Posted on Feb 5, 2019
How should we handle an invalidated APFT? Is there a current Army regulation covers this?
9.24K
33
21
3
3
0
A record APFT I was participating in was rendered invalid upon completing the 2 mile run due to the distance being a little over 2.5 miles. The mistake was due to the one mile marker personnel not being present, and runners past the point of return. However the scores for the runners would have been valid had they only run 2 miles, only being 2 - 3 minutes off. How would one go about this mistake? Is the test null and void or the times divided to represent accurately a 2 mile time? Is this an automatic pass due to negligence of the test coordinators? Is there any current army regulation that would cover this?
Posted in these groups: 
Physical Training
APFT
Physical Training APFT
Posted 7 y ago
Responses: 15
9
9
0
If the PT track was longer than the regulation 2 miles the APFT is null, no questions asked. There is no such thing as time adjustment. Here is the thing: can it be proved? It has happened before so it should be an issue. Many years ago, something similar happened at Ft. Lee, VA. The CG at the time asked the IG to walk and measure an official post track; the IG himself! Problem solved!
(9)
(0)
Unfortunately there's not much you can do about it. The APFT is not valid because the standards were not met by the personnel administering the test. The silver lining here is that it isn't your fault so other than having to retake it, it shouldn't have any adverse impact on yourself or fellow soldiers.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
3
3
0
The APFT should be invalid. The commander should issue new guidance on the next APFT date and have the deficiencies corrected.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
This is a great question because there are a couple of issues at play here.
First, if the course does not conform to the Standard (2.0 miles), then the APFT would be invalidated. There's no way to "wiggle the math" to make it work.
However, the unit still "ran a record APFT" on X date which means that they have to adhere to any regulation regarding retests. I'm not super familiar with Army, but isn't it 30 days between Record APTF?
This means that the commander is going to have to issue guidance (whether formal or informal) regarding the incident. 1) He will verify (or delegate) that the course is correct for the new test. 2) He will establish the new date (making sure the date doesn't violate record APFT regs).
Regarding"automatic pass," each section of the APFT is measured individually, which means they "might" be able to use the Situp & Pushup run informally as diagnostic information (but could not use it adversely to the best of my knowledge) while they could not use the Run portion at all.
First, if the course does not conform to the Standard (2.0 miles), then the APFT would be invalidated. There's no way to "wiggle the math" to make it work.
However, the unit still "ran a record APFT" on X date which means that they have to adhere to any regulation regarding retests. I'm not super familiar with Army, but isn't it 30 days between Record APTF?
This means that the commander is going to have to issue guidance (whether formal or informal) regarding the incident. 1) He will verify (or delegate) that the course is correct for the new test. 2) He will establish the new date (making sure the date doesn't violate record APFT regs).
Regarding"automatic pass," each section of the APFT is measured individually, which means they "might" be able to use the Situp & Pushup run informally as diagnostic information (but could not use it adversely to the best of my knowledge) while they could not use the Run portion at all.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1SG (Join to see) - My concern on this is the "recovery time" issue as opposed to the "administrative gap" (we don't want a record ran on 12/31 and again on 1/1 to manipulate the system).
It's been a long time since I looked at the USMC version of this, but we run into PFT vs CFT scheduling if a test gets invalidated. Just because the test was bad doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it doesn't count.
It's been a long time since I looked at the USMC version of this, but we run into PFT vs CFT scheduling if a test gets invalidated. Just because the test was bad doesn't mean it didn't happen. It just means it doesn't count.
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Considering there was time to post the question, the retest the next day scenario isn't at issue, nor is there an attempt to game the system. An error was made that invalidated the test, so the test has to be administered again.
A recovery period of 3 days would be sufficient, but scheduling requirements (training schedule, equipment, and maybe training area) would provide ample time.
It's important to maintain a current record APFT because of the connection to promotions and evaluation reports, reporting requirements aside.
A commander can administer diagnostic APFTs as frequently as they want, but trust that no commander wants to conduct unnecessary tests.
A recovery period of 3 days would be sufficient, but scheduling requirements (training schedule, equipment, and maybe training area) would provide ample time.
It's important to maintain a current record APFT because of the connection to promotions and evaluation reports, reporting requirements aside.
A commander can administer diagnostic APFTs as frequently as they want, but trust that no commander wants to conduct unnecessary tests.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1SG (Join to see) - Concur. But they still conducted a (invalid) record APFT. This is where letter or reg vs intent of reg can get funny. It can get even screwier when the Army swaps to the new CPFT (or whatever the acronym is) due to the increased logistical & operational requirements. My larger point is that we cannot completely ignore the "botched event." It has ripples. They may be insignificant in the long run, but it is far better to have a Memorandum stating "X happened, Y corrected X IAW with Reg WZ" on file just in case someone throws a fit three days later saying "My command had me run two Record APFTs within 4 months, and chose not to file the first one."
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
This is a good learning event on planning, running course selection, and how to properly conduct an APFT. However, it isn't that big of a deal.
Someone messed up, so they have to do it again. There was no harm, and more than one person has likely already received their a$$ chewing, as is appropriate. A complaint has no standing.
The BN Cdr likely knew shortly after the error was discovered. If not then, when a training schedule change gets submitted, or during one of the weekly (my era) training briefing, so complaining above the unit goes nowhere.
Complaint to the IG, with the information provided here, wouldn't likely even result in a phone call from them, as there is no violation of regulation or policy.
No need to analyze intent of the regulation.
This is a good learning event on planning, running course selection, and how to properly conduct an APFT. However, it isn't that big of a deal.
Someone messed up, so they have to do it again. There was no harm, and more than one person has likely already received their a$$ chewing, as is appropriate. A complaint has no standing.
The BN Cdr likely knew shortly after the error was discovered. If not then, when a training schedule change gets submitted, or during one of the weekly (my era) training briefing, so complaining above the unit goes nowhere.
Complaint to the IG, with the information provided here, wouldn't likely even result in a phone call from them, as there is no violation of regulation or policy.
No need to analyze intent of the regulation.
(0)
(0)
The mistake does not only lie with the issue of just no one sitting at the 1 mile marker, it also lies in the fact that the end point was not the correct end point. What needs to happen is that, since so many people failed the run, several people (not the graders nor OIC/NCOIC) need to go out with a wheel and measure from the start point to the end point. If the measurements come out even just one foot past the 2 miles, then the test is invalid. And if they ran 2.5 miles as you say, then yes the test needs to be thrown out and those Graders, OIC and NCOIC need a serious refresher on how to conduct an APFT. Was this a new route? If so, who measured it prior to the APFT? How was it measured? A few more questions: Were there any walkers for this test and did they have the same end point as the runners?
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
It is Null and avoid! The command will have to come up with a. Reasonable timeline to administer a new test. It should not be within minimum timelines associated with a failur and retake. Anyway it would be hard to imagine them trying to do it too soon, and without someone outside the command verifying the distance and grade. Thank you for your service.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
The test is administered again. It is not an automatic pass. Prepare for a record APFT, and use the results of this to focus on what you need to improve.
AR 350-1 and FM 7-22 are your references. These references address the requirements and administration of the test, but do not address what to do when such an error occurs.
AR 350-1 and FM 7-22 are your references. These references address the requirements and administration of the test, but do not address what to do when such an error occurs.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
My last APFT was NTC Ft. Irwin, 1984. The running "track" was a straight road. 1 mile out--1 mile back. The line was a foot wide and went all the way across the road.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
Void the test. Give the soldiers time to rest and retest. The first order you know that unit should have verified the distance and the marker. A lot of installations have a set record physical fitness training testing site. When I took over as first sergeant I actually measured the PT test course it was a 10th of a mile short. One of my sevens questioned it and we took the measuring wheel and got it accurate.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google