Document created: 6 February 03
Air University Review, March-April 1977

A Case for Equality in Housing

THE AIR FORCE has instituted many programs such as race relations classes and social actions committees to eliminate minority and sex discrimination in the service. But racial minorities and women are not the only groups that have been treated unfairly. The Air Force has discriminated against single Air Force members through its housing system since the birth of the Air Force in 1947. The Random House Dictionary of the English Language defines discrimination as " . . . making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit." Single members have been statutorily placed in a class lower than their married peers based on marital status, not merit.

For years, the services have been aware that singles were dissatisfied with their quarters. But improvements cost money; and the leadership always seemed to feel that a token effort would placate the singles, allowing leadership to spend their time and the taxpayers' dollars on family housing. Initially the singles accepted this, but they have become increasingly vocal in demanding their fair share of the increasing quality of Air Force life. Both married and single members have received part of this increased quality of life in the form of significant base pay increases over the past decade, but money alone is not the answer. Money is only a measure of affluence when it can be used to improve living standards. Singles who are forced to live in barracks and bachelor officers' quarters (BOQ) are relegated to a lower standard of living regardless of their salary. ¹

The intent of this article is to put the demands of the single members of the Air Force, officers and enlisted men, in perspective--to show that their cries of inequality are based on fact.

If the reader is to understand what is to follow, he must be familiar with the two assumptions on which this article is based.

The first assumption is that the abilities to perform military duties are not inherently different as a function of marital status. Many have argued that married personnel are more stable than single personnel. There is no convincing evidence tabulated on this, possibly because "stability" is a nebulous trait that defies accurate definition, much less measurement. Even if marriage does bring stability, it also brings many problems that can detract from the accomplishment of military duties. Single personnel are supposed to be more flexible, but again that oft-defended opinion is difficult to prove. Flexibility is a requirement for all military personnel. In the long run everything balances, and the assumption stands that the ability to perform military duties is not a function of marital status.

Table 1. Net living area standards (square feet)⁴

Title V of the U.S. Code states, "It is the policy of Congress that Federal pay fixing for employees under statutory pay systems be based on the principle that there will be equal pay for substantially equal work." ² A second assumption is that this policy applies to the military. If the promotion system in the Air Force is valid, this concept translates to equal pay for equal rank.

Comparison of the
Housing Systems

Since Department of Defense policy is to provide adequate housing for all service members, ³ it is important to see what DOD considers adequate to mean. One measure of adequacy is the net living area that quarters provide. Table 1 lists area standards through pay scale O-6: two figures (minimum for adequacy and maximum by law) are given under the married column, with some exceptions.

The first of the housing system inequities becomes apparent as we examine Table 1. If we compare single and married housing using the example that is closest to being equal, an 0-3, we see that the married captain and his spouse receive more than twice the area given a single captain. The inequity is even greater when we compare a married E-4 with his single peer. The married E-4 gets more than eight times the space that the single E-4 receives. These comparisons are made using the minimum areas listed in Table 1. It also shows the maximum areas allotted for family housing established by law. These are the standards that have been used to design new family housing for at least the past five years.⁵ The inequity increases significantly using these figures. One additional point merits mention: these areas are net living areas that do not include patios, storage areas, utility areas or garages/carports, items that are normally included in family housing and rarely provided in single housing.

Another criterion to determine adequacy standards is the type of accommodations or number of bedrooms provided. Table 2 gives a comparison of the basic adequacy requirements with respect to accommodations. The married personnel requirements shown are based on just the service member and his spouse. Table 3 gives the connection between the number and type of dependents and the number of bedrooms allotted.

By using Tables 2 and 3, we can compare the accommodations of a single E-4 with those of an E-4's seven-year-old son who has a sister. The seven year old has a private bedroom. He shares a bathroom with no more than three other people and a lounge area with normally no more than three other people. He has 24-hour access to a well-equipped food preparation area. The single E-4 gets 90 square feet of sleeping area in a room that he may be forced to share with three other people. He shares a latrine with everyone who has quarters on the same floor, and he shares a lounge with at least the same number of people. He can use a dining hall located near his building to obtain food, provided it is open. That E-4 is the man repairing a multimillion-dollar aircraft, handling the personnel problems for countless people, or working with one of the world's largest and most complex accounting systems. Surely, he is worth as much as a seven-year-old child.

Table 3. Bedroom requirements--
based on family size and composition⁷

The enormous disparity in accommodations should cause widespread uneasiness throughout the Department of Defense if that agency adopts a "fair rental value" system for all its housing. Under this scheme, all base housing would be assigned a monthly rental price based on prices in nearby communities for comparable quarters. Since many family units would rent for prices exceeding the basic allowance for quarters (BAQ) of several officers and enlisted men, these people would be required to pay a substantial amount out of pocket each month to remain in their quarters. On the other hand, if bachelor quarters were included in the program, the government would have to return a portion of the BAQ to just about every bachelor member occupying government quarters. ⁸ The government would have difficulty in determining the "fair rental value" of barracks as these seldom have a civilian counterpart save for accommodations at the YMCA or the Salvation Army.

In a final look at the accommodations problem, I want to concentrate on a comparison of single housing with selected accommodations in the civilian community. In a DOD study in 1966, officials were shocked to discover that DOD housing standards for enlisted troops were barely above the level established by the government for convicts in federal prisons and lower than those for prisoners at the Youth Correction Center at Larton, Virginia.⁹ Other categories of civilian housing exceeded the standards set for enlisted men, including college dormitories and typical single hotel rooms.¹⁰ BOQs fared better than the quarters of enlisted men but still were about the same as a Holiday Inn motel room.¹¹ It is important to point out that all these civilian examples are temporary housing, not meant to be a "home."

For a career serviceman who remains single, the barracks or BOQ is supposed to be his home. But the standards and condition of the bachelor enlisted quarters prompted Professor Stuart H. Loory of Ohio State University to observe that "barracks had the same relationship to a home as did a skid-row flophouse."¹² Occupants of barracks and BOQs tend to agree with the conclusion. Even the Air Force housing office reported in 1974 that of the 250,000 Air Force bachelor quarters, about 100,000 were not "totally adequate" but still had to be filled even though they needed repair.¹³ With such a high number of quarters that are not totally adequate and in need of repair, one logical solution is to allow bachelors to move off-base to obtain housing of their choice. Logical as it may seem, there is a catch in the system, and it brings me to the final step in comparing the two housing systems, that is, to examine the quarters assignment system and the rules that allow living off-base.

On the surface, both assignment systems appear to be based on the same DOD policy that commanders will ensure maximum use of available government quarters.¹⁴ However, the method by which this policy is implemented and the attitude of the governing manuals differ significantly although subtly. First, AFM 30-6, Assignment of Family Housing, states that it is the policy of the government to rely on local community assets to provide housing for military families;¹⁵ and that "to the extent possible, housing will be assigned to eligible personnel who are volunteers for and desire to occupy military family housing." ¹⁶ Furthermore, married members, upon application for housing, may request a special statement from the housing officer stating that the member's circumstances authorize permanent off-base arrangements while assigned to that base. The manual allows issuance of this statement for personal reasons, such as a normal desire to be a homeowner in the nearby community. ¹⁷ "Commanders should give favorable consideration to such requests when they can reasonably expect to keep their housing units filled; when they normally have sufficient waiting lists to enable occupancy standards to be met; and when the public interest is not adversely affected." ¹⁸ Finally, once a married member obtains a statement of special circumstance at a base, he will not be mandatorily assigned to family housing. ¹⁹

On the other side, the policies listed in AFR 30-7, Bachelor Housing and Transient Quarters, do not include the use of off-base housing as a primary means of providing quarters for single members. The tone of the regulation is much different from that of AFM 30-6. Words and phrases such as volunteer, desire, personal reason, normal desire, and guarantee against mandatory assignment are replaced by directive statements that show no intent to satisfy the housing wants of the bachelor. The regulation states that a bachelor may have to move on base after being given permission to live off-base. ²⁰ A commander may allow a bachelor to live off-base without BAQ but can require him to move back on base with little or no notice. ²¹ The family housing manual expresses a sincere effort to satisfy the desires of married members while the bachelor housing regulation directs the housing of bachelors.

This comparison of the two housing systems demonstrates that not only are the two types of quarters unequal but the two systems do not provide service members of equal rank with equal opportunity for off-base quarters. As the cost of living continues to rise, especially with respect to housing, the provision of housing becomes an even larger portion of service "pay." Thus, if the housing provided to members of the same rank is unequal, then their pay is unequal. Such unequal pay violates government policy as stated in Title V of the United States Code. ²²

Financial Aspects

The most obvious inequities in the military housing system concern the financial aspects of the system. To examine these, I will approach the problem from both an individual and an Air Force-wide point of view. First let us consider the individual effects on each service member.

As part of a service member's pay, he receives government housing or BAQ to obtain housing. In the preceding section, we saw that the housing provided to single service members was not equal in kind or quality to quarters provided married members. Table 4 shows that the BAQ given to service members to obtain off-base housing is also unequal. In strictly monetary terms, then, married personnel drawing BAQ are paid more than their single peers. This provision also violates government policy.

Table 4. Basic allowance for quarters($)²³

Next, let us consider the case of the bachelor versus the geographic bachelor (a married man living away from his dependents by choice or directive). If adequate government quarters are available, both will reside in bachelor quarters. However, the bachelor will give up his BAQ while the geographic bachelor will reside in the same quarters free. If his dependents are living in base quarters, they may be allowed to remain there. If he is drawing his BAQ, he will continue drawing this allowance.²⁴ Regardless of the case, the geographic bachelor is drawing the equivalence of double BAQ and is being paid more than his single peer. This again violates government policy as stated in Title V, U.S. Code.

Consider equivalent pay or that amount of money which equalizes the quality of quarters of service members of the same rank. For discussion purposes, consider two majors stationed in California: one, married, residing in family quarters on base and the other, single, residing in similar quarters in the local civilian community. The married major is supplied adequate quarters and utilities. For this, he forfeits his BAQ. The single major must pay approximately $300 per month for similar quarters in the civilian community and $80 per month for utilities. Since his quarters allowance is only $198, he must supply $182 from his base pay to have the same quality of living accommodations as the married major. In other words, the married major is being paid over $2000 per year more than the single major, not because he works more but because he is married. Once again, this violates government policy.

Finally, in discussing the individual effects of the housing systems, I want to examine the policy on substandard housing. AFR 30-7 specifies that military necessity may require involuntary use of bachelor quarters that are substandard. Even then, BAQ will be forfeited in total.²⁵ Concerning married members, AFM 30-6 emphasizes that personnel cannot be mandatorily assigned to substandard housing except when specifically directed by the commander as a matter of military necessity.²⁶ Military personnel assigned to substandard housing do not forfeit their BAQ. Rather they must pay a rental charge that will not exceed their BAQ.²⁷ This charge is normally no more than 75 percent of their BAQ.²⁸ For individuals occupying substandard housing, this means that married members are paid more than their single peers. Again, this violates government policy.

How does the Air Force as a whole divide its housing money? The answer will show how Air Force housing policy affects married and single members as groups. Two major classes of expenditures are important to examine, operations and maintenance and construction.

A 1966 study, commissioned by the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower), revealed that the services were spending disproportionately larger sums on family housing than on bachelor quarters. In operations and maintenance, the services were spending approximately $158 per month for each family housing unit for officers in pay grades 0-1 through 0-3 while spending only $59 per month for bachelor officers of all grades. ²⁹ In the enlisted grades, the cost was $139 per month per family housing unit for pay grades E-4 through E-9. On the other hand, the services were spending only $14 per month per single enlisted man.³⁰ Since 1966, the difference between the amount spent to maintain married quarters and single quarters has not changed significantly.

Table 5. Military construction
expenditures per capita ($)³¹

The picture for construction expenditures is equally grim. Total expenditures have little meaning for this comparison, so construction outlays will be presented on a per capita basis; that is, total expenditures for family housing divided by the number of married personnel and total expenditures for bachelor housing divided by the number of bachelor personnel. Table 5 gives this per capita expenditure over a five-year period. Figure 1 presents the information graphically. The inequity is obvious. The disparity between the two groups would be even more pronounced if per capita expenditures were based on the numbers of people actually occupying government quarters. Far more singles live in government quarters than married members.

Effects of Housing Inequities

The inequities between family housing and bachelor housing have prevailed so long that they have become accepted by military leaders who request the money for military construction and by congressmen who approve the money. These two groups do not perceive what has become an almost ludicrous difference in the types of things the married members are requesting versus what single members are requesting as reflected in recent housing surveys.

Consider: married members want modernized kitchens, while singles just want a kitchen; married members want more storage space, singles want some storage space; marrieds want a family room, enlisted singles want a room; married members want improved privacy, single enlisted men want a little privacy. One could add to the list by reading any number of articles concerning military housing published over the past decade. The point is that singles are asking for basic essentials; married are asking for frills. Singles are being told there is no money; married requests are being incorporated each year. ³³ One effect, then, of the housing system has been an implication to singles as a group that they will not get nor do they deserve housing of the same quality as married members.

In an all-volunteer service, the special benefits that are given to military personnel must be aimed at retaining our people. Housing is one of these special benefits that is considered essential by top leaders in the Department of Defense. ³⁴ It is interesting to note the effect of the housing system on retention within the two groups under consideration. In 1967, a survey of some 6300 single officers living in BOQs who were leaving the service indicated that 10 percent of these officers chose their quarters as the number one reason, from a list of nineteen reasons, for leaving the service. ³⁵ On the other hand, a study in 1974 showed that the new family housing does not improve retention among married members. ³⁶ If one considers that it costs approximately $125,000³⁷ to train each pilot or $20,000³⁸ to train an enlisted weather observer, for instance, it would seem prudent to try to reduce the number of people the Air Force has to train. Obviously, if the Air Force can retain its people, training costs will be reduced. Considering, then, that poor housing is sending singles out of the service while the improved family housing has no affect on retaining married members, doesn't it seem foolish to continue to put money into family housing while neglecting single housing?

Many military leaders view the possibility of unionization of the military services as a major problem facing the U.S. military establishment.³⁹ The dissatisfaction over housing among single members of the military makes them an easy mark for unions. Even though singles comprised 31 percent of the Air Force, 44 percent of all services in 1975,⁴⁰ they have been unable to affect the rules that keep them in their second-class position. When all individual efforts to improve a situation are continually frustrated, men historically look for an organized voice, and unions will be there waiting. As to whether a union could have the strength to effect changes, consider the teamsters. With a membership of only 400,000, they have the power to bring the U.S. economy to a near standstill. ⁴¹ In 1975, there were over 900,000 singles in the military services. ⁴² If organized, they could wield a great deal of power.

Unions do not have to be the inevitable result if the Air Force takes action to correct the inequities. There are other solutions.

Correcting the Mistakes

Before any problem can be solved, it must be recognized. From reading the many proposed changes to bachelor housing, I believe that the leadership has missed the problem. They set new standards for bachelor housing that they consider as "lofty," but these standards are lofty only to men in Congress and the military whose only recollection of bachelorhood is that of a military trainee living in an open bay barracks or as a college student living in a dormitory. It was a transient time for them, and, thus, they view bachelorhood as a transient condition that people pass through early in their life. They do not wish to waste money on this transitory state. This view is not only incorrect, as shown in a recent census bureau study, ⁴³ but it is also irrelevant. The problem transcends this view. To state it simply: Can the military justify paying its people on a basis other than work performed? Government policy says no.

How can the Air Force solve the problem? A good start would be by treating people of equal rank the same. It is that simple and that obvious. Get rid of the double standard in military housing. Let all housing be controlled by one office in the Air Force. Write one manual that covers assignment for all Air Force housing. Determine minimum standards that apply to all personnel of the same rank. The idea is not original. Interestingly, the Soviet Union, the epitome of socialism, assigns officer quarters by rank or position. ⁴⁴ Yet here in the cornerstone of capitalism, we use a socialistic system based on need for the assignment of military housing. Housing should be assigned by rank.

Stop the defenseless system of paying BAQ rates based on marital status. Again, this is not new. The British do not distinguish between married and single personnel with respect to off-base housing allowance. ⁴⁵ Raise BAQ so that those who have to seek off-base quarters can obtain the same grade of housing and the same benefits (such as utilities) with their BAQ as their peers who live on base. In other words, give equal pay for equal work.

FOR THE Air Force to retain its best people, its housing system, like its promotion system, must reward good work. It must give each and every member the opportunity to share the same living standards as his contemporaries. The Chief of Staff, General David C. Jones, wants to increase the quality of life in the Air Force. Fine! Let's start by putting some quality into the lives of the single members.

Armed Forces Staff College

Notes

1. Stuart H. Leory, "Hair and Harassment in the GI Slums," Progressive, October 1973, p. 19.

2. Government Organization and Employees, 5 U.S. Code sec. 5301 (1970).

3. AFR 30-7, Bachelor Housing and Transient Quarters (Washington: U.S. Department of Air Force, 1975), p. 2-1; AFM 30-6, Assignment of Family Housing, p. 1-2.

4. U.S. Department of the Air Force, AFR 90-7, Standard Family Housing/Criteria for its Repair, Replacement, Retention and Disposition (Washington: 1970), p. 3; AFR 30-7, p. 2-3; Armed Forces, 10 U.S. Code sec. 9774 (1970).

5. 10 U.S. Code.

6. AFM 30-6, p. 6-3; AFR 30-7, p. 2-3.

7. AFM 30-6, p. 6-3.

8. Bob Towle, "Housing Problems: No Easy Solutions," Air Force Times, 27 February 1974, p. 13.

9. "Bachelors May Get Pentagon OK to Live Off Base; DOD Finds Prisoners Faring Better than Military," Journal of the Armed Forces, 28 May 1966, p. 7.

10. Ibid.

11. Ibid.

12. Loory, p. 19.

13. "Housing Deficit Down, But By No Means Out," Air Force Magazine, October 1974, p. 52.

14. AFM 30-6, p. 2-2; AFR 30-7, p. 1-2.

15. AFM 30-6, p. 3-1.

16. Ibid., p. 6-2.

17. Ibid., p. 4-2.

18. Ibid., p. 4-3.

19. Ibid., pp. 4-2-3.

20. AFR 30-7, pp. 3-1, 3-8.

21. Ibid., p. 3-6.

22. 5 U.S. Code sec. 5301.

23. "Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay and Allowances," Executive Order No. 11883, 8 October 1975, United States Code, Congressional and Administrative News, 94th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 2181-82.

24. AFR 30-7, pp. 2-1-2.

25. Ibid., p. 3-4.

26. AFM 30-6, p. 7-1.

27. Ibid, p. 7-2.

28. "Housing Deficit Down, But By No Means Out," p. 50.

29. "Bachelors May Get Pentagon OK to Live Off Base; DOD Finds Prisoners Faring Better than Military," p. 41.

30. Ibid.

31. Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1971, U.S. Statutes at Large 84, sec. 1409 (1970); Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1972, U.S. Statutes at Large 85, sec. 482 (1971); Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1973, U.S. Statutes at Large 86, sec. 1156 (1972); Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1974, U.S. Code, Congressional and Administrative News 87, sec. 766 (1973); Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1975, U.S. Code, Congressional and Administrative News 88, sec. 2179 (1974); U.S. Department of Defense, OASD (Comptroller), Directorate for Information, Selected Manpower Statistics (Washington: Issued annually), 15 April 1971, p. 41; 15 April 1972, p. 43; 15 April 1973, p. 45; 15 May 1974, p. 45; 15 May 1975, p. 44; U.S. Department of the Air Force, Civil Engineering Cost Report (Washington: 1976), HAF 7101-2 (by telephone conversation with Mrs. Bentz, HAF, 18 March 1976).

32. Ibid.

33. "New Housing: All the Amenities," Air Force Times, 26 June 1974, p. 49.

34. U.S. Congress, House, Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, Military Construction Appropriations for 1974, 93rd Congress, 1st Session, 1973, p. 4.

35. "BOQ Conditions Cause Many to Quit Service," Journal of the Armed Forces, 14 January 1967, p. 6.

36. "DOD Housing Study: Still a Dim View," Air Force Times, 8 May 1974, p. 4.

37. AFR 173-10, USAF Cost and Planning Factors (Washington: U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1973), vol. II (C), p. 32-6.

38. AFR 173-10, USAF Cost and Planning Factors (Washington: U.S. Department of the Air Force, 1975), vol. I, p. A-121.

39. "DOD Policy on Unionization of the Military," Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders, 1 May 1976, AFRP 190-1, p. 4.

40. Selected Manpower Statistics, 15 May 1975, p. 44.

41. "Teamsters' Biggest Strike Ever--The Impact," U.S. News and World Report, 12 April 1976, p. 89.

42. Selected Manpower Statistics, 15 May 1975, p. 44.

43. "Divorces Up, Marriages Off in U.S.," The Virginian-Pilot, 2 April 1976, p. 1.

44. Harriet Fast Scott, "The Military Profession in the USSR," Air Force Magazine, March 1976, p. 81.

45. John Parkes, Major, 2d King Edward VII's Own Gurkha Rifles (The Sirmoor Rifles), Norfolk, Virginia, interview, 21 May 1976.

The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone--the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Louis D. Brandeis:
Dissenting, Olmstead v.
U.S. 277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Contributor

Major Gary W. Matthes (USAF A; M.S., Purdue University) is a test pilot assigned to the F-16 Joint Test Force at Edwards AFB, California. He was a reconnaissance pilot in Vietnam flying the RF-4C, and interceptor pilot with Aerospace Defense Command flying the F-104 and an instructor pilot/flight examiner with Air Training Command flying the T-38 prior to attending the USAF Test Pilot School. He is a Distinguished Graduate of Squadron Officer School, and a graduate of the Armed Forces Staff College.

Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor