Can a CSM deny orders for a leadership school such as BLC or ALC just because you don't get a 70 in each PT event?

School APFT are generally very strict. So he may feel that at schools standard you may not pass, which will not be fun for you. I would not go to a school unless I had 70 in each event as well.

Your CSM did you a favor. Your CSM saved us some valuable taxpayer dollars. Your CSM is trying to motivate you. Well according to regs you are correct. However if you can only deliver >60% now... where will you be in 5 or 10 years. But if I have a SPC who gives no less than 90% and works like an excellent SPC rather than an average NCO, that SPC is whom I send to Sergeant School (Yeah I went back that far) I've seen at least a few chapters break down in tears, because they'll never make SGT/E-5 due to whatever reason. To me that shows a lack of contingency and preparation. You are asking your chain of command to take a gamble on you. So you can have the odds be 60% or 90%. Bottom Line: When you arrive to in process BLC/ALC/SLC you will take an APFT, that is the standard.

Stay ready, so you don't have to get ready. How would you like to be under the leadership of an NCO who only cares if you meet the minimum? If that's the standard you've set for yourself and your Soldiers, then move over and let someone else lead from the front. "Attitude reflects Leadership"!!!

This is not so. Fore if you meet the requirements of the Army and the school you should be able to go. Remember that the Bn Commander signs all documents yay or nay though they do take the recommendation of the CSM . Utilize the open door policy.

A CSM represent the highest NCO rank which was earned through BLC and ALC and others, the CSM has every right to ensure that a higher quality of person continues on that path, especially when it is an easy requirement of higher PT score. Run Forrest Gump run..

IT's going to be at the discretion of the CSM. If the soldier does everything half-assed, then the command will certainly know, and not want to send said soldier to a leadership school. But, if the soldier has proven his or herself to be knowledgeable, proficient, and a hard charger, then it shouldn't be a problem. Again, it should be at the CSM's discretion. Case in point, myself, I never maxed the PT test, but I always gave it my 110% best, I was technically and tactically proficient, I went to PLDC, now called Warriors course, and passed with flying colors. When I went to BNCOC, came TDY en-route from Korea, not able to acclimatize, but still passed the PT test, my room-mate, came from Ft Bliss, arrived on a Firday before BNCOC started, partied the entire weekend and failed the PT test miserably, including height and weight. Needless to say his CSM, 1SG, and PLT SGT weren't happy when he called and told them.

So, let's do this in the logical way, shall we? The legitimate answer to your question is NO, a CSM cannot deny orders because you didn't meet some superficial number he imposed.
Now, let's take a look at what is required and what is trending Army wide, and why CSM's are putting these sort of 'restrictions' on your school.
1. 60 in each event is all that is required
1a. Even with the minimum requirement, NCO's are failing the school APFT. This no longer is reason to remove a student from the course, but it will send you home with a marginal 1059, which you may as well just figure out what to do next in your life, because you'll likely hit the next QMP/QSP board selection.
2. When you go to an NCOES school and you fail your PT test, your CSM will get a direct phone call from the SMA to explain why he let a soldier attend the school and end up in situation 1a above. No CSM I know wants to have that conversation with SMA, hense, he makes you have a little wiggle room so he gets the warm and fuzzy you won't fuck it up when you get there.
3. As a leader in the Army, why in the world are you not able to achieve a simple 210 on the APFT, and why is this a topic of discussion amongst those who are supposed to set an example for the younger soldiers?
4. If your goals include being able to maintain or barely achieve the minimum standards, you need to reconsider your line of work and the values of this institution. Take a few moments and reflect upon your time as a soldier, dreaming of being in that leadership role.....did it ever once cross your mind that you wanted to be the leader that barely scraped by, or did you as the young soldier resent those above you who could barely achieve the minimum standards and how effective were they as a leader to you? I don't know too many grown men who wake up each day thinking that they are happy with being marginal.
There is no need to think I personally score a 300 or 300+, or to think that I preach the idea that PT defines you as a leader, but the reality is that I have yet to ever see or hear about an amazing or effective leader who barely achieves the minimum standard. If you do even the littlest bit of organized PT with your unit, scoring a 240-250-260 is not that unfair to ask of any soldier.

Maybe instead of asking why minimum isn't good enough, maybe you should be asking yourself why you are accepting the minimum as good enough. Strengthen the NCO corps, young SGT, do not allow yourself to be a part of the problem.

No he can't stop an individual from going to those required school, the CSM just want to look out for that Soldier.The schools tend to grade harder than your battle buddies at home station.....if that NCO fail the Soldier is going to get counseled and depending on the NCO possible separation in today's Army.

I was an NCO for 24 years before I became an officer. I would suggest that this soldier needs an attitude adjustment. Passing PT isn't enough in my book to go to any leadership course. Especially if there are only a few slots for these schools.

Yes he can. It's a stupid move on his/her part and a sign of a piss poor leader. You as a leader should always give your troops the chance to excel and improve them selves.