Posted on Jan 23, 2016
Army APFT: Should NCOs have a higher minimum 'standard'?
59.2K
219
131
13
12
1
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 71
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)
If we really are using PT scores as a metric to 'attain qualifications for continued service' why not raise the requirements for attending NCOES to scores above the minimum? Since we are now STEPing and nobody gets promoted without NCOES, attaching higher standards to attend NCOES would allow those who go above and beyond to be recognized with promotion. Soldiers would still be allowed to serve at their current grade with the normal 180 if they so choose.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Agreed Sir. Our BDE requires us to administer everyone scheduled for NCOES a diagnostic APFT (not just the 30-day APFT diagnostic) and they are required to score at least 70 points in each event to proceed. We have a NCOES policy and all NCO's within the BDE should have received this initial counseling. It's upon the discretion of the BN/BDE CSM to send someone who scores less than 70 points. Realistically, if they are passed at unit APFT with 60 points, most likely, a repetition or two will not be counted, end result, NCO is returned for not meeting standards.
(0)
(0)
I do believe that Higher Ranked soldiers should be held to a higher standard, but PT should not be the main one. First of all most season NCOs or higher rank in the military have seen it all, they have been to places, they have broken physically and mentally the military style exercise alone broke them and now you want to hold a 35, 40, 50 years old to a higher physical standard than a 20 year old. Unless you come up with some bionic engineer higher ranked soldier this is anatomically unfair.
(0)
(0)
First off, there is talk that SMA Dailey wants to set a higher standard for NCOES attendance and maintaining P status. NCOs would have to score at least 75 points in each event. While the idea makes sense, in practice it doesn't. If the NCO Corps suddenly has to score higher on the APFT, then there will be a push to get junior enlisted soldiers to score higher on their APFT.
While it is always good to excel, and fitness is an important part of military service, requiring increasing minimum fitness standards for NCOs will essentially be requiring an increase in minimum fitness standards for the entire Force, because all junior enlisted soldiers are potential NCOs and will be pushed to meet the increased standard from day 1 in the Army.
You'll probably also see an increase in injuries, flags, and chapters.
While it is always good to excel, and fitness is an important part of military service, requiring increasing minimum fitness standards for NCOs will essentially be requiring an increase in minimum fitness standards for the entire Force, because all junior enlisted soldiers are potential NCOs and will be pushed to meet the increased standard from day 1 in the Army.
You'll probably also see an increase in injuries, flags, and chapters.
(0)
(0)
I can see the idiotic reasoning behind this but I actually think minimum scores should only be based on age. Some folks don't hold up so well compared to others of the same age.
(0)
(0)
I see your point but I can tell you that at 46 years of age it is just about impossible for me to be in the same shape I was at 23. That being said, any of my troops that failed their PT test had to run with me until they passed. I made more than 1 kid half my age puke.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I know things get harder as we age but I ran a marathon a little over a year ago and the guy that came in first was your age the guy that came in second was older so I would not say that age is the only factor.
(0)
(0)
MSgt Rob Miller
I agree. Like I said I made more than one of my troops puke. They were more afraid of having to run with me than they were getting a mark down on their EPRs. Age is a factor, but it isn't the only factor.
(0)
(0)
I think no. Physical fitness is about health and the ability to serve at a physical level that is safe for the body. I.e. the healthier you are the less physical tole your body will suffer. It's not about how well you lead. NCOs should strive to personally do more and set an example.
(0)
(0)
When I see these types of posts I think, here we go again.
Every op order I ever hear never once mentions that we need the guy with the 300 pt score to go over here and clear this room, or that we need the squad of 300 pt scores doing this task that everyone else can do.
Leadership isn't black and white that we end up making it, where PT automatically makes you a better leader. It just means you're better at PT.
As an NCO I agree that I should have a higher PT score, and that should be reflected on my NCOER if I don't meet the standard that my mentor thinks I should be, but if my leadership ability is unaffected by my ability to do PT then why is this a topic of discussion... Again.
I could see it working at a local level, but not army wide... We'd loose a lot of good people... And a lot of bad.
Every op order I ever hear never once mentions that we need the guy with the 300 pt score to go over here and clear this room, or that we need the squad of 300 pt scores doing this task that everyone else can do.
Leadership isn't black and white that we end up making it, where PT automatically makes you a better leader. It just means you're better at PT.
As an NCO I agree that I should have a higher PT score, and that should be reflected on my NCOER if I don't meet the standard that my mentor thinks I should be, but if my leadership ability is unaffected by my ability to do PT then why is this a topic of discussion... Again.
I could see it working at a local level, but not army wide... We'd loose a lot of good people... And a lot of bad.
(0)
(0)
No, and here's why: Muscles don't make leaders. The APFT is there to make sure our soldiers meet am minimum level of fitness, so they are ready to perform and fight when needed. An NCO doesn't need to be faster or stronger or carry more crap than any other soldier. He should be a 'better soldier' than private Snuffy, which means he should know his stuff, live the Army values without question, inspire and mentor his soldiers. None of that requires him to be a fitness buff. My opinion might be tainted by passed fitness buff NCO's who were lacking in the leadership department.....
(0)
(0)
I don't believe NCO Standard should be raise. I believe the standard should be by MOS.
What do you Think???
What do you Think???
(0)
(0)
Of course not. The 'minimum standard' exists due to decades of study. If they want more (physically) powerful leaders, then raise the standards across the board. With that said, anyone who wants to ascend will keep their PT score far above the minimum standard....and if they do not, then they don't need to be holding those dominant positions. One final thought....I've seen MANY units whose leadership gets their 205's pencil-whipped, usu ally through the 'buddy system'....and that is where the discussion should really begin -- with unit ACCOUNTABILITY.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next