Posted on Jan 23, 2016
SGM Matthew Quick
59.2K
219
131
13
12
1
8e2f7469
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.
Avatar feed
Responses: 71
Votes
  • Newest
  • Oldest
  • Votes
SSG Training Sergeant
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)
Comment
(0)
COL John Hudson
COL John Hudson
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SSG Training Sergeant
SSG (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Christopher Premore
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SGM Command Paralegal Nco
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
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)
Comment
(0)
SGM Command Paralegal Nco
SGM (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT Healthcare Specialist (Combat Medic)
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Collection Manager
1
1
0
Edited >1 y ago
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Executive Officer
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)
Comment
(0)
COL John Hudson
COL John Hudson
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Executive Officer
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Training Room Nco
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
1stSgt Eugene Harless
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
WO1 Senior Drill Sergeant
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Michael Mullikin
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)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SPC Treatment Medic
1
1
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.
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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).
(0)
Reply
(0)
SPC Treatment Medic
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
SPC Treatment Medic
SPC (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CH (CPT) Command and Unit Chaplain
1
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
(1)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
CH (CPT) Command and Unit Chaplain
CH (CPT) (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
COL John Hudson
COL John Hudson
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
CPT Mark Gonzalez
1
1
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)
Comment
(0)
CW2 Michael Mullikin
CW2 Michael Mullikin
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
CW2 Michael Mullikin
CW2 Michael Mullikin
>1 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
1SG Vet Technician
1
1
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)
Comment
(0)
MAJ FAO - Europe
MAJ (Join to see)
>1 y
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?
(0)
Reply
(0)
1SG Vet Technician
1SG (Join to see)
>1 y
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.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
PFC Cable Systems Installer/Maintainer
0
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SFC Readiness Nco
0
0
0
Can we get a break. Aren't we all stressed out enough. Just do your job and retire!
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC James Anderson
0
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
SPC John Decker
0
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)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
COL John Hudson
0
0
0
Edited 9 y ago
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.
(0)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small
CW2 Michael Mullikin
0
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)
Comment
(0)
COL John Hudson
COL John Hudson
9 y
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)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

How are you connected to the military?
  • Active Duty
  • Active Reserve / National Guard
  • Pre-Commission
  • Veteran / Retired
  • Civilian Supporter