I sat on multiple promotion boards and graded hundreds of career record folders, and always thought photos were potentially unfairly prejudicial for several reasons, not only race.

If someone is too stupid or uncaring to present themselves professionally for a promotion board photo, I'm quite sure those issues will be also reflected directly or indirectly in their performance reports, too.

Speaking as a retired Army officer, I can think of two possible 'unconscious biases' that might be at work with official photos, but they're not the racial/ethinic ones the SecDef is probably thinking of.

1) The already mentioned weight/fitness bias. I know the Army has a bias toward the thin ("Mess sergeant looked at me with a grin/ You wanna be infantry, you gotta be thin." Other versions say 'airborne') and the semi-fetish, especially in the Airborne Mafia, for running. Personally, I can understand emphasizing fitness - it's a measure of self-discipline, if nothing else - but the focus on body shape sometimes strikes me as misguided. Strong man competitors are freakishly fit, but good luck getting one to look good in any sort of military dress uniform. And it's usually the big boys who end up humping the M60/M240, or the mortar tube or baseplate. Possibly the finest NCO I met in my 20 years was part of my ROTC cadre. He retired as a Bde CSM after 27 years. Dude was (and still is) freakishly fit. Still hoisting into the 1000 pound club in his late 50s. He also had to get taped every PT test, because he was 6'3" and weighed around 240-250. Basically built like an NFL linebacker.

Maybe the new CFT will help reduce using appearance as a proxy for fitness, since it makes for room for the big strong people to excel.

2) Branch bias. This may be Army specific, since I don't know if the other services wear branch insignia on their dress uniform. The Army tends to a bias toward the combat arms, and then there is a status heirarchy within the combat arms. (And then, with the Infantry at least, there's a status heirarchy within the branch. Ranger > Airborne > Light fighter > Mech. Although that's mostly the ones who see themselves on top looking down on the rest. As a former mechanized infatnryman, we usually just laughed in heavy firepower. And a dry place to sleep.)

Do I think doing away with the photos is a good idea? No. I think it's silly virtue signalling, especially since it seems to be a solution in search of a problem I haven't heard anyone complaining about.

There not really a branch bias in the Marine Corps aside from identifying the aviators by their wings (but the sheen of their hair products is also a dead giveaway) or the Recon/MarSoc by their jump or scuba devices.

Two years ago or so, I was in line at the DMV and an Army Master Sergeant was in line behind me. He was retiring and was registering his vehicles and getting a new driver's license in his new home state. He was wearing the fancy new OCP uniform.

He rattled off a few things about his time in the service, 5 different Presidents, X # of uniforms, X # of deployments, etc. The one thing he said about the uniforms really struck me as true and funny/sad.

He said that he used to be able to recognise a dirtbag soldier just by looking at their uniform. But he said that these days, you can't tell anymore just by looking because nobody shines boots anymore, all the name tapes and unit insignia are velcro, etc.

Obviously he was referring to the utility uniform rather than the dress uniform but, I thought that was a pretty good take. You can tell a lot by appearance.

My experience looking at many hundreds of photos on promotion boards is that even if the subject is in an immaculate uniform, there are many other variables in play that can cause a photo to offer a less than flattering picture of that individual--who in person may present as a consummate professional.

It's not just about potential racial prejudice. It's pretty women vs homely women. Fat-faced balding guys vs Sgt. Rock lookalikes. Thick squatty bodies vs slim swimmer's builds. Guys with beard shadow no matter how close they shave. Good lighting vs bad lighting. Talented photographers who know all the tricks to make their subject look sharp vs anything-will-do hacks. Etc.

More people than you might imagine simply aren't photogenic and it places them at a competitive disadvantage versus those who look great in print. It potentially lends a subtle unearned leg-up when a promotion board member is agonizing over whether to grade a crucial half point up or down--and that's how tight it is between being passed over or, on the other end of the spectrum, promoted early.

The conversation here has been about the uniform and race, but I'm telling you a photo shows a hell of a lot more than that and most of it is beyond the subject's ability to control. Most importantly, candidate's looks have zero to do with the performance documented in their record--which is all that should matter. JMHO.

The Air Force got rid of Headshots in officer's records many years ago, maybe in the mid 90's. It was so an officer got promoted based on past performance and future potential and not how a person or their uniform looked. It also saved a lot of money so officers didn't have to have photos made every few years.It was a good move. I think it was the same for enlisted and NCOs but I'm not sure.

Managed all USMC officer promotion boards for 2 years. Agree that the virtue signaling is BS. But the no photo on balance is a good idea provided RS and RO speak to military bearing. The base plate jumper, the wide hipped narrow shouldered marine's marine, the rounded belly force recon marine who runs the indoc with the newbies every time -joking all the way, and "barrel chested" chesty puller himself wouldnt make promotion in some of these Male lingerie model mindsets that suggest despite a 300 pft, military appearance might be a detractor...not even mentioning the female photo shallowness. Read fit reps. Defer to commanders who observe the candidate daily. Promote based on comparison of commander assessments.