Hazing in the Armed Forces

Hazing in the Armed Forces

link to page 1 link to page 1

Updated July 18, 2019
Hazing in the Armed Forces
Background
member’s ability to perform at his or her psychological and
Initiation customs have long been part of the culture in the
physical peaks. When taken to extremes, certain activities
United States Armed Forces as a method to welcome new
may also result in permanent injuries or death.
members and mark rites of passage. However, several high-
As Armed Forces personnel often undergo physically and
profile incidents have raised congressional concern that
mentally rigorous training, particularly as new recruits, the
some of these traditions may subject service members to
line between acceptable behavior and reportable behavior
harmful or humiliating acts.
(i.e., hazing) can quickly blur. Some members may even
Hazing may pose a threat to trust, cohesion, safety, and the
seek to participate in certain activities that are prohibited by
health of members of the Armed Forces. Congress has
policy (e.g., blood-winging/blood-pinning) in order to prove
oversight of this issue under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
that they belong. Proponents of these rituals justify them by
Constitution, which grants Congress the authority to raise
pointing to the differences in military and civilian culture.
and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, and to
The services have established formal, community-specific
make rules relevant to their organization and discipline.
indoctrination processes. For example, military members
Therefore, an understanding of the context of this issue and
must meet certain standards in terms of conduct, physical
recent actions taken to counteract it may help Congress
fitness, competence, and marksmanship in order to be
decide whether to address hazing in the military through
accepted and retained.
oversight and legislation.
Hazing Definition
Estimated Prevalence and Reporting
Rates
One of the main obstacles to effectively counteracting
Efforts to discern accurate hazing prevalence rates have
hazing is its similarity to other forms of unwelcome
faced challenges. In 2016, the Government Accountability
behavior, including harassment, bullying, and
Office (GAO) found that each service branch has different
discrimination. The term applied to conduct cited in
data tracking requirements and that formally tracked reports
reporting can affect investigations and adjudications. DOD
were often limited to cases investigated by military criminal
makes distinctions between these behaviors to maintain a
investigative organizations, rather than allegations handled
comprehensive policy across all services. Current policy
by the chain of command or inspector general. Moreover,
(DODI 1030.03) defines hazing as,
the Department and the services used inconsistent methods
A form of harassment that includes conduct through
for counting cases and had decentralized points of contact
which Service members or DoD employees, without a
throughout. However, an estimate of prevalence can be
proper military or other governmental purpose but with a
obtained from command climate surveys that include
nexus to military Service, physically or psychologically
questions related to hazing and demeaning behaviors. Table
injures or creates a risk of physical or psychological
I describes the degree to which service members perceive
injury to Service members for the purpose of: initiation
hazing and demeaning behaviors within their own units.
into, admission into, affiliation with, change in status or
position within, or a condition for continued membership
Table 1. Active Duty Prevalence of Hazing and
in any military or DoD civilian organization.
Demeaning Behaviors
This may include, for example, branding or tattooing,
Service
Perceived Hazing Behaviors
forcing someone to consume food, alcohol, drugs or other
substances, or orally berating someone with the purpose of
Army
9%
belittling, or humiliating. Policies and definitions of hazing
with respect to cadets and midshipmen at the service
Navy
5%
academies are codified in 10 U.S.C. §§7452, 8464, & 9452.
Marine Corps
11%
Perceptions of Hazing
Air Force
2%
Initiation rituals commonly follow a path of separation,
Source: 2014 Organizational Climate Survey Data gathered by the
transition, and incorporation, which brings members into a
Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and analyzed by the
new role. Within the military, esprit de corps, or the
Government Accountability Office.
capacity of a group’s members to maintain belief in their
Note: Percentages in each category either that agreed or strongly
mission, is considered a sacred value and is produced
agreed with al statements regarding hazing or demeaning behavior.
through various trials. Some believe that shared experiences
of hardship during initiation rituals lead to greater group
Actual hazing complaints are significantly lower than
commitment and dependency. On the other hand, some
prevalence statistics would predict. According to the
contend that these rituals waste time and reduce a service
DOD’s FY2018 report, Hazing Prevention and Response in
https://crsreports.congress.gov

link to page 1
Hazing in the Armed Forces
the Armed Forces, there were a total of 299 complaints
Punishment for Perpetrators
alleging hazing behavior for the reporting period (See
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) does not
Figure 1). The most common allegations involved physical
specifically define or prohibit hazing. However, since 1950
contact (75% of all allegations). The Marine Corps, with
hazing has been prosecuted under various punitive articles
the smallest population of the four other services, has the
such as 93, Cruelty and Maltreatment and 128, Assault (10
largest number of complaints and has also reported the
U.S.C. 893 & 928). Unit commanders have the ultimate
highest estimated prevalence rates of all the services (see
authority to adjudicate hazing incidents as they see fit,
Table 1). DOD’s FY2018 report also found that 95% of the
including nonjudicial punishment (e.g., reduction in grade,
complaints were against enlisted male offenders.
extra duty).
Figure 1. Hazing Complaints by Service
Recent Legislation
FY2018
Until recently, Congress has deferred to DOD for
implementation of anti-hazing policies. However, in 2016
GAO concluded that DOD did not know the extent to which
its policies had been implemented by each service. In the
wake of several high-profile incidents, the following
legislative actions have been taken.
 House Committee on Armed Services hearing on
“Hazing in the Military,” March 2012.
 FY2013 NDAA (P.L. 112-239). Requires each service
secretary to submit reports that evaluate policies to track
and prevent hazing incidents.
 FY2015 NDAA (P.L. 113-291). The lack of reliable
statistics and information in the previous reports led
Congress to call for an independent review of DOD
hazing policies by the Comptroller General.

Source: FY2018 Hazing Prevention and Response in the Armed
FY2016 NDAA (P.L. 114-92). Requires DOD to more
Forces, Annual Summary Report to Congress,
comprehensively address incidents where hazing could
Note: Inconclusive cases are those in which where there was
constitute sexual assault through mandatory training.
insufficient information to pursue an investigation.
 FY2017 NDAA (P.L. 114-328). Requires DOD to
establish a comprehensive data-collection system for
Comparison to the General Population
incidents of hazing, improve its anti-hazing training, and
Within the civilian population, hazing is most common
submit annual reports describing its efforts to Congress
within athletic organizations and university groups such as
from January 31, 2019, through January 2021.
fraternities and sororities. Similar data collection issues
prohibit accurate assessments of prevalence in these groups,
Considerations for Congress
but the 2008 National Study of Student Hazing found that
The following questions may help Members of Congress
55% of college students involved in extracurricular
exercise oversight and analyze forthcoming reports from
activities experienced hazing, with the highest prevalence
the various services with regard to hazing.
rates among those in varsity athletics and fraternities or
 Do these reports provide an accurate accounting of the
sororities.
Response to Hazing Incidents
prevalence of hazing?
 Has data been collected and analyzed consistently across
To standardize responses across the services, DOD has
each branch of the Armed Forces and what do the
established policies with regard to preventive training,
differences in prevalence and reporting indicate about
reporting, adjudication, and accountability. The secretaries
prevention and response activities?
of the military departments are responsible for creating
 Do victims of hazing understand how it is defined and
service-specific mechanisms that collect, track, assess, and
have appropriate access to investigative services?
analyze data related to hazing allegations. Neither these
 Are there any areas where preventive training has been
systems nor the data are publicly available.
inadequate or adjudications have been dismissed?
 To what extent do those who make a complaint about
General Timelines
hazing experience reprisal?
Under DOD policy, allegations of hazing should be
 On what aspects of this issue should future
addressed at the lowest possible level in the chain of
congressionally funded studies focus?
command. Investigations of formal hazing complaints are to

commence within 5 duty days and conclude after no more
than 30 duty days later. A final report, including actions

taken, is due to the immediate superior officer within 36
days after the investigation begins. Service members who
Kristy N. Kamarck, Analyst in Military Manpower
report hazing are also protected from reprisal by the
IF10948
Military Whistleblower Act (10 U.S.C. §1034; DODD
7050.06).
https://crsreports.congress.gov

Hazing in the Armed Forces

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 4 · UPDATED