University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

(USC Thesis Other)

No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content No Officer Left Behind? The Promotion Experiences of Retired and Separated Black
Commissioned Officers in the United States Army
Timothy Peters
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2024

© Copyright by Timothy Peters 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Timothy Peters certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Kimberly Hirabayashi
Katherine Bihr
Alan Green
Nicole Maccalla, Committee Chair

iv
Abstract
This qualitative study examined the obstacles and barriers that Black/African American officers
face in the process of promotion in the U.S. Army, which continues to be the heritage of the
struggle for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Utilizing semi-structured interviews with eight
retired or separated Black/African American commissioned officers, this research identified
critical themes hindering promotion prospects: the situation of discrimination, insufficient
training, promotional bias, and trust crisis. A system full of racial bias where the top positions
were occupied by White officials made promotion difficult for minorities, and there was a
diversity gap in the U.S. Army. Nevertheless, these obstacles are not hurdles to the significance
of mentoring programs for minority officers who strive for advancement and positions as leaders.
This report confirms the gap in equal promotion prospects for minority groups and that
continuing commitment to diversity and inclusion infrastructure is an important factor for the
Army’s development. It builds knowledge about systemic barriers for minority officers in terms
of promotion prospects and provides guidelines for implementing more democratic leadership
and advancement practices in military institutions.

v
Acknowledgements
To my village, who has been extremely instrumental in my life throughout this doctorate
journey. Without their continued love and support while balancing a demanding military career, I
do not know where I would be today!
To my parents, siblings, nieces, nephews, and godchildren, this accomplishment is to let you
know that anything is possible if you place God first and stay committed to achieving excellence.
To my Tiger, Aggie, Bronc, Bison, and USC cohort family, thank you for the continued love and
support. It has not gone unnoticed.
To my travel family, best friends, fav’s, twins, and bestie, you each know who you are. I thank
you from the bottom of my heart for the unconditional love and support.
To The Brothers, my SG (15D), battle buddies, and mentors, you all have been the foundation
for me feeling so passionate about this research to include my own testimonies.
To my amazing chair, committee members, and advisor, thank you each for the countless hours
and personal sacrifices invested in getting me to this very moment in life. I thank you!
To all of you who have supported me throughout this journey. I am blessed to have you in my
life. Your support was immeasurable regardless of how small or big the task was, and I want you
to know that you played an integral role in emotionally supporting the research, writing, and
defense of this dissertation. When I needed a shoulder to cry on, a back to stand on, a smile, and
a listening ear, you were always a call, facetime, or text away, and for that, I thank you with a
thousand tongues.

vi
To my late grandmothers, who have always instilled in me the importance of an education. I will
always love you and appreciate everything you each poured into me: Grand Ma Mildred, Mema
Eta Mae, GMA Ethel, and Grand Ma Dot!
We will always be “Allergic 2 Average.”

vii
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................v
List of Figures..................................................................................................................................x
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction ...............................................................................................................1
The Problem.........................................................................................................................1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................3
Purpose of the Study and Research Question ......................................................................6
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................6
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology .....................................................8
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................10
Organization of the Dissertation ........................................................................................11
Chapter Two: Literature Review ...................................................................................................12
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts in the U.S. Army................................................12
Conceptual Framework of the Study .................................................................................25
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................32
Chapter Three: Methodology.........................................................................................................35
Research Question .............................................................................................................35
Overview of Methodology.................................................................................................35
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................43
Chapter Four: Findings..................................................................................................................44
Purpose of the Research and Research Question...............................................................44
Findings of the Data Analysis............................................................................................44
Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................62

viii
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations.......................................................................63
Conclusions........................................................................................................................63
Discussion..........................................................................................................................65
Recommendations for the Practice ....................................................................................68
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................69
Recommendations for Further Study.................................................................................71
References......................................................................................................................................73
Appendix A: Study Information Sheet ..........................................................................................79
Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................................................79
Participant Involvement.....................................................................................................79
Payment/Compensation for Participation ..........................................................................80
Confidentiality ...................................................................................................................80
Contact Information...........................................................................................................80
Appendix B: Interview Protocol ....................................................................................................81
Introduction........................................................................................................................81
Setting the Stage ................................................................................................................82
Heart of the Interview ........................................................................................................83
Closing Question................................................................................................................84
Closing Comments.............................................................................................................84

ix
List of Tables
Table 1: Participant Sample Demographics.................................................................................. 38
Table 2: Emerging Themes from Interviews................................................................................ 45
Table 3: Cluster analysis of themes linked to research sub-questions.......................................... 48

x
List of Figures
Figure 1: Army Leadership Requirements Model ........................................................................ 26
Figure 2: Army Leader Development Model................................................................................ 27
Figure 3: Social Cognitive Theory................................................................................................ 29

xi
List of Acronyms
ADRP Army doctrine reference publication
ALRM Army leadership requirements model
APS Army people strategy
BIPOC Black, Indigenous, and people of color
BPC Behavior control
CPAT Capability portfolio analysis tool
DEI Diversity, equity, and inclusion
D & I Diversity and inclusion
DoD Department of Defense
DOPMA Defense Officer Personnel Management Act
EO Executive order
FM Field manual
JROTC Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps
MLDC Military Leadership Diversity Commission
NCO Noncommissioned officer
OCS Officer Candidate School
ODMEO Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity
RAND (as in the RAND Corporation) research and development
ROTC Reserve Officer Training Corps
SCT Social cognitive theory
STEM Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
TPB Theory of planned behavior

xii
USAWC U.S. Army War College
USMA U.S. Military Academy

1
Chapter One: Introduction
It is important to create an environment where every single Soldier, regardless of their
race, gender, religion or background, has opportunities to excel within their proven and
demonstrated talents. … We are taking a powerful look at our systems and practices that
may have been legacy and focusing on a modern data-driven talent management process.
Providing this environment will ensure that institutional practices that ina
dvertently disadvantage any individual simply based on character, race, gender, or any
other physical characteristics will hinder an individual from executing our core mission,
which is key for the United States Army. (Britto, 2022, as cited in Maucione, 2022, para.
6)
The Problem
As suggested by Lt. Gen. Britto’s quote above, attaining the highest officer rankings (i.e.,
admiral or general officer) requires individuals to be competitively selected for promotion when
eligible or “in the zone” at different stages of their careers. For the U.S. Army, Black
commissioned officers are generated from three pipelines: U.S. Military Academy (USMA),
Officer Candidate School (OCS), and Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC). However, even
today, when the country has embraced diversity in many fields, including education, the
workplace, and social activities, there are still significant inequities in the high leadership
positions in the U.S. Army (Wooten & Couloute, 2017). This study aims to address the problem
of underrepresentation of Black/African American service members in senior leadership
positions in the U.S. Army.

2
According to Colonel Remo Butler, a student at the U.S. Army War College (USAWC),
Black officers are failing when compared with their White contemporaries (Butler, 1999). Based
on his research project while a student at the USAWC, Butler offered his findings evidence,
“Black officers are falling behind their White counterparts in promotions at and above the rank
of lieutenant colonel at a disconcerting rate” (Butler, 1999, p. 54). Black officers are especially
underrepresented at the three-star and four-star general level, where the most important decisions
about the U.S. Military are made.
According to the Army’s leadership doctrinal manual (U.S. Department of the Army,
2012), Army leadership is “the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction,
and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization” (p. 1).
Leadership in the U.S. Army is composed of both commissioned and noncommissioned officers,
where commissioned officers outrank noncommissioned officers. Commissioned officers include
the ranks of second lieutenant (O1), first lieutenant (O2), captain (O3), major (O4), lieutenant
colonel (O5), colonel (O6), brigadier general (O7), major general (O8), lieutenant general (O9),
and general (O10). Noncommissioned officers include the ranks of private (E-1), private second
class (E2), private first class (E3), army specialist (E4), corporal (E4), sergeant (E5), staff
sergeant (E6), sergeant first class (E7), master sergeant (E8), first sergeant (E8), sergeant major
(E9), and command sergeant major (E9).
In all levels of leadership, there is a clear disproportion of Black/African American
Soldiers to leaders. In 2017, 57% of U.S. service members were White, 16% were Black/African
American and 16% were Hispanic. Some 4% of all active-duty personnel were Asian, and an
additional 6% identified as “other” or unknown (Barroso, 2019). According to 2018 Pentagon
data, nearly 24% of the Army’s enlisted force was Black personnel, and about 17% was

3
Hispanic. But those numbers drop as rank increases. According to the 2018 data, just 10% of the
officer corps was Black, and 8.6% was Hispanic (Quester & Shuford, 2017). While it is clear
Black/African American Soldiers are underrepresented in Army leadership positions, why this is
so and what can be done to remedy it remains to be understood. By examining the
underrepresentation of Black/African American promotion experiences of retired and separated
commissioned officers in leadership positions in the U.S. Army, we will be in a better place to
address the root cause of the problem.
Context and Background of the Problem
Many of today’s leaders view their organization as a pyramid, with senior leadership atop
the apex, disseminating orders and snapping the proverbial finger, expecting immediate
responses. Below him or her reside lower echelon leaders and workers organized in subordinate
tiers. This perception of leadership has been the norm in nearly every military, governmental,
and civilian organization.
The issue of gender, race, and ethnic disparity is not a new concept in the U.S. Army. As
far back as 1948, the Army had been establishing initiatives to address the ethnic disparity. On
July 26, Truman responded with Executive Order 9981, directing the military to end segregation.
The first article stated, “There shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in
the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin” (U.S. National
Archives, n.d., para. 5)
Black/African Americans have been showing loyalty, honor, and patriotism in the U.S.
Army throughout American history, including at the Battle of Lexington, the Battle of Fallujah,
the War of 1812, and the Civil War (U.S. Department of Defense, 2021). In 2011, the Military
Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) recommended that the services make the promotion

4
and/or selection rate of underrepresented minorities a key metric of the services’ success in
creating an inclusive environment (U.S. Department of Defense, 2021).
Black/African American officers’ military records show relatively low promotion
potential in the U.S. Army (Brook, 2020; U.S. Army, 2022). When examining the race and
ethnicity demographics of each military branch, based on 2018 data, service members are
struggling to address the lack of representation of Black/African American leaders. The total
number of soldiers in the active component is 465,239. Males account for 84.4% and females
account for 15.6% of the total. The racial/ethnic distribution of the Army is as follows: 54%
White, Not Hispanic; 20.2% Black, Not Hispanic; 17.2% Hispanic; 6.9% Asian or Pacific
Islander; 0.9%American Indian or Alaskan Native; and 0.8% unknown/other. Racial/ethnic
trends show a reduction in the White soldiers (62.2% to 53.9%), an increase in Hispanic soldiers
(11.2% to 17.2%), and an increase in Asian/Pacific Islander soldiers (4.5% to 6.8%); other
races/ethnicities show slight or negligible change. Females comprise an increasing share of the
population, moving from 13.4% to 15.5% (U.S. Army, 2022). According to empirically based
literature, as of May 2020, there were 19 Black/African American one-star generals in the Army,
15 two-stars, eight three-stars, and one four-star, according to U.S. Defense Department data.
When examining those same data points for White generals, there are 107 one-stars, 90 twostars, 37 three-stars, and 11 four-stars. Major General John Evans, Commander of Army Cadet
Command, acknowledged the Army’s struggle to increase the diversity of its officer corps.
The underrepresentation of Black/African American Army officers is an issue of concern
in the grades of second lieutenant (O1), first lieutenant (O2), and captain (O3), called companygrade officers; those in the pay grades O4 to O6, known as field-grade officers; and those in pay
grades O7 and above, known as general officers. However, the area where lack of diversity

5
causes the most concern is the field-grade level because of a drastic decrease in male
Black/African American officers at this level. These pay grades correspond to the ranks of major
(O4), lieutenant colonel (O5), and colonel (O6), which are considered senior in rank to a
company-grade officer but junior to a general officer. These officers also hold presidential
commissions, which are confirmed by the U.S. Senate. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
has recognized the disparity in representation in the officer ranks and has been making efforts to
increase diversity and offer equal opportunity for appointing and promoting Black/African
American soldiers to higher leadership positions. For instance, currently, the DoD has different
recommendations that focus on improving diversity and inclusion in different areas of the
military, such as recruitment and accessions.
The Army is currently rolling out new initiatives and looking at previous research that
has addressed some of these same concerns. Some of these initiatives include the removal of a
soldier member’s photos from their personnel files so that future promotion boards are not stuck
on the race or image of an individual. The current support provided does not adequately provide
equity in the areas of Black/African American commissioned officers evaluations, promotions,
career development, organizational climate, and workplace culture (Clark, 2022). Many current
studies assess and discuss the issue of disparity in the workplace and social activities in the
United States (Barroso, 2019). However, prior studies focused on Black/African American
Soldiers are limited. Furthermore, few studies talk about the promotion experiences of retired
and separated Black/African American commissioned officers in the U.S. Army. This study aims
to address these gaps in the literature.

6
Purpose of the Study and Research Question
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and describe the experiences of
retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers in the U.S. Army in
securing promotion to high leadership positions in the U.S. Army. This research sought to
disclose barriers that they experienced from both a successful and unsuccessful lived experience
regarding promotions. This study’s results revealed strategies for career development,
mentorship, evaluation, and professional school progression.
The overarching research question is: how do Black/African American retired and
separated commissioned officers in the U.S. Army perceive their experiences in securing
promotion? The research describes the promotion experiences of Black/African American
officers. The research also describes officers’ feelings toward the potential underrepresentation
in the high positions of the U.S. Army as well as career development support in terms of
appointment and promotion for high leadership positions in the Army. The research sought to
elucidate the perceptions of diversity, equity, and fairness in terms of being promoted to high
leadership positions and the barriers to their appointment and promotion to these positions.
As Creswell and Poth (2018) suggested, the exploratory interview questions focused on
the central research question. These semi-structured interviews assisted me with understanding
meaning while defining the participants’ promotion experiences. Each question invited
participants to communicate the lived experiences examined in this research.
Importance of the Study
This study should increase the understanding of promotion experiences in the U.S. Army
of Black/African American officers who have retired or separated from the military. The Army
has a problem of underrepresentation of the force that is needed to fulfill its mission focused on

7
deploying, fighting, and winning our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt, and sustained
land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the joint force.
This research may increase the understanding of leaders to create a climate that applies leader
competencies and values while leveraging the Army leadership requirements model (ALRM)
and understanding the experiences with the evaluation process as it relates to the promotion of
Black/African American officers who have retired or separated from the military.
The relative lack of ethnic diversity among high-ranking officers in strategic leadership
positions hinders the U.S. Army’s ability to fulfill its mission by depriving it of valuable insight
and experience inherent in ethnic diversity (Brook, 2020). Brigadier General (retired) Butler
(1999) suggested that gender, race, and ethnic disparities in the military can be overcome
through mentorship and fostering cultural awareness. Butler (1999) further emphasized that
failing to give Black commissioned officers in the U.S. Army an equal opportunity to promote
and obtain the necessary leadership skills and training will perpetuate this disparity. According to
Sackett and Mavor (2003), U.S. Army senior leaders from the War College recognize that
Black/African American Officers can level the demographics and harness the range of
knowledge, skills, and backgrounds needed to prevail in the rapidly changing operational
environment. Stakeholders of this research include the Army’s Black/African American
commissioned officers, the chief of staff of the Army, Cadet Command and Army Training and
Doctrine Command, the U.S. DoD, leadership outreach, and service members’ families.
To enhance our warfighting capability, we must attract, develop, and retain the right
people at every echelon. Central to this effort is the understanding of how society is changing.
Therefore, the U.S. military must be willing to embrace social and cultural change to better
identify, cultivate, and reward such talent (Matusky, 2015).

8
Overview of Conceptual Framework and Methodology
According to Hamby (2019), the nature of qualitative research is to define the variables
and their relationship, not to measure them. Hamby (2019) further stated, “The nature of a
qualitative design is discovery, not measurement.” According to Diefenbach (2008), the main
purpose of qualitative research is to create theories from the data compiled or to generate new
theories, unlike quantitative research, which uses existing theories. Therefore, this research does
not build upon or test theories. Instead, it focused on finding patterns and new insights that can
be linked to theory to contribute to the scientific understanding of data. However, there are three
theoretical concepts pertinent to the nature of promotion in the military, and the results of this
study may provide some insight into the ALRM, the Army leader development model (ALDM),
and social cognitive theory (SCT).
According to the U.S. Department of the Army (2012), the Army is focused on serving
the people of the United States of America, which goes into protecting them against all enemies,
both foreign and domestic. Because of this mission set, leaders must display leadership aligned
with sound character, professional competence, and values-based leadership traits. The ALRM
specifies the needed attributes and competencies expected of its leaders. The ALDM identifies
how a leader in the organization should be developed. The Army is focused on growing its
leaders because, unlike most civilian sectors, the Army method of recruiting, selecting, and
assigning company and field-grade-level leaders from outside of the Army is not likely.
Development and grooming of Army senior leaders begin 2 decades before the organization
employs that individual. Understanding the promotion experiences of Black/African American
officers who have retired or separated from the military in the U.S. Army through the lens of the
Army’s requirements model and leader development model establishes the context for the study.

9
Bandura (1986) originally proposed SCT, suggesting that a person’s behavior is
determined by four factors: goals, outcome expectancies, self-efficacy, and socio-structural
variables. Social cognitive theory posits that people are shaped and formed by their environment
throughout many generations. SCT provides a road map for understanding how Black/African
American retired and separated commissioned officers’ experiences and actions of others shape
their promotion to senior leadership positions in the U.S. Army (Creswell & Poth, 2018). One’s
level of understanding can be set by one’s external environment.
Each of the three concepts (the ALRM, the ALDM, and SCT) is related in that all focus
on experiences, training, and progression in efforts to make the U.S. Army’s current and future
leaders better. In this context of the study, describing the promotion experiences of
Black/African American officers who have been separated or retired and observing their
promotion experiences could provide insight into what they learned about it and how this
learning has defined the promotion experience for Black/African American communities in the
Army at large.
According to Groenewald (2004), a qualitative researcher aims to accurately describe the
topic of study without influence from any pre-given structure while truthfully maintaining fact.
Creswell (2013) stated that the characteristics of a qualitative design include relying on the
researcher as the instrument to collect data, focusing on the participant’s perspective, and using
both inductive and deductive reasoning to analyze data. “A qualitative strategy of inquiry
proposes an active, involved role for the social scientist. … It is participation in an activity that
generates interest, purpose, the point of view, value, meaning, and intelligibility” (Patton, 2014,
p. 53). Bricki and Green (2007) postulated that qualitative methods answer the why, what, and
how rather than the quantitative how many and how much.

10
Following Creswell (2013) and other qualitative sources, this study was based on semistructured interviews with retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers
in the U.S. Army. Qualitative methods are appropriate as a researcher can ask participants
questions about their views on promotion potential and discrimination. A quasi-stratified sample
of eight retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers was recruited for
the interview. The selection criteria were (a) retired and separated Black officers who were
promoted “on time” (i.e., had received promotion at the point (years) they had become eligible),
(b) retired and separated officers who were “passed over” (i.e., were officially rejected for
promotion on the first or second time eligible), and (c) retired and separated officers in the grade
of full colonel (O6) and above. All retired and separated officers were at least in the grade of
captain (O3) to focus on senior leadership (i.e., field grade).
Definition of Terms
For this study, the following terms are defined:
Black/African American generally denotes Africans who are from the United States.
Black/African Americans are an ethnic group consisting of Americans with partial or total
ancestry from sub-Saharan Africa.
Commissioned officer is a military officer who has achieved a rank before officially
assuming their role. These officers’ Presidential commissions allow them to command both
officers and enlisted personnel under them.
Diversity is associated with a compilation of the different cultures within the USA.
Equity is the fair treatment, access, opportunity, choice, and advancement for all.

11
Inclusion is valuing and integrating everyone’s perspectives, ideas, and contributions into
how an organization functions and makes decisions, enabling workforce members to contribute
fully to the focused pursuit of organizational objectives.
People of color are Hispanic, Black/African American, Asian and Pacific Islander.
Officer ranks are in three tiers: company grade (01-03), field grade (04-06), and general
(07-10). Commissioned officers are the highest ranks in the military.
Promotion is the process of a military service member’s career progression from a lower
rank to a higher rank and demonstrates dedication, command of tasks and abilities, and capacity
for serving in a leadership capacity of increased responsibilities.
Total force equity is a culture maintained by the Army where fair treatment, access,
opportunity, and choice are visible and attainable by all soldiers and civilians.
Organization of the Dissertation
This five-chapter study begins with Chapter One, an overview of the problem of
underrepresentation of people of color in leadership positions in the U.S. Army, and the
presentation of the research question. Chapter Two gives a comprehensive literature review of
research on this topic, including the historical context approach to the conceptual framework
guiding the study. Chapter Three describes the study’s methodology by detailing the research
question and data collection and analysis procedures. Chapter Four presents summaries of the
analysis of the interviews. Chapter Five presents answers to the research question and provides
recommendations for Army senior leaders and other researchers to understand the lived
experiences of the Black/African American commissioned officers who have retired and
separated from the military.

12
Chapter Two: Literature Review
This chapter includes a detailed literature review of what other researchers and scholars
have covered about the promotion experience of Black/African American commissioned officers
in the U.S. Army. Specifically discussed are ethnic representation in the armed forces,
Black/African American commissioned officers’ promotion experiences, addressing the problem
of underrepresentation, the APS for promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the ALRM.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Efforts in the U.S. Army
Examining the relative scarcity of minority leaders remains an issue; the U.S. government
usually bases its arguments for demographic representation on access and legitimacy (Kraus &
Riche, 2006). The DoD has made strides in improving officer corps diversity during the past 40
years. According to RAND Corporation in the study of Hosek and Peterson (2001), between
1967 and 1991, the Pentagon almost quadrupled the minority representation in the ranks of its
newly commissioned officers, and the proportion of female officers increased nine-fold. In light
of the previously highlighted scarcity of minority senior leaders, increasing racial, ethnic, and
gender diversity has become a priority outside and inside DoD. Members of Congress have
inquired about the DoD’s efforts on diversity. Other external observers have highlighted DoD’s
challenges concerning the retention and promotion of minorities and women (Hosek & Peterson,
2001). The critical career fields that lead to the highest positions in the military have
disproportionately low numbers of minorities. This lack of Black personnel stems primarily from
the different selection preferences of minority and White cadets. To succeed in the military,
Black commissioned officers must select combat arms career fields to increase diversity in the
highest ranks.

13
The underrepresentation of Black/African American commissioned officers in leadership
roles can result in various barriers experienced by the different commissioning platforms. The
U.S. Army’s mission is to deploy, fight, and win our nation’s wars by providing ready, prompt,
and sustained land dominance by Army forces across the full spectrum of conflict as part of the
joint force. The Army of 2028 will be ready to deploy, fight, and win decisively against any
adversary, anytime and anywhere, in a joint, multi-domain, high-intensity conflict while
simultaneously deterring others and maintaining its ability to conduct irregular warfare. The
strategic objectives for the U.S. Army are manning, organizing, training, equipping, and leading,
which are all nested within all ROTC programs’ missions and premises.
The history of military diversity and inclusion efforts includes key events from the 1940s
to the present. Between the 1940s and 1950s, desegregation was a significant achievement. In the
1960s, more inclusion values were taken into account, with the support and involvement of the
Gesell Committee. The Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute was formed between
the 1970s and the 1990s with support from the DoD. Between 2000 and 2020, diversity was still
being pursued, focusing on key policies and actions promoting inclusion and equity.
In a 2009 study of ROTC cadets’ assignments and preferences, researchers found that
Black/African American cadets prefer combat service support branches. In contrast, White
cadets tended to gravitate toward combat arms branches (Lim, 2009). The Secretary of the Army
(U.S. Army, 2020) stated that the U.S. Army also uses an enterprise-wide system to continue
progressing toward acquiring, developing, employing, and retaining a workforce that reflects
America’s talents and diversity throughout every occupation, level, and rank. It is vital to address
this problem because the number of minority records reviewed has lower promotion rates based
on the potential viewed, considering their contribution to the organizations they served. The

14
Black/African American commissioned officers’ records and promotion rates do not indicate the
same achievement as their majority counterparts.
Ethnic Representation in the Armed Forces
Ethnic representation in the U.S. Armed Forces has been a topic of concern that reflects
changes in societal attitudes and policies. This problem gained significant attention during the
reign of President Harry S. Truman’s administration when he issued Executive Order 9981 in
1948. The first provision of the executive order affirms that the president’s policy mandates
equal treatment and opportunities for all individuals in the armed forces, irrespective of their
race, color, religion, or national origin. This policy will be implemented as quickly as feasible,
taking into consideration the time needed to make any relevant modifications without negatively
impacting efficiency or morale.
Despite the president’s order, he faced pushback from the Army’s administration. The
generals in charge would not promote or send the Black Armies to schools, while the White
counterparts would become violent due to them being forced together. The first branch to fully
integrate was the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force looked to the 332nd Fighter Group (Tuskegee
Airmen) for inspiration, but they needed as many experienced experts as possible. The Air Force
required technical abilities for servicing aircraft, unlike the Army, which could send many
inexperienced recruits to work units. The Air Force has one Black flying group but formerly had
a 10% Black recruit quota. Regardless of Black Airmen numbers, they trained enough
professionals to keep the only segregated flying force. These men wanted to work but were
banned. After seeing this waste, by 1952, the Air Force integrated, per the president’s order.
Again, practicality trumped race. During the Korean War, the United States needed
people. Black recruitment increased when the Army united its nine training divisions in 1951.

15
Black Army and Marine Corps soldiers fought at the same rate as White troops. Combat
integration did not bring the violence or low morale that military brass had predicted. Black
Marines increased from 1,900 in 1949 to 17,000 in 1953. Finally, the Army declared complete
integration in November 1954.
The military emphasized diversity and equality throughout the 1980s and 1990s. To
reduce inequities, the Defense Department promoted minority recruitment and promotion. After
the Cold War and the 1990s military draw-down, the armed services were reformed to be more
inclusive.
Today, there is still a significant percentage of people underrepresented in some highranking positions despite efforts to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in the U.S. Army.
According to journals, historical records, and academic studies, the U.S. Army currently lacks
diversity among the senior-most officer ranks (Smith et al., 2009). In recent years, the U.S.
Congress and the Trump Administration (2017 to 2021) have taken action to build a more
diverse and representative military workforce. In the Duncan Hunter National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L. 110-417), Congress mandated the creation of an
MLDC tasked with conducting a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that
provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the armed
forces (Doan & Portillo, 2022).
The Army needs to improve diversity, equity, and opportunities for promotion to improve
the total force and build cohesive teams. Because there are relatively few senior Black/African
American commissioned officers, there are fewer role models for young Black officers to
emulate and few Black mentors to show them how to ascend to top-ranking positions (Butler,
1999). The armed forces paved the way for more widespread desegregation in 1948, inequities

16
among service members have been prevalent throughout history, particularly racial disparities in
military leadership, increased high-risk assignments, and military deaths, particularly for Black,
Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) service members during the Korean and Vietnam wars
(Webb & Herrmann, 2002). The Kennedy administration capitalized on the need to expand
opportunities for service members who identify as BIPOC by creating the Committee on Equal
Opportunity in the Armed Forces, known as the Gesell Committee (1962–1964), to address
racial and ethnic disparities. The Gesell Committee found that, while the military did not have
any blatant discriminatory policies or procedures, it needed to improve recruitment, assignment,
and promotion practices to achieve equal treatment for all soldiers, particularly for Black/African
American service members (Webb & Herrmann, 2002).
To fulfill its mission, the Army will need to become more inclusive in the training and
education of the officer corps. It must also create a burgeoning quota on par with the majority,
demonstrating this problem (Mason, 1998). Butler (1999) reveals that Black/African American
officers were the victims of conscious and institutionalized racism and that racism found its way
into the promotion structure of the armed forces long ago. Butler (1999) Further reveals that the
startling racial disparities in the U.S. Army have a detrimental impact on Black officers
regarding promotions, career-enhancing assignments, accessions into the Regular Army, and
selections for advanced military schooling. The literature on military personnel policy points to a
range of factors to explain a lack of minorities in the officer corps. The lower college graduation
rates of minorities compared to White graduates restrict the pool of potential minority officers.
Minority group members may also have lower promotion rates in the military because their
records do not indicate the same level of achievement as their majority counterparts. Other
research suggests that minority officers face greater difficulties in forming peer and mentor

17
relationships (which are vital to success in the military) and that minority officers often must
serve in a recruiting capacity (to recruit more minorities), giving them less experience (Hosek &
Peterson, 2001). In May 2005, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld issued a directive to
put much more energy into achieving diversity at senior levels of services (MLDC, 2009). In
2007, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Office of Diversity Management and Equal
Opportunity (ODMEO), with assistance from the RAND Corporation, brought together diversity
experts from academia and the public and private sectors to meet with DoD representatives for 2
days of discussion and inquiry on diversity issues.
The Gesell Committee advocated for full racial integration in the military, a ban on
discrimination based on race or color, and the award of officer commissions and promotions
based solely on merit. In 1948, during his reelection campaign, President Truman issued
Executive Order 9981, which set a purposeful desegregation effort (U.S. National Archives,
n.d.). The president’s policy declaration ensures equal treatment and opportunity for all persons
in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin. This policy shall
be implemented as rapidly as possible due to the time required to effectuate changes without
impairing efficiency or morale.
Black/African American commissioned officers are still not being promoted to the
senior-most ranks through the pipeline of success even though commissioning numbers are
consistent with the national average compared with yearly trends. Although there has been some
progress, the problem persists. To be competitive, an officer’s assignment history and the
supervisor’s assessment of the officer’s performance in each position are critical inputs to the
promotion board. However, the subjectivity of performance evaluations may unduly impact
minority selection for key positions, assignments, and promotions. In light of the previously

18
highlighted scarcity of minority senior leaders, increasing racial, ethnic, and gender diversity has
become a priority outside and inside DoD.
Members of Congress have inquired about DoD’s efforts with eligible U.S. civilians. It
depicts the overall active component of the enlisted corps, which is slightly more racially and
ethnically diverse than its U.S. civilian counterparts (Hosek & Peterson, 2001).
Fisher (2023) revealed a very low percentage of enlisted and active officers in the U.S.
Army representing Black, Hispanic, multiracial, American Indians, and Alaska Natives.
Dragomir (2023) showed that active component officers are less diverse than the eligible civilian
population. Derenoncourt et al. (2022) revealed that the higher the pay grade level, the lower the
percentage of minority groups such as Black, Hispanic, multiracial, American Indians, and
Alaska Natives in the U.S. Army compared to White Americans. Pham (2023) revealed that
minority groups such as Black/African American officers and Hispanics are less likely to have
fewer promotion opportunities regardless of gender. Fisher (2023) revealed that White personnel
comprise the majority who receive promotions. White officers represent 73% of all active
component officers compared with 66% of the eligible civilian population. Blacks/African
American, Hispanic, and Asian officers are underrepresented compared with civilian
counterparts by one, two, and six percentage points, respectively. This illustrates that the
underrepresentation of officers from other racial groups is a phenomenon that carries on even in
the 21st century. Fisher (2023), Dragomir (2023), and Pham (2023) revealed that most of the
officers in the top rank and highest graded positions, such as flag officers and General officers,
are White, and there are very few officers from the minority groups such as Black/African
American, Asians, American Indians, Native Hawaiian, multiracial and Hispanic. According to

19
these statistics, it is evident that underrepresentation affects both male and female officers in
different minority groups such as Black/African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and others.
These differences appear to be somewhat greater at higher levels (e.g., from O4 to O5).
Generally, Derenoncourt et al. (2022) and Pham (2023) showed that the retention rates for
minority male officers given a promotion to a specified level are lower than for White males,
especially at levels O3 and above. These results are consistent with earlier RAND Corporation
research that found that Black males were less likely to be promoted but more likely to be
retained if promoted. Their higher retention rates offset the lower likelihood that Black and
Hispanic males have of promotion at each level through O4. For Hispanic men, the effects are
exactly offsetting. For Black men, the retention effect more than offsets the promotion effect, so
Black men are more likely to reach O4. The results for Black men differ from the earlier RAND
Corporation research, which found that the effects were fully offsetting for Black men, leaving
Black and White men equally likely to reach the rank of O4. Regarding their later careers, among
O4 officers, Black and Hispanic men are less likely to achieve O6 than White men, with lower
promotion rates than offsetting higher retention rates.
Sex Representation in the Armed Forces
There is a significant disparity between male and female representation in the U.S. Army.
Statistical data on sex representation in the Army show that regardless of the ethnic group,
females are underrepresented in the Army. Lowen and McDonald (2023) also showed that
although the proportions of females in Black, Asian, and Hispanic groups have increased over
time, the proportion for these groups in the senior officer corps remains relatively low, although
the percentage of females in the U.S. Army has continued to increase over the years.

20
Derenoncourt et al. (2022), Lowen and McDonald (2023), Dragomir (2023), and Pham
(2023) showed that, generally, promotion opportunities are significantly limited for the
commissioned and noncommissioned officers from minority groups in terms of sex and race.
Dragomir (2023) suggested that the unchanging budgetary allocations contribute to
underrepresentation. Lowen and McDonald (2023) further showed that the diversity, equity, and
inclusion levels are projected to increase by increasing the percentage of Asian, Black/African
American, Hispanic, and other minority ethnic groups by 2060. As such, it is incumbent upon the
Army to institute policies and systems to ensure the diversity of leadership it needs for the future.
In the future, it is also expected that the opportunities for promotion in high-ranking positions
will be lower than those in lower-ranking positions.
Army People Strategy
The APS targets four strategic outcomes (ready, professional, diverse, integrated) along
four lines of effort (acquire, develop, employ, retain talent) backed by four critical enablers
(21st-century talent management, quality of life, Army culture, resources, and authority) to
realize a vision of cohesive teams for the joint force. The APS includes the approaches used by
the U.S. Army to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. It helps build cohesive teams that are
ready, professional, and diverse. The U.S. DoD Board on Diversity and Inclusion suggested that
the U.S. Army use talent management as the foundation of the APS framework to build and
expand diversity, equity, and inclusion in the recruitment and promotion of officers in the Army.
Through this approach, the U.S. Army aims to integrate all people’s practices and generate a
positive effect on organizational outcomes, leveraging each individual’s knowledge, skills,
behaviors, and preferences. Most importantly, these efforts enable the Army leaders from top to
bottom to remove any potential bias or barriers to providing equitable and equal opportunities

21
within the formations. The Army must compete for and retain diverse talent to improve our
organization’s performance from a total force perspective.
Collins-Hines (2023) demonstrated how the Army People Strategy helps the U.S. Army
to enhance teamwork among people from different backgrounds by acquiring, developing,
employing, and retaining officers through different critical enablers such as talent management,
improved quality of life, and establishing a diverse culture and providing support from the top
management. The current Project Inclusion Initiative implements the Army People Strategy’s
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annex, a 5-year strategic plan that institutes structural,
organizational, procedural, and command changes to become a diversified, equal, and inclusive
model that can eventually increase minority commissioned officers opportunities. According to
the Army People Strategy, in January 2021, Army senior leaders signed the Expanding Diverse
Talent in the Army Officer Corps Plan, which includes 25 initiatives to increase diversity in the
near, mid, and far time horizons. This is a positive step in achieving a diverse ethnic
representation in the Army. The influence of these senior leaders is expected to have a positive
impact as it enhances the identification of talent and dedication among Army officers.
The MLDC’s final report noted that while strides have been made in developing a diverse
force, women and racial/ethnic minorities remain underrepresented in top leadership. The
commission released its report in May 2011. In August 2011, President Barack Obama issued
Executive Order 13583, calling for a coordinated government-wide initiative to promote
diversity and inclusion in the federal workforce (Sweeting, 2023). In Section 528 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 (P.L. 114-92), Congress reaffirmed a
commitment to maintaining a diverse military, stating, “Diversity contributes to the strength of
the armed forces” (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016, Section 528).

22
Congress senses that the United States should (a) continue to recognize and promote diversity in
the armed forces and (b) honor those from all diverse backgrounds and religious traditions who
have made sacrifices in serving the United States through the armed forces.
The U.S. Army has instituted several programs to address the lack of diversity and
equity. These programs include the APS, ALRM, Project Inclusion, partnership with The Rocks,
Inc., Historically Black colleges and universities, and minority-serving institutions outreach
programs. Recognizing that diversity and inclusion are fundamental to force readiness and
mission success, in a subsequent memorandum, the secretary outlined the following nine
immediate actions for DoD and the armed services to complete by December 15, 2020:
● Remove photographs from consideration by promotion boards and selection
processes and develop additional guidance that emphasizes retaining qualified and
diverse talent.
● Update DoD’s military EO and D&I policies (e.g., military harassment, pregnancybased discrimination).
● Obtain and analyze additional data to identify the patterns and trends of prejudice and
bias.
● Add bias awareness and bystander intervention to the violence prevention framework.
● Develop educational requirements for implementation across the military life cycle to
educate the force on unconscious bias.
● Develop an instruction program containing techniques and procedures that enable
commanders to have relevant, candid, and effective discussions.
● Review the effectiveness of military EO offices.
● Review hairstyle and grooming policies for racial bias.

23
● Support military department initiatives. (McGarry, 2020)
According to the U.S. Department of Defense (2021), some of the recommendations that
the DoD has established to enhance career development are establishing diversity and inclusion,
standardizing the DoD human resources data system for diversity/inclusion analysis, and offering
an internship in the Army’s science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields in
conjunction with Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps (JROTC) program. The efforts from the
DoD substantiate the underrepresentation of Black/African American Soldiers in the U.S. Army
in high leadership positions. Armed services leadership positions are discriminatory; however,
the commission found that the service policies were not discriminatory as written. There are no
qualitative studies that address what needs to be done in the U.S. military to improve
recruitment, assignment, and promotion practices to achieve equal treatment of Black/African
American service members (MLDC, 1963)
Black/African American Commissioned Officers Promotion Experiences
A recent USA Today article (Brook, 2020) observed that the United States and its military
are increasingly diverse, but its leadership is not. The article emphasized that little progress has
been made in promoting Black officers to senior positions. Lowen and McDonald (2023)
revealed that although the Army is the largest branch of the U.S. Armed Services, there is a
marked lack of representation at the senior officer levels, noting the persistence of this condition
over time. According to a New York Times article, Army veterans are observant of the lack of
diversity at the top. Based on a veteran’s observation, a lack of proper representation implies that
diversity is absent.
The number of Black/African American commissioned officers in combat arms branches
of the Army is small, while the number of Black/African American commissioned officers

24
occupying non-combat arms positions is large and growing disproportionately. A careful study
of demographics by occupational specialty indicates that most Black/African American
commissioned officers serve in combat support and combat service support branches. Several
conditions contribute to creating the odd distribution. One cause is the failure of these officers to
progress in rank and positions of responsibility at the same rate as their White counterparts.
Other causes arise from conditions outside the Army and result from the consequences of social
and cultural influences. Nevertheless, the failure to access Black/African American
commissioned officers into the Army’s combat arms occupations is a serious institutional
concern.
Several recent studies have attempted to shed some light on this issue. An example of the
disparity between combat and non-combat branches is illustrated by Army infantry branch
demographics. “The percentage of Blacks in the infantry has dropped steadily from thirty percent
in 1980 to fifteen percent currently, while the portion of Blacks in logistics units today often runs
more than fifty percent” (Matthews, 1999, p. 5). In 1999, the United States Military Academy
(USMA) accessed only one Black cadet into the infantry. He represented less than 1% of the
total number of USMA cadets accessed into the infantry and less than 2% of all Black USMA
cadets accessed. Disparities in the distribution of Army officers cannot continue if the U.S. Army
is to achieve a level of diversity commensurate with the ideals of the nation and the Army. A
review of the literature indicates much quantitative research on discrimination in many
environments in America. However, there is not sufficient qualitative study to provide in-depth
insights into the lived experiences of different ethnic groups, specifically Blacks in the military,
specifically Black/African American commissioned officers.

25
Conceptual Framework of the Study
This study of the promotion experiences of Black/African American commissioned
officers was framed by the concepts of the ALRM and the ALDM and their relevance to SCT.
Army Leadership Requirements Model
The ALRM fills in as a complete structure directing the turn of events and evaluation of
administration inside the U.S. Armed Forces. This model portrays the fundamental attributes and
skills that pioneers should have to execute their obligations. It underscores factors like person,
presence, and keenness, which are urgent for encouraging a culture of trust, responsibility, and
mission achievement. Feature occasions where the model was instrumental in recognizing
qualities and regions for development, giving an organized way to deal with administration
evaluation. The ALRM is critical not just for understanding the characteristics expected of armed
forces pioneers but also for its functional application in authority advancement, determination
processes, and hierarchical viability.
Figure 1 summarizes the ALRM as detailed in FM 6-22 (U.S. Department of the Army,
2012). The ALRM divides leadership into two main categories: the attributes of a leader and core
leader competencies (Figure 1).

26
Figure 1
Army Leadership Requirements Model
Note. Adapted from Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22 Army Leadership by
U.S. Department of the Army, 2012.
(https://www.moore.army.mil/mssp/pdf/adrp6_22_new.pdf). In the public domain.
Army Leader Development Model
The ALDM is a theoretical framework that outlines the levels of leadership in the Army,
insisting on the progression abilities, knowledge, and attributes required for effective leadership.
This theory provides a structured lens through which the experiences of Black and other ethnic
groups are examined in various stages of their careers. The model helps to identify the key
milestones, challenges, and opportunities for development that align with the levels that are
outlined in the ALDM. This theoretical framework was meant to survey how the authority
improvement process, as conceptualized by the ALDM, may have affected the advancement
directions of Black officials.

27
According to Department of the Army Pamphlet 350–58, the purpose of the Army Leader
Development Program is to “guide those who are responsible for developing officers, warrant
officers, noncommissioned officers, and civilian leaders of the Active Component, the Army
National Guard, and the U.S. Army Reserve” (Henry, 2021, p. 5). The pamphlet further states
that “leader development is achieved through the lifelong synthesis of the knowledge, skills, and
abilities gained through education, training, and experience” (Henry, 2001, p. 5). Figure 2
depicts three domains of the Army—operational, institutional, and self-development. Each
domain is founded on the three pillars of training, education, and experience.
Figure 1
Army Leader Development Model
Note. Adapted from Leader Development: Enhancing the Lessons of Experience by C. W.
Walker and M. J. Bonnot, 2014. Command and General Staff College.
(https://www.moore.army.mil/mssp/Leader%20Developement/). In the public domain.

28
The differentiation is the emphasis the respective domain places on the three, as depicted
by its primary emphasis appearing at the top. The operational domain focuses on the practical
working aspects of the Army, with training as its primary pillar. The institutional domain’s
primary pillar is education, mainly provided through the Army Logistics University, the Soldier
Support Institute, and the U.S. Military Academy. The self-development domain is where one
takes over the responsibility of continuing on the path of one’s personal growth and is primarily
focused on a pillar of personal experience (Matusky, 2015).
Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura presented SCT in 1986 and posits that when a person observes a behavior of
someone and the consequences of that behavior, the memory of the event guides that person’s
subsequent behaviors. Furthermore, people do not learn new behaviors solely through trial and
error but through the replication of the actions of others. (Bandura, 1986). Bandura further
postulates that people are rewarded or punished for their behavior depending on the outcome of
that behavior, not just the behavior itself.
The interaction of behavioral, contextual, and personal variables impacting career paths
may be understood via the perspective of theory. The study’s examination of how officers could
have seen and imitated the actions of effective military commanders is consistent with the
theory’s focus on observational learning. While the contextual portion of SCT aids in
understanding how the organizational setting and culture may have affected officers’ perceptions
and opportunities, the behavioral component of the theory aligns with the study’s investigation of
observable actions and decision-making processes. People are driven by the results of their acts.
In the case of the U.S. military, this may mean looking at how incentives and penalties,
especially those connected to promotions, influenced Black/African American commissioned

29
officers’ behaviors and career choices. Thus, the concept of SCT enhances the research by
offering a theoretical framework for examining the subtleties of behavior, surroundings, and
individual factors in Black/African American commissioned officers’ promotion experiences.
The resulting theoretical framework offers insights that go beyond the parameters of the two
previously discussed Army models. Figure 3 depicts the principal components of Bandura’s
(1986) SCT.
Figure 2
Social Cognitive Theory
Note. From Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory by A.
Bandura, 1986. Prentice-Hall. (https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394259069). Copyright 1986 by
Prentice-Hall.

30
The model depicts three primary behavioral drivers: behavioral factors, cognitive factors
(sometimes called personal factors), and environmental factors. These drivers have a
multidirectional influence on other factors, a concept known as reciprocal determinism (Bandura,
2023). Of significant importance is self-efficacy, which refers to one’s belief that one can
perform a specific task in a specific context. Self-efficacy can be influenced by environmental
and behavioral factors and is context-dependent.
Integrating the Models and Theory
The ALRM, the ALDM, and SCT can be integrated to provide a perspective for
understanding the promotion experience of Black/African American commissioned officers in
the U.S. Army. As suggested by the SCT model, individuals with strong self-efficacy are
believed to develop stronger intentions to act, expend more effort to achieve their goals, and
persist longer in the face of barriers and impediments. The Army has considered SCT in the
formation and development of its leadership programs, especially concerning self-efficacy. The
programs recognize self-efficacy and the other SCT factors that influence the performance of
one’s duty as a leader. This can be extended, as well, to one’s desires and efforts toward
achieving promotion. Through qualitative methods and analysis of the promotion experiences of
Black officers, factors posited in the three models may be identified, as well as new factors that
may not have been considered in the respective models.
The combination of SCT, the ALDM, and the ALRM in this research offers a thorough
framework for comprehending the promotion experiences of Black/African American
commissioned officers in the U.S. Army. Bandura’s (1986) social cognitive theory is somewhat
reflected in the Army models, but SCT offers a more nuanced viewpoint by focusing on the role
of self-efficacy in goal setting, effort exertion, and perseverance in overcoming challenges. A

31
multi-dimensional analysis that considers organizational and leadership frameworks and
individual cognitive processes is made possible by the study’s usage of all three models. The
research makes use of qualitative methodologies to analyze various models to determine the
characteristics that influence promotion experiences. This allows for the identification of new
and existing aspects that may not have been completely taken into account in the individual
models.
As Lee (2023) stated, the leadership attributes of character, presence, and intellect are key
components of the Black commissioned officer experiences to reach promotion. Individuals
holding leadership positions in the Army should portray character traits that depict responsibility,
discipline, and dedication. According to the Army doctrine reference publication, “These
attributes represent the values and identity of the leader (character) with how the leader is
perceived by followers and others (presence), and with the mental and social faculties that the
leader applies in the act of leading” (ADRP 6-22 Army Leadership, 2012). A leader with
character displays the Army values, empathy, warrior ethos, service ethos, and discipline. A
leader with a presence indicates military and professional bearing, fitness, confidence, and
resilience. A leader with intellect displays mental agility, sound judgment, innovation,
interpersonal tact, and expertise (ADRP 6-22). Character is essential for the leader or change
agent when attempting to influence organizational change. Character helps a leader determine
what is right and gives a leader motivation to do what is appropriate, regardless of the
circumstances and consequences. Presence is not just a matter of showing up; it involves the
example that the leader portrays to inspire others to do their best and follow their lead.
Intelligence draws from conceptual abilities, which enable effective problem-solving and sound
judgment (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012). In addition to being a leader of character,

32
competence can play an integral role when trying to change the environment’s culture.
Competencies consist of leadership, development, and achievement. Leader competence
develops from a balanced combination of institutional schooling, self-development, realistic
training, and professional experience (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012). A leader who leads
displays the following: leads others, builds trust, extends influence beyond the chain of
command, leads by example, and communicates. A leader who develops does the following:
creates a positive environment, fosters esprit de corps, prepares self, develops others, and
stewards the profession. A leader who achieves gets results. Competencies provide a clear and
consistent way of conveying expectations for Army leaders. Leader competencies can be
developed, displayed, and performed (U.S. Department of the Army, 2012).
Chapter Summary
The study highlighted the U.S. DoD’s past initiatives to increase diversity while
discussing the ongoing problem of minority leaders’ underrepresentation in the U.S. Army. It is
also found that the difficulties in attaining diversity in crucial professional sectors lead to the top
military ranks despite substantial progress made in raising minority representation in the officer
corps (Lowen & McDonald, 2023). The report highlights the need to address the
underrepresentation of Black commissioned officers in leadership posts to guarantee fair
promotion rates and equal opportunities for minority officers.
The historical trajectory of ethnic representation in the U.S. Armed Forces began with the
desegregation executive order issued by President Harry S. Truman in 1948. Integration efforts
persisted during the next decades, despite early opposition, and were both challenging and
successful (Derenoncourt et al., 2022). The text draws attention to persistent differences in the
representation of Black officers, in particular, and other minority officers in the highest levels of

33
the U.S. Army. The Trump Administration and Congress have made efforts to address diversity
and inclusion; however, recent statistics highlighting differences in promotions, retention rates,
and the makeup of top-ranking officers emphasize the ongoing underrepresentation and suggest
that equity and inclusion issues still exist in the 21st century.
Though the proportion of women in the Army as a whole is rising, there are still few of
them in the top officer corps. Restricted chances for minority groups to advance, with arguments
that underrepresentation is a result of fixed fiscal allocations (Derenoncourt et al., 2022). Within
the framework of the APS, which is centered on attracting, nurturing, hiring, and maintaining
diverse personnel, efforts to rectify these discrepancies are examined. The APS works to advance
diversity, equality, and inclusion by promoting a varied culture, improving quality of life, and
managing talent.
The suggestions and prompt measures by the DoD to improve career development,
standardize human resources data for diversity analysis, and provide internships in STEM sectors
are emphasized in the study. There is recognition of the issues surrounding the
underrepresentation of Black/African American troops in senior roles, and initiatives are in place
to enhance recruiting, assignment, and promotion procedures. The study absorbed three theories,
the Army leadership requirement model, the ALDM, and SCT, to emphasize the topic. This
research uses the SCT, ALDM, and ALRM to examine Black/African American commissioned
officers’ promotion experiences in the U.S. Army (Dragomir, 2023). The Army models resemble
Bandura’s (1986) SCT, although that theory emphasizes the role of self-efficacy in goal setting,
effort, and perseverance. All three models allowed the investigation to investigate individual
cognitive processes as well as organizational and leadership frameworks. The research used

34
qualitative methods to analyze models and discover promotion factors to identify aspects that
may have been overlooked in new and old models.

35
Chapter Three: Methodology
This study was based on a qualitative study design utilizing semi-structured interviews
with retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers in the U.S. Army.
This research examined and identified the experiences of the Black/African American retired and
separated commissioned officer in getting a promotion to high leadership positions in the U.S.
Army. This research could help to disclose certain barriers that Black/African American officers
who have retired and/or separated have experienced from both a successful and unsuccessful
lived experience regarding promotions in the U.S. Army. Strategies for career development,
mentorship, evaluation, and professional school progression may be revealed through their lived
experiences.
Research Question
The overarching research question asked how Black/African American retired and
separated commissioned officers in the U.S. Army perceive their experiences of promotion.
The research also endeavored to discover officers’ feelings about potential
underrepresentation in the high positions of the U.S. Army, as well as career development
support in terms of appointment and promotion. The research sought to elucidate the
participants’ perceptions about diversity, equity, and fairness in terms of being promoted to high
leadership positions and the barriers to their appointment and promotion to these.
Overview of Methodology
This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews. Qualitative methods are
appropriate when research explores various aspects of lived experience. A qualitative researcher
aims to describe accurately the topic of study without influence from any pre-given structure
while maintaining fact (Groenewald, 2004). “A qualitative strategy of inquiry proposes an active,

36
involved role for the social scientist. … It is participation in an activity that generates interest,
purpose, the point of view, value, meaning, and intelligibility” (Patton, 2014, p. 53). A summary
of the study quotations of Bricki and Green (2007) postulated that qualitative methods answer
the why, what, and how rather than the quantitative how many and how much.
Role of the Researcher
I adopted a philosophical approach to guide the entire research project: in a qualitative
inquiry, the researcher is the instrument. I am a current member of the U.S. Army, the son of a
current member of the U.S. Army, and the son of a recently retired Army combat veteran, all of
whom have served in key leadership positions in the U.S. Army in the last 10 years. As the
researcher, I have a connection and interest in analyzing further developing research on the topic
of the lack of diversity among commissioned officers at the senior level ranks. My role was
centered on gathering pertinent information from relevant literature, establishing an open and
collaborative relationship with the study population, and accurately collecting other outlying
factors. The desire throughout is to minimize the research bias and approach the study
impartially. Other important roles include safeguarding participants, protecting confidentiality,
protecting data provided, and presenting and interpreting the results and findings with
truthfulness and neutrality.
Study Site
The setting for this study is a virtual one, as the participants were retired and separated. I
ensured a safe and confidential virtual space by holding the interviews on Zoom, which gave the
participants confidentiality and trust regarding information disclosed and shared. The
participants’ interview days and times were based solely on their convenience and upon their
availability. The overall goal of the setting was centered on providing a discrete and supportive

37
location for the participants to share their lived experiences utilizing the virtual platform of
Zoom.
Participants
I selected participants who had validated lived experiences about the study and were
willing to talk about their lived experiences while also providing a diverse lived experience
population to support the research. Participants for this study consisted of eight retired or
separated commissioned officers of the U.S. Army who had either had a successful or
unsuccessful military experience. The list of participants and their ranking is not publicly
accessible, and their data were stored and analyzed confidentially for research and privacy
purposes.
The criteria for selecting the sample of participants are based on acquiring a holistic
perspective at the respective levels of the promotion progress of a Black/African American
commissioned officer. The criteria for sample selection were (a) Black/African American
commissioned officers from the U.S. Army who identify themselves as Black/African American
and have since retired and/or separated; (b) a mix of men and women regardless of rank, (c)
retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers; and (d) a representation of
promotion advancement from captain (O3) to general officer (O10). All participants received a
study information sheet (see Appendix A) that contained information about the study purpose,
methods, selection criteria, ethical issues, the study risks, potential benefits, and a statement of
the opportunity to participate, refuse, or opt-out if they so desire without any harm to self. After
reading the sheet, all participants verbally consented to continuing with the interviews. There
was no stipend or payment made for participation. The procedures ensure the confidentiality of
participants are executed. This research sought to understand questions specific to the lived

38
experiences of Black/African American commissioned officers who have retired or been
separated from the U.S. Army. The goal was to advance the study, evolving a tool to allow the
U.S. Army to understand the lived experiences of Black/African American commissioned
officers who have retired or separated from the military.
Table 1 depicts the demographics of the sample of participants who were interviewed for
this study. All were retired U.S. Army officers. The research sample consisted of eight retired
military officers with a diverse range of ages from 43 to 77, resulting in an average age of
approximately 51. Six participants were males, while the other two were females. Three held the
rank of major (O4), two were lieutenant colonels (O5), one was a colonel (O6), one was a major
general (O8), and one was a lieutenant general (O9), representative of several levels of and
responsibility and seniority. All participants had retired from military service, indicating a shared
experience. The diversity in age, sex, and rank among these participants provides an important
basis for considering the experiences of retired military personnel.
Table 1
Participant Sample Demographics
ID Age Sex Rank Service
Participant 1 77 Male Major general (O8) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 2 43 Male Major (O4) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 3 44 Female Lieutenant colonel (O5) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 4 43 Male Major (O4) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 5 43 Male Lieutenant colonel (O5) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 6 44 Female Major (O4) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 7 51 Male Colonel (O6) U.S. Army (retired)
Participant 8 57 Male Lieutenant general (O9) U.S. Army (retired)

39
Description of Instrumentation
Once the participants had been selected and agreed to participate in the study, semistructured virtual interviews served as the primary method for collecting data and information.
The interview included only the participants and me as the interviewer to reduce outside
interference or influence. The interviews consisted of video and audio recordings, and handwritten notes were later transcribed using Microsoft Word. All interviews were under 75 minutes
in duration. Each interview began with a reading of the study information sheet (see Appendix
A). The interview itself followed a written protocol (see Appendix B) consisting of four phases:
introduction, setting the stage, heart of the interview, and closing questions. During the
interview, specific lead questions were asked with follow-up questions. Upon completion of the
interview, the recordings were stored in a private and secure location.
Data Collection Procedures
Data collection began with the initial contact with participants either through email or
phone to arrange individual interviews that could be conducted in person or over the phone. Data
collection was from semi-structured individual interviews held in a one-on-one interview using a
virtual platform with only the participants and me as the interviewer present.
A pivotal aspect of this process was to ensure that the selected interview times were
convenient for the participants, facilitated by presenting a range of available time slots. This
approach fostered the establishment of trust and rapport as it acknowledged the participants’
daily routines and schedules. The duration of these interviews fell within the range of 45 to 60
minutes. The primary objective was to elicit authentic responses through clear communication of
the interview’s purpose and objectives, as well as a thorough understanding of the reasoning
behind the interview, leading to a comprehensive analysis. Additionally, the designated interview

40
times were chosen with an awareness of interview fatigue, a factor that could potentially hinder
the quality of responses (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Participants could choose the interview option, either in person or over the phone. While
the preferred method was in person, the final decision regarding location and means of recording
was influenced by the participants’ preferences (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interviews were
typically scheduled toward the end of the participants’ workdays, a strategic choice that
minimized external interruptions and facilitated more meaningful communication between me as
interviewer and the interviewee. The interviews took place away from the participants’
workplaces to ensure greater confidentiality and minimize any potential biases that may arise
from a naturalistic setting (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). All participants fell within the criteria of
acceptability.
I decided not to use focus groups based solely on the various rank structures and undue
influence that may be perceived by lower-ranking personnel of other high-ranking officials and
me. I collected data through audio-recorded interviews accompanied by detailed notes. I began
this process after obtaining consent to participate in the study and permission to record. For
example, Participants 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 were not available for face-to-face interviews as they were
far from the city. Since they had already agreed to the interview schedule, I used Zoom to
interview them. However, I interviewed Participants 1, 2, and 3 via phone, as they were within
my locality. As stated earlier, the interviews took less than 75 minutes, after which I transcribed,
coded, analyzed, and interpreted. I took these steps while factoring out university institutional
review board guidelines for researching human participants and NIH training and obtaining
approval from the university to interview the participants. To safeguard the participants and

41
ensure their confidentiality, I identified them with pseudonyms such as “Participant 1” during the
interviews and in the transcripts.
I contacted participants using email and text messages. I did not collect IP addresses.
The interview recordings were accessible only to me through a password-protected USC Zoom
account. I coded the interview transcripts and saved them in a password-protected computer
backed up in an offline hard drive to limit all external access.
Appendix A provides the study’s interview protocol. Interview questions addressed three
key facets of the promotion experience phenomenon under study expressed as research subquestions: perceptions of the Army’s ability to address barriers to promoting quality
Black/African commissioned officers who can compete at the next level, how to address the
equity of Black/African American commissioned officers as leaders at senior strategic ranks, and
perceptions of the U.S. Army’s underrepresentation of Black/African American commissioned
officers at all levels.
Data Analysis Procedure
The data analysis used a synthesis of work by Hamby (2019) and Creswell (2013) who
suggested several stages of data analysis: (a) prepare data through video, audio, and/or text
transcription; (b) identify, organize, and code keywords, phrases, and themes; (c) perform a
cluster analysis, that is, the review of common, contrasting, and unique words, phrases, and
themes for clusters of words, phrases, and themes in the specific context of the research
question). The final or last step of the data analysis involved interpreting the findings and results
of the online interviews by extracting the common themes, phrases, and keywords the
participants shared.

42
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Creswell (2013) stated that a qualitative study is useful for understanding the deep
structure of knowledge that is only possible from personal interactions with participants, which
cannot be devoid of infiltration from either the researcher or participants. Lincoln and Guba
(1985) stated four criteria for evaluating the worth and trustworthiness of a study: credibility,
transferability, dependability, and conformability. Houghton et al. (2013) reviewed these criteria
and described credibility as conducting a believable study; dependability and conformability as
the neutrality, accuracy, and reliability of the data; and transferability as the capacity to transfer
or apply the study concept to a similar situation. If the data are reliable, they confirm that the
study results will be consistent if researchers repeat them many times.
To promote the study’s validity, the essence of qualitative studies is to attest to the
“credibility” of the participants, the researcher, and the data (Hamby, 2019). In this regard, the
background of the participants is essential to establish a case for their credibility and to capture
the lived experiences of Black/African American commissioned officers who retired and
separated from the U.S. Army. Also, any terms and concepts revealed in your analysis should be
related to alternate terms that are commonly accepted and understood (Hamby, 2019). Creswell
(2013) offered several strategies to validate a qualitative study, including clarifying researcher
bias through reflexivity, mechanically recording data, and using verbatim transcripts for data
analysis, all of which were completed for this study.
Ethical Considerations
As Creswell (2013) stated, ethical concerns in a qualitative study usually surface during
data collection. To protect the human subjects in this study, each participant received a study
Information Sheet to read and verbally acknowledge before the interview. The study information

43
sheet addressed the following: an invitation to participate, a description of the nature of the
study, a statement of voluntary participation, an assessment of potential physical and emotional
risks, a description of how anonymity and confidentiality will be preserved, a statement of
benefit to the participants, my phone and email information and that of the sponsoring institution.
Because the interview contained participants’ personal information, the recordings and
transcripts, including audio and video files, were encrypted. Only I had access to the materials
and completed data. I secured all identifying information, including the records, in a passwordprotected folder on a password-protected computer. I maintained the study’s confidentiality by
storing the collected information on an encrypted computer. After completion of the study, all
information was deleted, leaving no trace. Quotes from participants were de-identified for
inclusion in Chapter Four.
Chapter Summary
This study was a qualitative design using individual semi-structured interviews of retired
and separated Black/African commissioned officers in the U.S. Army. Participants read and
acknowledged a study information sheet revealing how their privacy would be protected. The
data analysis revealed themes, phrases, and words in the participants’ recorded responses. The
data were analyzed for commonalities and uniqueness and related to addressing the three key
facets of the promotion experience phenomenon under study: perceptions of the Army’s ability
to address barriers to promoting quality Black/African commissioned officers who can compete
at the next level, how to address the equity of Black/African American commissioned officers as
leaders at senior strategic ranks, and perceptions of the U.S. Army’s underrepresentation of
Black/African American commissioned officers at all levels.

44
Chapter Four: Findings
This chapter restates the research question and presents the results of the data analysis,
including excerpts from interview transcripts. Results are in table and narrative format. Also
included is an interpretation of how themes in the data analysis relate to the research questions.
Purpose of the Research and Research Question
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and describe the experiences of
retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers in the U.S. Army in
securing promotion to high leadership positions in the U.S. Army. One overarching research
question: How do Black/African American retired and separated commissioned officers in the
U.S. Army perceive their experiences in securing promotion? To answer the research question,
this study addressed three sub-questions (SQs):
1. What is the perception of retired and separated Black/African American
commissioned officers of the Army’s ability to address the barriers to promoting
quality Black/African American commissioned officers that can compete at the next
level?
2. What is the perception of retired and separated Black/African American
commissioned officers of equity as leaders at senior strategic ranks?
3. What is the perception of retired and separated Black/African American
commissioned officers of the U.S. Army’s underrepresentation of Black/African
American commissioned officers at all levels?
Findings of the Data Analysis
As is typical in qualitative research methods, the data obtained from the interviews
consisted of key common, contrasting, and unique words, phrases, and themes based on personal

45
interviews derived from interview responses. These data were further analyzed to identify
correlating themes, which were later analyzed for their connection to the three research SQs.
Emerging Themes
Eleven themes emerged from the analysis of the interviews and were coded one through
11. Figure 2 depicts 11 themes that emerged from the common, contrasting, and unique words,
phrases, and themes participants stated.
Table 2
Themes in the Interviews
Code Code name and description Indicative responses
1 Racial discrimination. Failure to
be recognized for promotion
due to skin color
R6: Yeah, yeah, discrimination has always been
there.
2 Gender/sex discrimination.
Failure to be recognized for
promotions due to being a
woman
R3: I think there is a lot of discrimination against
women in the promotion system. … I had death
threats and text message Facebook. Bullying,
cyberbullying. All that you know. Don’t show
up to this place. Don’t do this.
3 Diversified selection. Selection
for promotion based on
relationships, friendships, and
connections within the U.S.
Army
R1: I really think the promotion process has
improved dramatically, but there’s still a sense
that some are benefiting from relationships and
connections. It’s not as blatant as before, but
there’s an underlying concern that personal ties
still play a role in the selection for promotions
within the U.S. Army.
R7: I can’t ignore the blatant gender
discrimination in the Army promotions. It’s
disheartening to witness the failure to be
recognized solely because I’m a woman.
Despite my dedication and competence, it feels
like there’s an invisible barrier blocking my
path to advancement solely based on gender.
This not only affects individual careers but also
undermines the principles of equality and
meritocracy we should uphold in the military.

46
Code Code name and description Indicative responses
4 Inclusive. Failure to be
considered for promotion due
to bribery among the seniors
R4: In my years, if you were out there doing your
job, you got promoted. Nowadays, there’s this
concern among some that promotions might
involve bribery or favoritism among the seniors.
It’s disheartening to think that merit might not
be the only factor considered.
5 Merit inconsideration. Lack of
consideration of an
individual’s qualifications or
performance records during
the promotion selection
process
R8: Some Black Americans in line of duty may
opt for further education. However, upon
completion of major skills, another individual
preferably White, is transferred from another
base to head them.
6 Lack of gender representation.
Lack of people from senior
leadership who can guide or
are willing to advocate and
build a pipeline for young
leaders moving into top
leadership positions.
R7: And so I talked to a young lady the other day,
and she shared her experience as a lieutenant
colonel and a battalion commander. As part of
the CPAT program, she went before the board,
and they told her that her tendency to come
across as a toxic leader was deemed high. It
raises concerns about potential gender
discrimination in the evaluation process, where
certain leadership traits might be unfairly
attributed to women, hindering their
advancement within the U.S. Army.
7 Illiteracy. Low level of skills in
writing, oral communication,
preventing some from rising
to higher ranks.
R6: During our time there was few military
education systems and were reserved for few
people. Most skills were learned on job. Army
proficiency test was only monetary test that
allow people to get skills and earn promotion.
… Most people of color do not pursue further
education as they do not see fellow in leadership
position, they, however, choose to remain in
their position until retirement.
8 Underrepresentation. Few
people from the minority
group who occupy the top
leadership positions
R2: I sat on several leadership meetings boards
and I never noticed any representation
9 Recruitment structures. Systems
that ensure there is equitable
and fair recruitment of among
minority groups.
R1: with right recruiters, the recruiting activities is
always fair.
10 Freedom of expression. The
ability to communicate
without repercussions about
issues that hinder promotion
R1: He tries to make his boss look like the Boogie
woman.

47
Code Code name and description Indicative responses
11 Mentorship versus leadership.
The ability to solve problems
and maintain high
performance as an Army
officer, including public
speaking and speech writing
R 6: He was a parent, a teacher, a counselor. You
know, a friend, and still to this day, …if he
takes me now or call, I’m going stop what I’m
doing because he believes in giving back. He
believes in that tree, that branch, you know ,that
mentorship. I mean, but he’s the one he’s my
Number 1.
Cluster Analysis
Following the example of Braun and Clarke (2006) and using NVivo 10 for Windows.
(Lumivero, n.d.), I performed a cluster analysis to visualize patterns by grouping emerging
themes with similar words and attribute values and refocusing them on a broader level of themes.
I then reviewed 11 prominent codes to identify clusters of overarching themes that linked to the
research questions to make interpreting the 11 codes more manageable. These clusters were
linked to each of the three research SQs. Table 3 depicts four clusters of overarching themes and
their links to the three research SQs. The narrative in the link describes how the theme cluster
addresses each of the SQs. Four thematic clusters were identified: discrimination, deficient
mentorship, inequity in promotion, and lack of trust.

48
Table 3
Cluster Analysis of Themes Linked to Research Sub-questions
Theme cluster and
description Codes Link to research sub-question
Discrimination: themes
that relate racial and/or
sex discrimination as a
barrier to promotion
1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9,
10
SQ1: Biases, racial, and gender discrimination
of Black/African Americans experienced in
the assessment and promotion process stifle
advancement.
SQ2: Fear of taking a mantle of leadership from
Whites limited the advancement of
Black/African Americans in the Army
SQ3: Education for advancement in the military
was only kept for Whites and thus limited
Black/African Americans in the military from
being promoted.
Deficient mentorship:
themes that relate to
deficiencies in the
ability of the individual
seeking promotion and
poor mentorship of
support from senior
Black/African
American officers
5, 6, 7, 8, 11 SQ1: Most participants reported that a
mentorship program addresses deficiencies in
promoting Black/African Americans in the
Army; few mentors and low levels of
mentorship from senior leaders are barriers to
promotion.
SQ2: Black/African Americans in the Army
ought to accept any responsibilities assigned
within the military to enable them to earn
promotion; there is a low percentage of
Black/African Americans in high leadership
positions in the U.S. Army
SQ3: Low motivation from senior
Black/African Americans enables White
officers to thrive in military leadership
compared to other communities; lack of toplevel diversity affects mentorship. Aspiring
officers like me struggle to find mentors who
understand our unique challenges and
experiences since few Black/African
Americans hold senior leadership positions.
Underrepresentation affects career-advancing
mentorship.
Inequity in promotion:
themes indicating that
career development and
pathways are
inequitably distributed
5, 8 SQ1: Barriers to the appointment and
promotion of Black/African American U.S.
Army to higher leadership positions
SQ2: Most Black/African Americans are in
non-combat arms and growing

49
Theme cluster and
description Codes Link to research sub-question
disproportionately compared to their White
counterparts.
SQ3: Most Black/African Americans in the
Army were reluctant to accept government
assistance roles that were part of the
advantage in ascending to higher rank.
Lack of trust: themes that
related to lack of trust
and/or support networks
that negatively affect
the mental health of
officers and impede
advancement/promotion
1–5 SQ1: Creating diversity, equality, and fairness
in appointment and promotion to higher
leadership position. Participant 5 questioned
hiring and promotion of diversity and
equality. Disillusioned, one respondent
questioned the Army’s fairness and
inclusivity.
SQ2: Participants indicated a lack of trust in
agents, confidants, and support networks in
personal and professional life
SQ3: Lack of motivation from colleagues in
leadership positions limits Black/African
American military from having a mentality of
being promoted one day.
Interpretation of Themes
Following is an interpretation of the results of the analysis of the four thematic clusters
identified in the analysis and how they link to the research questions.
Theme Cluster 1: Discrimination
These were themes that related racial and/or sex discrimination as a barrier to promotion.
Within the context of the interviews, a recurring theme revolved around racial and gender
discrimination, with an emphasis on selection processes and promotion boards. The interviewees
highlighted the limited or unequal opportunities afforded to Black/African American officers in
their pursuit of higher leadership positions within the U.S. Army, even when they possess the
requisite qualifications and experiences. It became evident that discrimination often results from

50
a lack of connections or mentorship from higher-ranking individuals. These interviews provided
insights into the pervasive nature of racial discrimination in the Army’s selection processes, with
specific attention to the discrimination women face.
Participant 1, when asked about how they handled racial discrimination when he was in
the military, stated, “Our federal lawmakers today and from previous decades have told senior
U.S. military officials that all the services need to ramp up their efforts to ensure that minorities
as well as women have a better chance.”
On the other hand, Participant 3 shared a personal perspective that underscored the
impact of personal networks and connections on career progression. When asked if the level of
discrimination in the U.S. Army has decreased, she responded that “discrimination is still there.
It does not matter your rank.” She added that when she was in a leadership position, she received
several death threats: “I had death threats and text message Facebook. Bullying, cyberbullying.
All that you know. Don’t show up to this place. Don’t do this.”
Additionally, the participants’ testimonies underscored a substantial gender disparity
within the U.S. Army, irrespective of ethnic background, which ultimately contributes to the
underrepresentation of women. The interviews reinforced the fact that Black/African American
women in the U.S. Army face gender discrimination and lack sponsorship to enter the military.
Participant 3 elaborated on the challenges women of color experienced and emphasized the need
to comprehend one’s working environment and the significance of sponsorship. He claimed
women with the rank of lieutenant or major general are discriminated against.
I talked to a young lady the other day, and she was telling me as a lieutenant colonel and
a battalion commander that she, as part of the CPAT program, she went before the board,
and they told her that has the tendency to come across as a toxic leader.

51
The theme of racial and gender discrimination, as elucidated in Theme 1, resonates with
each of the research questions outlined in Table 2, forming a nexus that underscores the
pervasive challenges faced by retired and separated Black/African American commissioned
officers in the U.S. Army.
The prevalence of racial and gender discrimination directly informs the officers’
perceptions of their promotion experiences. The findings within this theme highlight how these
discriminatory practices significantly influence how Black/African American officers view their
career progression. For instance, the experience Participant 4 shared, where race played a
decisive role in a promotion process leading to inequity, underscores the deeply ingrained
perceptions of discrimination within the U.S. Army. These experiences shape their perceptions
of fairness, opportunity, and recognition: “I don’t know about this new promotion process, right?
I guess, right? I guess it changed a little bit. But in my years, if you were out there doing your
job. You got promoted.”
However, Participant 9 had varied views concerning promotion based on race,
responding,
Our Army’s relative strength in the nation is diversity, so what you want to do is make
sure that you’re bringing people who have diverse viewpoints. Diversity of thought,
diversity of experiences, diversity of race and culture because it helps you see and
understand things differ.
Participant 6 affirmed that promotion was earned upon attending specific education and
skills related to the military. However, only White personnel were allowed. She said, “During
our time, there was few military education systems and were reserved for few people. Most skills

52
were learned on job. Army proficiency test was only monetary test that allow people to get skills
and earn promotion.”
Theme 1 sheds light on the systemic challenges Black/African American officers
encounter in their pursuit of high leadership positions. The limited opportunities for
advancement, primarily attributed to race and the lack of connections and mentorship, constitute
significant barriers outlined in these themes. When asked what other aspects that contribute to
challenges Black/African Americans while pursuing leadership in the Army, Participant 1 (male)
stated, “Most people of color do not pursue further education as they do not see the value in
leadership positions. They, however, choose to remain in their position until retirement.”
The theme of racial and gender discrimination directly addresses the impact of
discrimination on the career progression of Black/African American officers. Participants had
various opinions on ways to address gender discrimination in the military. For example,
Participant 5 reported that “regardless of purported changes to address gender discrimination,
U.S. military is among leading in discrimination with most Whites believing that other races are
not part of the country and deserve a little share.”
Participants 4 and 7, both male, seemed to agree that the only way to address gender
discrimination in the Army is through education and inclusivity. Participant 4 said, “My thinking
is to be as inclusive, as decisive on matters of responsibility, and also as deliberative. I think that
an open, direct decision brings in views from other races.” Participant 7 said,
I’m a little bit unique compared to most COs. When given an opportunity to lead this
country I will form policies that would impact military and give opportunity other races
as they are part of American culture. Racism is something of past, and, and it should be

53
buried. I’m a person who believes you lead from the front and not asking anybody
anything that I can’t do or I won’t do.
The findings reveal that these discriminatory practices have a significant impact, as they
hinder opportunities for advancement and impede career growth. The personal experience one
participant shared exemplifies how race can decisively influence the promotion process, resulting
in inequity and a lack of recognition. This impact is an essential aspect of understanding the
broader implications of racial and gender discrimination within the U.S. Army.
In summary, Theme 1, which centers on racial and gender discrimination, serves as a
critical link connecting the overarching themes to the research questions. It underscores the
pervasive and deeply rooted challenges that Black/African American officers face in their pursuit
of high leadership positions and their perceptions of these experiences. These insights are
integral to a comprehensive understanding of the experiences of these officers in the U.S. Army.
Theme Cluster 2: Deficient Mentorship
These were themes that related to deficiencies in the ability of the individual seeking
promotion and poor mentorship of support from senior Black/African American officers. The
personal capabilities of Black/African American commanders in the U.S. Army, in relation to
their pursuit of promotions, bring attention to perceived shortcomings and the need for enhancing
their skills. This theme suggests the influence of personal skills, including perceived strengths
and flaws, on how the participants interpret their experiences with promotion.
This agrees with other research that has noted that most Black/African Americans in the
Army were deprived of opportunities to ascend to leadership positions. Most participants
reported that despite some having valid documents and experiences, they were not considered as
no one would convince them to apply and participate in essential programs that would see them

54
ascend quickly to leadership. In other words, African Americans in the Army lacked mentorship
and role models that would help them ascend to important positions.
When asked how they perceive their promotion experiences, most participants reported
that a mentorship program addresses deficiencies in promoting Black/African Americans in the
Army. The majority of participants highlighted the need to implement a mentoring program to
address perceived shortcomings in the promotion of Black/African Americans inside the
military.
Participant 5 reported that “most African Americans in Army were reluctant to pursue
programs that will see them ascend to leadership. Actually mentorship programs were meant for
other communities.” Participant 7 reported, “I’m still a strong advocate for it, and so whether
persons going through something or not, I’m still going to be there for them.” In other words, the
Participant is taking personal responsibility to mentor other Army officers from minority groups
which agrees with the study. Participant 7 (male) restated that mentorship program helped him
ascend to the rank of general:
Mentorship played important role in my career because I went back to my mentors, even
though my mentor only attained the rank of general, but played a big role, a large role. I
took my mentor’s advice thus helping me a lot.
When asked what challenges Black/African American officers encounter in their pursuit
of high leadership positions in the U.S. Army, responses suggested that Black/African
Americans in the Army ought to accept any responsibilities assigned within the military to
enable them to earn promotion. Black/African Americans serving in the military are frequently
encouraged to willingly do any allocated duties to improve their individual skills and, thus,
increase their chances of advancement.

55
These challenges form an integral part of their experiences, serving as tangible examples
of the obstacles they face in achieving high leadership positions. However, most challenges are a
result of total ignorance and reluctance among women in the military. These sentiments were
backed up by Participant 6 (female) which stated,
Sometimes, it is important to read various books related to promotion. For myself, I like
reading a lot of inspiration books like the one by Colin Powell. Like admitting mistakes,
not criticizing others in public, do it in private. Staying close to the action.
When asked what impact racial and sex discrimination has on Black/African American
officers’ career progression, responses highlighted personal abilities in minimizing the effects of
racial and gender discrimination on the advancement of Black/African American officers.
Participant 7 proposed that Black/African Americans in the military should actively participate in
training and pursue education related to the Army to acquire skills.
While Black/African American Army members often exhibit leadership qualities, they
frequently do not receive the requisite mentorship to facilitate their growth. Such limitations are
often imposed by White leaders who do not acknowledge or identify Black/African American
officers as suitable candidates for senior positions. Participant 7 provided an illustrative example
of the impact of racial bias on career decisions and recounted advice received against taking on a
particular command role due to the officer’s racial background. The absence of guidance from
mentors sharing similar backgrounds perpetuates the belief that high-ranking positions are
unattainable, which, in turn, hinders career development. Participant 7 said, “That’s been a
problem since before they joined the military, and now that they have retired, they see the current
generations of leaders faced with the exact same problem sets.” However, Participant 7 advised

56
that current situation motivation from mentors helps junior military to ascend to better leadership
positions. Using herself as an example, she said,
Mentorship played a crucial role in my progression to leadership positions, specifically
achieving the rank of lieutenant colonel, throughout my entire career, both in the military
and civilian realms. I attribute my success to the guidance and support provided by
mentors.
Participant 6 underscored understanding and learning about one’s subordinates before
assuming leadership roles, advocating for a shift in mindset.
The absence of visible leaders from similar backgrounds further contributes to a sense of
demotivation among aspiring Black/African American service members, as they do not receive
guidance on career development and available opportunities. When she was asked her perception
of leadership while in military, she said,
He was a parent, a teacher, a counselor, you know, a friend. And still, to this day, I mean,
if he calls, I’m going to stop what I’m doing because he believes in giving back. He
believes in that tree, that branch, you know, that mentorship. I mean, but he’s the one.
He’s my number one.
When asked how mentorship contributed to promotion earned in the Army, Participant 6
said the following, “I can’t recall any obstacles because I was best qualified for appointment. I
had great mentors.” However, when asked to state factors that contributed to her success while in
the Army and what set her apart from others throughout her military career, Participant 6
described the experience as “Best qualifications include training, education, and motivation. I
worked for more than position in the Army. Whenever I was called upon, I was available for
tasks by my bosses.”

57
Participant 5 provided insights into the challenges Black/African American officers face,
including the lack of information and opportunities that would facilitate personal and
professional growth. The absence of leadership and mentorship opportunities has direct
implications for the research questions. He said, “I think it’s very crucial that members of
military access mentorship programs, because mentors can advise you, and it is up to one to
execute what was said.” Using herself as an example, Participant 6 said, “Mentorship helped me
ascend to leadership, I mean lieutenant colonel rank throughout my entire career both military
and civilian.”
The lack of leadership and mentorship opportunities influences how Black/African
American officers perceive their promotion experiences. Their struggles to access guidance and
support in reaching high leadership positions shape their perceptions of the challenges and
limitations they face in their careers.
Theme 2 directly addressed the challenges faced by Black/African American officers,
notably the challenge of limited mentorship and guidance. This challenge impedes their progress
in pursuing high leadership positions, making it a significant barrier. The absence of leadership
and mentorship opportunities hinders the career progression of Black/African American officers.
Their inability to access critical support networks affects their career development and
progression, aligning with SQ3’s focus on the impact of such challenges.
Theme Cluster 3: Inequity in Promotion
These were themes indicating that career development and pathways are inequitably
distributed. This theme cluster highlights disparities in career development and pathways for
Black/African American officers and is closely tied to the research questions. A recurring
observation was the disproportionate representation of Black/African American officers in non-

58
combat arms branches within the U.S. Army. This underrepresentation emerged as a critical
theme, revealing how the system is biased against career progression for Black/African
American Army personnel. Participant 4’s observations highlighted disparities beginning early in
the careers of young officers, where racial biases become evident, resulting in limited
opportunities for career growth. These disparities affect career paths and Black/African
American officers are often positioned in areas with restricted development opportunities due to
their race, affecting their personal growth throughout their service commitments. When asked to
comment on promotion inequities, Participant 6 said, “Despite education and experience, women
do not ascend to leadership easily in military.”
In addition, participants noted that Black/African American officers are subjected to bias
in the promotion process due to poor academic backgrounds, resulting in a lack of the essential
skills required for top leadership roles. For instance, Participant 5 “emphasized that the system
intentionally withholds information from Black/African American service members, hindering
their career progression.” Participant 5 said,
So, I got early promotions, and it wasn’t because I had the best evaluations. I believe it
just had to do with you know my experiences? You know the units. I was a part of the
things that I did. And just, you know, people knowing who I was. My character.
These insights underscore how the military system often perpetuates inequalities and
limits career development opportunities for Black/African American officers. Participant 6 had
another version concerning promotion and said
I think apart from education most key thing for an Army officer to do is to do their job
well, and when supervisor request something, try not to tell him or her you are going to

59
do research and bring them nothing. You got to be factual, and straightforward and that
would keep you at better position and make promotion easier.
Participant 1, while looking for a colleague in the office, was told his colleague had taken
academic leave. Participant 1’s response was, “I was, like, furious when I went over to talk about
something else. He was asking about my education. I was like, does one have to go to school to
attain the rank of a major?”
When Participant 5 was asked to give views on ways to address inequality in promotion,
the response was,
With the current system, I encourage every Army officer to get the highest level of
education he or she can get. … I mean civilian education. Because if you don’t have such
skills on handling civilians, it becomes hard to be nominated for a high-ranking position.
The contemporary Army hierarchy is based on merits and experiences. Without such no
one will appoint or nominate you for a high-ranking position.
The disparities in career development and pathways are integral to how African American
officers perceive their promotion experiences. They experience limited career growth
opportunities due to racial bias, influencing their perceptions of advancement possibilities.
Theme 3 directly addresses a core challenge Black/African American officers face:
disparities in career development and pathways. These disparities are integral to how
Black/African American officers perceive their promotion experiences. They experience limited
career growth opportunities due to racial bias, influencing their perceptions of advancement
possibilities. This challenge hampers their pursuit of high leadership positions, reinforcing the
limitations they encounter. The theme of career development and pathways connects to SQ3 by
demonstrating how racial bias affects career progression. It illustrates how these officers often

60
find themselves in areas with limited growth opportunities, hindering their advancement and
perpetuating disparities.
Theme Cluster 4: Lack of Trust
These were themes that related to a lack of trust and/or support networks that negatively
affect the mental health of officers and impede advancement/promotion. The absence of trust and
support networks for Black Americans in the U.S. Army emerged as a pressing concern with
significant impacts on their well-being, career progression, and overall military experience.
When Black service members perceive a lack of trust and support, they may experience
heightened stress, anxiety, and feelings of isolation, which can impede their ability to focus on
career growth and professional development. Participant 8 brought attention to the exploitation
and misuse of relationships in the Army, where individuals are often used for personal gains
rather than for the collective benefit of Black/African American commissioned officers.
Participant 8 said, “Some Black Americans in line of duty may opt for further education.
However, upon completion of major skills, another individual, preferably White, is transferred
from another base to lead them.”
Furthermore, the absence of such networks restricts access to influential connections for
career advancement. When asked to give her experience of how the absence of networks restricts
access to influential connections, Participant 3 said,
[I] had a close friend, Black, to be specific, who he was respected and adored in the
Army. He was decorated, but one day he was late because of family issues of which he
reported. To our surprise before interview for promotion, he was disqualified for not
being faithful, and a junior officer was picked.

61
Support networks play a central role in creating opportunities for networking, which is
essential for career progression. The experiences the participants shared indicate that the absence
of trust and support networks hinders the ability to tap into influential connections that could
facilitate their advancement.
This theme emphasizes the absence of trust and support networks for Black/African
American commissioned officers and their implications for the research questions. Furthermore,
the absence of such networks restricts access to influential connections that can open doors for
career advancement. The absence of trust and support networks directly influences how
Black/African American officers perceive their promotion experiences. The lack of genuine
support and the experience of using relationships for personal gain shape their perceptions of the
system’s inadequacies. Participant 1 encouraged that in order to earn a promotion, Black
Americans in the military ought to stay focused on a roadmap:
Stick to that roadmap, with the help of others, be they fellow officers, be they COs, be
NCOs, and certainly the soldiers that you lead, you’ve got to have a plan. And you’ve got
to execute that plan to the fullest.
Theme 4 addresses the challenge of the absence of trust and support networks. The lack of
genuine support networks presents a significant challenge for these officers in their pursuit of
high leadership positions. However, Participant 2 expressed how he struggled to convince
commanders with faith that one day he would be granted a leadership position after gaining
major education and skills:
While in [the] military, I strive to be best, I did, and report to my commanders more than
anyone, as I had started earlier. I saw what was needed, and I did it without failing. I
accepted any challenge with [the belief] that one day I will rise to the rank. I wanted to

62
make a difference in the Army. I’m going to tell you I did a lot of praying, but the end
was not what I expected.
The theme of trust and support networks connects to SQ3 by illustrating how their
absence affects well-being and career development. It underscores the significant impact on their
progress and access to influential connections for career advancement.
Chapter Summary
The data that made up this chapter resulted from the responses of eight interviewees.
They were retired senior officers in the U.S. Army with ranks of major (O4), lieutenant colonel
(O5), colonel (O6), major general (O8), and lieutenant general (O9). The experiences working
for the U.S. military through their interaction and association with others in the military provided
insights toward answering the overarching question of how Black/African American retired and
separated commissioned officers in the U.S. Army perceive their experiences in securing
promotion. The data for analysis were common, contradictory, and unique themes inferred from
personal interviews with the participants. Four thematic clusters emerged:
• Discrimination: Themes that relate racial and/or sex discrimination as a barrier to
promotion.
• Deficient mentorship: Themes that related to deficiencies in the ability of the
individual seeking promotion and poor mentorship of support from senior
Black/African American officers.
• Inequity in promotion: Themes indicating that career development and pathways are
inequitably distributed.
• Lack of trust: Themes related to lack of trust and/or support networks that negatively
affect the mental health of officers and impede advancement/promotion.

63
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Recommendations
This chapter presents a summary of the study’s findings, conclusions from the research,
an in-depth discussion of the conclusions and the links to prior research, implications for
promotion in the military, study limitations, and recommendations for further study of the
phenomenon of promotion in the military.
Longstanding issues around underrepresentation continue. Various studies have shown
that the proportions of Black/African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and females of other racial
backgrounds have increased over time; these groups in the senior officer corps remain relatively
low, although the percentage of females in the U.S. Army has continued to grow over the years.
The purpose of this qualitative study was to identify and describe the experiences of retired and
separated Black/African American commissioned officers in the U.S. Army in securing a
promotion to high leadership positions in the U.S. Army to answer the overarching research
question of how Black/African American retired and separated commissioned officers in the U.S.
Army perceive their experiences to promotion.
Conclusions
The results suggest a conclusion that there are still fewer promotion opportunities for
male Black, Hispanic, and other officers from a minority group than White male officers in the
U.S. Army today. The results of the research led to a conclusion that the Black/African American
Army officers experienced racial discrimination in their quest to gain promotion or while
interacting with Whites in the military. In the interviews, several participants stated that they had
faced racial discrimination. The findings indicate that White male officers now have more
promotion prospects than male officers from other groups. The study findings indicate that
Black/African American Army commanders encounter racial prejudice during their efforts to

64
advance in rank or while engaging with White individuals in the military. This finding
corroborates the body of evidence that suggests that racial prejudice is well entrenched
throughout the Army. Participant 6 discussed that the likelihood of a drop in discrimination in
the military in the near future is low. Women and individuals belonging to marginalized racial or
ethnic groups are universally viewed as lacking respect, irrespective of their social status. The
prevalence of White officials in high-ranking military posts hinders the advancement of
individuals belonging to racial and gender minorities.
Moreover, the study indicated that effectively dealing with obstacles to advancement
necessitates intensive campaigns and instruction specifically targeted to Black/African American
troops. Several participants observed that several Black/African Americans exhibited reluctance
to pursue leadership education, questioning its relevance in light of the perceived scarcity of
leadership chances. Nevertheless, Participant 9, who has the rank of lieutenant colonel,
highlighted the significance of diversity in the Army, affirming that a range of perspectives is
key to effectively tackling security concerns domestically and during overseas operations.
Participant 4, a female lieutenant colonel, emphasized the significance of specialized military
education and abilities for career advancement. They expressed concerns about the perceived
bias in access to required examinations and promotions, which seemed to benefit those with
strong connections to leaders who were largely of White ethnicity.
An essential inference is that mentoring programs are vital in motivating individuals of
color to actively seek leadership positions and develop their abilities for career advancement. A
significant number of Black/African American individuals serving in the Army attributed their
career advancements to mentoring programs, which offered valuable assistance and a unique
perspective on their surroundings, motivating them to strive for positive transformation.

65
Moreover, retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers of the
U.S. Army anticipate that the underrepresentation of minority commissioned services will persist
for many years. This aligns with literature that predicts ongoing underrepresentation of
Black/African Americans in various federal and state sectors.
Concerning gender representation, some women expressed contentment, while others
encountered obstacles in assuming senior positions. The Army’s persistent lack of diversity
continues to be a substantial and unsolved problem. Some individuals attributed this issue, at
least in part, to trust-related concerns. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight that these issues
about trust should not serve as a reason to exclude highly competent Black/African Americans in
recruiting or promotion processes.
Discussion
As an Army-wide policy, diversity, equality, equity, and inclusion require buy-in from
the promotion boards system. This organizational change in climate, performance, building, and
mentorship supports a positive culture within an organization. A substantial amount of literature
was available on the history and climate of diversity, equality, and inclusion as a strategic plan
for expanding diverse talent in the Army officer corps. The DOD’s definition of diversity
encompasses demographic characteristics and different backgrounds, skills, and experiences. The
strategic plan does not outline targets or quotas for the recruitment, retention, or promotion of
historically underrepresented demographic groups, nor does it prioritize diversity at the expense
of military readiness. While the DoD does not establish official diversity targets based on
demographic profiles, an inherent goal within the current definition is that the characteristics of
the force should reflect the demographic characteristics of the U.S. population. The 2012–2017
DoD diversity and inclusion strategic plan emphasizes diversity management over the workforce

66
life cycle and established new definitions of diversity and diversity management (Department of
Defense, 2021). Yet the strategy did not outline recruitment, retention, or promotion targets of
historically underrepresented demographic groups. The board outlined including diverse imagery
in recruiting content and military advertising materials as one target. The DoD desires to
incorporate these goals to guide representation across the personnel life cycle (i.e., recruiting,
accessions, promotion, and retention). The U.S. Army further desires to modernize its selection
and promotion system to remove U.S. Department of the Army photos and race data cells from
the upcoming commissioned officer, warrant officer, and noncommissioned officer (NCO)
promotion and selection boards and to commission further studies to make recommendations on
other factors such as name, commissioning source, and gendered pronouns to increase fairness in
the promotion process.
The qualitative analysis of lived experiences of retired and separated Black/African
American commissioned officers in the U.S. Army showed that racial discrimination and gender
issues are the leading barriers to the promotion of Black/African American commissioned
officers in the Army, with disparities likely to further increases if the issues are not addressed
amicably. The results correlate with various publications addressing the topic. Most North
American literature reported that Black people and minority groups continue to experience
discrimination in various sectors, among them the military. Literature also said that women,
despite their rank, are discriminated against to an extent. Others are forced to accept insults from
junior officers.
The study also analyzed the perception of equity, including recruitment and promotion
among people of color in the Army. Though the participants were retired and separated
individuals who have worked in various positions in the military in recent years, their responses

67
were valid in that most of them were aware of and recalled events surrounding inequality in the
military. The findings align with those Papanek (1973) found in that systemic discrimination is
still prevalent among women in the Army and affects how they interact with their colleagues on
and off duty. The women believe that their performance reviews have racial and gender bias
included in the assessment and, thus, cannot progress and earn them a better position in
leadership.
Furthermore, the results agree that most Black/African American commissioned officers
have what is required to be promoted to leadership roles. Still, due to a lack of trust, most of
them have retired from their positions. This correlates with emerging themes. It was noted that
lack of confidence was among the aspects military leaders do not accord Black/African
American leadership positions. Such an attitude led to underrepresentation in the military,
forcing some minority groups unable to pursue their personal goals into leadership. For example,
a participant claimed that some Black officers might opt for further education.
Lee (2023) found that Black/African American commission officers’ education
preparation and degree attainment were neither contributors nor obstacles to promotion.
However, in that study, education, learning, and attainment of education degree and other
military-related education and skills were major factors in how the participants perceived their
success, supplementing, with minority groups joining the military, parental guidance, and
exposure are main contributors to one earning promotion. The authors noted that parental
exposure influences officers to be free and pursue their personal goals in the military. The
authors also stressed the importance of mentorship programs, diversity talks, and interaction as
some aspects that can influence the military and other sectors to adopt a diverse environment,
which may be a solution to underrepresentation in the military and other U.S. departments.

68
Recommendations for the Practice
The results of this study imply that education and leadership development, mentorship,
and equitable promotion practices place Army officers in a better position for promotion
opportunities. Leaders and human resources must ensure that programs and policies developed
are fair and equitable and should be based on something other than systems or culture that is
inclusive. Military leaders continue to follow their predecessors’ culture of handing over to
colleagues of their origin. Without fair and equitable systems, the Army may be perpetuating
leaders’ and other decision-makers’ selection of individuals with whom they have similarities,
thus denying opportunities to others with merit, experience, and viable skills. The following
sections present recommendations for the U.S. Army to consider in furthering diversity, equity,
and inclusion.
First, the findings suggest that such issues can be addressed through awareness.
Awareness is more than just knowing or perceiving the situation; it also includes individual
awareness. Army leaders must be self-aware of stereotypes or implicit biases their colleagues
experience. In U.S. settings, this can be addressed by providing multiple resources for the DoD
regarding human resources training and awareness. The Defense Equal Opportunity
Management Institute offers a ground for officers to engage and learn more about diversity.
Although the U.S. Army has embraced diversity, there is a need for the policy to be rolled over
and ensure all minority communities with merits and skills are accorded leadership positions.
The narrative should not be on paper but put into practice.
Second, current mentoring programs must specifically target the shortcomings identified
in the report. This entails guaranteeing that mentoring programs are accessible and efficacious in
directing and bolstering Black/African American officers in their attempt to attain leadership

69
roles. Integrate input from participants who voiced worries over the absence of influential
mentoring.
Third, there is a need to create and advocate for educational programs that emphasize the
significance of leadership-focused education and skills for advancing careers. Therefore, the U.S.
Army should implement focused initiatives to debunk misunderstandings and motivate officers,
particularly those of Black/African American descent, to actively engage in education as a
strategy to bolster their eligibility for advancements. This advice is consistent with research
indicating that some officers may refrain from pursuing education owing to perceived obstacles.
Fourth, the U.S. Army should promote more openness in the selection process for
promotions and career advancement opportunities within the U.S. Army and other industries.
Enforce regulations and adopt procedures to guarantee impartiality and equality in the process of
promotion, explicitly stating that promotions are determined by merit and qualifications. This
corresponds with the study’s inference that a significant number of Black/African Americans
possess the requisite education and abilities, promotes a feeling of confidence, and motivates
people from minority groups to actively seek out leadership positions.
Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations are weaknesses in the study that are out of the researcher’s control, such as
limited funding, choice of research design, statistical model constraints, or other factors (Hamby,
2019). Delimitations are the definitions the researcher sets as the boundaries of study, in essence,
within the researcher’s control. (Hamby, 2019).
This study is geographically limited by the research to only focus on Black/African
American commissioned officers who have retired or separated from the U.S. Army. One
limitation is that the entire research must be completed within a specific time frame, which may

70
influence the depth of the analysis. Another limitation that is critical to the research is that an
adequate number of participants responded and provided the data required to address the
research questions. A further limitation was in the relatively small sample of eight participants,
which could restrict the nature of personal perspectives in their responses. In this regard, this
study did not provide insight into the perspectives of other ethnic groups. Furthermore, as the
time for each interview was limited and without prior thought about the questions, the
participants may not have provided as rich a response as he or she would have if given more
time.
A particular limitation of any qualitative research is to base it on an existing theory or
hypothesis. According to Creswell (2013) and Hamby (2019), the main difference between
qualitative and quantitative research is that qualitative research seeks to actually test a theory or
hypothesis, whereas qualitative research attempts only to discover, describe, or identify more
about a phenomenon. Results of qualitative research can be used, however, to develop a theory,
such as in a grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2007), or by other researchers to test a
theory to explain the causes or results of the phenomenon examined. The purpose of this study,
as stated, was only to identify and describe the participants’ experiences in securing a promotion
to high leadership positions, not to test or offer a theory explaining these.
One delimitation of this study was to limit the scope of the study to the lived experiences
of eight participants from various geographical locations in the United States, allowing me to
better collect and analyze data compiled from all participants. There have been several scholarly
studies on Black/African American commissioned officers’ challenges and barriers to obtaining
senior-ranking positions in the U.S. Army. However, there is limited research on retired or

71
separated Black/African American commissioned officers’ lived experiences pertaining to
promotions.
This study was produced during a limited period, and the plan allocated for completing
this research produced limitations in collecting pertinent data. This study was limited to
resources within the public domain and subsequently relied heavily on trends toward resources
that can best define salient points of organizational change and styles of leadership. Rather than
the accuracy of data, this research leaned strongly on historical reviews from scholarly and peerreviewed studies and publications.
Recommendations for Further Study
To move beyond simple description and to present a general explanation of the
phenomenon of the differences in promotion experiences of different ethnic and gender groups in
the military, a qualitative study should follow the grounded theory approach. The following
sections present five recommendations for further research into the issue of equity in military
promotions.
First, there is a need for more studies focused specifically on the influence of racism,
anti-Blackness, and intersectionality (i.e., the interconnection of social categorizations such as
race, class, and gender as they apply to groups) on military promotion and career opportunities.
Second, and along the same lines, future researchers should undertake an extensive investigation
into the interconnectedness of several aspects of individuals’ identities, such as their race,
gender, and age, to examine the difficulties encountered based on these identities. They should
examine how many elements of one’s personality interact to influence the way they advance in
their careers and the paths they choose, taking into account the distinct viewpoints of people who
may encounter different obstacles.

72
Third, future research should involve a longitudinal investigation to monitor the
professional paths of retired and separated Black commissioned officers. The study should
investigate the influence of several factors, such as mentoring, discrimination, and educational
opportunities, on individuals’ career trajectories after active military service. The study could
also examine the long-term effects of these elements on professional accomplishments and
prospects for ongoing progress.
Fourth, a comparative analysis study could investigate the promotional experiences of
African American commissioned officers who have retired or separated from the U.S. Army to
those of officers from other minority groups. The study could analyze similarities and disparities
in the obstacles encountered, the efficacy of mentoring initiatives, and the impact of prejudice on
impeding or promoting professional advancement. Employing a comparative approach may
provide significant perspectives on the wider scope of diversity and inclusion within the military.
Lastly, there is a need for further research on the nature and influence of trust and its
relationship with race and ethnicity. A future researcher could explore differences among ethnic
groups’ perceptions of trust.

73
References
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Prentice-Hall. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394259069
Bandura, A. (2023). Social cognitive theory. Behavior Institute.
https://www.besci.org/models/social-cognitive-theory
Barroso, A. (2019). The changing profile of the US military: Smaller in size, more diverse, more
women in leadership. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/10/the-changingprofile-of-the-u-smilitary/
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Bricki, N., & Green, J. (2007). A guide to using qualitative research methodology. Medecins
Sans Frontieres.
Brook, T. (2020, September 1). Where are the Black officers? U.S. army shows diversity in its
ranks but few promotions to the top. USA Today.https://www.usatoday.com/indepth/news/politics/2020/09/01/military-diversity-army-shows-few-black-officers-topleadership/3377371001
Butler, R. (1999). Why black officers fail. Parameters, 29(3), 54–69.
https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.1938
Clark, A. H. (2022). Diversity in high-performance organizations: A new look at diversity
challenges in the military. The George Washington University.
Collins-Hines, M. (2023). Strategies to retain science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
civilian employees in US Army cyberfocused organizations (Publication No. 30820640)
[Doctoral dissertation, Walden University]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.

74
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Sage.
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative
and qualitative research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry and research design choosing among
five approaches (4th ed). Sage Publications.
Derenoncourt, E., Kim, C. H., Kuhn, M., & Schularick, M. (2022). Wealth of two nations: The
US racial wealth gap, 1860–2020 (Working Paper 30101). National Bureau of Economic
Research.
Diefenbach, T. (2008). Are case studies more than sophisticated storytelling? Methodological
problems of qualitative empirical research mainly based on semi-structured interviews.
Quality & Quantity, 43, 875–894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9164-0
Doan, A. E., & Portillo, S. (2022). “The juice ain’t worth the squeeze:” Resisting gender
integration in special forces. In B. Bailey, A. E. Doan, S. Portillo, & K. D. Vuic (Eds.),
Managing sex in the US Military: Gender, identity, and behavior (pp. 307–334).
University of Nebraska Press
Dragomir, C. I. (2023). Making the immigrant soldier: How race, ethnicity, class, and gender
intersect in the US military. University of Illinois Press.
https://doi.org/10.5622/illinois/9780252045035.001.0001
Fisher, R. (2023). Estimation of race and ethnicity by re-weighting tax data. U.S. Department of
the Treasury.
Groenewald, T. (2004). A phenomenological research design illustrated. International Journal of
Qualitative Methods, 3(1), 42–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690400300104

75
Hamby, M. (2019). Writing research: A guide to writing research articles and dissertations.
Kendal-Hunt Publishing.
Henry, K. L. (2021). From geek to chief–How prepared is the army technical community for
leadership. Defense Acquisition University.
Hosek, J., & Peterson, C. (2001). Serving her country: An analysis of women’s enlistment.
RAND Corporation. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R3853/
Houghton, C., Casey, D., Shaw, D., & Murphy, K. (2013). Rigour in qualitative case-study
research. Nurse Researcher, 20(4), 12–17.
https://doi.org/10.7748/nr2013.03.20.4.12.e326
Kraus, A., & Riche, M. F. (2006). Air Force demographics: From representation to diversity.
Center of Naval Analyses.
Lee, F. (2023). Bong Joon-ho’s Okja: Transatlantic racism, transpacific capitalism, and intimate
Subversion. Polity, 55 (1), 34–58. https://doi.org/10.1086/722726
Lim, N. (2009). Officer classification and the future diversity among senior military leaders: A
case study of the Army ROTC. RAND Corporation.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage Publications.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0147-1767(85)90062-8
Lowen, J., & McDonald, D. P. (2023). Race and ethnic diversity in the United States Armed
Forces: A continued evolution toward an inclusive and lethal force. In Defence Research
and Development Canada (Ed.), Military diversity in multinational defence
environments: From Ethnic intolerance to inclusion (pp. 6-1–6-25).
Lumivero. (n.d.). About cluster analysis. https://helpnv10.qsrinternational.com/desktop/concepts/about_cluster_analysis.htm

76
Mason, E. J. (1998). Diversity: 2015 and the Afro-American army officer. U.S. Army War
College.
Matthews, L. J. (1999). Introduction: Primer on future recruit diversity. In L. J. Matthews & T.
Pavri (Eds.), Population diversity and the U.S. Army (pp. 1–15). Strategic Studies
Institute, U.S. Army War College.
Matusky, R. (2015). Reflection on the Army’s leadership development model.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/randymatusky?trk=article-ssr-frontend-pulse_publisherauthor-card&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.linkedin.com%
2Fpulse%2Freflection-armys-leadership-development-model-randy-matusky
Maucione, S. (2022, August 17). Army once again delays newest release of its pay and personnel
system overhaul. Federal News Network.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/army/2022/08/army-once-again-delays-newest-releaseof-its-pay-and-personnel-system-overhaul/?readmore=1
McGarry, B. W. (2020). DOD transfer and reprogramming authorities: Background, status, and
issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.
McKinsey & Company. (2020). Diversity wins: How inclusion matters.
https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-howinclusion-matters
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation.
Wiley.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2009). Issue Paper #7: Implementation and
accountability.
Military Leadership Diversity Commission. (2011). Decision Paper #4: Promotion.

77
Papanek, H. (1973). Men, women, and work: Reflections on the two-person career. American
Journal of Sociology, 78(4), 852–872. https://doi.org/10.1086/225406
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and
practice. SAGE Publications.
Pham, J. M. (2023). “Force multipliers” and “risk multipliers”: Organizational myth and gender
integration of the US combat arms military occupational specialties and units. The
Sociological Quarterly, 64(1), 46–66.
Quester, A., & Shuford, R. (2017). Population representation in the military services: Fiscal
year 2015 summary report. Center for Naval Analyses.
Sackett, P. R., & Mavor, A. (Eds.). (2003). Attitudes, aptitudes, and aspirations of American
youth: Implications for military recruiting. National Academy Press.
Smith, J. A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. Theory,
method, and research. Sage Publications.
Sweeting, K. D. (2023). Executive orders: Mandating inclusion in the federal workplace: Insights
from federal executive departments’ strategic plans. Public Personnel Management,
52(4), 590–623. https://doi.org/10.1177/00910260231187542
U.S. Army. (2019). The army people strategy.
https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/the_army_people_strategy_2019_10_11_signed
_final.pdf
U.S. Army. (2020). Army people strategy: Diversity, equity, and inclusion annex.
https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/the_army_people_strategy_diversity_equity_an
d_inclusion_annex_2020_09_01_signed_final.pdf
U.S. Army. (2022). Black American in the U.S. Army. (https://www.army.mil/blackamericans/

78
U.S. Department of Defense. (2021). Department of defense board on diversity and inclusion
report recommendations to improve racial and ethnic diversity and inclusion in the U.S.
military. https://media.defense.gov/2020/Dec/18/2002554852/-1/-1/0/DODDIVERSITY-AND-INCLUSION-FINAL-BOARD-REPORT.PDF
U.S. Department of the Army. (2012). Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-22 Army
Leadership.
U.S. National Archives. (n.d.). Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the armed forces (1948).
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/executive-order-9981
Walker, C. W., & Bonnot, M. J. (2014). Leader development: Enhancing the lessons of
experience. Command and General Staff College.
https://www.moore.army.mil/mssp/Leader%20Developement/
Webb, S., & Herrmann, W. (2002). Historical overview of racism in the U.S. military. Patrick
Air Force Base, Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute.
https://doi.org/10.21236/ADA487814
Wooten, M. E., & Couloute, L. (2017). The production of racial inequality within and among
organizations. Sociology Compass, 11(1), Article e12446.
https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12446

79
Appendix A: Study Information Sheet
Study title: No Officer Left Behind? The Promotion Experiences of Retired and
Separated Black Commissioned Officers in the United States Army
Principal investigator: Timothy B. Peters
You are invited to participate in a research study. Your participation is voluntary. This document
explains information about this study. You should ask questions about anything that is unclear to
you.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of This qualitative study aims to identify and describe the promotion
experiences of retired and separated Black/African American commissioned officers in the U.S.
Army. Specifically, this research will examine and identify the experiences of the Black/African
American retired and separated commissioned officer in getting a promotion to high leadership
positions in the U.S. Army. This research will help to disclose certain barriers that Black/African
American officers that have retired and separated have experienced from both a successful and
unsuccessful lived experience regarding promotions. Strategies for career development,
mentorship, evaluation, and professional school progression may be revealed through their lived
experiences.
Participant Involvement
Your participation in this study will include 13 interview questions and a subsequent 60–
75-minute virtual interview. The virtual interview will be recorded with your consent utilizing
the Zoom platform. You may decline to be recorded and continue participation. If you decide to
take part, you will be asked to continue with the interview.

80
Payment/Compensation for Participation
There is no compensation or direct benefits to you from taking part in this study.
However, your participation in this study may help us to identify and describe how
Black/African American Commissioned Officers perceive their promotion experiences in the
U.S. Army. Additionally, help to disclose certain barriers that Black/African American
Commissioned Officers have experienced from both a successful and unsuccessful lived
experience regarding promotions.
Confidentiality
The study’s primary investigator and the University of Southern California (USC)
Institutional Review Board (IRB) may access the data. The IRB reviews and monitors research
studies to protect the rights and welfare of research subjects. If the results of the research are
published or discussed in conferences, no identifiable information will be used. The anonymous
interview data will be collected via Microsoft Word. IP addresses will not be collected. Recorded
interviews will be available only to the primary investigator through a password-protected USC
Zoom account. Interview transcripts will be coded, participants will be given pseudonyms, saved
in a password-protected computer, and backed up in an offline hard drive to limit all external
access.
Contact Information
If you have any questions about this study, please contact the study investigator Timothy
B. Peters tbpeters@usc.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a research participant,
please contact the University of Southern California Institutional Review Board at (323) 442-
0114 or email irb@usc.edu.
Participant’s signature ______________________________ Date __________

81
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
Thank you for agreeing to participate in my study. I appreciate the time that you have set
aside to answer my questions. As I mentioned when we last spoke, the interview should take
about an hour, does that still work for you?
Introduction
Before we get started, I want to remind you about this study, the overview for which was
provided to you in the study information sheet and answer any questions you might have about
participating in this interview. I am a student at USC and am conducting a study on
Black/African American commissioned officers promotion experiences of retired and separated
commissioned officers in leadership positions within the U.S. Army. I am particularly interested
in identifying and describing how retired and separated Black/African American commissioned
officers perceive their promotion experiences in the U.S. Army. I am talking to multiple retired
and separated commissioned officer to learn more about their specific barriers that they have
experienced from both a successful and unsuccessful lived experience regarding promotions. I
am also going to interview retired and separated commissioned officers from the grade of captain
through general officer to gain further information from their experiences to reveal strategies for
career development, mentorship, evaluation, and profession school progression.
I want to assure you that I am strictly wearing the hat of researcher today. What this
means is that the nature of my questions are not evaluative. I will not be making any judgments
on how you perceive you promotion experiences as a retired and separated commissioned officer
in the U.S. Army. My goal is to understand your perspective.
As stated in the study information sheet I provided to you previously, this interview is
confidential. What that means is that your name will not be shared with anyone outside of the

82
research team. I will not share them with other military leaders or government officials. The data
for this study will be compiled into a report and while I do plan on using some of what you say
as direct quotes, none of this data will be directly attributed to you. I will use a pseudonym to
protect your confidentiality and will de-identify any of the data I gather from you. I am happy to
provide you with a copy of my final paper if you are interested.
As stated in the study information sheet, I will keep the data in a password-protected
computer and all data will be destroyed after 3 years.]
Might you have any questions about the study before we get started? If it is ok with you, I
will record our Zoom interview using the feature within this platform so that I can accurately
capture what you share with me. The recording is solely for my purposes to best capture your
perspectives and will not be shared with anyone outside myself as the researcher and yourself as
the participant. May I have your permission to record our conversation?
Setting the Stage
I’d like to start by asking you some background questions about you.
1. First, tell me about your background in during your time in the U.S. Army?
• What is your age?
• What is your gender?
• What was your branch?
• What was your highest leadership position in the U.S. Army?
• What was your final rank?
• How long were you in the military?
• When did you retire/separate from the U.S. Army?

83
• What was that experience like for you, retiring/separating from the U.S.
Army?
2. As a retired and separated Black/African American Commissioned Officer in the U.S.
Army how do you feel about the promotion system process?
3. Can you please describe your experiences with promotions throughout your career?
4. During your promotion experience have you ever experienced any dissatisfaction? If
yes, can you, please elaborate?
5. What was your motivation to continue to serve as a Black/African Commissioned
Officer in the U.S. Army during your tenure?
Heart of the Interview
6. What do you think about the current percentage of Black/African American
commissioned officers compared with other racial groups in the U.S. Army at the
senior level ranks?
7. What do you think explains the underrepresentation of Black/African American
commissioned officers as compared to the overrepresentation of White commissioned
officers?
8. Have you ever had a boss that empowered you or discouraged you to pursue
leadership at the highest level within the U.S. Army? Tell me about that.
9. What type of development, if at all, have you received as a commissioned officer to
enhance your career and/or prepare you for promotion?
10. During your tenure in the U.S. Army, if at all, has the level of discrimination
decreased or changed as you have increased up the ranks?

84
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how these lived experiences can reveal
future strategies.
11. Based on your experiences, how can Black/African American commissioned officers
in the U.S. Army help address the concerns toward promoting quality Black/African
American commissioned officers so that they can compete at the next level?
12. What role, if any, do you think recruiting and outreach activities focused on educating
the African/Black commissioned officer population about the opportunities available
in the U.S. Army plays in increasing or stifling greater diversity in top leadership
positions?
13. In what ways do you think that there is a difference in the African/Black
commissioned officer experiences based upon their commissioning sources? (i.e.,
military academy, historically Black colleges, and universities, predominately White
institutions)
Closing Question
What other insight would you like to share about our conversation about Black/African
American promotion experiences of retired and separated commissioned officers in leadership
positions within the U.S. Army today that I might not have covered, if any?
Closing Comments
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts with me today! I really appreciate your
time and willingness to share. Everything that you have shared is helpful for my study. If I find
myself with a follow-up question, can I contact you, and if so, if email is, ok? Again, thank you
for participating in my study. As a thank you, I sincerely appreciate you helping me to be part of

85
history and doing our part to share the lived experiences of Black/African American
commissioned officers as it pertains to their promotion experiences.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This qualitative study examined the obstacles and barriers that Black/African American officers face in the process of promotion in the U.S. Army, which continues to be the heritage of the struggle for diversity, equity, and inclusion. Utilizing semi-structured interviews with eight retired or separated Black/African American commissioned officers, this research identified critical themes hindering promotion prospects: the situation of discrimination, insufficient training, promotional bias, and trust crisis. A system full of racial bias where the top positions were occupied by White officials made promotion difficult for minorities, and there was a diversity gap in the U.S. Army. Nevertheless, these obstacles are not hurdles to the significance of mentoring programs for minority officers who strive for advancement and positions as leaders. This report confirms the gap in equal promotion prospects for minority groups and that continuing commitment to diversity and inclusion infrastructure is an important factor for the Army’s development. It builds knowledge about systemic barriers for minority officers in terms of promotion prospects and provides guidelines for implementing more democratic leadership and advancement practices in military institutions.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The role of executives’ knowledge and motivation in enabling organizational supports for diversity, equity, and inclusion

PDF

Toxic leadership's impact on Black officers within the United States Army

PDF

Advancing equity and inclusion in higher education: the role of the chief diversity officer and the institution in creating more diverse campus climates

PDF

The underrepresentation of Black women general officers in a U.S. military reserve component

PDF

Black brilliance in leadership: increasing the number of Black women in the senior executive service

PDF

Addressing underreporting of sexual assault in U.S. Army units: perspectives of retired senior leaders

PDF

Standards of professionalism as a racial construct

PDF

The role of organizational leaders in creating sustainable diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the workplace

PDF

For DEI practitioners of color who’ve considered leaving when the rainbow isn’t enough: the impact of DEI fatigue on the retention of Black women in big tech

PDF

Shattering the glass ceiling: examining invisible barriers to women’s career progression in South Korean international schools

PDF

Identifying the environmental and systemic factors contributing to the underrepresentation of women leaders in the male-dominated information technology sector in the United States

PDF

Diversity management in local government: a gap analysis

PDF

Examining teachers’ perceptions of diversity, equity, and inclusion professional development

PDF

Examining the challenges faced by parents of children with autism in their advocacy efforts: a field study

PDF

Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color

PDF

The underrepresentation of African American officers in senior leadership positions in the United States Army

PDF

Retaining racially minoritized students in community college STEM programs

PDF

Black leaders: the unicorns of the biopharmaceutical industry

PDF

Foundational practices of structural change: the relationship of psychological safety and organizational equity

PDF

“Black” workplace belonging: an examination of the lived experiences of Black faculty sense of belonging factors in community colleges

Asset Metadata

Creator Peters, Timothy Byron - Dukes (author)

Core Title No officer left behind? The promotion experiences of retired and separated Black commissioned officers in the United States Army

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 05/21/2024

Defense Date 03/04/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Black/African,Commissioned Officer,diversity,equity,inclusion,mentorship,minority officer,OAI-PMH Harvest,officer ranks,people of color,promotion,total force equity

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Maccalla, Nicole (committee chair), Bihr, Katherine (committee member), Green, Alan (committee member), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member)

Creator Email tbpeters@usc.edu,timpete4@aol.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113950161

Unique identifier UC113950161

Identifier etd-PetersTimo-12983.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-PetersTimo-12983

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Peters, Timothy Byron - Dukes

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240521-usctheses-batch-1157 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu