Can you add to a standard?

2016-03-23T23:58:17-04:00

This has been bothering me for a while. Sometimes leaders (officers and NCOs) will say things that we have learned throughout our career and state them as known facts without any regulatory guidance. The old adage, "you can add to a standard but not take away from it," is quoted often throughout the army. Yet, I have never seen any regulatory guidance on this. If you are the approving authority for a specific standard then sure, but let us be hypothetical for a moment. The minimum standard for an APFT is 180pts with 60 in each event, And with the new NCOER system I would give a Soldier who did exactly that score a, "met standard." Someone who scored a 260 or so would get an "exceeded standard," and one who scored 90 in each event or better would get "Far exceeded standard". But if adding to the standard is allowed and a Brigade says "270 is the standard" then the Soldier who scores a 268 would receive a "did not meet standard" on their NCOER.........this would create a deviating standard throughout units, expecially when it comes to senior promotions. BLUF can anyone provide regulatory guidance on being able to add to a standard? Also "adding" to a standard is a matter of perception, one person may say "the minimum passing weapons qualification for my platoon is 30, we are just adding to the standard" another will say "I scored a 28 on my weapons Qual but I failed, the AR says I passed but my PSG says I failed. He took away from the standard." ...........I want to get some honest feedback from all levels of the Army. Specifically, as to how it pertains to the new NCOER, and your general thoughts.

(******Disclaimer***** My personal PT, Weapons qual, and NCOER are great. I am not digging for dirt, I am simply trying to provoke thought out responses from senior leaders, junior leaders, and future leaders. I tagged SGM Quick because he is one of the most senior leaders in my career field and I am genuinely interested In his thoughts on this matter)

Response by SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL made Mar 24 at 2016 12:00 AM

2016-03-24T00:00:26-04:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member the old saying in the Army, you can always add, but never take away. I lived by, unless it involved, life, limb or eyesight.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 12:05 AM

2016-03-24T00:05:36-04:00

I personally dislike that quote, because to me, adding to anything is taking away from the intent of it. With that said, I also feel strongly about the "180 PT score is the standard." Here we have a test, a test that you know the answers to and take twice a year. We've told you that 180 equals a D. A passing grade. 300 equals an A. Why wouldn't you want to get an A on your test?

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Mar 24 at 2016 1:19 AM

2016-03-24T01:19:12-04:00

You can add, but you can't take away :)

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 2:06 AM

2016-03-24T02:06:22-04:00

I think this is a well-grounded question. So often we (I'm probably guilty of this as well) pretend we know what we're talking about when we really have no clue. A great reminder to stay grounded in doctrine, regulation, and policy.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 24 at 2016 6:46 AM

2016-03-24T06:46:57-04:00

Adding to the Standard is CHANGING the Standard. We are tasked with ENFORCING the Standard AS WRITTEN, not Modifying it to meet our preferences.

It makes something that is Objective (in B&W), Subjective (subject to the whims of an individual).

The regulations state where someone NEEDS to be (the Standard). Individuals and command "policy" state where someone "wants" or "should" be, and as long as there is not a direct conflict there is usually not a problem with that.

However when you get to DOCUMENTATION (like an NCOER), you are back in "standard world" (need not want/should) and you must adhere to REGULATION over Policy & Preference (adding to the Standard). Just because you "prefer" something doesn't make it a regulation.

If the regulation says 180 is the standard, it's the standard. You can prefer/want/desire 270 all day long, but 180 meets standard. It may be "personally unacceptable" however Big Army has determined it to be the approved score, whether that is reasonable or not for the specific function someone is filling.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 6:54 AM

2016-03-24T06:54:59-04:00

Interesting. At a NCOES school, they teach the standard. Nothing more, nothing less, it's very by the book. The material taught here is intended for one to take back to their units and instill/enforce among their community. After all we are the SME's, or should be when it comes to regulations. So I would say that I would encourage someone to perform at a higher standard, but never add to it. It should never reflect on anyone's NCOER/OER, but ask yourself this: if I'm competing for an E-7 slot amongst my peers army wide, should I be the basic soldier that meets the standard or exceeds it, goes above and beyond?

Response by MAJ Javier Rivera made Mar 24 at 2016 7:00 AM

2016-03-24T07:00:02-04:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member you will get a mix of answers here due to the outstanding question you posted. Now here are my $.02. The Army, and for that matter DoD, is very specific when it comes to standards. That is why they are written in plain English! You could probably add for the sake of esprit de corp and/or healthy competition but at the end of the day anything beyond what is written will not survive a legal review! Using your own example: as a commander I could have a 260 APFT standard for my unit nevertheless if soldiers just score 180 there ain't much I can do. You might say "well sir, you can still PT the hell out of them", right? It would not matter. The reg is specific nevertheless I do can prevent them from further professional military education if there is a chance of the APFT failure. Same for weapons quals. But denyawards or degrade evaluations? Meet the Standard.....That is why they are written!!!'

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Mar 24 at 2016 7:20 AM

2016-03-24T07:20:21-04:00

Bear with me, but the overall answer is commanders have a lot of discretion. We are sworn to obey lawful orders, even the ones we don't like. For a lot of things you can add, but not take away and most regulations are not punitive. For some things I understand your argument and it is completely valid, but for others you don't want everything to be black and white. People are people and they create some incredibly complex situations. You want someone with experience and a good heart, otherwise just bring in a robot with a stack of regulations and pray you never do the slightest thing wrong.

Commanders have trial counsel that they talk to regularly. Higher level commanders also have admin law lawyers that specialize in regulatory issues. Generally, when I do something rather controversial my boss already knows and I have top cover or he has me adjust a little. Based on how controversial it is it only goes up from there. And, sometimes those more senior leaders issue orders that handcuff you from doing what needs to be done. So I execute those orders, but I'm also free to leave the Army if I don't agree, which is what I'm doing.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 9:05 AM

2016-03-24T09:05:28-04:00

THANK YOU! This is one of my Army Pet Peeves. I too have challenged anyone who parroted the "add to but can't take away from" phrase to produce a black & white regulation that states that. Thus far (9 years) no one has been able to produce any OFFICIAL guidance (in the form of a Big Army regulation). Sure, there are unit SOPs, but those cannot violate Big Army regulations and standards.

As for Big Army Standards and unit standards, when talking about APFT scores and BRM qualifications, that's fine as long as those INTERNAL standards are kept INTERNAL. Once you apply internal standards to external processes, like NCOERs, then you are failing the NCO, the Army, and the EES, as you are indeed affecting the entire NCO population across the Army by applying your own arbitrary standards. These same people will then complain when systems (like the EES) fail to fulfill their stated purposes. These leaders must understand that their units do not exist in a vacuum, and what they do (in terms of NCOERs and other external processes) does indeed affect an entire segment of the Army.

So until someone provides regulatory guidance on "add to but cannot take away from" I will continue to call BS on anyone dumb enough to repeat that tired old urban legend.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 9:32 AM

2016-03-24T09:32:48-04:00

Great question for any leader in any service branch. Short answer? No-the "standard" is exactly what it is published to be for a reason, and as you correctly point out-unless a leader is part of the authority revising an enforceable standard, their "personal" viewpoint isn't going to stand up to review.

That said-I don't recall ever being encouraged, or promoting the notion among those under my authority, to aim for the "standard". This gets into the "fuzzy grey areas" of leadership, esprit de corps and why we have leaders rather than mere "monitors" at all. How does a leader ensure their people "exceed" standards? Well, I'd say a good start is by first exceeding them oneself. When it comes to evaluations, it should be the case that a member's ability to consistently perform "higher" than the regulated standard is "worth" something to their career.

While I do not have an example from personal experience, the scenario you detail sounds like a case of someone setting an arbitrary bar that then has adverse impacts on the official rating system-largely because they don't understand, or don't respect the regulations. Herein, I couldn't agree with you more.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 24 at 2016 12:02 PM

2016-03-24T12:02:50-04:00

There is only one standard, the Army standard. But I will offer this:
When I am trying to differentiate levels of performance, I generally ground my comments in where they are on the bell curve. There is a standard, but there are also MY expectations that they need to meet, which I validate by comparative results with peers. If the company is showing degredation in performance, it is not my NCO's fault, it is mine and we have work to do in an area of weakness. However, if a deficiency is notably present in a given team or individual, I will definitely drill down in both counseling and if necessary evaluation reports.
Some examples from actual NCOERs I have written -
o scored 298 on APFT; team had the highest average score of 268 in the company
o planned and conducted mounted react to contact/CIED lane in preparation for deployment; far exceeded peers in detailed planning and realistic execution
o met Army standard for APFT performance but consistently underperformed in physical tasks such as company road march and obstacle course
o made considerable effort to improve APFT score by 32 points, but still does not meet the Army standard in the sit up event
o displayed underwhelming initiative through his team's minimal OPTEMPO; executed 45% less missions then teams in adjacent AOs
o displayed a tendency to "spam" projects in quantity but not screen them for feasibility nor see them through to completion
o selected for repeated forward assignment to support partner nation training in East Africa over others by consistently outperforming peers in military to military training events

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 24 at 2016 12:42 PM

2016-03-24T12:42:46-04:00

I believe we use that methodology informally to determine who the studs and studetes are. There receive more confidence, responsibility, and receive better chances of promotion.

Response by SFC Craig Dalen made Mar 24 at 2016 2:50 PM

2016-03-24T14:50:52-04:00

This is what some call a "norm". You also have to remember that you are rating someone based off your initial counseling and expectations. If in your belief that a 260 is exceeds the standard than you as the rater are entitled to give that rating. Also every board member has their own opinion while reviewing personnel for promotion. So it is all up to the interpretation of the person viewing the NCOER anyway. You don't have to change how you rate someone based off of someone else's beliefs.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 25 at 2016 9:14 PM

2016-03-25T21:14:41-04:00

Leaders must evaluate Soldiers on more than just a single act/event (unless it's illegal, unethical or immoral)...if an NCO scored a 300 on an APFT, but lacked confidence in areas, resilience to overcome something, or displayed lack of professionalism, this NCO could earn a "Did Not Meet Standard". An APFT test should never carry so much weight during an extended rating period.

SSG Private RallyPoint Member, you mentioned a "260 or so" APFT score as exceed the standard...wouldn't a 181 'exceed the standard'? It would very difficult for me to rate an NCO with that scored an 181 on an APFT with 'Exceeded the Standard' without some greatness in other areas of 'Presence'.

Response by SFC John Hill made May 10 at 2016 7:05 AM

2016-05-10T07:05:27-04:00

The ARMY has set mimimum standards, anything above that are “goals.” Using the APFT as an example, what the AR says is “Commanders may establish unit APFT and PRT mission related goals which exceed Army minimum standards. 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.” (AR 350-1 Training-Army Training and Leader Development; Appendix G–9. Physical readiness training Para d2).
This additional training cannot be punitive in nature, meaning it must be conducted during the normal duty day. APFT failures can be ordered to attend “remedial training” after normal duty hours.
The same would apply for marksmanship, which requires continual training to improve performance and prevent decay
The only approved exceptions would be volunteer assignments to Ranger, SF, etc. which have a standard which exceeds the minimum.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 10 at 2020 2:43 PM

2020-08-10T14:43:49-04:00

There is no formal registration to my knowledge authorizing or prohibiting adding to a standard. Honestly, if I was a 1SG/CSM I would "add" an incentive for exceeding a standard, though. Such as a three or four day weekend to Soldiers who scored 270 or above. It's all about motivating your unit to bust their asses and making your unit look great with the command. Now if I had a Soldier or NCO that was struggling on their PT score, and then made a significant improvement on the next APFT/ACFT, then I would mark the appropriate box on their eval but put some great remarks in the Leadership block such as how resilient they are, etc. I would also right them up a positive performance counseling.

Response by SFC Casey O'Mally made Aug 10 at 2020 3:18 PM

2020-08-10T15:18:16-04:00

There are goals and standards, and people often get them confused. Unit PT standards are actually PT Goals. Yes, you can get extra PT for failing to meet unit goals, but you cannot be flagged or have your time taken (I.e. extra PT must be during "normal duty day") as ling as you meet published standard (180). Same for weapon qual, mustaches, hair length, road march times, etc.

However... Higher standards CAN be used for specific qualifications. As an example, Air Assault school requires a 12 mile foot march in 3 hours. The Army standard is 12.5 in 4 hours. They require a 2 mile run (in combat uniform and sneakers) in 18 min. The APFT standard for me when I went (because I was ancient) was 18:18. In order to achieve qualification I had to meet a higher standard. So yes, that schoolhouse could "add to the standard" (effectively creating their own individual standard). However, failing to achieve AASLT qualification due to failing the AASLT standard for road march should not be held against me as failing to meet standards.

Response by SSG Elizabeth Koss made Aug 11 at 2020 9:52 AM

2020-08-11T09:52:27-04:00

I think this is one of the most heard BS things in the military. The standard is the standard for a reason. A commander/commandant can enforce policies and can set standards that they want their troops to achieve, but unless it is written in regulation, they cannot use THEIR set standards on any NCOER/OER.

That being said, would you mind if I used this as an example in a book that I am writing? It is basically regarding lies or mistruths told within the military branches.