This situation can be somewhat complex, as an individual is likely to be placed in a position where their own skill set will be put to efficient use, meaning that their capabilities often (and ideally always) match the position and designation they have (USAI 2009). This means that perceptions of an individual's capabilities based on his or her MOS is likely at least partially rooted in truth, but that does not mean that these perceptions should reach the level of stereotyping individuals based on their specialty. The military has almost every conceivable employment position tat exists in the civilian world, from plumbers to cooks to pilots, and each classification can carry its own burden of presumptions and stereotypes around with it. Non-combat positions especially can be viewed with derision due to the reasons many individuals are placed there -- lack of fitness or disability -- meaning that otherwise eligible individuals placed in non-combat positions might have certain negative stereotypes of lack of fortitude or cowardice to contend with (Smith 2010). These stereotypes work the other way around, as well, and individuals who are given elite combat classifications might be seen as unfit for certain other less combative positions further on in their careers. These stereotypes quite clearly cut both ways, harming both in a directly negative manner in and ways that take longer to observe.

The Gender Problem

Gender has always been an issue in the military; stories of women dressing as men in order to fight and serves as soldiers go back for millennia. Even today, women are specifically barred from serving in combat positions in the United States military (USAI 2009; Smith 2010). This is not the full extent of the stereotypes that women in the armed forces face, however. Though this non-combative status is one part in the overall stereotype that is attached to women in the military, it is far from the most meaningful or the most complex. Women are held both to be inferior to men in many ways, and at the same time they are seen as too masculine (or too unfeminine, perhaps) for joining the military in the first place (DeGroot 2001).

one of the...

Seen as weaker, less capable, and less effective in leadership positions, women are trusted less and therefore are prone to lose capabilities and effectiveness through disuse and an erosion of confidence (Boyce & Herd 2004). This is especially apparent in leadership positions, where the lack of trust and confidence in a female leader's capabilities leads directly to a diminished leadership capacity, as decisions and orders are questioned or directly disobeyed (Boyce & Herd 2004). This then reinforces the stereotypes that female leaders face, reducing the opportunities available to them in the military despite measures that indicate largely equal capabilities and likelihoods of success if female armed forces members were given equal opportunities (DeGroot 2001; Boyce & Herd 2004).
Conclusion

If the United States military could eradicate these stereotypes and others that exist within the organization, granting promotion and responsibility based solely on merit, its operations would become much more efficient and successful. Stereotypes based on awards, occupational specialties, and gender do not lead to any positive organizational or individual behaviors, but rather limit the perspectives of both the organization and its members. Broadening perspective and opening opportunities would be far more beneficial for all concerned.