Do you believe there should be a restriction in place that limits eligibility for CSM consideration if a Soldier has a profile?

2016-01-20T09:19:02-05:00

I have been part of many conversations regarding the Command Selection List process and eventually the topic of profiles comes up. Specifically, being able to run. There are already requirements that outline that you must be deployable to fill a CSM position in deployable unit; should there be additional considerations just to be eligible for CSM? On that note, do you need to be able to run to be a good leader?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Jan 20 at 2016 9:51 AM

2016-01-20T09:51:10-05:00

I think the term "being deployable" covers it. I also believe it depends on the profile - is it a temp or a permanent? There are also alternate events to running if permanent. Not being able to run shouldn't end a career, but the leader also needs to set the example.

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made Jan 20 at 2016 9:52 AM

2016-01-20T09:52:05-05:00

My 2 cents. It should be an evaluative criteria, but not a screening one.

A CSM needs to present a good military bearing, both in actions and appearance. I don't consider running to be NECESSARY to do this. Will Soldiers notice if the CSM doesn't run? Probably. Will a running profile mean that the CSM will lose respect? Not by itself, IMO.

So, a running profile (or any other profile that doesn't stop one from serving) should not DQ someone from going before the board. However, profiles seem to me a reasonable thing to consider when coming up with an OML - especially ones that could be seen to reasonably impact either duty performance or setting of the proper example.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 10:23 AM

2016-01-20T10:23:43-05:00

While I am just a lowly Junior NCO with a perm profile for no running (and slightly biased since I do have one), I do not feel that a perm profile for running should be a DQ item. Sure, I can see looking at that as part of the whole picture, but as long as not too much weight is put on that perm profile. CSM is my ultimate goal for the Army.....and I would like to think that having this perm profile will not stop me.

Response by SGT Kristin Wiley made Jan 20 at 2016 10:24 AM

2016-01-20T10:24:18-05:00

Personally, I would prefer a CSM that doesn't run, but has all the other qualities of a good leader over one that can run, but doesn't possess those qualities. There's more than one way to set an example, and I strongly believe that soldiers would prefer leadership that they can respect and trust to uphold the standards and take care of their subordinates.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 20 at 2016 12:20 PM

2016-01-20T12:20:16-05:00

I don't believe that the ability to run two miles is a must for every MOS. I was one of those MSGs that was given and boarded for a permanent profile for running or lifting more than 70lbs in 94 (could max my push-ups in under a minute but was not allowed to lift weights) They determined it was Vasal Vagal and Asthma which I probable got from either the burning oil fields of Kuwaiti or the nasty conditions of my Somali deployments. I was still part of the invading forces to Haiti in SEP 94, did 6 months in Bosnia and airlifted with the NATO advanced party to the Kosovo border in NOV 98.

Response by SGM David W. Carr LOM, DMSM MP SGT made Jan 20 at 2016 12:25 PM

2016-01-20T12:25:47-05:00

SGM Mikel Dawson I do agree but I can still remember the USASMA

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 12:38 PM

2016-01-20T12:38:04-05:00

No, it should not. But any prospective CSM must be physically fit and able to train with the Soldiers. A running profile shouldn't disqualify an otherwise qualified Soldier from being a CSM, but certain ones should.

Response by SSG Audwin Scott made Jan 20 at 2016 12:48 PM

2016-01-20T12:48:40-05:00

My only question is, how can you lead from the front if you can't run? Now as a retired Army veteran, I will say that to much running does eventually affect your knees and body. I am 48 now and my knees hurt like hell from 20 years of running so I can only imagine a CSM which most have 20 yrs plus, how their bodies feel. So wear and tear on the body, doesn't mean you can't be a good CSM, but in the eyes of the soldiers that a CSM leads from the front and that of course includes running.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 1:16 PM

2016-01-20T13:16:22-05:00

you don't have to be the fastest... just willing to show up and do what you expect of your soldiers. it may just mean maximizing the limits of a profile.

Response by CSM(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 3:45 PM

2016-01-20T15:45:56-05:00

This may be controversial, but yes, I believe this should be something that is considered. I think its clear that from a combat standpoint, the current PT test does little to truly evaluate a Soldiers physical readiness level. If a Soldier is up for consideration for a CSM billet, then that Soldier should be combat effective, and be able to lead their troops from the front. If the SMA is running 12 minute two miles, then we ALL need to be striving for the same level of physical fitness. While I agree with others on in this discussion that a good leader is not, and should not, be solely defined by their current profile standing or ability to complete the run assessment, in the eyes of their Soldiers, they are being constantly evaluated. If the CSM isn't completing all of the events, then why should they have to. To maximize effectiveness as a leader, one should be able to set the example in all situations, and a CSM is the standard bearer for the Battalion on up. Now, I know there are individuals on active duty who are limited due to the loss of a limb, we have seen these folks already, but even most of them have been cleared to perform all of the events in the APFT. When i was at Ft Campbell in 2005 for PLDC, I see a Soldier out for a unit run, missing a leg, but had the run's prosthetic leg on, and running just as fast as everyone else. That is a hard charger and someone who you know is looked up to by their subordinates. If a profile will mean that that CSM, SGM, 1SG, MSG, etc, will be less effective as a leader because they can't set the example to ALL of their "seniors, peers, and subordinates alike," then they should not be considered for leadership positions. I have a plate and 18 screws in my lower left leg, I execute all of the APFT events, exit aircraft, fast rope, etc. I make no excuse, I am the standard bearer, I AM AN NCO!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2016 4:13 PM

2016-01-20T16:13:19-05:00

While physical fitness is a key factor in basic Soldiering skills, we have been at war for over a decade. Soldiers shouldn't be penalized for profiles especially if they are combat related. Promotions should be based on the overall effectiveness of the NCO.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Jan 20 at 2016 5:37 PM

2016-01-20T17:37:46-05:00

You do not need to be the fastest, do the most push ups, ect.. you DO need to be out there with them sweating. If you can not do that, you don't belong in charge. No one expects the Old man and CSM to be the first across the line in a release run.. They darn well expect them both to be there and finish.
A unit and SM that feel PT is beneath them, a waste of time and unrequired for their job, they will vote no on this.... And history will show them if they are honest that they are wrong.

Response by CSM Carl Cunningham made Jan 21 at 2016 10:38 AM

2016-01-21T10:38:22-05:00

SGM Mike Barbieri , I have heard these conversations as well and I think it is sickening. I think this is a closed minded thought process that goes against what we teach and preach to our Soldiers everyday. We implemented PRT to minimize injuries in young Soldiers. We teach them everyday that you need to go to medical and get a profile if you are hurt. We teach them that we will not judge you just because you have a physical profile as long you are performing as a Soldier....and then we turn around and tell SGM's that they cannot be a CSM because they have a profile. We just went through (and are still doing) 15 years of combat operations and many of us have had numerous deployments. Are we really going to fault a SGM who has a beaten down body after years of service to the Army? We talked about not allowing a mass exodus after these wars to prevent losing years of combat experience in the Army, and yet we will basically tell a SGM to get out because we are not going to allow you to be a CSM because you got injured. What are we doing?

I have a question because I am sure you have heard it come up....what if the SGM has a P2 for Lower but has a run at own pace? Will they review the profiles of SGM's to see what exactly their issue is? And what if the SGM can run, but has a profile against push-ups? Does that make him a better leader because he can run but not do push-ups? Sorry, I know this is just a question you posed. It is just frustrating.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 21 at 2016 11:35 AM

2016-01-21T11:35:45-05:00

So you are suggesting that a CSM's promotion be restricted solely because the military broke that individual, and are otherwise more capable than the other candidates? (which is the only condition where this argument would come up) Does this idea not just sound atrocious to anyone else?
Granted any running profile shouldn't be allowed anywhere near the 75th or SOCOM?

Response by SGM Vernon Walker, D.M., M.A.(RET) made Jan 22 at 2016 9:56 AM

2016-01-22T09:56:20-05:00

A profile has nothing to do with leadership! A profile shows responsibility, which IS part of leadership; so, my answer is no.

Response by SGM Scotty Johnson made Jan 25 at 2016 9:38 AM

2016-01-25T09:38:20-05:00

No it should not. You have to understand that the SGM could've earned that profile in the line of duty. He or she can still have the ability to effectively lead. This separatist mentality is responsible for many good leaders and Soldiers leaving service.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2016 3:51 PM

2016-01-25T15:51:24-05:00

No, older Soldiers are on profile because they have permanently injured themselves in the line of duty, just like I have. Don't punish us whom gave our time and our bodies health to the mission and the Army. Sure maybe it is not the best idea to have a profile CSM at an infantry unit or other combat arms units with uber high moral. There are many other elements in the Army where a broken Soldier should be allowed to progress his career as high as he can make it regardless of a broken body or not.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2016 7:15 AM

2016-01-26T07:15:02-05:00

No. The Army standards are there for a reason. If they change for everybody then they'll change for the CSM as well. The individual deployability will take care of the other requirements for CSM.

Response by CSM Felipe Mendez made Jan 28 at 2016 2:43 PM

2016-01-28T14:43:18-05:00

Should a CSM be questioned on his ability of running or leading soldiers? I was able to lead soldiers and run with pain, but who cares. Not able to Run was like having "leprosy" effects for the military at the time. If one were not able to run, such individual was labeled as a not worthy individual. I have seen and heard all kind of wording about a non-runner leader. With time I slowed down to almost a non-running capabilities, such situation did not hinder my ability of leading/mentoring soldiers. I continue to maintain to pass the APFT and after 30+ years of service my body was broken to hardly walk without pain. Did it worth it?? I would do it all over. But do not hold a leader down just because his restriction of running. I have known CSM that were rabbits, they concentrated their entire military life to fitness and little on soldiers welfare. What do we want a leader/mentor of soldiers or a leader that runs down his/her soldiers.....???

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2016 11:21 PM

2016-02-04T23:21:07-05:00

Deployable is sufficient. Running has no impact on the influence a CSM can provide in his or her unit. What about combat injuries? Are we going to tell someone with a purple hart they can't lead Soldiers? NO!

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Feb 11 at 2016 3:55 PM

2016-02-11T15:55:43-05:00

SGM Mike Barbieri, I would ask is the ability to run the only qualifying attribute to make E-9? Is that the only thing they care about at the USASMA? For a senior position like a CSM, I would hope that this his/her ability to not only lead, but to assess, diagnose and advise would be more valued than simply being a PT stud. Sometimes we place too much emphasis on athletic ability in the misguided belief that it equates leadership ability.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2016 11:18 PM

2016-02-14T23:18:43-05:00

I have been fortunate to have had so many of my previous NCOs become CSMs. Some of them serve in some very well known nominative positions. As a subordinate I never judged their effectiveness as a leader on their ability to run. I never understood the big deal behind being able to run far and fast. Why not focus on how many push-ups one can do? In all we do we take into consideration the total Soldier concept and the same should apply to the selection of CSMs. Looking back I have had some pretty shitty NCOs who could run really fast. I doubt when the Chief of Staff is selected, CEOs are hired, or any management is filled are they asked about their two mile run time.

Response by SGM Donald Garner made Feb 15 at 2016 5:35 PM

2016-02-15T17:35:33-05:00

Yes

Response by SPC(P) Jay Heenan made Feb 16 at 2016 9:01 PM

2016-02-16T21:01:27-05:00

Of course! We should beat the crap out of all the Soldiers for their first 20 plus years and then hold them back from being a CSM because they just spent the last 20 plus years getting their asses kicked by the military and now, god forbid, is on a profile. While we are at it, we should treat every Soldier who is on a profile like they have leprosy and send them to Army purgatory.

Response by SGM Mike Barbieri made Feb 16 at 2016 9:14 PM

2016-02-16T21:14:08-05:00

Just wanted to say a quick thanks for the responses. I am not advocating one way or the other, just soliciting inputs on a topic that comes up far more frequently than I would like. I appreciate your candor.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2016 2:09 PM

2016-02-18T14:09:00-05:00

If every Soldier on a permanent profile were held back from promotion and duty positions the Army would have a serious talent management problem on their hands, specifically in combat arms. I'm willing to bet most senior NCOs and Officers should be on a permanent profile but because of the stigma associated with being on one, most likely decline it. Having said that, a permanent profile should not hold a Soldier back especially if their ERB/ORB indicates a high level of performance in the past.

Response by SGM Bill Johnson made May 21 at 2016 9:25 AM

2016-05-21T09:25:33-04:00

Having had many injuries myself over the years, and some temporary profiles for various lengths of time, I am not a big fan of Soldiers of any rank with permanent profiles. In almost all cases you can train to overcome almost any injury or infirmity. The standard is only two miles. If you cannot run two miles, that's 12-18 minutes if you are in decent shape, you do not have the intestinal fortitude to lead. That said, there are plenty of jobs in the Army where no amount of physical fitness is required and many would say, "You don't need to be able to run to operate a computer." To that I say, "You are correct. Retire and get a civilian job operating a computer." So if you have a permanent "no run" profile, I highly recommend that you become a biking or swimming champion or you will never have the full respect and confidence of the Soldiers you are attempting to lead, who you also demand to meet the standard.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made May 27 at 2016 10:21 PM

2016-05-27T22:21:58-04:00

Being able to run or not able to run shouldn't have any bearing on being a CSM, however, profiles has been frowned upon for decades and it's one of the Army's biggest discriminators. BLUF, if you can lead and accomplish the mission, with or without a profile should be an issue. I had a no push-up profile, but it didn't affect the way I led Soldiers or hindered me from contributing to the unit's mission. Prior to my retirement as a BN/BDE OPS SGM, I had a BDE CSM that has a permanent profile against running, it didn't affect his ability to lead the Brigade into combat or it didn't hinder him from leading as leaders are selected for those position to lead. Who really knows what the Army's criteria are now-a-days on selection in filling CSMs billets? I declined to be selected for CSM and I was selected as an Alternate BN CSM, but when it came down to requesting for activation off the Alt list, I was told I wasn't eligible because of my BASD.....if that was the case, why did they go through the process to knowing that my BASD would later become an issue. The entire selection system need to be revamped and vetted the right way.

Response by CSM Andrew Perrault made Jan 8 at 2017 6:42 AM

2017-01-08T06:42:23-05:00

Yes, CSM's need set the example for all personnel in the unit.. If you can't run or have a permanent profile that limits you to perform your duty as a Soldier/CSM it's time to retire.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2017 8:53 AM

2017-01-08T08:53:15-05:00

I've never understood the Army in this fashion... I have a no running profile due to the injuries that were cause while serving ... for example fracturing my heel bone I during combatives for SGTs Time Training! It just shows how expendable we are , we are utilized until we are used up and injured then we are disposed of bc we aren't good enough ... rant over, now to answer the question SGM I do not feel a profile stops someone from doing their job effectively... I've yet to see someone deployed have to run for miles at a time anywhere so I don't think a profile should hinder anyone from filling a position ... if they are non deplorable and unable to wear gear, neck injury , heart condition etc I got it. Running no I think they should be able to fill any position in any location , their leadership and their gain to that position wasn't based on running so why should that stop anything else? Army issues profiles for a reason so we can stay in a continue to serve ! So let us serve!

Response by SGT James Miller made Jan 9 at 2017 5:42 PM

2017-01-09T17:42:44-05:00

Obviously, being able to run, to be a good leader is not a good benchmark, and unfortunately, most SGM's or CSM's are older and their legs are pretty beat up. Another tough question.

Response by CSM Jorge Altamirano made Jan 9 at 2017 6:15 PM

2017-01-09T18:15:38-05:00

Hell yeah. Not everyone should be promoted to CSM. I have seen CSM with profiles. Nothing worse for me. Not that they are bad Soldiers. If you can't shoot, move, and communicate. Then its time to hang it up.

Response by CSM Randy Johnson made Aug 16 at 2017 5:16 PM

2017-08-16T17:16:21-04:00

We all know the BLUF is , can't lead from the back and only from the front. So the CSM should be in top physical condition at all levels. No one can hide period. The Warriors see it all as we did when we were growing up. PROFILE: YOU ARE A NO GO FOR SELECTION for Command until come off of the profile and can maintain the standards . The standard is the standard. So in saying all this the person has to have morale courage to step away if they can't make it.