link to page 1 
August 9, 2018
Hazing in the Armed Forces
Background
The services have established formal, community-specific
Initiation customs have long been part of the culture in the
indoctrination processes. For example, military members
United States Armed Forces as a method to welcome new
must meet certain standards in terms of conduct, physical
members and mark rites of passage. However, several high-
fitness, and marksmanship in order to be accepted and
profile incidents have raised congressional concern that
retained.
some of these traditions may subject service members to
harmful or humiliating acts.
Table 1. Department of Defense Definitions
Hazing may pose a threat to trust, cohesion, safety, and
Term
DOD Definition
health of members of the Armed Forces. Congress has
oversight of this issue under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Harassment
Behavior that is unwelcome or offensive to a
Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to raise
reasonable person, whether oral, written, or
and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and to
physical, that creates an intimidating, hostile,
make rules relevant to their organization and discipline.
or offensive environment. Harassment may be
Therefore, an understanding of the context of this issue and
discriminatory (based on race, color, religion,
recent actions taken to counteract it may help Congress
sex, gender identity, national origin, or sexual
decide whether or not to address hazing in the military
orientation) or involve unwelcome sexual
through oversight and legislation.
advances or comments of a sexual nature.
Key Definitions
Hazing
A form of harassment that includes conduct
through which service members or DOD
One of the main obstacles to effectively counteracting
employees, without a proper military or other
hazing is its similarity to other forms of unwelcome
governmental purpose but with a nexus to
behavior, including harassment, bullying, and
military service, physically or psychologically
discrimination. Inconsistent and overly broad definitions
injure or create a risk of physical or
may create confusion for victims and challenges to incident
psychological injury to service members for
response, reporting, and data collection. For example,
the purpose of: initiation into, admission into,
surveys of male service members have found that incidents
affiliation with, change in status or position
reported as hazing often meet the definition of sexual
within, or a condition for continued
assault. The term used in reporting can impact
membership in any military or DoD civilian
investigations and adjudications. DOD makes distinctions
organization.
between these behaviors in order to establish a
comprehensive policy across all services (see Table 1).
Bullying
A form of harassment that includes acts of
aggression by service members or DOD
Perceptions of Hazing
civilian employees, with a nexus to military
Initiation rituals commonly follow a path of separation,
service, with the intent of harming a service
transition, and incorporation, which brings members into a
member either physically or psychologically,
new role. Within the military, esprit de corps, or the
without a proper military or other
capacity of a group’s members to maintain belief in their
governmental purpose. Bullying may involve
mission, is considered a sacred value and produced through
the singling out of an individual from his or her
various trials. Some believe that shared experiences of
coworkers, or unit, for ridicule because he or
hardship during initiation rituals lead to greater group
she is considered different or weak. It often
commitment and dependency. On the other hand, some
involves an imbalance of power between the
contend that these rituals waste time and reduce a service
aggressor and the victim.
member’s ability to perform at their psychological and
Source: Department of Defense Instruction 1020.03, “Harassment
physical peaks. As Armed Forces personnel often undergo
Prevention and Response in the Armed Forces.”
physically and mentally rigorous training, particularly as
Notes: All evaluations are based on a reasonable person standard and
new recruits, the line between acceptable behavior and
do not include properly directed command or organizational
reportable behavior (i.e., hazing) easily blurs. Some
activities that serve a proper military or governmental purpose or
members may even seek to participate in certain activities
their preparatory training requirements.
that are prohibited by policy (e.g., blood-winging/blood-
pinning) in order to prove that they belong. Proponents of
Prevalence Rates
these rituals justify them by pointing to the differences in
Efforts to discern accurate hazing prevalence rates have
military and civilian culture.
faced challenges. In 2016, the Government Accountability
Office (GAO) found that each service branch has different
https://crsreports.congress.gov
link to page 2 Hazing in the Armed Forces
data tracking requirements and often limited reports to
General Timelines
reflect only cases investigated by military criminal
Under DOD policy, informal complaints of hazing should
investigative organizations, rather than allegations handled
be addressed at the lowest possible level in the chain of
by the chain of command or inspector general. Moreover,
command. Formal complaints that do not involve sexual
services used inconsistent methods of counting cases and
harassment or assault allegations should be forwarded to a
had decentralized points of contact throughout the force.
military officer with the authority to convene a general
However, an estimate of prevalence can be obtained from
court-martial. Investigations are to commence within 5 duty
command climate surveys that include questions related to
days and conclude after no more than 30 duty days later. A
hazing and demeaning behaviors. Table 2 describes the
final report, including actions taken, is due to the immediate
degree to which service members perceive hazing and
superior officer within 36 days after the investigation
demeaning behaviors within their own units.
began.
Table 2. Prevalence of Hazing and Demeaning
Punishment for Perpetrators
Behaviors Across the U.S. Military
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not
Perceived Hazing
Perceived Demeaning
specifically define or prohibit hazing. However, since 1950
Service
Behaviors
Behaviors
hazing has been prosecuted under punitive articles such as
Article 93, Cruelty and Maltreatment, or Article 128,
Army
9%
14%
Assault. Unit commanders have the ultimate authority to
adjudicate hazing incidents as they see fit, including non-
Navy
5%
9%
judicial punishment.
Marine
11%
15%
Recent Legislation
Corps
Until recently, Congress has deferred to DOD for
Air
2%
5%
implementation of anti-hazing policies. However, in 2016
Force
GAO concluded that DOD did not know the extent to which
Source: 2014 Organizational Climate Survey Data gathered by the
its policies had been implemented by each service. In the
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and analyzed by the
wake of several high-profile incidents, the following
Government Accountability Office.
legislative actions have occurred:
Notes: Percentages in each category are those that agreed or
House Committee on Armed Services hearing on
strongly agreed with all statements regarding hazing or demeaning
“Hazing in the Military,” March 2012.
behavior. The scope of data is limited to active-duty units.
FY2013 NDAA (P.L. 112-239): requires each service
Comparison to the General Population
secretary to submit reports that evaluate policies to track
and prevent hazing incidents.
Within the civilian population, hazing is most common
within athletic organizations and university groups such as
FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291): the lack of reliable
fraternities and sororities. Similar data collection issues
statistics and information in the previous reports led
prohibit accurate assessments of prevalence in these groups,
Congress to call for an independent review of DOD
but the 2008 National Study of Student Hazing found that
hazing policies by the Comptroller General.
55% of college students involved in extracurricular
FY2016 NDAA (P.L. 114-92): requires DOD to more
activities experienced hazing. Although the 1990 Clery Act
comprehensively address incidents where hazing could
(P.L. 101-542) required all institutions of higher education
constitute sexual assault through mandatory training.
that receive federal financial aid to maintain and disclose
campus crime statistics, its provisions do not extend to
FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-238): requires DOD to
hazing or bullying. Currently, the House Committee on
establish a comprehensive data-collection system for
Education and the Workforce is reviewing the Report and
incidents of hazing, improve its anti-hazing training, and
Educate About Campus Hazing Act (REACH Act, H.R.
submit annual reports describing its efforts to Congress
2926), which would extend the provisions of the Clery Act
from January 31, 2019, through January 2021.
to include hazing incidents. Nevertheless, some
Issues for Congress
institutions, such as the University of Arizona and Cornell
University, have implemented their own methods to track
The following questions may help Members of Congress
and combat hazing independently. These efforts could
exercise oversight and analyze forthcoming reports from
the various services with regard to hazing:
provide a model for the Armed Forces.
Do these reports provide an accurate accounting of the
Response to Hazing Incidents
prevalence of hazing?
To standardize responses across the services, DOD has
Has data been collected and analyzed consistently across
established policies with regard to preventive training,
each branch of the Armed Forces?
reporting, adjudication, and accountability. The secretaries
Do victims of hazing understand how it is defined and
of the military departments are responsible for creating
have appropriate access to investigative services?
service-specific mechanisms that collect, track, assess, and
Are there any areas where preventive training has been
analyze data related to hazing allegations. Neither these
inadequate or adjudications have been dismissed?
systems nor the data are publicly available.
On what aspects of this issue should future
congressionally funded studies focus?
https://crsreports.congress.gov
Hazing in the Armed Forces
Kristy N. Kamarck, Analyst in Military Manpower
Carolyn M. Kehn, Research Associate
IF10948
Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.
https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF10948 · VERSION 2 · NEW