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

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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 (Join to see) 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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.