[2] The Board evaluated Navy policies dealing with homosexual personnel that were based in part on the assertions made in the December 1950 final report of the Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Expenditure in Executive Departments, which said that all of the government's intelligence agencies "are in complete agreement that sex perverts in Government constitute security risks.
[4] The Crittenden Report, by contrast, concluded that there was "no sound basis for the belief that homosexuals posed a security risk" and criticized the Hoey Report: "No intelligence agency, as far as can be learned, adduced any factual data before that committee with which to support these opinions" and said that "the concept that homosexuals necessarily pose a security risk is unsupported by adequate factual data.
Apparently, it was felt "The service should not move ahead of civilian society nor attempt to set substantially different standards in attitude or action with respect to homosexual offenders.
Navy officials claimed they had no record of studies of homosexuality, but attorneys learned of its existence and obtained it through a Freedom of Information Act request.
[5][8] In September 1981, the Navy was still unable to fulfill a request for the Report's supporting documentation, specifically parts 2 and 3 of the Report, which contain "copies of directives and memoranda regarding homosexual policies, verbatim testimony from Navy officials on the evolution of the World War II wartime antigay policies, and an unidentified 'confidential supplement'.