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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.