Army APFT: Should NCOs have a higher minimum 'standard'?

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:48:57 -0500

The Army's minimum APFT score is 180 (at least 60 points in each of the 3 events).

Should NCOs have a higher minimum 'standard' than their Soldiers to attain qualifications for continued service?

If yes, what should the NCO Standard be and why

If no, we'd be curious to read some points of view.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 2:54 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:54:09 -0500

Sure, all leaders should. Up into a certain point though because our bodies all start breaking down.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 2:56 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 14:56:45 -0500

I understand where you are coming from because NCOs ( Officers and SNCOs included) should be leading from the front, however, I disagree. Typically NCOs have been in longer and multiple deployments have taken a toll on their bodies. The standards should be tied to age not rank.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Jan 23 at 2016 3:02 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:02:11 -0500

I'm sure there already is. It's just not "written" in the Regs. Beware the troop, let alone the NCO that "barely" passes the test. I'm sure there will be a "heart to heart" with leadership regardless what the passing score is, and it will reflect in the evaluations, even if it does not say for that reason.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Jan 23 at 2016 3:10 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:10:02 -0500

I see where you're going with it, and part of me likes the idea, but I think the logic actually breaks down. If we make NCO standards higher than lower enlisted, then we should make senior NCO standards even higher than NCOs (can you imagine if they were not?). We should then make senior officer standards even higher than junior officers. If you follow this logic, the Chief of Staff and Sergeant Major of the Army would have the highest PT standards in the force, and I just don't think that makes any sense.

I understand the sentiment though. I don't think the way to do achieve the intent though is to increase minimums, but to promote more on people who reach higher levels of performance in their field (in both PT and other skills). Great topic.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 3:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:17:39 -0500

As NCOs gain rank and time in the Army, they also age. The toll of being a soldier is evident on the wear and tear on our body. Look at the large numbers of VA claims. Even with age-adjustments to the current standards, it become increasingly difficult to do well on the APFT. There are some notable exceptions...our SMA for example..., but I think the age adjustment that is already in place serves to keep the test fair.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 3:21 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:21:28 -0500

I don't believe NCOs specifically should have a different standard. There is enough division in the Army, let's not add to it. If there is a discussion about having ALL leaders (NCOs, WO, Officers) held to a higher standard, then you might get some traction with that discussion. But realistically, do we 'need' another reason to boot sub-par NCOs from the ranks? The new NCOER and the constant AAR Comments from DA-level boards to enumerate the actual APFT score will help to identify those that are not performing to standard. Besides, we should be more focused on the total Soldier concept, not just who has a higher APFT. I am a grandfather to 2, father of 6 and can still hang with over half of my platoon, and some of the ones I beat are young enough to be my kids! But seriously, I need Solders that are physically fit but also technically competent. I have had a SGT working for me that could smoke most people but I couldn't get him to grasp the concepts of his job. It took an intense amount of training to get him to where he needed to be. But the perception was that he was squared away cuz he do do great at PT. We need to move AWAY from that mentality because some MOS require more brain power than physical, hence why I embrace the total Soldier concept.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 3:41 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:41:34 -0500

I already am.
The highest standard on the APFT is the one I hold myself to in order to run with the young bucks and lead from the front. The day I can't hang is the day I retire.

Response by SSG John Caples made Jan 23 at 2016 3:46 PM

SSG John Caples — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:46:53 -0500

I feel CSM that every person in the military should be held to one standard, "The ARMY standard".

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Jan 23 at 2016 3:58 PM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 15:58:40 -0500

I think the minimum standard should be the same for all, but with that said leaders at all levels are able to use APFT data to rack and stack their subordinates.

Response by SFC Justin Rooks made Jan 23 at 2016 4:40 PM

SFC Justin Rooks — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:40:00 -0500

PT is a small part of being a leader to me. If you have an NCO that scores 200 on the APFT, but knows his job and can lead and train Soldiers and an NCO that scores 330, but can't perform his job and instills no values, purpose and discipline in his subordinates, which do you take? I have no problem with senior leadership ensuring that the NCOs in their charge have and set high personal standards but if we are using an APFT score as a measure for continued service, we are missing the boat. The demands of the Army takes a different toll on each Soldier's body so while they may want to continue outperforming the "young bucks", it may not be possible. The senior leadership I had as mentors focused on what you ACCOMPLISHED and your potential to lead and continue to positively contribute to the Army, not your APFT score. That's what my Command Teams looked at for the Soldiers and what I was told senior promotion boards looked at. NCOs have so many other pressing issues to worry about than a PT score. The standard is the standard. As long as they can achieve, leave them alone.

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 4:43 PM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:43:18 -0500

It is one of those thoughts that sound good. But, as one ages one's body simply does not always cooperate.

I recall my last PT test in the Reserves. My right leg had already had two of the five surgeries it has endured. I was wearing an elastic support and a brace. I passed, but, barely.

I felt bad about my performance until one of the troops told me he passed because he was inspired by my effort.

Response by CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 4:52 PM

CH (CPT) Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 16:52:00 -0500

I think there is a higher standard but it's not exactly written. Here's a recent example.
Last week I attended a fascinating ETS ceremony for a fine NCO. He was a former officer in the French army who emigrated to the states. He enlisted and made it to E-5; he was a squad leader in a light infantry company. Oh by the way, he also founded and grew his own civilian construction company and was making big money doing it. He got out because he couldn't excell in both worlds. He was and is a truly great leader.
With a thick French accent, SGT C said in his final address to the company, "Eef you are a leadare een thees organization and you don't scohr a 270 or higher, you are a peece of sheet"
I think that about sums it up

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 5:31 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:31:22 -0500

Absolutely not.

certain things need to remain even across the board. Yea they're NCOs but at the end of the day they're just another Soldier. So Soldier requirements should be even.

Now another question is why? How does PT relate to what a good NCO is? Of all the good NCOs i've had in my career their ability to PT is one of the not so important qualities. NCOs should be able to get out in front of their troops and PT. It's always a little bit of a moral booster having that NCO that can get out there and run circles around his soldiers and joes, but it really isn't important at all.

Instead give me an NCO who is competent of his job and will take on to the chest for his soldiers. That's what matters. That's what we should scrutinize.

but that's just my opinion.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 5:36 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 17:36:33 -0500

SGM Matthew Quick I already hold myself to a higher standard. I would be disappointed with any NCO that didn't.

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Jan 23 at 2016 7:16 PM

CW2 Michael Mullikin — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 19:16:37 -0500

A bad idea unless you plan to have officers have a higher minimum 'standard' than their Soldiers to attain qualifications for continued service (hmmmm, progressively higher standards for company, field grade and general officers?). Personally, I think all personnel should take the same basic APFT, with no separate, or weighted, standards for female soldiers, personnel over forty years old or any other exceptions. I would propose adding more stringent requirements, in addition to the basic APFT, for combat arms and more stringent again for special operations personnel. This would address an issue that has bothered me for some time— I see no reason why a 71L clerk or a tanker should maintain the same level of physical readiness as an airborne-ranger-special forces soldier. Key to my proposal is that once its been decided what the standards are for the basic APFT, there should be no alibis.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 8:12 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:12:58 -0500

As some have already mentioned in their response, I too feel there's more to being a leader than just being able to excel at taking an APFT. This is just one dimension of being a great leader.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 8:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:15:51 -0500

I would say No. I would like one chart for every soldier regardless of age, gender or rank. However when we look at soldiers or NCO's that we want to promote. We should be looking at the soldiers that do well not the soldiers that just get the minimum.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 8:35 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 20:35:24 -0500

No, I don't think there should be different standards. However, I feel that if an NCO is to not meet the standard than he/she should immediately be held accountable! I am a huge believer in a standard is the standard and if it changes for one it should change for ALL! As a DS I have to meet and maintain 70% minimum in each category. But I believe that DS standard is for the reason that most IET/BCT trainees are between 18-24 and that will never change (and we keep getting older). Just my thoughts.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 10:47 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:47:40 -0500

I think that is a good idea. Most units already do this on an unofficial standard. If you were an NCO and got a low score you would be frowned upon. You are expected to set the example. This should be for leadership and PT. You have to lead to the front. How can you lead by example and you are just trying to pass.

With officers we are expected also to exceed in PT. But we also do this to so our soldiers have confidence in our to lead.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 23 at 2016 10:54 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 22:54:25 -0500

I do understand where this topic is going. Although some of this should be "yes, NCO's should have a higher standard, On the other hand NCO's should have a smaller standard. I agree with SSgt Private RallyPoint Member That most NCO's are battle worn, Deployments have taken there tolls on the body and mind. We want every solider to push themselves, no matter the rank But that is how we injure ourselves more.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 23 at 2016 11:00 PM

SGM Erik Marquez — Sat, 23 Jan 2016 23:00:00 -0500

Yes, but self imposed as a professional leader desiring to lead the way. If it needs to be in a regulation, the intent and meaning is lost.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 24 at 2016 5:07 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:07:53 -0500

No. promotions and evaluations are based on the scores as is. I know a Marine with a lower PFT Score, even if he passed would be behind his peers and not likely to make Cpl Or Sgt. SNCO promotions run the same way. Its all part of the pie.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Jan 24 at 2016 5:11 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 05:11:56 -0500

Just to add, in my experience we never promoted a Marine to Cpl who didnt run a first Class PFT.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 7:00 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:00:29 -0500

I think the NCOs should have to maintain at least an 80 in each event. I say this because NCOs are tasked with the responsibility of leading soldiers and motivating them. PT scores seem to take priority over a lot of other attributes in the Army, so as a leader,your PT score should be higher.

Response by COL John Hudson made Jan 24 at 2016 7:12 AM

COL John Hudson — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:12:46 -0500

A LOT of water continues to boil over this issue, but there is only one locked-in-stone aspect of the APFT...one must obtain a minimum of 60 points in each to three events to be "physically qualified" for military duty. Note the regulation does NOT say: "Max the PT test" or "give me 10 more reps for the (place target person or event here)," or one's promotion rests solely on PT test performance. Yes, it is always personally rewarding to do well in such endeavors and I was always pleased with my own 'above average' performance. However, I witnessed too many young impressionable service members hit the test event position and do the reps all the way to muscle failure attempting to reach such questionable goals, then failing the full PT test having worn themselves out. Note that my reports to senior leadership concerning my Command's PT performance dealt only with the percentage PASSED and no other aspect. That reporting did not demand to know who maxed the test or any individual test scores...just the Command as a whole for MOSQ and deployable. I fully comprehend and understand that those MOS units requiring hard physical effort (Infantry, Combat Engineer, Ranger, for example) would of necessity practice a much higher physical standard...but the bottom line is the Regulation's standard of 180 points...and no one can be chastised or denigrated for meeting what the Regulation requires.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 7:18 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 07:18:56 -0500

How about higher moral standards for all leaders, enlisted and officer. Bring back accountability and "old school" things that made us better. I look around I see unit history drifting into the background with traditions fading and standards not being enforced. Why increase standards if some cannot meet them or think that they do not apply to them? Who would enforce them? Some people do not enforce them as it is. So magically those who cannot pass a pt test who out of nowhere have a 240 will suddenly have a 270 when others were on leave. Fix the problems and try not to create more. Just my two cents.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 8:07 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:07:40 -0500

No. Because by that same token, Officers and Warrants would have an even greater minimum standard. If you do that, it ceases to be a standard. the standard being across the board the whole way through makes it equal and fair for everyone. Now, any NCO, Warrant, or Officer worth his salt will pass with higher than that to set the example for his Joes, but it should not be a requirement.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 8:35 AM

LTJG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 08:35:24 -0500

Higher standards no...i feel that is a slippery slope and as pointed out.. Will lead to a 300 being a requirement to reach the top which isn't right. I do however believe they should have STRICTER standards. Once you're in a leadership position I feel it should be unacceptable to fail an apft, but I've had leadership that failed on numerous occasions. That sets a very poor example and should not be tolerated

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 9:41 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:41:51 -0500

They already do.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 9:45 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 09:45:25 -0500

The minimum score is the standard. End of story. Wait, no, that isn't the end of the story. We have already created a military that promotes muscle-headed retards over the 190 PTer who is great at his job. This is what the Army has asked for and is what they are getting. Luckily this attitude has not INFECTED the Warrant Officer ranks and I can still get promoted by meeting the standard and standing up after push-ups. Gotta save that extra for the run. LOL.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 1:35 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 13:35:17 -0500

All Leaders should score above the minimum standard. However, I think the Army should continue its one-Army-standard policy. It allows us a range from 180-300+ points to determine who are the minimum achievers and who are the exceeders. In my eyes, though it is still technically passing, a leader (NCO or not) should not be scoring a 180. That just shows me they are a marginal performer (at least physically). Thoughts?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2016 2:58 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 14:58:42 -0500

I understand what you saying here SGM. I agree with it, someone wants to be a leader, their standards in certain areas should be higher.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 24 at 2016 5:43 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:43:36 -0500

Anyone who get a 180 is a physical slug.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 1:32 AM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 01:32:55 -0500

Of course not. The 'minimum standard' exists due to decades of study. If they want more (physically) powerful leaders, then raise the standards across the board. With that said, anyone who wants to ascend will keep their PT score far above the minimum standard....and if they do not, then they don't need to be holding those dominant positions. One final thought....I've seen MANY units whose leadership gets their 205's pencil-whipped, usu ally through the 'buddy system'....and that is where the discussion should really begin -- with unit ACCOUNTABILITY.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 5:33 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 05:33:40 -0500

I would say no simply because if they required all NCOs to get higher scores on their APFT (lets say 300 for argument sake), 300 would no longer be an exceptional score. It would be a minimum to be met.
Plus, I have always hated the mentality that a high PT score means you are a good leader. "Okay, so you can bench press 300 lbs. How good are you at your actual job?"

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 8:08 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 08:08:57 -0500

I don't believe that NCO's should have a higher APFT standard, but I believe that NCO's should always try to do more than the minimum passing score

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 12:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 12:49:59 -0500

I don't believe NCO Standard should be raise. I believe the standard should be by MOS.
What do you Think???

Response by SPC Christopher Morehouse made Jan 25 at 2016 2:05 PM

SPC Christopher Morehouse — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 14:05:27 -0500

No, and here's why: Muscles don't make leaders. The APFT is there to make sure our soldiers meet am minimum level of fitness, so they are ready to perform and fight when needed. An NCO doesn't need to be faster or stronger or carry more crap than any other soldier. He should be a 'better soldier' than private Snuffy, which means he should know his stuff, live the Army values without question, inspire and mentor his soldiers. None of that requires him to be a fitness buff. My opinion might be tainted by passed fitness buff NCO's who were lacking in the leadership department.....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 3:34 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:34:42 -0500

PT score is worthless, its a judgment of one small part of being a leader. Some of the best PT NCOs were garbage in every other way. On the other hand if your overweight and can't pass a PT test that's a whole different issue. I am severely broken and have serious spinal issues, so my PT score will never be higher than a 60, but I still serve and maintain excellent leadership characteristics.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 3:36 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:36:32 -0500

Yes we need to set the standard I'm a NCO 43 YEARS OLD, I still running in mId 13 , two miles and score 300 in APPT . Eventually my age will catch me that why I train in my onw time no excuse.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 3:55 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 15:55:22 -0500

Not remotely possible. As people and leaders age then your body is going to age and change. I was a PT stud in my 20's and 30's. There is no way I could hang with myself or anyone else at the age of 52. I'm paid now for my brains and leadership not how physical I am. Don't get me wrong, I still work out utilizing Strong Swift Durable programming 4-5 days per week, row each week and ruck probably 2 times a month. But, I can no longer live up to 18-22 year old APFT standards. If everyone retired when they couldn't compete with the "young bucks" we'd have no leaders. We'd all be retired by 35. With that said, there are some people, due mostly to genetics, that can continue to workout and perform at a high level of tactical fitness. However, for the average person, and that is most of us, it's not feasible.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 4:02 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:02:23 -0500

take a look around your unit. Many, if not most (or all), of the guys who have been in 15-20 years have either knee, back, shoulder problems/injuries or a combination of the three. There is much much more to being a good leader than doing PT. IMHO, waaaaay too much emphasis is put on PT. Seen way too many PT studs that were Soldier duds

Response by SSG Randall P. made Jan 25 at 2016 4:20 PM

SSG Randall P. — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:20:59 -0500

When I see these types of posts I think, here we go again.

Every op order I ever hear never once mentions that we need the guy with the 300 pt score to go over here and clear this room, or that we need the squad of 300 pt scores doing this task that everyone else can do.

Leadership isn't black and white that we end up making it, where PT automatically makes you a better leader. It just means you're better at PT.

As an NCO I agree that I should have a higher PT score, and that should be reflected on my NCOER if I don't meet the standard that my mentor thinks I should be, but if my leadership ability is unaffected by my ability to do PT then why is this a topic of discussion... Again.

I could see it working at a local level, but not army wide... We'd loose a lot of good people... And a lot of bad.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Jan 25 at 2016 4:21 PM

SGT Alicia Brenneis — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:21:31 -0500

I think no. Physical fitness is about health and the ability to serve at a physical level that is safe for the body. I.e. the healthier you are the less physical tole your body will suffer. It's not about how well you lead. NCOs should strive to personally do more and set an example.

Response by SGT Christopher Premore made Jan 25 at 2016 4:23 PM

SGT Christopher Premore — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:23:39 -0500

I disagree while being great at PT is great it has nothing to do with being a leader. The military is packed with NCO's that can max a PT test but are not capable of leading or mentoring.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 4:39 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 16:39:26 -0500

I can see where you are going with it but disagree. Why at age 52 should I feel the necessity to be able to do all that my Soldiers do better than them when there is a twenty year age gap between us.

Response by MSgt Rob Miller made Jan 25 at 2016 5:49 PM

MSgt Rob Miller — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:49:39 -0500

I see your point but I can tell you that at 46 years of age it is just about impossible for me to be in the same shape I was at 23. That being said, any of my troops that failed their PT test had to run with me until they passed. I made more than 1 kid half my age puke.

Response by SGT Randel Pruett made Jan 25 at 2016 5:55 PM

SGT Randel Pruett — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 17:55:45 -0500

I can see the idiotic reasoning behind this but I actually think minimum scores should only be based on age. Some folks don't hold up so well compared to others of the same age.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 25 at 2016 6:49 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Mon, 25 Jan 2016 18:49:57 -0500

For those who do not try their best in the APFT shame on you for not having more pride. Also the bosses who have been behind you supporting you might be graded on the collective APFT score, so don't be BF.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 12:55 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 00:55:12 -0500

I want to say yes, minimum 70 or 75 each events... However, being a PT studs does not make you a good leader. At the end of the day, what it matters when it comes to mission accomplishment is doing your job and taking care of the Soldiers. I always tell my NCOs that as long a they pass their APFT, do their job and take care of their Soldiers... I'm satisfied.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 3:18 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 03:18:59 -0500

SGM Quick,

I think that NCO's should hold themselves to a higher standard and not be content with simply meeting the standards. We are expected to lead from the front; meet, enforce and exceed standards; and look like Soldiers. I don't necessarily think that standards should be changed to reflect ones rank, but I think it should be a shared belief that NCO's should always try to exceed the minimum, no matter what they do.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 5:07 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 05:07:52 -0500

First off, there is talk that SMA Dailey wants to set a higher standard for NCOES attendance and maintaining P status. NCOs would have to score at least 75 points in each event. While the idea makes sense, in practice it doesn't. If the NCO Corps suddenly has to score higher on the APFT, then there will be a push to get junior enlisted soldiers to score higher on their APFT.

While it is always good to excel, and fitness is an important part of military service, requiring increasing minimum fitness standards for NCOs will essentially be requiring an increase in minimum fitness standards for the entire Force, because all junior enlisted soldiers are potential NCOs and will be pushed to meet the increased standard from day 1 in the Army.

You'll probably also see an increase in injuries, flags, and chapters.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 6:21 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 06:21:18 -0500

I do believe that Higher Ranked soldiers should be held to a higher standard, but PT should not be the main one. First of all most season NCOs or higher rank in the military have seen it all, they have been to places, they have broken physically and mentally the military style exercise alone broke them and now you want to hold a 35, 40, 50 years old to a higher physical standard than a 20 year old. Unless you come up with some bionic engineer higher ranked soldier this is anatomically unfair.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 8:08 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 08:08:06 -0500

If we really are using PT scores as a metric to 'attain qualifications for continued service' why not raise the requirements for attending NCOES to scores above the minimum? Since we are now STEPing and nobody gets promoted without NCOES, attaching higher standards to attend NCOES would allow those who go above and beyond to be recognized with promotion. Soldiers would still be allowed to serve at their current grade with the normal 180 if they so choose.

Response by SFC Dave Joslin made Jan 26 at 2016 9:12 AM

SFC Dave Joslin — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 09:12:09 -0500

When I was in 1AD in Germany, the "unofficial" standard for leaders was 70% in each event. Without it you could not get on the OML for NCOES. I've had other Senior Leaders say 250 was minimum for PSG's and above. I agree with this - leading by example should not mean making the minimums!

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Jan 26 at 2016 4:59 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 16:59:42 -0500

If you are in a combat unit, it will behoove of you to be in great shape as that might translate in killing them before you get killed. If a cute 210 is your APFT score then something is remiss with the individual and the leaders. We need to take every advantage to the battlefield to win.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 6:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 26 Jan 2016 18:59:18 -0500

To bad PT doesn't have standards on the heart.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 10:22 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 10:22:26 -0500

NO.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2016 2:51 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:51:58 -0500

Hell no. I'm not getting any younger!!

Response by Capt Jeff S. made Jan 27 at 2016 5:48 PM

Capt Jeff S. — Wed, 27 Jan 2016 17:48:10 -0500

There is a way of separating top performers and rather than by raising standards, you simply factor their PFT score into the promotion system and all other things being equal, the cream floats to the top.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2016 5:09 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Feb 2016 17:09:32 -0500

So, older and broken soldiers need to have a higher standard than the young kids?

Response by SGM Donald Garner made Feb 15 at 2016 5:34 PM

SGM Donald Garner — Mon, 15 Feb 2016 17:34:45 -0500

No.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2016 12:13 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 00:13:25 -0500

Standards should be equal across the board

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2016 12:58 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Feb 2016 12:58:17 -0500

Physical fitness is an individual responsibility. However I think that NCO’s should set goals to score above minimum standards. The APFT evaluates individual fitness and for NCO’s, if they are barely making minimum standards, what example does that set to the Soldiers, accepting meritocracy is okay? In RC units, you’ll see physical fitness readiness difficult to manage. Ultimately it’s everyone’s responsibly to exercise and maintain a healthy lifestyle/diet to overcome challenges in meeting standards. To answer your question, NCO’s should not have separate standards, they should lead by example, incorporate physical fitness training to help motivate others to exceed standards while being disciplined enough to surpass minimal standards themselves. This applies to all leadership at every level. Leaders should set the example for their subordinates to follow. CSM/SGM’s to the 1SG, 1SG’s to the PLT SGT’s and so forth. Emphasis from the top down.

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Feb 25 at 2016 11:17 PM

CW2 Michael Mullikin — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 23:17:11 -0500

No, that's why they're called standards. Besides, running is not the sole ability required of a soldier. If a higher standard is required, make it required that every NCO, Warrant and Commissioned office qualify as "Expert" with their personal weapon once a year; What could be more soldier-like than skill with their weapon? Those who fail expert qualification would be provided the same opportunity for remedial training and testing that a soldier who failed the APFT would receive. If they did not improve and qualify they would probably have to be chaptered out of the service. It might be distressing to see senior officers forced out of the army, but if a four-star general can't set the example for other soldiers, who can.

Response by COL John Hudson made Feb 26 at 2016 11:14 AM

COL John Hudson — Fri, 26 Feb 2016 11:14:28 -0500

There is a LOT of emotional hot water boiling over this issue, and I believe, unfortunately, that it will ever be so. I understand I'm about to catch high-holy hell for my comments, but at this point I really don't care. I'm going to speak for every soldier: Enlisted, Warrant, or Commissioned out there who has faced the subject of my thoughts: The following is a matter of record; NOT anyone's personal opinion.

Exactly WHAT is the U.S. Army Physical Fitness Standard (or at least what it was when I retired)??? ANS: Attainment of 60 points in EACH of THREE events totaling 180 points. THAT'S IT! The United State's Army Command has spoken - and stated that ANYONE obtaining that score is FULLY QUALIFIED to be a member of our organization...End of discussion, non-negotiable! Echelons far above all of our pay grades made this determination long, long ago. Yes, I understand the entire program is under review...but lets stay on task here. I've heard every "elitist" comment anyone can make concerning physical fitness and its "greater than thou" connotation throughout my 30 year career.

No report that I ever sent to higher command ever asked me how many MAXED a PT test...I was only tasked to report a percentage that PASSED! Come on, guys - there are and will always be those who attain the highest scores in any endeavor. Some are born that way while others struggle successfully to be so. But that's NO excuse for any of you out there to denigrate or condescend to those who battle to meet the standard; and for the record to anyone reading this - the word "MINIMUM' is NOT attached to that 180 point standard.

So at last (empowered by my retired status) I will give voice to every service member out there who wants to say: "I'M TELLING YOU - KNOCK IT OFF!" That you max the PT requirements is a personal achievement. We are all proud of you and proud to be associated with you. Bask in the accolade we freely give to shout to the world that "we have a champion" to look up to. Wear your PT patch with honor as an example that it can be done! A show to others that extraordinary personal effort has a reward!

And lastly, a friendly IG 'heads up.' Anyone of you out there, regardless of your rank or status, who attempts to punish in any manner a fellow soldier for NOT obtaining an artificially established PT score standard above that 180 points is opening themselves to UCMJ attention if the 'victim' chooses to pursue that issue.

I've been on the receiving end of far too many such IG complaints to not speak up about that practice (there's not enough room here to print all the reasons soldiers have given me for being mercilessly harangued to greater effort after having already passed the PT test).

Praise, cheer-lead, assist by example; these are the winning strategies. One small example: After crossing the run's finish line, I reversed and returned to the last 100 yards to run back with others, acting as a cheer leader for that 'extra effort' to cut seconds off their score. Think about that the next time anyone out there turns up their nose to sneer at someone not blessed at birth with similar genes to shine on PT day.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 12:25 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:25:29 -0400

But what about female NCOs? They would have to have a lower higher standard, right?

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 9 at 2016 6:18 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 09 Apr 2016 18:18:30 -0400

No, not only for NCOs or Officers. Yes if you consider all ranks equal, but at the unit level. The APFT is the Army standard. Units should set their own standard based on their unit's mission and objectives. Those not meeting the unit standard should be counseled accordingly and become subject to non-judicial punishment for multiple offenses. However, at the same time the leaders of those not meeting the standard should be held to the standard of properly counseling the Soldier to the point where they should easily be able to willingly meet that set standard. An example would be airborne units where you require a higher state of readiness and must take physical action when conducting airborne operations. If you are not meeting the standard you put yourself and others in danger. I state this opinion because we as NCOs and as leaders should not only uphold a standard and exceed it, but we should push our subordinates to do the same. Lead by example!

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Sep 15 at 2016 1:54 PM

CW2 Michael Mullikin — Thu, 15 Sep 2016 13:54:31 -0400

If NCOs are to have a higher standard, what about officers? To keep things consistent, company-grade officers should be required to do the maximum plus 10%, field-grade officers the maximum plus 15%, and general officers the maximum plus 20%. Hmmm, this would also serve as a discriminator to reduce the "literally" bloated officer corps. Personally, I think this is all pointless Why exactly, should an E4 clerk working at the 'TOTAL ARMY TOTAL PERSONNEL CENTER OF EXCELLENCE" be required to match APFT scores with an infantry squad leader? I would establish three APFTs—one for general army personnel; one for personnel in combat, combat support and combat service support specialties; one for special operations personnel. Tests that address the physical requirements of the jobs.

Response by COL John Hudson made Sep 22 at 2016 4:41 PM

COL John Hudson — Thu, 22 Sep 2016 16:41:17 -0400

From The IG Desk: The Army established a base-line requirement and standards of physical fitness for anyone joining its ranks. That standard applies to every Army service member across the board, regardless of rank. I'm aware of upcoming changes in PE, but for clarity, will use the existing "or old" standard of 60 points in each of three events. The requirement - a total of 180 points attained by successfully passing three events - means one is FULLY qualified physically (+ height/weight). NOTE: there are U.S. Army units that demand at entrance a high-level of physical fitness by virtue of their mission requirements, and may necessitate that one pass a higher fitness standard as a "requirement of employment," (Special Forces, Combat Engineers, come to mind).

I've had every excuse and wild-eyed ideal come across my desk during my 30 year career. So that we're clear on this issue, no service member can be "ordered" to exceed the standard or achieve an artificially set higher number, and I've had to speak with many a Commander to keep him/her out of trouble on that one. During my own time as a Commander, no report that I was required to send up the flagpole ever asked me "how many maxed PT." Those reports simply wanted to know how many unit members "Passed" the PT test.

Leaders recognize "there's greater and lesser in all things," and that ideal applies here. Good leadership is to work with those within a command in friendly competitions at all levels. Also, time is set aside during the normal work day for fitness activity, so leaders need to ensure physical fitness is in fact accomplished during that period. Rewards could be public recognition for "Pride of Place" within the unit as well as the Physical Fitness badge awarded during unit formations. I'm certain there are many such good ideas in place throughout our Army structure world-wide.

Any one may personally work to achieve the top levels of physical fitness...there are those among us born to be so. Alas, for me personally, I had to accomplish my 2-mile training runs at 01:00am in order to balance family and work requirements. In closing, let me point out that a high level of physical fitness "by itself" does not make one a better leader or automatically bestow favor. It does demonstrate that anyone may work to achieve recognition and a greater level of personal respect if they apply themselves to reach the highest level, and that is what good leadership and physical fitness is all about.

Response by SPC John Decker made Sep 29 at 2016 8:40 PM

SPC John Decker — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 20:40:27 -0400

I say no. The 180 score is a target for a specific level of overall fitness. If someone can do better, fine. As long as the NCO can keep up with his/her troops, why make it harder.

Response by SPC James Anderson made Sep 29 at 2016 9:48 PM

SPC James Anderson — Thu, 29 Sep 2016 21:48:57 -0400

Why do i NEVER see an article that reads Army Marksmanship "NCO's should have a higher standard" The Army is and has been APFT blind. All my 4 years of active taught me was that a 300 on your pt score more then makes up for a Marksmanship badge and a 90gt score. My unit would give out 4 day passes for anyone scoring a 290 or better on a PT test of which 25-30 guys could achieve but if you were one of the 5 guys that could shoot expert every time nobody gave two F's about it. There's so much more to being a leader then pt.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 30 at 2016 10:43 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 30 Sep 2016 10:43:43 -0400

Can we get a break. Aren't we all stressed out enough. Just do your job and retire!

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2023 7:13 PM

PFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 12 Jul 2023 19:13:57 -0400

I believe the new ACFT Needs to be more challenging. It's unfor feeling knowing that you don't have to try hard to pass A mandatory physical test for the Army. Especially when factoring in a deployment is vastly different from a test that only requires the minimum to pass. But in a deployment it could require all you have or more.