the team conducted a risk assessment and mitigation development effort that provided initial risk and residual risk with mitigation controls. For each factor, the team assessed the feasibility and acceptability of mitigation controls at the unit-level including the impacts to morale, cohesion, and readiness (MCR).

10. GIS Barriers to Successful Integration
Inconsistent enforcement of existing standards and perceptions of double-standards.
(Contributing Factors: Physical Standards, Combat Arms Unit Culture, Field Environment, Stereotypes About Women, Fraternization, Professional Standards of Conduct.)
Incidents of unprofessional behavior and indiscipline.
(Contributing Factors: Sexual Harassment, Combat Arms Unit Culture, Consensual Sex, Sexual Assault, Fraternization, Role Models, Professional Standards of Conduct.)
Fear of sexual harassment and sexual assault.
(Contributing Factors: Sexual Harassment, Combat Arms Unit Culture, Consensual Sex, Sexual Assault, Fraternization, Spousal Concerns, Professional Standards of Conduct.)
Cultural stereotypes.
(Contributing Factors: Pregnancy, Physical Standards, Combat Arms Unit Culture, Field Environment, Stereotypes About Women, Fraternization, Differences in Leadership Style, Men as Protectors.)
Ignorance of Army policy.
(Contributing Factors: Pregnancy, Physical Standards, Field Environment, Fraternization,
Reclassification, Physical Proximity.)
SGA Note: TRAC identified five wide-ranging barriers to successful integration exist. While some military professionals may question the occurrence of these barriers based on their anecdotal experience, it does not lessen the veracity of their existence. While none of the barriers is individually widespread enough across the force to make integration unsuccessful, their reported prevalence in numerous study-related venues warranted inclusion in this Report.
Furthermore, their combined effect, if not appropriately addressed, could potentially make integration much more difficult for individual Soldiers, units, and the Army as a whole. Acknowledging these barriers is the first step to overcoming them. Slide below identifies barriers and factors it affects.
Q: What is your reaction to the list of barriers?
Q: How do we (or can we) address as a leader?
Instructor Note: Instructors should take the time here to illicit responses from as many students as possible. The instructor should use student responses to transition to a discussion of GIS recommendations…near to far time.

11. GIS Recommendations (Way forward) Prioritization of Effort
Pre-Integration
Integration –
Steady-state
GIS Recommendations (Way forward) Prioritization of Effort
SGA Note: GIS Recommendations
Discuss as needed
*Based on historical lessons-learned and GIS findings, these recommendations address both gender integration factors and potential larger Army issues.

12. Gender Integration in Combat Roles is Not a New Concept
SGA Note: Instructor Note: Take a moment to read the list of countries and how they’ve integrated women in combat roles-
Canada: Women have been allowed in combat since 1989.
Romania: The country has sent close to 60 women to Iraq and Afghanistan in close combat roles.
France: Women can serve in combat and overall women represent about 19% of all French military personnel.
Germany: In Germany, women began joining combat units in 2001 after the European Court of Justice ruled that preventing women from such jobs was against gender equality principles.
Denmark: Women have been allowed in all ranks in the Danish military since 1998.
Israel: Women have been allowed in close combat roles since the 1990s.
The Netherlands: Women are not allowed in the Marine Corps or Submarine Service, but can apply for other combat ready positions.
New Zealand: Women have been allowed since 2001 in every job in the armed forces, including the infantry.
Poland: Women are allowed in all services, and since 2004.
Sweden: Since 1989 there have been no gender restrictions in the Swedish military.
Australia: The country opened combat positions to women in September 2011, allowing them join special operations units in Afghanistan and the general infantry and armored units.

13. End State
All Army occupations and AOCs are opened to all qualified Soldiers, improved screening tools are used to place the right Soldier into the right job, clearly defined and uniformly enforced standards are in place for MOS/AOC assignment, enlisted attrition from initial accession through first term of service is significantly reduced and these conditions have yielded improved Army readiness.
SGA Note: Do you believe that the end state will be a challenge to the Army?
How can (and/or will) we resolve the challenge?...or support the end state?

14. Questions? After answering any questions:
e. Develop: (5 min). Ask the following questions to facilitate discussion on how the students will implement what they have learned:
Q: What value does this information does the last slide (or lesson overall) have for you as a leader?
Q: How can (and/or will) you apply this information in the future?
f. Apply: (5 min). The apply consist of check on learning. Facilitators can develop their own question based on the reading assignments.