BOARD REPORT
REVIEW OF MINIMUM HEIGHT STANDARDS FOR DEFENCE
FORCES PERSONNEL INTAKES
Refs: A. Regulation DFR A 10, para 7
B. D COS (Sp) Convening Order
C. Report of Working Group – ‘Review of Minimum Height Standards for Defence
Forces Personnel Intakes’ dated 06 Jul 2001
GENERAL
1. The Minister for Defence has requested that the Defence Forces produce a report on
the issue of Minimum Height Standards for the Defence Forces. The current standard
is 162.56 cms (5ft 4 ins) for both male and female applicants. The context of the
Ministers request relates to his stated commitment to encourage increased female
participation in the Defence Forces as part of the Government’s wider equality agenda
programme.
TERMS OF REFERENCE
2. The Review Groups Terms of Reference are as follows:
a. To examine the relevance of current height standards in the context of national
average height statistics.
b. Carry out a Risk Assessment relating to Health and Safety, Duty of Care, Medical
and Claims issues on reducing height requirements.
c. Review of current standards employed by foreign armed forces and their
relevance to the Defence Forces as they apply to the deployment position of
females.
d. Examine International ergonomic research and military research on the issue.
e. Review the upgrading of Personal Load Carrying Equipment in the context of
minimum height standards. Liaison will be required with the current review board.
f. Examine the effects of height restriction changes on the Defence Forces
recruitment pool.
g. Examine the issue of balancing Equality issues within overall military capability
and Defence output delivery.
h. The Board will consider any other relevant matters.
CURRENT HEIGHT STANDARDS
‘To examine the relevance of current height standards in the context of national
average height statistics and to examine the effects of height restriction changes on
the Defence Forces recruitment pool’
3. Defence Forces Minimum Height Standard
a. The determination of a minimum height requirement for enlistment in the
Defence Forces (DF) is based on the ergonomic requirements for all members
of the DF to train and carry out operations at home and overseas with service
Personal Load Carrying Equipment.
b. It has been the experience of the Defence Forces Medical Corps that training
injuries, especially of the back and lower limbs, are more frequent in recruits
of short stature. For this reason it was recommended that the minimum height
requirement for enlistment should be 165mm (5’ 5’’). In 2002, the then
Minister for Defence, decided to reduce the minimum height requirement to
162.56 cm (5’ 4”), DFR A 10 was amended to that effect.
c. The height requirement is necessary for general service, as soldiers are
required to carry a specific load in a combat environment. The Defence Forces
has no statistical data to show that persons lower than the present height would
(or would not) be capable of carrying operational loads for protracted periods.
d. Should the DF lower the height restriction, then the onus would be on the DF
to conduct a risk assessment on the long-term effects of such a decision and
the implications for future back related injury claims.
4. Recruitment Pool
2002 Census & Height
Irish Total 162.56 cm 157.48 cm (5’2”) 152.40 cm (5’0”)
Population (5’4”) and over and over and over
Age
18 yo Male 30,325 29,415 (97%) 29,718 (98%) 30,022 (99%)
18 yo Female 29,149 17,489 (60%) 26,234 (90%) 28,275 (97%)
a. Approximately 60,000 persons enter the recruitment pool annually. The
statistics for height are taken from the Irish Clinical Growth Standards - Girls
and Boys – Birth to 19 Years of Age by Hoey, Tanner and Cox (1986).
b. Reducing the height requirement from 162.56 cm (5’ 4”) to 157.48 cm (5’ 2”)
increases the annual pool of applicants by approximately 300 males and by
9,000 females.
c. Reducing the height to 152.40 cm (5’ 0”) effectively captures the whole of the
population.
d. Reducing the height requirement would remove a perceived barrier to the
enlistment of females.
5. Applications and Recruitment General Service – 2005
Total Male Female
Number of Applications 1,125 1,024 101
% of Applications 91% 9%
Number Enlisted 384 344 40
% of Enlisted 89.6% 10.4%
a. Females are, in general, being enlisted in proportion to the number of
applications for enlistment. It follows that an increase in the number of
applications from females would increase the percentage of females serving in
the DF over time.
b. The key question is, why are only 10% of applicants for General Service
female? It would appear from talking to prospective female applicants that
females do not perceive the DF as an option for them and that ‘A Life Less
Ordinary’ is an intangible concept. Advertising and recruiting drives, with a
focus on females, should be part of our recruitment policy. Additional
substantial funding will be necessary.
c. An increase in applications will achieve the Ministers aim of increasing
gender balance in the DF.
d. A separate study may be required to examine this aspect (recruitment,
retention and work-life balance for females) and may be reviewed in
conjunction with the Ministers intention of setting up a Board/Committee to
look at gender mainstreaming in the DF.
6. Considerations
a. A reduction of the height standard will increase the pool of females candidates
available for enlistment.
b. The DF should focus recruitment and advertising campaigns at females
(positive action) to impart the message that the DF is an employer of choice
for females as well as for males.
c. Additional funding should be provided to commence a media campaign.
d. An increase in the number of females applying for enlistment should have a
corresponding increase in the overall percentage of females serving in the DF.
e. The DF should conduct a risk assessment (particularly for females) on the
long-term effects of injuries sustained by soldiers in recruit & development
training. Which may have implications for future back related injury claims.
f. The DF height standard should be reviewed in five (5) years time utilising the
continual assessment process.
EQUALITY ISSUES
‘Examine the issue of balancing Equality issues within overall military capability and
Defence output delivery’
7. General
The Board considered this Term of Reference to be very broad and one that would
merit a Board report in its own right. Given the Ministers aim, ‘to encourage
increased female participation in the Defence Forces’, the Board focused on Gender
Mainstreaming.
8. Equality Legislation
The DF complies with the Equality Acts and does not discriminate on the seven
grounds applicable to the DF (the DF has an exemption from the age and disability
grounds in the Acts). The DF has published its Equality and Equal Status Policy,
which commits the DF to embedding equality in all aspects of the DF working
environment.
9. DF Gender Policy
The DF is an equal opportunity employer. Both men and women have ‘equality of
opportunity’ for employment and career advancement on the basis of merit and
ability. DF policy ensures that differences between men and women are not unfairly
used, unjustly or unfairly, to favour a man over a women or a woman over a man.
Discrimination is prohibited. It is DF policy that all members have a right to be
treated with respect and dignity and to carry out their duties free from any form of
Sexual Harassment, Harassment or Bullying. This commitment requires all DF
personnel to treat colleagues with respect and ensure that their own actions and
behaviour do not cause offence or contribute to unacceptable behaviour.
10. Female Strength in the DF
a. Female strength levels have increased from 4.4% of overall strength in 2001 to
5% of overall strength in 2005. The percentage of female strength must be
viewed in the context that the enlistment of females for General Service
commenced in 1994.
b. The DF has, in five years, doubled the percentage intake of female Cadets to
an average of 20%. In 2005, 10.4% of enlistments for General Service were
female. This is measurable progress in increasing gender balance in the DF.
c. Females make up approx 25% of the Reserve and 30% of last years Reserve
recruit intake.
d. To increase gender balance in the DF, the key areas of recruitment, retention
and work-life balance must be reviewed.
e. Initiatives within the scope of positive action should be formulated and
implemented (See Para 5).
f. The Cadet level intake may be seen as a short-term target for female General
Service enlistment.
11. Capability – Contributing to the Security of the State
a. It would appear that the DF is one of the few military forces that has no
restrictions to the range of administrative or operational appointments,
postings or ranks that females can apply for or serve in.
b. Females have, since General Service enlistment commenced in1994, been
posted to all services. No impact assessment was carried out then or a review
since on the actual performance of females in assigned operational roles and
appointments.
c. In general, DF operational outputs contributing to the security of the State are
fully logistically supported and do not require personnel to carry the full laden
gambit of PLCE. Stature and/or gender would not appear to have an influence
on servicing this capability.
d. The priority for the DF is to train for conventional based operations and be in
a position to adapt readily to the requirement of different operational
situations. This capability requires personnel to train for and to carry fully
loaded PLCE.
12. Capability – Participate in Multinational Peace Support Operations
a. The DF has, in general, nominated females for overseas service and females
are not restricted in applying for any appointment overseas.
b. UNIFIL. The DF restricted females serving in forward Coys in UNIFIL based
on cultural concerns. This was, in effect, a non-decision. Females could have
served in most of the UNIFIL outposts. Considerable experience and lessons
could have been learned as a result of a decision to deploy females in outposts
under active operational situations.
c. UNTAET. One female Officer served as a UNMO and NO female NCO or
Pte served in East Timor with the deployed Pl. No official policy existed at the
time, however an assumption must have been made that the isolated
environment, operational tasks and the logistical requirements would not be
suitable to the deployment of females.
d. UNMEE. Females served with all sections of the Mission.
e. KFOR & EUFOR. Females serve with all deployed units on par with their
male colleagues.
f. UNMIL. Females are serving with the operational Coys. NO adverse
comments have been mentioned concerning female operational performance.
In general, all patrolling was wheeled or in a manner where there was
immediate access to wheeled support and logistic backup. Troops were not
required to carry the full gambit of load for protracted patrolling on foot. No
lessons were learned on the load carrying capacity of females (or males).
g. Future Commitments. The future commitments to Peace Support Operations
(PSO), which are expected to be increasingly robust and complex, dictate that
personnel must be trained for and have the ability to conduct conventional
operations. In any scenario with PSO, the DF basket of tendered forces will
require personnel to be capable of operating in environments that have not
been replicated on overseas missions to date. Personnel will be required to
fulfil the full operational role and one that will be benchmarked against the
forces with whom the DF will be deployed.
13. Considerations
a. Female recruitment targets must be set and time monitored. A target of 20%
female (Cadet and General Service intake) in the short term is seen as an
attainable goal.
b. Gender mainstreaming initiatives are the key to increasing female
participation in the DF.
c. Mission dependant, there should be NO restrictions to deploying females with
an Irish contingent on UN missions. However, in the process of Mission
Analysis, an Equality Assessment should be part of the analysis and carried
out to assess any impact that the operational requirements would have from
the gender perspective. If there are gender considerations, then the assessment
should justify why females cannot serve in a particular appointment or with a
specific contingent (or sub unit) overseas.
d. The DF requires personnel to be multifunctional, carrying full combat load
utilising PLCE is seen as a basic requirement for operational deployment at
home and overseas.
FOREIGN ARMED FORCES& DEPLOYMENT OF FEMALES
‘Review of current standards employed by foreign armed forces and their relevance
to the Defence Forces as they apply to the deployment position of females’
14. Scope
A questionnaire based on the Terms of Reference was sent to the following forces,
Swedish, Finn, Austrian, Canadian, New Zealand, UK and US through their Military
Attaches. Canada responded and both Austria and Sweden indicated that they would
respond. A member of the Board attended the ‘Conference - Committee on Women in
NATO Forces’ in NATO HQ, Brussels on 14 – 15 May 06. Taking the Canadian
response and the information from the conference in NATO (UK, Belgium, Spain,
Germany, Norway and France) the Board was in a position to form an opinion on the
trend and deployments of females in Foreign Armed Forces and was in a position to
benchmark the DF.
15. Deployment of Females
It is worth repeating that the DF is one of the few military forces in that has no
restrictions to the range of administrative or operational appointments, postings or
ranks that females can apply for or serve in. In all the information analysed from
Other Forces, there is a great variance between what Other Forces policy is on
females in theory and what the situation is on the ground. The applicability of
Equality Legislation in Other Forces is not the same as in the DF. However most
forces have gender policies & targets and some have defined positive action (positive
discrimination) gender programmes in place.
16. The Canadian response is noteworthy in that the Canadians are considered to the
forefront in the area of female participation in armed forces. The Canadians
introduced gender equality fifteen years ago and in 1997 set a target of 28% for
female participation in their armed forces.
Canada 1989 2006
Women 8,641 7,945
Men 79,056 53,999
Total 87,697 61,944
Female Participation 9.9% 12.8%
As can be seen from the table, not only was the target not reached, but female
participation has decreased over the period. The only reason the percentage of females
has increased, from 9.9% to 12.8%, is that the male strength decreased exponentially
in comparison to female strength over the same period. The Canadians have reset their
target based on the Canadian workforce analysis and Interest & Propensity survey.
The target for the 2006 is 17.9% for women. The most recent Canadian Regular Force
enrolment data show that 23% of officer enrolments and 14% of General Service
enrolments are women. Which are similar to the female enlistment statistics for the
DF for 2005.
17. The real test of female participation is whether females are equally represented or
deployed across all services and divisions. In the Canadian Army, females make up
1.4% of personnel in Combat Units, 9.6% of the Naval Service and 10% of the Air
Force. The vast majority of females in the Canadian armed forces are deployed in
Medical (39% of personnel deployed), Dental (78% of personnel deployed), Clerical
(51% of personnel deployed), Music (21% of personnel deployed) and Logistic
Support (21% of personnel deployed).
Participation - % of Females in Each Service
Army Naval Air Admin
DF 5.2% 5.9% 2.3% 4.4%
Canadian 1.4% 9.6% 10% 13%
French 1.7% 0.4% 1.7% 15%
UK 3.2% 6.7% 4% 12%
In the DF, females are deployed throughout all services and are equally represented in
combat units. This is not the case in most other Armed Forces where females are over
represented in clerical, administrative and medical units.
18. Statistically the DF is below the average female participation in Other Forces.
However our participation rates across all services and appointments is greater. This
is an essential equality target and sets the international standard.
Comparison of % of Females in Other Armed Forces
Armed Female % of Remarks
Forces Total Strength
DF 5.1%
Canadian 12.8% 17.9% target for female enlistment in 2006
includes Reserve
Belgium 8.3%
French 13.28%
UK 9.1% Restricts service for females
German 6.5% 15% target for female enlistment
Norway 6.6% 15% target for female participation by 2008
19. Height
The height standard for enlistment varies considerably in Other Forces, from no
height requirement (Canada) to defined height standards for each Service in the UK
(Marines 165”). The US Marines have an enlistment height of 4’ 11”.
20. US Marine Corps
a. The Marine Corps forces are required to carry 126 Lbs and have developed
defined loads for each of the phases of combat. They have based this on the
fact that they accept the average bodyweight and height of the average Marine
as 169 Lbs and 5’ 10” respectively and use these figures in matrices for
combat development. The link is clearly between height & weight ratio and
the ability to carry load.
b. Their most recent study recommended that their Naval Health Research Center
(NHRC), San Diego, CA that has a Human Performance section in their
Physiology Department, complete a study.
21. UK
The height standard required depends on the service a person wishes to enlist into. For
combat services and the Royal Marines, the minimum height is 5’ 5”, the
requirements for marines is to carry a load in the operational context similar to the
load carried by the DF.
22. The DF load is very similar to that of the US marine. Reducing the height below
162.56 cm, may mean that personnel below that height would not have the height to
weight ratio to carry specified loads and this would reduce the operational capacity of
the DF.
23. Considerations
a. Female Participation in the DF. The overall percentage participation of
females is lower in comparison to other forces but ‘equality of opportunity’,
the key equality target, is more in evidence in the DF.
b. Height. The DF height standard is above that of some forces, however the US
Marines base their combat risk assessments on an average height of 5’ 10” and
the UK Marines on a minimum height of 5’ 5”, both are higher than the
present standard employed by the DF.
RISK ASSESSMENT
‘Carry out a Risk Assessment relating to Health and Safety, Duty of Care, Medical
and Claims issues on reducing height requirements’
24. Risk Assessment.
a. Current legal requirements oblige employers to carry out risk assessments in
relation to hazards in the place of work. Risk assessments for all hazards
encountered by soldiers and the likely effect of reduction in current minimum
height restrictions on the associated risk would not be feasible for the Board.
b. The hazard identified by the Board, which applies to all personnel who are
beneath the current minimum height, would be the risk that both the existing
and proposed PLCE harness would not fit.
c. It is likely that units will identify other hazards associated with carrying out
specific duties and personnel of extremely small stature may be precluded
from carrying out certain functions, e.g. pilots must have a minimum sitting
height of 82cm and minimum leg length of 99.8cm (buttock – heel).
d. Risk assessments for hazards, which may be affected by the height of the
personnel exposed, should include an examination of whether ergonomic
improvements would reduce the risk. This should be carried out regardless of
any alteration to current minimum height restrictions.
e. The Boards findings on Risk Assessment have been passed onto the President
of the PLCE Board.
25. Duty of Care
The DF has a Duty of Care to the soldiers it employs, despite exemptions in the
Safety, Health and Welfare Acts. The High Court ruled on this in 1989, Ryan V
Attorney General.
26. Medical
Medical studies on military related injuries and the effects of load are not definitive.
One study, ‘Injuries Sustained by Recruits During Basic Training in Irish Army’, Irish
Medical Journal, March 2004, Volume 97, Number 3) concluded;
a. The incidence of injuries, during training, was higher in females.
b. That females were more likely to sustain a further injury than her male
colleague and
c. The number of lost training days was higher for females.
27. Risk factors specific to female recruits include smoking, short stature, restricted
dietary intake, menstrual disturbances and low aerobic fitness. Statistical significant
associations were also identified between injury and body mass index (height weight
ratio). Medical evidence also points to increased incidence of pelvic stress fractures in
females where there is a height imbalance within the training group.
28. In discussing the medical study with the author, it was mentioned that the study was
based on the medical reports of 415 recruits in training and that the statistical
relevance of such a small sample may skew the results. The findings in relation to
increased frequency of injury among female recruits and the increased incidence of
time loss injuries have been born out by other studies in both Europe and the US
militaries. The Board considered the report very relevant in its considerations in the
absence of any other medical report comparable to the Terms of Reference of the
Board. There are indications that injuries in training are related to the capacity of a
recruit to carry load and that this facet should be studied in detail. Any study would
need to have the services of a statistician to assist and to advise on the survey sample
and duration to validate the results. Such a medical study in the DF, to get accurate
and reliable results, could take a number of years to complete.
29. DMC may not have the personnel to conduct an ongoing medical study within current
resources.
30. Considerations
a. Risk Assessment (and an Equality assessment) must be included in the Terms
of Reference for Boards that are convened to purchase or test military
equipment for service in the DF.
b. Risk assessments for hazards is an ongoing process and the DF is obliged to
carry them out.
c. Risk assessments for all hazards encountered by soldiers and the likely effect
of reduction in current minimum height restrictions on the associated risk
would not be feasible for the Board.
d. The DF has a Duty of Care to soldiers.
e. A medical study into Irish recruit training injuries points to a link between
injuries sustained in training and height of the candidate, height to weight ratio
of the candidate and gender of the candidate involved in military training.
There is an increased likelihood of injury to females in training. The Board is
of the opinion that any decision to lower the height standard may have a
consequential effect on wastage during recruit training.
f. In training where physical exertion is required, the training section should be
stratified by height.
ERGONOMIC RESEARCH
‘Examine International ergonomic research and military research on the issue’
31. Ergonomic Research.
Available research stresses that the ability of an individual to perform physical labour
is determined by a range of factors and NOT only by height. These include, the
ergonomic characteristics of the workstation, equipment & load, physical fitness,
training and age.
32. Defence Forces Safety Standard
Defence Forces Safety Standard 19 Safety Standard on Manual Handling states
“to try to categorise people’s manual handling abilities according to their ‘physique’
is of limited applicability’
In manual handling, the amount of load a person can lift is determined by the
persons capacity to lift that load. In operational deployment, and training for
same, the DF requires personnel to carry full marching load and ancillary
equipment. Studies in Germany as part of the Infantierist der Zufunft (Future
Soldier) note that soldiers may be required to carry up to 47kg or 103lbs. The
average weight that the DF Close Recce soldiers carry is 50 Kg. It follows that
the DF should not employ persons who cannot carry a defined operational
load.
33. Within the DF it is noted that there is NO definitive weight currently laid down
regarding CEMO, with variations between various DF training establishments.
Notwithstanding the variations which exist, physical suitability for service in the DF
should be based on the ability of a trained soldier to carry full marching order and
standard ancillary equipment. Requirements for certain individuals to perform
specialist tasks, which might require them to be of a specific height, should not dictate
general entry requirements.
34. While weight of equipment may not be a determining factor with regard to minimum
height of personnel, the bulk of the equipment and particularly the size of the PLCE
harness is. Equipment which inhibits the normal range of movement due to shortness
of the spinal column would place personnel of extremely short stature at a
disadvantage. It is therefore suggested that any reduction of the current minimum
height must take into account the size of the PLCE harness and the minimum height at
which it can be worn in comfort. It is recommended that the PLCE suppliers provide
ergonomic advice in relation to the minimum fit of PLCE.
35. Currently, no physical fitness test is available to determine a person’s suitability or
capacity to carry weight or to undergo training to carry weight. The DF enlistment
fitness tests define a person’s physical fitness and is viewed as a measure of a persons
ability to undergo fitness training. D DFT should establish a standard for load (ideally
in what must be carried with a minimum weight to be carried) and that standard
should be uniformly applied in recruit and 2* to 3* training across the training
establishments in the DF. Personnel who fail to attain the standard in recruit training
should not be passed out. This will have a consequential effect on wastage during
training.
36. DF personnel should be trained to the same basic standard and using the same
equipment. Special equipment or different training standards for personnel of lower
height would be inappropriate, detrimental to effectiveness and contrary to the ethos
of the DF. As with all training, stamina and load carrying training should be
incremental and based on the capabilities of those under instruction.
37. The Boards findings on Ergonomic Research have been passed onto the President of
the PLCE Board and to D DFT for consideration.
38. Considerations
a. Physical suitability for service in the DF should be based on the ability of a
trained soldier to carry full marching order and standard ancillary equipment.
b. D DFT should establish a standard for load (ideally in what must be carried
with a minimum weight to be carried) and that standard should be uniformly
applied in recruit and 2* to 3* training across the DF. Personnel who fail to
attain the standard in recruit training should not be passed out.
c. The effects of the load carrying tests should be monitored over time, analysed
and a review period defined.
PERSONAL LOAD CARRYING EQUIPMENT
‘Review the upgrading of Personal Load Carrying Equipment (PLCE) in the context
of minimum height standards. Liaison will be required with the current review board’
39. PLCE Board
Tendering firms have supplied sets of PLCE for trial and the trial group will include
females. The back-pack size will fit spinal dimensions from 16” to 22”, persons from
5’-2” to 6’-4” approximately.
40. A Risk Assessment will be initiated by the PLCE Board.
41. The Board is concerned that any decision to lower the height standard outside the
spinal dimensions of PLCE would not be justifiable.
42. Considerations
a. The PLCE Board should monitor the trials and note any injuries to personnel.
b. A broad spectrum of personnel (across the gender and height weight ratio)
should be nominated for the trial team.
c. The DF height standard should NOT be lowered beneath 157.48 cm
OTHER RELEVANT MATTERS
‘The Board will consider any other relevant matters’
43. Working Group Report May – July 2001
a. A Working Group was convened by D PS on 28 May 2001 to ‘Review the
Minimum Height Standards of Defence Forces Personnel Intakes’ and
reported on 06 July 2001.
b. With the exception of examining ergonomic research, equality issues and the
deployment of females, the Groups Terms of Reference were largely similar to
the Terms of Reference for this Board.
c. The Working Group came to the following conclusions.
i. The Minimum height increase of 1996 (to 5’5” in respect of males and
to 5’ 4” in respect of females) was not based on any scientific criteria.
ii. Weigh to height ratio along with body composition measurements
should be used in addition to height as criteria.
iii. That the DF was out of line with height standards for enlistment in
other military forces.
iv. That the PLCE required examination to suit or to fit persons of smaller
stature.
v. A reduction in minimum height would increase the female recruitment
pool by approximately 41%.
d. The Working Group recommended that the minimum height for enlistment be
reduced to 158 cm and that the induction tests & PLCE be examined.
44. State Claims Agency
Contact was made with the head of Risk Management in the State Claims Agency. In
any claim for injury, the courts will look at each claim on a case-by-case basis. The
State Claims Agency is looking at the whole area of manual handling, but is not in a
position at the moment to advise the Board. The Board was informed that it would be
prudent to complete a Risk Assessment on PLCE and load carrying duties and tasks
and monitor same.
45. Logistic and Armament
D Ord has stated that there should not be any major problem in adjusting the
procurement of items of clothing & equipment for persons lower that the current
height standard.
46. Considerations
a. The 2001 Working Group recommended a lowering of the height standard to
157.48 cm.
b. The State Claims agency was not in a position to advise but liaison should be
maintained to obtain a copy of their manual handling review document.
CONCLUSIONS
47. Female Participation in the DF
a. Reducing the height standard to 157.48 cm will increase the pool of available
female candidates to 90% of available females.
b. Attracting females to enlist in a greater number, making a ‘Life Less
Ordinary’ appealing to females, will increase the numbers enlisting and over
time increase gender balance. Additional funding should be provided to
commence an advertising campaign.
c. The percentage of females is lower when compared to Other Forces, however
the level of participation across the DF in all services, sets the equality target
for Other Forces to achieve. Percentage intake in 2005 at 10.4% equates well
in comparison with the Other Forces female intake.
d. Initiatives within the scope of positive action should be considered to
mainstream gender.
e. Females, enlisting under present standards, have an increased likelihood of
sustaining a training injury and are more likely to loose more training days in
comparison with their male colleagues.
f. There should be NO change to present policy of equality of opportunity for
females as to the range and scope of appointments, ranks or overseas service.
Females should be operationally on par with their male colleagues.
48. Height
a. The DF height standard is above that of a number of other forces, however, the
DF has no restrictive practices to the employment of personnel and all soldiers
must be operationally capable of carrying load utilising PLCE. When
compared to Other Forces services that require personnel to carry load, the DF
standard is below that of Other Forces.
b. The DF should define a load and set operational load carrying standards and
the training necessary to achieve the standard. Operational outputs dictate the
requirement to carry load and future commitments to PSO tasks will not
change that.
c. A medical study into Irish recruit training injuries points to a link between
injuries sustained in training and height of the candidate, height to weight ratio
of the candidate and gender of the candidate involved in military training.
d. Stratifying recruits by height is required for recruit training and for all training
of a physical nature.
e. A full medical study into the injuries sustained in training over a period to
define the link between height to weight and injury is considered essential.
f. Lowering the height standard beneath the specifications of PLCE is NOT
recommended.
RECOMMENDATIONS
49. Initiatives within the scope of positive action should be considered to mainstream
gender to increase female participation in the DF.
50. The current DF height standard may be reduced to 157.48 cm, but the Board cautions
against any lowering of the height standard beneath the lower specifications of the
new PLCE.
51. An ongoing medical review/study on the effects of carrying load and injuries
sustained in training by personnel should commence to assess the risk and provide
information for review. The DF height standard should be reviewed in five (5) years.
Signed on 06 Jun 2006 in HRMS
P. Marron
Lt Col
Board President
Directorate of Human Resource Management
Comdt M. Brownen
Board Member
Directorate of Training
Comdt N. Murphy
Board Member
Directorate of Operations
Comdt B. Kerr
Board Member
Medical Officer & Directorate of Army Medical Corps
Comdt R Corbet
Board Member
Defence Forces Health & Safety Officer
Capt A. Hogan
Board Member
Defence Forces Psychologist
Capt M. Larkin
Board Member
Defence Forces Athletic Association
Note.
Capt Larkin was co-opted onto the Board by D COS (Sp) to provide input on physical
training.