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

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).

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

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.