Posted on Jun 10, 2021
Can an NCO force a soldier to go against their profile?
10.8K
30
12
1
1
0
So, in the past I've witnessed NCOs order a soldiers to go against the limitations of their profile, when the soldier has failed to carry a copy of their profile with them to PT. What is everyone's opinion and or experience with this issue? Is that something an NCO can do?
Posted in these groups: 
Profiles
Physical Training
Profiles Physical Training
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 9
9
9
0
How can the NCO know the profile limitations if they aren't given proof? It's not as if a Soldier never lied or exaggerated the limits of their profile to get out of PT.
(9)
(0)
If the Soldier doesn't have a copy of the profile on them, then there is no profile to go against. Learning lesson for the Soldier to start carrying it on them.
(4)
(0)
1SG Rick Seekman
That's when you send the soldier to obtain said profile.
If a soldier had a profile, a copy of that would be on file at the orderly room.
If a soldier had a profile, a copy of that would be on file at the orderly room.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
You could, but I would think it foolish if done zealously or continuously. It's potentially a complaint and inquiry on standby if you're wrong and handle it incorrectly.
Given a scenario where a Soldier of mine were to tell me they were on profile and did not have the profile ready for examination I would abide by the limits of what they told me their profile is. Then when we report for work that day I would ask to see the profile.
If there wasn't a profile, or the profile didn't actually limit what they said they would then be counseled for lying. Whether the counseling stayed verbal or I prepared 4856 depends on the conversation I was about to have and the history I have with that Soldier. The lie might reveal a deeper issue that needs mentorship, or it may just be a lie to get out of PT.
In my experience I have seen Soldiers lie about a profile. I have also seen Soldiers tell the truth and just not have it on them. I have also seen a Soldier get injured further because their leadership forced them to do PT despite the profile, didn't work out so well for them when BDE found out.
Given a scenario where a Soldier of mine were to tell me they were on profile and did not have the profile ready for examination I would abide by the limits of what they told me their profile is. Then when we report for work that day I would ask to see the profile.
If there wasn't a profile, or the profile didn't actually limit what they said they would then be counseled for lying. Whether the counseling stayed verbal or I prepared 4856 depends on the conversation I was about to have and the history I have with that Soldier. The lie might reveal a deeper issue that needs mentorship, or it may just be a lie to get out of PT.
In my experience I have seen Soldiers lie about a profile. I have also seen Soldiers tell the truth and just not have it on them. I have also seen a Soldier get injured further because their leadership forced them to do PT despite the profile, didn't work out so well for them when BDE found out.
(3)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
SFC Stephen H. - That's a fair point. If I don't have a copy in their development file then they should be carrying a copy on them.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
I would be more worried about when that Soldier runs into his CSM and they ask for it and don’t have it during PT. Mine loves to ask for Soldiers profiles on them especially if they have a no shaving profile. That Soldier not only should have his profile on them but should be able to explain what they can do unless it says just breath they should be able to do some kind of alternate exercise.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
I have seen a lot of "if they don't have it on them, they don't have a profile" type answers. On the surface, I totally agree with this answer. However,....
Part of our jobs as NCOs is to know our Soldiers. We should already know if the Soldier has a profile, and what the general limitations are (maybe not every single specific, but at least "no running" or "limited upper body" type things). So if it is time for the BN "Unit Cohesion Run" and your Soldier doesn't have their profile on them, it would be irresponsible to make them run when you KNOW they have a no running profile, even if they don't have it on them.
Profiles used to be a recommendation from the medical provider to the Commander, and the Commander could override. My understanding is that this is not the case anymore, and profiles now carry the weight of a lawful order. I could be wrong, as I haven't really tried to keep up since I retired. But if that is the case, then an NCO, KNOWING of the existence of that lawful order, forcing a Soldier to run anyway, would be in violation of that order, and would be, themself, subject to UCMJ.
If you know the Soldier has a profile, counsel them for not having it with them, give them some fun corrective training to ensure they remember it in the future, and move on with life. Don't put that Soldier's health (or your career) in jeopardy to prove a point.
And if you are the CSM who DOESN'T personally track every single profile in your entire BN (because that is what you have 1SGs and PSGs for), when that PSG steps up and says "yes, SPC Schmedlap does have a profile. He forgot to bring it to PT, and we are handling it," you let it go, and trust your NCOs.
That is just my take on it.
Part of our jobs as NCOs is to know our Soldiers. We should already know if the Soldier has a profile, and what the general limitations are (maybe not every single specific, but at least "no running" or "limited upper body" type things). So if it is time for the BN "Unit Cohesion Run" and your Soldier doesn't have their profile on them, it would be irresponsible to make them run when you KNOW they have a no running profile, even if they don't have it on them.
Profiles used to be a recommendation from the medical provider to the Commander, and the Commander could override. My understanding is that this is not the case anymore, and profiles now carry the weight of a lawful order. I could be wrong, as I haven't really tried to keep up since I retired. But if that is the case, then an NCO, KNOWING of the existence of that lawful order, forcing a Soldier to run anyway, would be in violation of that order, and would be, themself, subject to UCMJ.
If you know the Soldier has a profile, counsel them for not having it with them, give them some fun corrective training to ensure they remember it in the future, and move on with life. Don't put that Soldier's health (or your career) in jeopardy to prove a point.
And if you are the CSM who DOESN'T personally track every single profile in your entire BN (because that is what you have 1SGs and PSGs for), when that PSG steps up and says "yes, SPC Schmedlap does have a profile. He forgot to bring it to PT, and we are handling it," you let it go, and trust your NCOs.
That is just my take on it.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Not to step on NCO business, but I personally had two Sr. NCO's (in their retirement window) sham me with a nonexistent profiles. I floated them a little while (being Reservists it's not like a day to day thing) until NCEORs came due, and I wasn't going to sign of on the eval without the Profile in the system.
Well, push came to shove and they couldn't produce it. So I gave an E7 and an E8 a referred NCOER for not having a current record APFT, and noted they never took the APFT while at BA when they could have.
They jerked me around, and got burned because no record APFT is pretty black and white.
******
Recommendation: I understand the plight NCO's might be in when challenged with potentially injuring a Jr soldier who can't prove a profile.
So I ask this........... how important is the duty they are trying to sham with the absent profile.
Well, are they not OUT OF UNIFORM, like they would be not having a CAC on hand?
Stick it to them with that. If PT sucks, and that's what they are shamming, well then find something equally sucky they can do in accordance with their "profile".
Then, take that time to confirm said profile, and if they are really BS'n you then run them into the ground as you see fit (this enter's company level Art-15 territory doesn't it?). If the profile is real, well you already dealt with it with the alternative duty for not having profile in hand.
Anyway............. I don't recommend being that NCO who is aware of a profile and still puts a soldier at risk going against it because they didn't have it in hand. Simply gig them for being out of uniform and stick it to them with the extra sucky detail (if that is your desire in life).
Well, push came to shove and they couldn't produce it. So I gave an E7 and an E8 a referred NCOER for not having a current record APFT, and noted they never took the APFT while at BA when they could have.
They jerked me around, and got burned because no record APFT is pretty black and white.
******
Recommendation: I understand the plight NCO's might be in when challenged with potentially injuring a Jr soldier who can't prove a profile.
So I ask this........... how important is the duty they are trying to sham with the absent profile.
Well, are they not OUT OF UNIFORM, like they would be not having a CAC on hand?
Stick it to them with that. If PT sucks, and that's what they are shamming, well then find something equally sucky they can do in accordance with their "profile".
Then, take that time to confirm said profile, and if they are really BS'n you then run them into the ground as you see fit (this enter's company level Art-15 territory doesn't it?). If the profile is real, well you already dealt with it with the alternative duty for not having profile in hand.
Anyway............. I don't recommend being that NCO who is aware of a profile and still puts a soldier at risk going against it because they didn't have it in hand. Simply gig them for being out of uniform and stick it to them with the extra sucky detail (if that is your desire in life).
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
0
0
0
SGT (Join to see) Some life/Army experience and some common sense goes a long ways here.
Yes SM have been known to lie and or exaggerate the limitations of a positive profile.
So some may look at the lack of a piece paper as suspect... BUT
Leaders have been known to ignore a profile limitation. So there is that as well.
Add in, SM are human and thus can make a mistake like washing the profile in last nights laundry, thus not having it in the morning for PT, or just loosing it, or a million other possible reasons for not having it on their person even though required to do so.
Sure platoon or company leadership should have a copy on file after the SM has received a valid profile...but at best that profile is in the office at the unit someplace, not at PT or at the range, wash rack, or other detail site.
Yes a good leader should know their SM, and thus if they have any medical restriction easier to do when your an E5 team leader and have just a few SM to over watch. Bit more complicated as that group size increases, section, platoon, company, battalion, ect ect.. And even then,,,,,did you commit the entire positive profile for each SM you have to full and perfect memory recall? Id bet not for most.
So again, the SM should have the profile on their person.
Lastly..... the experience and common sense part... Ok so at this mornings PT SM Marquez says he can not go on the platoon run because XYZ, or can not go to the ammo detail because XYA, what ever...
Too easy, change the plan to accommodate, being open and clear........if your lying to me there will be significant consequences ..... now go walk around the BN HQ until we get back (or go to the ammo detail and be the road guard, bring cold water to the rest of the detail, be the ammo guard while the rest of the detail is on break, ect, ect..) Then follow up when you have time later that day and review the SM profile to see if they were being honest.
If they were honest in the limitation you just put trust, support and your SM first and gave that SM a reason to believe in their leadership.
If they were dishonest by lying or lying by omission, then you make a request for UCMJ to the commander, you assign every shitty tasking that comes down to that SM you can find
Why? Part one: the rest of the unit now knows they will be held accountable, you will offer support and a solution that accommodates, but if they lie to get it....things happen, not just pushed aside for the rest of the unit to work harder to overcome.
Part Two: if the SM in question takes the UCMJ as its intended a way to deal with minor infractions in an adult, honorable manner..and changes his attitude and actions///The the leader leaves the past in the past and let the SM move forward or that and up as they show ability... This demonstrates to the SM and others in the unit, there is a path of redemption for minor errors of judgment.
Yes SM have been known to lie and or exaggerate the limitations of a positive profile.
So some may look at the lack of a piece paper as suspect... BUT
Leaders have been known to ignore a profile limitation. So there is that as well.
Add in, SM are human and thus can make a mistake like washing the profile in last nights laundry, thus not having it in the morning for PT, or just loosing it, or a million other possible reasons for not having it on their person even though required to do so.
Sure platoon or company leadership should have a copy on file after the SM has received a valid profile...but at best that profile is in the office at the unit someplace, not at PT or at the range, wash rack, or other detail site.
Yes a good leader should know their SM, and thus if they have any medical restriction easier to do when your an E5 team leader and have just a few SM to over watch. Bit more complicated as that group size increases, section, platoon, company, battalion, ect ect.. And even then,,,,,did you commit the entire positive profile for each SM you have to full and perfect memory recall? Id bet not for most.
So again, the SM should have the profile on their person.
Lastly..... the experience and common sense part... Ok so at this mornings PT SM Marquez says he can not go on the platoon run because XYZ, or can not go to the ammo detail because XYA, what ever...
Too easy, change the plan to accommodate, being open and clear........if your lying to me there will be significant consequences ..... now go walk around the BN HQ until we get back (or go to the ammo detail and be the road guard, bring cold water to the rest of the detail, be the ammo guard while the rest of the detail is on break, ect, ect..) Then follow up when you have time later that day and review the SM profile to see if they were being honest.
If they were honest in the limitation you just put trust, support and your SM first and gave that SM a reason to believe in their leadership.
If they were dishonest by lying or lying by omission, then you make a request for UCMJ to the commander, you assign every shitty tasking that comes down to that SM you can find
Why? Part one: the rest of the unit now knows they will be held accountable, you will offer support and a solution that accommodates, but if they lie to get it....things happen, not just pushed aside for the rest of the unit to work harder to overcome.
Part Two: if the SM in question takes the UCMJ as its intended a way to deal with minor infractions in an adult, honorable manner..and changes his attitude and actions///The the leader leaves the past in the past and let the SM move forward or that and up as they show ability... This demonstrates to the SM and others in the unit, there is a path of redemption for minor errors of judgment.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google