Posted on Mar 3, 2020
Can a Commander retroactively flag an SM with an unsigned PT card and never having been counseled?
9.95K
130
65
4
4
0
I have a soldier in my Battalion who failed a PT test August 27, 2019. The SM was never counseled and the PT card was never signed by the grader for the test. All this being said, the commander is just now looking into retroactively flagging the SM. Can they flag the SM with an unsigned PT card, and never having counseled them?
Counseling
APFT
Test
Help
Posted 6 y ago
Responses: 15
1
1
0
Short answer is yes the SM can be flagged for failing an APFT even with no counseling and no signed APFT card and it being 6 months since the event. THAT however opens up a can of worms that the CoC might not want to even think about. Which is the SM can make a formal complaint and launch a formal IG investigation launched.
The SM was wrong for failing the APFT. The CoC was wrong for not following proper regulations.
I would be curious to know how it got to this point. Was there an audit of the units paperwork and this was discovered? Was it a case of a new training NCO taking over or simply the normal rotation of time to take the APFT?
The all around best thing here is void the APFT taken as it was so long ago, and not signed and just have the SM take a whole new APFT for record and do it by the regulations. No harm, no foul.
The SM was wrong for failing the APFT. The CoC was wrong for not following proper regulations.
I would be curious to know how it got to this point. Was there an audit of the units paperwork and this was discovered? Was it a case of a new training NCO taking over or simply the normal rotation of time to take the APFT?
The all around best thing here is void the APFT taken as it was so long ago, and not signed and just have the SM take a whole new APFT for record and do it by the regulations. No harm, no foul.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Certainly, the commander can initiate the flag, have the card signed, and have the Soldier counseled. Is it the right thing to do, since the commander failed to ensure the required actions weren't followed? Maybe, but more information is needed.
Considering the added information that the Soldier is now on profile, and pregnant permits further thought. However, did the Soldier obtain a profile after she was informed of the pending flag? If so, and the profile was unrelated to the pregnancy, I suggest it is suspect. If it is solely related to the pregnacy, it doesn't make her actions any less suspect. Why?
The Soldier, knowing she failed a record APFT, failed to request another record APFT. Sure, the commander failed to ensure the completion of the administrative requirements were completed in a timely manner, but that doesn't nullify the APFT failure.
The commander, after learning of the profile and pregnancy, be trying to stop any positive personnel actions in response to the failed APFT.
I've seen many posts, and witnessed on more than a few occasions, where someone got promoted despite not having earned the promotion. Frequently, it's related to something like this scenario.
Sure, the Soldier can report it to the higher COC, or go to the IG. First, the IG may point out the commander needs to improve administrative functions related to conduct of APFT and flags, but can't direct anything. Yes, the higher CoC can direct something, but the APFT failure doesn't go away.
The Soldier failed the APFT, and the commander failed to perform administrative matters and initiate the flag in a timely manner.
IMHO, The Soldier should be flagged. She didn't correct her deficiency, and needs to own it.
Also, HR folks need not try to undermine a commander because they disagree with the commander's lawful action
Considering the added information that the Soldier is now on profile, and pregnant permits further thought. However, did the Soldier obtain a profile after she was informed of the pending flag? If so, and the profile was unrelated to the pregnancy, I suggest it is suspect. If it is solely related to the pregnacy, it doesn't make her actions any less suspect. Why?
The Soldier, knowing she failed a record APFT, failed to request another record APFT. Sure, the commander failed to ensure the completion of the administrative requirements were completed in a timely manner, but that doesn't nullify the APFT failure.
The commander, after learning of the profile and pregnancy, be trying to stop any positive personnel actions in response to the failed APFT.
I've seen many posts, and witnessed on more than a few occasions, where someone got promoted despite not having earned the promotion. Frequently, it's related to something like this scenario.
Sure, the Soldier can report it to the higher COC, or go to the IG. First, the IG may point out the commander needs to improve administrative functions related to conduct of APFT and flags, but can't direct anything. Yes, the higher CoC can direct something, but the APFT failure doesn't go away.
The Soldier failed the APFT, and the commander failed to perform administrative matters and initiate the flag in a timely manner.
IMHO, The Soldier should be flagged. She didn't correct her deficiency, and needs to own it.
Also, HR folks need not try to undermine a commander because they disagree with the commander's lawful action
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
this is a lose lose situation. the soldier failed the APFT and the CoC's lack of action does not negate the failure. However, the CoC, by their lack of corrective action, is in violation of FM 7-22 and by extension AR 350-1 which is therefore a violation of UCMJ articles 92 and 98. The "right" thing to do here is to proceed with the flag, follow 7-22 in regards to follow-on action for APFT failure and face the consequences of not doing so 6 months prior as they were required to.
(2)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
LTC (Join to see) concur with the flag.
Interesting comment bringing up Articles 98 and 92.
Article 98 is related to handling of cases under the UCMJ, so it appears not to apply.
Article 92 under failure to obey a regulation would likely be unsuccessful. AR 350-1 doesn't state any parts are punitive, do AR 600-200 and AR 670-1, for example.
Article 92 under dereliction of duty may be successful, but a defense of ineptitude may prove successful.
All that aside, I believe we agree that the COC should hold itself to, at least, the same standard as they expect of their Soldiers.
As a Detachment Sergeant, I was directed to prepare to chapter the BN S-1 NCOIC for failure to make progress in the weight control program for a couple of years.
I reviewed the paperwork, and found that she had indeed been enrolled on more than one occasion, and had failed to make progress. I also found the COC had failed to conduct the required weigh ins and counseling.
I suggested to the commander that a chapter not proceed because the COC had failed to do their part, and that she was very well versed in the requirements and would not accept a chapter.
I suggested a clean slate, and the following plan.
1. Remove the existing flag, as erroneous.
2. Conduct a weigh in the day after the flag was removed.
2. Strictly adhere to the requirements for the COC and the Soldier.
Miraculously, she met the weight loss goals since she was aware that the COC would meet their requirements. She came off the program after 4 months, and then was aware that were she to fail again, the command could proceed with a chapter.
Interesting comment bringing up Articles 98 and 92.
Article 98 is related to handling of cases under the UCMJ, so it appears not to apply.
Article 92 under failure to obey a regulation would likely be unsuccessful. AR 350-1 doesn't state any parts are punitive, do AR 600-200 and AR 670-1, for example.
Article 92 under dereliction of duty may be successful, but a defense of ineptitude may prove successful.
All that aside, I believe we agree that the COC should hold itself to, at least, the same standard as they expect of their Soldiers.
As a Detachment Sergeant, I was directed to prepare to chapter the BN S-1 NCOIC for failure to make progress in the weight control program for a couple of years.
I reviewed the paperwork, and found that she had indeed been enrolled on more than one occasion, and had failed to make progress. I also found the COC had failed to conduct the required weigh ins and counseling.
I suggested to the commander that a chapter not proceed because the COC had failed to do their part, and that she was very well versed in the requirements and would not accept a chapter.
I suggested a clean slate, and the following plan.
1. Remove the existing flag, as erroneous.
2. Conduct a weigh in the day after the flag was removed.
2. Strictly adhere to the requirements for the COC and the Soldier.
Miraculously, she met the weight loss goals since she was aware that the COC would meet their requirements. She came off the program after 4 months, and then was aware that were she to fail again, the command could proceed with a chapter.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Just pass your PT Test, it’s not the hard to make the bare minimum standard.
(1)
(0)
LTC (Join to see)
while I agree 100%, the CoC has certain responsibilities under regulation should a SM fail an APFT. In this case they did not fulfill these responsibilities. They did not adhere to FM 7-22 as required by AR 350-1. This is not a road they want to start down. Sure, they might get the flag to stick but in the process they open themselves up to questions as to why they are/were in violation of UCMJ articles 92 and 98.
(2)
(0)
0
0
0
If the PT cards were never signed then they never failed a record PT test.
(0)
(0)
Suspended Profile
There is no excuse for failing an APFT. If the SM has a physical condition that prevents it from completing an event, it must have a NO PT/APFT PROFILE, as simple as that.
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google