Posted on Jan 23, 2016
Army APFT: Should NCOs have a higher minimum 'standard'?
59.5K
219
131
13
12
1
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.
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.
APFT
Readiness
Leadership
Standards
Re-enlistment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 71
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
COL John Hudson
Charles, the military APFT does in fact recognize our limitations as we grow older...requiring fewer reps for pushup/situp and longer times for the run. Have to admit I'm a little confused over your statement. Can you agree with me on the idea there is "lesser and greater" in all things? Some are born with inherently more physical ability while others (like ME!) have to really work hard at it. Due to job requirements, I had to do my exercises and runs at 02:00am, augmented by strenuous training on a treadmill in my living room for preparation to mobilize for the Balkan Conflict. At age 51, my run time requirement was 19 minutes, 30 seconds. I ran that two miles for record at 15:56! While secretly pleased with my effort, I never had a negative word to say to anyone who passed the event just under or at the required time.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Actually sir I agree with you and I apologize for the confusion of my statement. I recognize and greatly appreciate that the standards for me as I push 52 are not the same as one of my Soldiers pushing 22. There is a lot I do to remain healthy and fit that a twenty something would probably take for granted. My point was that I am not going to kill myself in a pick up game of football or basketball with my guys (and gals) just to prove that I can one up them. I will do my best with them to keep up but there is a point where muscle soreness and downright pain split. I also recognize that not everyone is genetically the perfect specimen and body types are different. I will get behind any Soldier that gets out there day in and day out to exercise and work at meeting and passing the established standard. I don't care if they are not the PT stud, just that they are motivated to pass and perhaps see that they can do better.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
I still work out with cadets as well as coach cross country and lacrosse. I'm move active than most people my age and more so than many Soldiers I know. The reality of aging is just that, reality. You can minimize it but you can't stop or deny it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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?
(1)
(0)
COL John Hudson
Mitchell, While I completely understand where you are coming from, I can't agree with that assessment. I can only hope you don't attempt to enforce such an artificial standard. When last I served, the world-wide standard was 180 points total to be qualified as a soldier. Attempting to institute and/or enforce a program beyond Army Regulation will have the service member in the Office of the Inspector General questioning your judgement. Your statement, "It allows us a range from 180-300+ points to determine who are the minimum achievers and who are the exceeders," is misplaced. The APFT program establishes a benchmark to "Qualified" and a range of fitness. The fact that you can run faster than me is NOT a stand-a-lone discriminator for determination of excellent job achievement or promotion. Good physical fitness is recognized by award of a cloth fitness badge and certainly something to aspire to (I earned it twice when I wore a younger man's clothes and stood proud!). Promotion is largely based on other factors such as civil and military education, military experience and leadership. Physical fitness is just one aspect of that. If you truly believe that only those individuals who obtain top PT scores should lead us, we would be in very sad shape indeed.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir, point well made. However, I must clarify that I said "marginal performer physically." It is too easy to earn a 180 on the APFT. Most people can at least pass the PT test even after a long break from PT. However, I still feel that, at least in the maneuver community, a 180 is a minimum standard and does not represent the best of our Soldiers, Leaders, or the Army. I acknowledge at the same time that physical fitness is not the only measure of a Leader.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Great response. This gets to the Army's current idea of having a basic APFT and MOS-specific tests. The MOS-specific test should be an annual event to ensure folks continue to meet MOS-qualifications and should be age and gender neutral (ie, one standard, not normed for age or gender). Failure of the MOS-specific test = lack of MOS qualification = reclassification or separation.
If we go with a one-standard APFT, that's great. What we can't do is go with an age-normed but not gender-normed standard. That would not be logical.
If we go with a one-standard APFT, that's great. What we can't do is go with an age-normed but not gender-normed standard. That would not be logical.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
-
Ask questionGet expert advice and
tips for your questions. -
Post updatePost pictures, personal updates, plans, or anything you like!
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google