Can a commander authorize a PRT standard to the unit?

SGT Ronnie Warford - On this topic, I think you'd find that the percentage of officers who share your (and my) viewpoint is higher than the percentage of NCOs who do. I wouldn't let conceptions of the importance of the APFT impact your consideration of commissioning, especially as you say you do well on the APFT. I do think that fitness is important, but using an APFT score to determine one's competence and leadership ability seems sort of ludicrous to me, unless the Army truly only really wants the "strong but dumb" types.

MAJ (Join to see) - I believe the percentage is higher sir, and believe it or not I also share your point of view. But as someone that's trained soldiers, NCOs and Officers PT is just a basic fundamental that is part of our job. When you were a PL how did you feel when you went on a run and your soldiers fell out? and if they didn't then what was the plan for them not to? Overall greatness and genes? Or hard work and training? And was it you and your NCOs commitment to them to not leave anyone behind. My point is this. If you can help someone become better at an event whether it's physical or mental, then you have proven leadership, it's that simple, it's up to you how far you want to expand on that. His command setting up a higher standard isn't wrong at all and I'm sure there is underlying reasons for which this has happened. But overall we do need brains in the Army, because there is a lot of dumb people making decisions for us lower ranking Soldiers.

MSG (Join to see) No disagreement from me that for some MOSs, physical fitness is a basic, fundamental part of the job. For many, many, many MOSs, though, PT is just something that is done because we're in the Army; there really isn't much of a link to MOS requirements (say, cyber MOSs or completely desk-bound, mostly non-deployable type jobs). I was always very disappointed when Soldiers, NCOs, and officers fell out of unit runs, but I was an infantry officer, and in the infantry physical fitness is a bit more of a fundamental job skill (although not the end-all, be-all). Lots of techniques used to help slow runners improve---run groups, less running in the PT program, etc, etc. Some folks are never going to be fast runners, or good at pushups, or good at situps. Sure, we can help them get better, but only to a point. Also, as we're on a regulations conversation, AR 350-1 and FM 7-22 both clearly identify that physical fitness is a personal responsibility, with which I fully agree.

On your "bare minimum" comment...I disagree. There is no "bare minimum." The Army has established a standard for passing the APFT. This standard is 60 points in each event, 180 points overall. This isn't a "bare minimum" standard. It is THE STANDARD. If the Army wanted a higher standard, the Army would create one. It doesn't, though, because, for the Army, the APFT is simply a proxy measure for health. It would be sad if the APFT was supposed to be a definite measure of physical fitness, because if this were the case, the APFT is a very, very, very poor metric for measuring physical fitness. I believe the Army (and the other Services) should do away with a points scale on the physical fitness tests and transition to a simple pass/fail battery of tests. I'd even be ok with keeping the same events as the APFT (although I really do think situps should be banned and that pullups should be added), having one defined passing number for each event (say, run: 15:00; pushups: 45; situps--if we must keep them--45; pullups: 4; or some other agreed-upon age and gender neutral standard). Pass or fail. I believe this sort of test would eliminate all these unfounded complaints about different "standards" for genders (unfounded because, scientifically, physical capacity potential varies across genders, and no one seems to have a problem with age-normed standards, even though the science is similar). I also believe that such a test would probably lead to higher levels of fitness overall, as folks wouldn't be doing PT so they could pass the PT test, but rather they'd be doing PT so they could be physically fit. With this sort of a test, we'd also need MOS specific (age and gender neutral) tests to make sure that folks in an MOS were physically qualified to be in that MOS. These MOS tests would need to be annual (so, one MOS test per year and one APFT per year) and all members of an MOS (E-1 through O-6) would have to be able to pass the MOS test (which, again, would be pass/fail) or face involuntary separation or reclassification. Just some thoughts. Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS

MAJ (Join to see) - Sir, this is the most comprehensive, cohesive and clearly well thought out answer I have heard about this topic in a couple of years and I really wish some people would share the same enthusiasm and passion about this subject as you do. The Army is developing something along these lines, the problem is like everything else it's taking to long. I tested the "new" and defunct APFT and MOS physical functional test whith two cycles as a DS, and let me tell you I believe it would have been awesome to have those tests. The problem was that there was so much push back from FORSCOM, that the tests phased out without anyone even noticing.