Posted on Nov 9, 2022
Can a command punish an individual for not passing division standards? Can legal authorize this?
13.7K
170
73
30
30
0
I’m stationed at Fort Campbell, KY. My soldier failed his 4x36 and so did many others. I understand 4 miles in 36 minutes is the Fort Campbell standard but, it is not the Army standard. I was told by my PSG that the command team is considering flagging / barring individuals for not passing the 4x36. This could lead to chaptering those individuals for “failure to adapt.” My soldier has been here for over a year but he has trouble running. I’m helping him work on it. I want to fight for my soldier and keep him in the Army. He doesn’t deserve punitive action against him when he is passing ALL Army requirements. (ACFT, marksmanship etc.)
So, what I’m asking is, can they follow through and punish an individual for not passing division standards? Can legal authorize this?
So, what I’m asking is, can they follow through and punish an individual for not passing division standards? Can legal authorize this?
Failure
Career Counselor
Career Advice
Fort Campbell
Punishment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 34
47
47
0
We see this question in here every once in a while in different forms. It usually goes, "can I be punished", "can I be denied retention /promotion" for failing to maintain unit standards?
Short answer is no. Long answer is hell no.
I'd you look on a flag sheet, you will see all the reasons a person can be flagged. There is a lot of them, but not a single one says "failed unit standards". The Army sets the standard for what the lowest is that is required for a Soldier to pass. Commanders are encouraged to set higher standards to encourage members, but they cannot punish members for failure to meet those standards.
Bars are a little more subjective, but any experienced Career Counselor is going to advise the BN CDR that you can't apply an Army bar to a Soldier for a Command created standard. Back when I became a counselor the Army was going through a Reduction and units were establishing an OML and boards to pick who could be retained. The Army at the highest levels quickly put out a message to the entire force that this was illegal. It was called the tri-signed memo because it was from the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and the highest General at the time. It stated that the Army creates the standard for retention and units will not create their own standards.
If, by some crazy turn of a events, your BN level Career Counselor is new and allows your BN CDR to approve such a bar, your Soldier should appeal it and it will go to the BDE CDR where an experienced Senior Career Counselor will shoot this idea down. In the mean time, if your Company level command continues to threaten punishment for things like this, I advise a quick walk to the IG office. They are equipped to explain to your command team what is within their legal authority to execute, and what is not. Your command team won't get in trouble, but they will he retrained in the correct application of bars and flags.
The Army sets the standard for what is required because that affects eligibility for retention and promotion. If you were to leave it up to some commanders, half the Army would be chaptered and you'd only have a few strong people left in a squad to do the work of ten people.
Short answer is no. Long answer is hell no.
I'd you look on a flag sheet, you will see all the reasons a person can be flagged. There is a lot of them, but not a single one says "failed unit standards". The Army sets the standard for what the lowest is that is required for a Soldier to pass. Commanders are encouraged to set higher standards to encourage members, but they cannot punish members for failure to meet those standards.
Bars are a little more subjective, but any experienced Career Counselor is going to advise the BN CDR that you can't apply an Army bar to a Soldier for a Command created standard. Back when I became a counselor the Army was going through a Reduction and units were establishing an OML and boards to pick who could be retained. The Army at the highest levels quickly put out a message to the entire force that this was illegal. It was called the tri-signed memo because it was from the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of Defense, and the highest General at the time. It stated that the Army creates the standard for retention and units will not create their own standards.
If, by some crazy turn of a events, your BN level Career Counselor is new and allows your BN CDR to approve such a bar, your Soldier should appeal it and it will go to the BDE CDR where an experienced Senior Career Counselor will shoot this idea down. In the mean time, if your Company level command continues to threaten punishment for things like this, I advise a quick walk to the IG office. They are equipped to explain to your command team what is within their legal authority to execute, and what is not. Your command team won't get in trouble, but they will he retrained in the correct application of bars and flags.
The Army sets the standard for what is required because that affects eligibility for retention and promotion. If you were to leave it up to some commanders, half the Army would be chaptered and you'd only have a few strong people left in a squad to do the work of ten people.
(47)
(0)
SPC Anna Larson
I was written up because I had to have the body fat tape test even though I passed it and my PT test.
(0)
(0)
SPC Bob Krutek
They may try to find a way to retaliate because they were corrected. I've had it happen to me when I tried to take leave.
(0)
(0)
CPL Mike Kiernan
SPC Bob Krutek - Very much in agreement as I've seen Company Commander's put more emphasis on their own OER's coming up for signature instead of working on their Unit's ability to get the job done. In 1 case I saw where a career-fixated CO was so 'annoyed' by a soldier who was so highly motivated in being a good soldier that the soldier was 'referred', on a Friday afternoon, to the Division Psychiatrist for a Fitness For Duty examination, and seen coming right behind it, a Chapter 13 'Unable to meet Standard's'. separation. The Division Psychiatrist, once this came out, wasted no time in calling the Division Surgeon, and then right behind that, the Division Inspector General for what was found to be an ABUSE OF COMMAND. Said Company Commander had, to be polite, a very 'polite dressing down' by the CG, and shortly thereafter a not-so-unexpected reassignment, pending his PCS upcoming. It also saw the Division Surgeon send out a VERY, VERY pointed letter to ALL UNIT COMMANDER'S about using a Fitness For Duty process to solve what was a Failure in Command To Train problem. The same came down for the IG regardng Unit vs. Army-wide Standard's, something the CG made a very pointed remark about at the next Officer's Call. I had 'The Mick', and if there was 1 thing he would not stand for was a 'Showboating for Promotion' Officer, more so when soldier's were being found to be being 'sacrificed' for the CO's number's to look good.
(0)
(0)
10
10
0
SFC (Join to see) already hit the nail on the head.
But... if the Soldier has been at Campbell for over a year, why can he still not pass the 4 mile? 9 minute mile is not that fast at all. It is the unofficial standard Army-wide for unit cohesion runs. For a younger Soldier this *should* be a breeze.
This sounds a lot like either he needs to go see medical, he is not getting the proper physical training, or he is not motivated. Either way, at this point it is a leadership issue.
A slow Soldier just isn't going to thrive in the 101 - or anywhere in the 18th Airborne. And, as COL Randall C. pointed out, even without officially punishing a Soldier, there are plenty of rewards that will never be doled out to this guy if he can't hang on a 4 miler.
But... if the Soldier has been at Campbell for over a year, why can he still not pass the 4 mile? 9 minute mile is not that fast at all. It is the unofficial standard Army-wide for unit cohesion runs. For a younger Soldier this *should* be a breeze.
This sounds a lot like either he needs to go see medical, he is not getting the proper physical training, or he is not motivated. Either way, at this point it is a leadership issue.
A slow Soldier just isn't going to thrive in the 101 - or anywhere in the 18th Airborne. And, as COL Randall C. pointed out, even without officially punishing a Soldier, there are plenty of rewards that will never be doled out to this guy if he can't hang on a 4 miler.
(10)
(0)
SSG Mark G Smith
I don't miss this hooah bullshit in the least. Nor do I miss any of the "unit cohesion" nonsense. If the 40 year old female meets the Army standards across the board why should she come under any scrutiny for failing to meet some arbitrary, "see we're special" nonsense?
(3)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SSG Mark G Smith - Because a SM who is not self motivated to achieve the minimally physically fitness needed for this type of slow run fit and / or have the mental strength to complete a slow run, is not a SM wanted in our service. Military service is not for quitters, not for the lazy, the mentally weak. If the SM has a medical reason for an inability to run 4 miles in 36 that's one thing. Unwilling is another
(0)
(0)
PO1 (Join to see)
SFC Casey O'Mally - I was a Navy Seabee, and we did formation runs as well, but ours were a 10m mile pace (3x30, I guess you would call it). As with your examples, people that consistently fell out would go to the "fat-boy PT", or "Fitness Enhancement Program" (FEP), so you don't need to Barney it down for me.
As it all pertains to the OP's post, there's really no recourse for a unit to try and find an official way to separate someone that's not in compliance with unofficial standards. That's some straight up fuck-fuck games that reflect even more poorly on the leadership.
As it all pertains to the OP's post, there's really no recourse for a unit to try and find an official way to separate someone that's not in compliance with unofficial standards. That's some straight up fuck-fuck games that reflect even more poorly on the leadership.
(1)
(0)
10
10
0
Sounds like frustration from the command team, empty threats. The 4x36 here at Campbell is not an Army standard. Nothing punitive can come from it, I wouldn't sweat it.
I am going to branch off from your original topic but indulge me. Sometimes, this is where I think "NCO business" comes into play. What I mean by that is, keep building your counseling packet on your Joe, keep working this out with your PSG and your peer group as needed, but tell your Joe nothing but to focus on the 4x36 and that you'll handle everything else. I remember how little I knew about what actually went on in the Army as a private, but I'll be damned if I didn't know my job. Once I held leadership positions, I could see in hindsight how my NCOs witheld info from me because they were doing their job and wanted me to focus on something else, not get caught up in the other stuff. I think this happens in different ways at every level, all the way to the top. So, part of it is keeping your Joe's focused and you doing the foundational work to prepare them for success, and the other part is listening to higher but also staying focused yourself.
I am going to branch off from your original topic but indulge me. Sometimes, this is where I think "NCO business" comes into play. What I mean by that is, keep building your counseling packet on your Joe, keep working this out with your PSG and your peer group as needed, but tell your Joe nothing but to focus on the 4x36 and that you'll handle everything else. I remember how little I knew about what actually went on in the Army as a private, but I'll be damned if I didn't know my job. Once I held leadership positions, I could see in hindsight how my NCOs witheld info from me because they were doing their job and wanted me to focus on something else, not get caught up in the other stuff. I think this happens in different ways at every level, all the way to the top. So, part of it is keeping your Joe's focused and you doing the foundational work to prepare them for success, and the other part is listening to higher but also staying focused yourself.
(10)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google