Failure to pass your Physical Fitness Test (PFT) vs. qualifying with your weapon

2014-07-29T20:39:45-04:00

I saw this question on another forum and had to ask it in this one. So if you have a SM that fails their Physical Fitness Test, there are an abundance of consequences that occur. Yet if a SM fails to qualify with their assigned weapon, it is treated as a minor thing. As if to say it is ok you will get it next time. I believe that both of these areas make up the total Soldier concept so how can one be more important than the other? Should the emphasis on qualifying be just as high as your PFT?

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 29 at 2014 8:49 PM

2014-07-29T20:49:42-04:00

I don't think it should be.

Physical fitness is non-negotiable. There are plenty of opportunities for the vast majority of SMs to exercise in their free time, and almost every unit that I've heard of has some kind of mandatory physical training program, so there is really no excuse for failing any sort of physical fitness test.

Rifle qualification is different. Many units only shoot weapons just a few times a year, and not every SM can afford to buy their own AR-pattern rifle and the ammo to feed it in order to practice in their own time. There simply isn't the same opportunity to practice weapons proficiency as there is to practice physical fitness, so failing to qualify on a rifle, while a significant deficiency that needs to be corrected, is not as serious a deficiency as failing a physical fitness test.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 29 at 2014 9:25 PM

2014-07-29T21:25:35-04:00

I agree with CW2 Private RallyPoint Member and Cpl Kristofer Fermil. If you are an infantryman, and can't shoot what good are you? Usually in these units a lot more time is spent on weapons training. Being NG we cleaned our weapons more than we fired them and marksmanship like PT is a perishable skill. When you are limited to your BRM training but unlimited to your PT training then it should reflect more.

Response by SSG Keith Evans made Jul 29 at 2014 9:52 PM

2014-07-29T21:52:30-04:00

I agree it should be equally weighed, but I understand why it is not. As others have mentioned, you can do PT everyday but getting to a range is an ordeal sometimes. In my honest opinion, Shadow box and dime and washer drills only go so far. If you want to be an expert marksman, you need to SHOOT, period. It's just like any skill, you need to practice as you perform and practice often to keep skills from perishing.

Response by COL Randall C. made Jul 29 at 2014 10:25 PM

2014-07-29T22:25:53-04:00

SFC Private RallyPoint Member, what a lot of soldiers don't realized is that if you can't qualify with your assigned weapon, you can be barred from reenlistment for being 'untrainable'.

So, yes, the emphasis on qualifying should be just as high.

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2014 8:43 AM

2014-08-01T08:43:29-04:00

If an NCO or Officer fails their PT Test, it is reflected prominently on their evaluation. If they fail weapons qualification, it only reflects if the rater decides it needs to be reflected. I'd say that Army has already decided on which is the more important skill to maintain. The rest seems to be left up to Leaders to decide on.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 1 at 2014 8:59 PM

2014-08-01T20:59:23-04:00

All i can say is if your a NCO and a senior NCO and you can't pass a APFT or weapon qual. Then BYE BYE. But thats just me.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Oct 3 at 2014 2:09 PM

2014-10-03T14:09:15-04:00

I believe that there are basic standards of performance/qualification that must be met by all service members, regardless of MOS. These include physical fitness, weapons qualification, map reading/land navigation (yes, I am aware of GPS) and possibly others. There should be no exception or waiver from these requirements, with the exception of bona-fide medical reasons and those should result in assignment to "limited duty" positions commensurate with the capabilities of the individual.

As I mentioned in another posting, as a commander I used to tell my soldiers, NCOs and officers that the basic skills above, as well as MOS-specific skills are "requirements of the trade" and are not waiverable. The analogy I used was imagine getting an appendectomy or open heart surgery from a surgeon who failed that course in medical school, but got a waiver for graduation. Military service should be no different. We are a profession and we should have some absolute standards.

Many civilian professions require licenses and certifications, without which you cannot do the job. We should be no different.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 3 at 2014 2:21 PM

2014-10-03T14:21:27-04:00

I believe both areas are just as important as the other. I can't trust any soldier to have my back in a fire fight knowing they can't qualify with their weapon or pass their PT test. I think the reason the weapon qual is treated more minor is because they will keep sending you back on the line as long as they have the ammo until you qualify. Every unit I've been with that is how they dealt with that. In the 82nd I stayed on the range until I shot expert, but I had already qualified sharp shooter. The PT test is a little more complex because between each test your body needs time to recoup, but that is no excuse. I'm 31 yrs old and on my PT test I scored 231. I out performed 18 - 20 yr olds right out of Basic. I think most of it falls back on the SM to have the heart and intestinal fortitude to pass both events!

Response by COL Charles Williams made Oct 4 at 2014 12:07 PM

2014-10-04T12:07:18-04:00

I this raises a good point. AFPT and Weight, have long been a reason for sanctions (NCOER/OER, Flag, Bar, Chapter, etc.), depending on the era and needs of the Army at that time. Interesting, as weapons failure was not, but perhaps is should be. It makes intuitive sense... since we are profession or arms. Interesting. As I often told young leaders, and lived by, as a leader to standard should be the max score... not passing. "Want to know the standard, just watch me."

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 25 at 2014 11:57 PM

2014-12-25T23:57:03-05:00

It's part of the new military. We don't care if you can do your primary job, as long as you can pass a PT test.

I've seen people forced out of the service for failed PT tests. I've also seen people who fail an evaluation in the aircraft, and go on to weapon school, promotions, and awards.

Response by SFC Siva Williams made May 29 at 2015 3:04 PM

2015-05-29T15:04:34-04:00

SSG Plato the answer to your question is on your training schedule. PT is conducted five days a week. Ranges are usually held twice a year. Your average Soldier will fire around 100 rounds of 5.56x45mm a year. That is 9 rounds of zero ammo plus 40 rounds for qualification twice a year. There is no way a Soldier can maintain proficiency with this minimum training. That is why we don't place as much importance on weapons qualification failures versus PT failures.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2016 4:57 PM

2016-02-22T16:57:09-05:00

Call me crazy, but if the shit gets so bad that a supply Major has to pick up an M4 and fight off the bad guys, you are already in a world of hurt and totally screwed. ;)

What sucks is that, due to "funding issues", many guard and reserve units can't go to the range and fire. There just isn't money for "training ammo". How the hell do they expect you to remain/become proficient when, at best, you only get to fire a weapon once every couple of years?

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 1:05 PM

2016-03-22T13:05:26-04:00

training for the APFT (situps, pushups and running) can be done on your own time with no equipment. How many people own an M-16 or M4? It's very hard to maintain proficiency when you only get to shoot once a year. It's like walking into drill and they decide to give you a test on organic chemistry and then chapter you out if you fail.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 10:21 PM

2016-03-28T22:21:22-04:00

My opinion is that a standard is a standard. if you cannot meet the standard, even after remedial training, you should be chaptered. That CSM, if he/she is any leader should not hide the failure nor minimize its severity. He/she should lead by example, be honest, and get retrained to meet the standard.

If it were me, I'd stand in front of the Soldiers and say "I didn't meet the standard. I am no different than you. I should be held accountable for my current failures like you. I will also receive remedial training and repeat the exercise until I meet the standard."

Good luck finding leadership that will do it. I've only met one and I gained mad respect for that leader when I witnessed it. I took note of it and did the same thing when I failed an APFT near the end of my active duty career. My 1SG asked my what he should do about it. I told him "I should be flagged, barred, and removed from my leadership position". Honest to God...

Response by COL Randy Alicea made Mar 28 at 2016 11:30 PM

2016-03-28T23:30:34-04:00

I treat them both the same, but shooting expert with your weapon should be like writing a letter to your mom.. It needs to sweet and perfect. No excuses. PT can always improve, but your weapon is your life and those around you.