The IIOD Service Academies: Issues for Congress (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (70 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
Feb. 6, 1997 |
| Report Number |
97-217 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Robert L. Goldich, Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
This document also available in PDF Image .
Congress has exercised close oversight over the DOD service academies (the Military Academy
at West Point, NY; the Naval Academy at Annapolis, MD; and the Air Force Academy at Colorado
Springs, CO) since West Point was founded in 1802. Seventy-five percent of academy appointments
are made by Members of Congress. There has been considerable legislation affecting academy
programs since the late 1980s. There has also been controversy over the moral and ethical standards
and atmosphere at the academies. Both reflect a broader issue -- whether the special status of the
academies and their graduates in their services, and within the nation and the American people, adds
value to the officer accession system commensurate with their costs.
Academy graduates cost DOD more in appropriated funds than those from college Reserve
Officer Training Corps (ROTC) or through Officer Candidate Schools (OCS). The issue is whether
the product is worth the cost, and whether factors other than costs are significant. The academies
accept high-quality young men and women; they are among the most competitive colleges in the
nation. Academy graduates outperform ROTC and OCS officers in terms of promotion and
retention. The difference is not large, however, and it is impossible to attribute the difference
directly to the academy background.
Since 1989, several aspects of academy programs and costs have been the object of
congressional review and action. These include whether academy graduates should receive regular
or reserve commissions; the appropriate active duty service obligation for academy graduates; the
mix of military and civilian faculty at the academies; problems related to women and minorities at
the academies; the academy prep schools; and academy athletic programs.
The long-standing reputation of the academies for high ethical standards is being questioned
more than at any time in the past several decades. It is not clear, however, if the incidence of
misconduct involving academy students has, in fact, risen, or the cause of the rise if it does exist.
Many cite both broader social problems and aspects of the academies' environment which may not
sufficiently reinforce moral and ethical standards. There are indications that many incidents of
misconduct are related to relations between male and female students.
Options for Congress include: (1) doing nothing, assuming major problems are being
adequately addressed and minor ones can be solved administratively; (2) insuring that minor reforms
not fundamentally changing the academies are undertaken; (3) cutting or increasing enrollment; (4)
making the academies exclusively military schools for persons already having undergraduate
degrees; (5) adding graduate education to the academies; and (6) abolishing the academies altogether.
Given the centrality of the academies in the institutional life of the armed forces, the onus of
demonstrating the worth of major change in their roles may lie
