Posted on Jan 23, 2016
Army APFT: Should NCOs have a higher minimum 'standard'?
59.3K
219
131
13
12
1
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 71
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
In some MOSs, being extremely fit translates directly into being able to do one's job well. Say, in SF or the infantry or artillery, certain maintenance jobs, etc. Really, in any job where one's basic tasks involve physical performance. If an NCO in the infantry is fat and out-of-shape and can't PT, it is highly unlikely that they'll be able to "do their job" because they won't be able to lead from the front, place themselves at the decisive point in any operation, or set the example.
On the other hand, NCOs in other career fields that where one's basic tasks don't involve physical performance (and, if you think about it, I'd expect that the majority of career fields in the Army fall into this category), where physical capacity is an end unto itself, it doesn't seem that being a PT superstar would be that important (apart from the linkage between mental endurance and physical endurance and that we're in the military).
but overall, I agree---let's stick with the current age and gender-normed standards we have (or switch to MOS-specific standards that aren't gender and age normed).
On the other hand, NCOs in other career fields that where one's basic tasks don't involve physical performance (and, if you think about it, I'd expect that the majority of career fields in the Army fall into this category), where physical capacity is an end unto itself, it doesn't seem that being a PT superstar would be that important (apart from the linkage between mental endurance and physical endurance and that we're in the military).
but overall, I agree---let's stick with the current age and gender-normed standards we have (or switch to MOS-specific standards that aren't gender and age normed).
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) I understand exactly what you're saying. I completely agree... If I see a fat NCO. Belly straining the zipper of the uniform blouse and his pants waist band and buttons being put to a whole new level of stress I immediately assume incompetence. I see someone who look like they just stepped out of a wrestlemania
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SPC (Join to see) - Ring I assume they got their shit together. I've ran with the infantry and artillery. I know this standard. That said there isn't a single shade of truth to it. A PT test is a soldiers individual physical ability though. While it would be preferred all of our NCOs are like something stepping out of a G.I. Joe movie it's simply not the case... And holding a higher APFT standards might discourage some otherwise very strong and good aspiring leaders from continuing the efforts up the chain. Simply because they're not the go to guy for physical Fittness. (Btw I'm not trying to defend the ABCP) overweight people need to be put out.
(1)
(0)
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
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
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Unfortunately (or, fortunately, depending on your perspective), there isn't a unwritten higher standard. The Army standard is 60 points in each event, 180 points total, on an age and gender normed scale.
(1)
(0)
CH (CPT) (Join to see)
Correct, sir. What I meant by unwritten standard is the expectation placed on leaders in certain units. Those performing below the unwritten standard are, say, not recommended for certain broadening assignments or not granted opportunities to perform in other positions (like being a squad leader or PL).
(0)
(0)
COL John Hudson
I've been following this tread with great interest, and one may read my comments to other contributors above. It doesn't require the Hulk or Captain America to handle the weapons we have in our modern military organizations. The Army established a standard of 180 points in three events to be FULLY QUALIFED to be a soldier, able to handle ANY physical requirement of today's military. Until the day that someone in Senior Leadership (4-Star level Chief of Staff or TRADOC) changes that number, it is THE locked-in-stone fitness benchmark. One may exceed that at any time they wish to excel at PERSONAL achievement and be recognized accordingly. For all of you Commanders out there...do you intend to fire everyone in your command who passes an APFT program with minimum+ scores? With an attitude like that, your 'command' is going to look awfully thin on parade day. And that 'same for all' attitude won't wash, until the day that GOD and NATURE conspire to build men and woman exactly alike. Damn guys, neither one of those two could ever get it right to make just one gender come out the same, which is why we have requirements that recognize differences inherent for both. I believe I'm correct to point out that the reporting you send up the flagpole simply states the "Pass" percentage for APFT available for MOSQ and Mobilization. I don't believe I ever saw a block requiring % of "Maxed AFPT" or Commendation Medals handed out for hydraulic arms, corrugated abs, or fast feet.
(0)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
CW2 Michael Mullikin
Captain, in the "old days" (back when I wore a mono-chromatic field uniforms) we subscribed to a unique concept called "train as you fight." We took PT, and PT tests, wearing fatigue trousers, bloused boots and a t-shirt. We had the same events you have today (sit-ups, push-ups, run) but also pull-ups, horizontal ladder, low-crawl, run-dodge-and-jump, grenade throw, and at least a couple of events that I've forgotten. Each of these events emphasized a different muscle group and was something we might have to do in combat.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
I agree---APFT scores should be used as a part of evaluation. If two Soldiers are equal in all other areas, but one is better at PT, that matters.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
CW2 Michael Mullikin Fortunately, we've realized that running in boots, in general, is really only good for getting Soldiers hurt, because boots aren't really designed to be used to run really fast for a really long time. But the other combat-focused stuff is good--the Marines do a combat fitness test once a year. Its not a bad idea.
(0)
(0)
CW2 Michael Mullikin
MAJ Jäger "we've realized that running in boots, in general, is really only good for getting Soldiers hurt, because boots aren't really designed to be used to run really fast for a really long time." If this is true, shouldn't our soldiers be wearing footwear other than boots in combat? Perhaps we should think more ouside the box: the Air Force allowed airmen the option of substituting the stationary bike ride for the two-mile run. I might suggest that a little ridicule, fingerprinting and laughter is a small price to pay to avoid shiniuries.
(0)
(0)
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.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Do you believe the same for the gender-normed standards? Do these help keep the test fair? I ask, because on similar threads, lots of people really believe in the age-norming but are against the gender-norming, which is illogical, as both are based on physiological differences.
Does age really lead to decreased physical capacity? Yes, in general. But, we actually gain physical capacity as we age to a certain point, and then decline after that. The current standards account for this. But we don't apply age-norming or gender-norming to other things that are impacted by age and gender (say, the Defense Language Proficiency Test), so why should we apply these to physical tests?
Does age really lead to decreased physical capacity? Yes, in general. But, we actually gain physical capacity as we age to a certain point, and then decline after that. The current standards account for this. But we don't apply age-norming or gender-norming to other things that are impacted by age and gender (say, the Defense Language Proficiency Test), so why should we apply these to physical tests?
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) ,
Sir, I believe that for the general Army, the gender-normalized algorithms work. I am not, however, discussing the establishment of single norms for certain MOS's, such as Rangers. I agree that the age-related standards do reach a point where they seem to drop quicker then expected for one's ability at their age. I loved it when I turned 42. My score went up about 30% from my pre-42 score in April and my Post-42 score in October.
As for other kinds of tests, such as DLAB. I question, with ignorance, your premise that age or gender would have any effect on one's ability to score well. I also wonder, because I just don't know, if personnel who have to maintain a certain proficiency in a language for their job are required to re- test every 6 months.
Sir, I believe that for the general Army, the gender-normalized algorithms work. I am not, however, discussing the establishment of single norms for certain MOS's, such as Rangers. I agree that the age-related standards do reach a point where they seem to drop quicker then expected for one's ability at their age. I loved it when I turned 42. My score went up about 30% from my pre-42 score in April and my Post-42 score in October.
As for other kinds of tests, such as DLAB. I question, with ignorance, your premise that age or gender would have any effect on one's ability to score well. I also wonder, because I just don't know, if personnel who have to maintain a certain proficiency in a language for their job are required to re- test every 6 months.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
Can we get a break. Aren't we all stressed out enough. Just do your job and retire!
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
COL John Hudson
You're on the right track here, Mr. Mullikin. I forwarded a working paper based on that exact premise up my chain to the 2-star level and got shot down faster than I did in Vietnam! The problem? There's no front line anymore - so everyone, regardless of personal position, is subject to enemy attention and the requirement to be physically fit should such action occur. Commands in today's military are more "Joint" than otherwise, so any Office environment would include many different ranks, branches, and MOS skills. Our Iraqi office held Army Colonels, British civilians and military, U.S. Navy and Marine personnel, all with differing Physical Fitness requirements within their specialties. The Point? No one came downrange in the sandbox without being tested to standard and passing all PT requirements prior to leaving CONUS.
(0)
(0)
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!
(0)
(0)
But what about female NCOs? They would have to have a lower higher standard, right?
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
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.
(0)
(0)
COL John Hudson
SFC Galvan, please take a moment and read my comments above addressing that "...barely making minimum standards...statement of yours. The requirement to achieve a score of 180 points does NOT have the word "MINIMUM" attached to it. The Army STANDARD to be in acceptable physical condition is "180" points. Please answer this question: exactly what course of action will you take if I achieved a PT score of 182 points? Chastisement? Disparagement? Condensation? Punish in some manner? Turn up your nose and look away when we pass each other? Trust that I fully understand your point of view, which is shared, unfortunately, by too many others who believe that physical prowess alone makes them better than someone else. I believe that my thoughts on this matter will garner as much attention as a pimple no one wants...but like it or nor, I refuse to fall prey to an attitude that I am less of a qualified soldier than one who can run faster than me. I truly believe in the adage 'there is lesser and greater in all things,' including physical achievement. We are human beings, not automatons set on automatic to be exactly alike in our perfection. I pass the PT test - I am good to go. Now, for the record, I have always exceeded the requirement for each of the events and scored in the +200 range, right up to the point in Iraq when the Army threw me out for being too old (59 years of age). During the Balkan Conflict, at 51 years of age, I passed PT with similar scores in temperatures at 20 degrees F while men exactly half my age were failing. I'm personally quite proud of my efforts, but have never looked down or thought less of anyone scoring fewer points than I did.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Good morning Sir. Thank you for your comment, I understand your perspective.
Minimum passing score is referenced in FM 7-22. “Each Soldier must score a minimum of 60 points on each regular event taken to PASS. Yes, achieving the minimum repetitions for a score of 60 points is Army Standard and acceptable for achieving physical readiness IAW the regulation. In my exact wording, minimum is used and the regulations also refer to maximum standards, interpreted as the base line assessment tool to measure levels of fitness. “Commanders may establish unit APFT and PRT mission related goals which exceed Army minimum standards. However, individuals must be aware of these goals and be able to achieve them safely through the use of normal training time and adherence to the phases, principles, components and types of training outlined in FM 7–22. Personnel who meet Army minimum standards, but fail to meet unit goals, may not be punished or disciplined. However, they may be required to participate in special conditioning programs which focus on overcoming a weakness. Commanders who establish higher goals should do so because their unit missions require Soldiers to be more than minimally fit. AR 350-1, G-9, c (2),” This excerpt pertains to units with mission requirements demanding higher levels of strengths, endurance and mobility, minimum is used to set appropriate and intense physical readiness training to exceed minimum Army Standards as mission dictates. Many RC units do have higher standards for assigned mission and instilling self-discipline allows those Soldiers the fortitude to make the time and exercise.
My comment is not intended to serve as an attitude in making Soldiers less qualified for their position because of their APFT score. It’s the perception from troops of leaders who don’t put forth the effort don’t give a S***. I’ve seen many NCO’s and Officers who are fully capable of more repetitions, just do the minimum amount, and have heard “that’s all I’m doing because that’s all I’m required to pass.” Now what example does this set to those Soldier looking up to these individuals as leadership? To do enough in your duty position to get by? We should be striving for greater success. As also stated barely making minimum standards, does not pertain to those with profiles for physical limitations. Soldiers define their physical limitation, in order to achieve standards, they must prepare, set objectives and execute physical activities to achieve desired outcomes. However, in the RC, many face challenges in their civilian life that affect physical readiness. Discipline is vital to improving physical capabilities, in this Soldiers are responsible for achieving physical fitness standards and maintaining physical fitness. At any time RC units may be ordered to active duty in operational support and only striving to meet minimum standards once a year in my opinion is unacceptable for leaders- mental agility & strength, discipline and endurance will overcome situations in extreme circumstances and environments.
Putting forth the effort… I see this as giving it your all. For Soldiers in my formation, effort is all I ask for to meet standards. I recognize those who have the highest score, male/female, & by section. I also acknowledge those who make improvements, it’s the team work, words of encouragement and team motivation that have resulted in my unit improving APFT standards. Leaders can develop the environment encouraging others to achieve and exceed Army standards. Ultimately the Soldier should take pride in self. Leaders can only take them so far, providing them the tools and resources, understanding of personal responsibility in physical readiness- it is upon the Soldier to instill self-discipline to take it from there. Thank you for your time Sir.
Minimum passing score is referenced in FM 7-22. “Each Soldier must score a minimum of 60 points on each regular event taken to PASS. Yes, achieving the minimum repetitions for a score of 60 points is Army Standard and acceptable for achieving physical readiness IAW the regulation. In my exact wording, minimum is used and the regulations also refer to maximum standards, interpreted as the base line assessment tool to measure levels of fitness. “Commanders may establish unit APFT and PRT mission related goals which exceed Army minimum standards. However, individuals must be aware of these goals and be able to achieve them safely through the use of normal training time and adherence to the phases, principles, components and types of training outlined in FM 7–22. Personnel who meet Army minimum standards, but fail to meet unit goals, may not be punished or disciplined. However, they may be required to participate in special conditioning programs which focus on overcoming a weakness. Commanders who establish higher goals should do so because their unit missions require Soldiers to be more than minimally fit. AR 350-1, G-9, c (2),” This excerpt pertains to units with mission requirements demanding higher levels of strengths, endurance and mobility, minimum is used to set appropriate and intense physical readiness training to exceed minimum Army Standards as mission dictates. Many RC units do have higher standards for assigned mission and instilling self-discipline allows those Soldiers the fortitude to make the time and exercise.
My comment is not intended to serve as an attitude in making Soldiers less qualified for their position because of their APFT score. It’s the perception from troops of leaders who don’t put forth the effort don’t give a S***. I’ve seen many NCO’s and Officers who are fully capable of more repetitions, just do the minimum amount, and have heard “that’s all I’m doing because that’s all I’m required to pass.” Now what example does this set to those Soldier looking up to these individuals as leadership? To do enough in your duty position to get by? We should be striving for greater success. As also stated barely making minimum standards, does not pertain to those with profiles for physical limitations. Soldiers define their physical limitation, in order to achieve standards, they must prepare, set objectives and execute physical activities to achieve desired outcomes. However, in the RC, many face challenges in their civilian life that affect physical readiness. Discipline is vital to improving physical capabilities, in this Soldiers are responsible for achieving physical fitness standards and maintaining physical fitness. At any time RC units may be ordered to active duty in operational support and only striving to meet minimum standards once a year in my opinion is unacceptable for leaders- mental agility & strength, discipline and endurance will overcome situations in extreme circumstances and environments.
Putting forth the effort… I see this as giving it your all. For Soldiers in my formation, effort is all I ask for to meet standards. I recognize those who have the highest score, male/female, & by section. I also acknowledge those who make improvements, it’s the team work, words of encouragement and team motivation that have resulted in my unit improving APFT standards. Leaders can develop the environment encouraging others to achieve and exceed Army standards. Ultimately the Soldier should take pride in self. Leaders can only take them so far, providing them the tools and resources, understanding of personal responsibility in physical readiness- it is upon the Soldier to instill self-discipline to take it from there. Thank you for your time Sir.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next