Posted on Jan 25, 2020
I have a soldier with an ETS date is in 20 days, and the command wants to give him a PT test. Does the soldier have to do it/pass or fail?
81.8K
1.99K
567
263
263
0
APFT
Army Regulations
Fort Liberty
ETS/EAS
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 275
8
8
0
This is a stupid decision by the command. They can force him to take it but they should code him as a loss. They can’t stop his discharge for failing it but if the soldier decides to bomb it, the fail will go against the unit’s numbers and readiness report. This is stupidity and toxic leadership.
“Look what I made him do”?
Really, really poor leader.
“Look what I made him do”?
Really, really poor leader.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
This sounds absurd to me. I assume that the Soldier has also taken his exit physical. If that is the case, then he should be exempt from taking a PT test. What did this Soldier do to upset the brass?
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
If it's only for stats because no one likes to see red on their readiness slides, especially when pulled from DTMS, then just give the SM a 180 input into DTMS and call it good. If he's known to always pass it shouldn't be an issue.
These kinds of questions and issues that get brought up make my head hurt with how many nonsense leaders are out there.
These kinds of questions and issues that get brought up make my head hurt with how many nonsense leaders are out there.
(8)
(0)
SGT Ronald Audas
My thoughts exactly! Even if he just went through the motions,his test grade would be a reluctant passed
(0)
(0)
LTJG Kevin Matthews
It amazes me how many "The regs say..." answers there are) The INTENT is what's important. (Even more frightening, they're mostly from SNCOs. I expect a very junior NCO to be strictly regs driven; SNCOs are expected to have the experience and wisdom to realize the difference between vital and not vital.) Making people take bogus PT tests and stand formal inspections and things like that "becuz the regs say" at this point is demoralizing and bound to leave a bad taste in the servicemember's mouth for their time in service. Don't (screw with) people as they're headed out the door! We have to take care of our soldiers, and sometimes that means we DON'T strictly apply "the regs". If someone has served and performed admirably, I wouldn't mess with them while they transition to being a civilian. I'd give them max leeway to get things done, to apply for jobs, go on interviews, see to family needs, as long as it gives that soldier a good headstart on their future. Be there-on time- in proper uniform of the day for first formation, coordinate with first line supervisor to mix in military duties with job hunting and preparation, then go forth and execute that plan. Last week on AD, be outprocessing and call if you need anything. I can't think of a better way to say "thank you" to a soldier who's served honorably.
(2)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
LTJG Kevin Matthews Sir, I take a bit of offense at your statement. The question was whether the Command can make him take the PT Test, and the answer is most definitely yes. As a SNCO my first responsibility in this situation is to ID the left and right limits.
The queation posed was whether or not the Command CAN do an action. As such, the answer HAS to be regulatorily guided. If the question was whether the Command SHOULD do action X, then our experience and reasoning come in to play.
To sum up the SNCO reaponse, in general, "yes, it can be done. No, in most cases, it probably shroud not be done."
Bashing SNCOs for providing a "by the reg" answer to a "by the reg" question because SNCOs didn't attempt to determine intent is a great way to usurp SNCO authority
The queation posed was whether or not the Command CAN do an action. As such, the answer HAS to be regulatorily guided. If the question was whether the Command SHOULD do action X, then our experience and reasoning come in to play.
To sum up the SNCO reaponse, in general, "yes, it can be done. No, in most cases, it probably shroud not be done."
Bashing SNCOs for providing a "by the reg" answer to a "by the reg" question because SNCOs didn't attempt to determine intent is a great way to usurp SNCO authority
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Not wanting to take a PT Test is what's wrong with the New, Happy & Progressive Army. Doing exercise should not be used as punishment such as pushups in Basic Training. If I were the General of the Army, exercise would be fun events taken twice a day. The majority of the reaming time be dedicated to Soldier Skills. The PC bull shit would be 1% of the work day. Fitness is the most powerful personal weapon a warrior has. I did PT up until the last day I cleared. How long does it take to do a regular army PT Test? Hour-Two? On the other hand maybe it could be a gesture of running him on his way out.
(8)
(0)
8
8
0
If soldier is past phase 2 physical Command takes all responsibility for possible injuries
(8)
(0)
7
7
0
I had a commander that required a Soldier with less than 10 days to ETS to take an APFT. Why? The Soldier consistently scored 300+, and the commander wanted to pad his stats. The Soldier scored a perfect 180. Actually stopped short of the finish on the run and let the clock tick down. Even the 1SG thought it was epic.
(7)
(0)
SSG Eric Blue
I had a battle that consistently scored in the old extended scale on the APFT. One week, he got in trouble for pulling a another soldier away from a fight all because he was restricted to the barracks for three days. The fight occurred in the parking lot of the barracks and my battle saw it on his way from the chow hall. He pulled the soldier away and cooled him down. Well, his squad leader heard about it and got his PLT SGT to push for an Article 15. His squad leader's APFT for Air Assault School was the next day and the PLT SGT had my battle set the pace for the squad leader. Needless to say, the squad leader didn't fail but came up REALLY short. He was supposed to get between 12:00 and 13:00 to be in the running for school. He came in at 14:07.
(2)
(0)
7
7
0
Sounds like he has a command that is after him big time. I would be inclined to tell him to be lost the day of the test just to see what are they gonna do? (IF you really like the guy but YOU never said that!)
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
Army regs are out of my wheel house but if he has already taken his final physical he shouldn’t be on a PT test roster. If he gets injured it would put him into a position where he would potentially not have enough time to have it entered into his medical record. But unless you have someone who is a Boy Scout and a firm follower of the rules you will get a lot of flak by the “just shut up and do it” crowd.
(7)
(0)
7
7
0
There's a part of the Oath of Enlistment, or it was anyway, when I was still on active duty, "......I will obey the orders of the officers appointed over me........". Now, with having less than 30 days remaining on active duty, as an NCO or officer, common sense should dictate that the individual be excused from the PT test because he should have already had scheduled or completed his ETS physical.
(7)
(0)
SFC Lillie Brown
You have losses, 30, 60, 90, 120, and there is a regulation for everything and that is probably in one of them. I used to know them all, but there is a reg for separations and you will surely find the answer in it or JAG, can help you out. Legally speaking I have completed a lot of separation packets and I don't believe you have to take a PT Test under 30 days, but I have been out a good while.
(1)
(0)
7
7
0
This is the kind of thing that is what I call an easy win for the command. Don't force a soon-to-ETS soldier to do an APFT/ACFT as they are leaving. They already have enough to deal with getting their affairs in order so they can get back to Fort Couch. Thinking back on my ETS/Retirement. I had alot to get done so my family could making back home. As an NCO I wouldn't and have talked to my 1SG and CO about why this is unnecessary and a waste of resources and time for the command. Put the solder on known losses and move on to more important tasks.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google