If the distance for the PT test run was 2.13 miles, am I still allowed to dispute it and request a retest?

CPL Arthur White - A 3 mile PT test is not the standard, 2-miles is the standard. That would be inclusive of Airborne and non-Airborne units. When I was in an Airborne unit we ran 4 miles due to requirements for the unit, but that was separate from an APFT.

SFC Joshua Steen - You do realize not all Warrant Officers are HS to flight school....many of us were NCOs as well as Sr NCOs before taking up the specialty

Which is why you’d think the Chief would know that PFCs don’t measure (nor should they be told to measure) PT Tracks, and that failing an APFT run based on an extra .13 (that’s extremely specific no? How’d he figure that out?) is indicative of a much larger problem.

Generally they also know that thinly veiled physical threats aren’t how Military business is conducted.

Who should get the promotion, the “barely meets the standard” “meets the standard” or “exceeds the standard” soldier?

Here’s the reality, if that private put as much effort into improving his run score as he did trying to lawyer his way out of a failure, (no one here has the whole story, whether this was an initial failure, whether his scores are always marginal, whether he’s a good troop or an oxygen thief) he’d pass his run with room to spare and have credibility to question track length.

What I saw here was a Warrant (and others) commenting far outside his lane with zero info, condemn an entire NCO chain on the word of a private with no background and the justify why marginal performance is perfectly acceptable and “the standard”.

It’s always helpful to good order and discipline for warrants and senior NCOs to take the word of a private with a clearly marginal performance complaint on a public forum to demonize his support chain and hold him up as some example of integrity and leadership.

I’d like to see his PT cards and counseling packet.

SFC Joshua Steen - I like it. Well said. I didn't think of it the way you put it and now gives me a better perspective. I like the way you put it and I concur there SFC!!!

Hell we ran 9 miles cross country in combat boots and fatigues in 49 minutes. Infantry all the way

SGT Charles Oliver - obviously today's Army doesn't require folks to have to walk or run nearly as far as you guys had to back then. Standards have changed, I did Air Assault School in combat boots for the run, but now it is soft shoe athletic running shoes. The requirements for mandatory runs are quarterly in SOME units, not all.

MAJ (Join to see) - Not to mention a 9 minute pace is a failing APFT pace. That would be a 18 minute two miler, which exceeds the minimum standard by over 2 minutes. If the dude was pacing him self and practicing at about a 15:10-15:15 two miler, not meritorious by any means, but then rolls in at 15:55-16:00, because the course 1/10 mile plus longer than 2 miles, it is not right he gets a failing score. The 2 mile run does not make or break the solider. I was never a good runner but I could do an ass of sit-ups (always scored in the 90s) though and could usually score in the 80s on pushups. I could navigate, looked squared away, could road march, always did my job, etc. I am sure we have seen plenty of people that could blast their 2 miles in under 11 minutes but were sorry or inept in other way in many other ways. What is the guy's MOS? Maybe he just isn't a PT stud. I would rather have finance clerk scoring a 180 and getting my pay and promotions right, than a guy with a 300 screwing it up. if he is Infantry, then PT score might be a little more important. Either way, the two mile course should be 2 miles.

SGT Charles Oliver - Us tankers had a saying. "If we gotta run , the army has lost a war" :). But we could drink all night and run 5 miles a couple hours later in the morning.

I have 5 troops in the 17-21 group. I just checked their run times and 30 seconds added would have failed 2 of the passing and caused another to drop from a 300.

3% grade limit? I think back to Camp H.M. Smith and "Cardiac Hill"> Granted, part of the course was down hill but the uphill side was a monster (prob close to a 20% grade) and at least 2 Marines ran that 3 miles in 15 min. This was back in 1975. We all prefer to run on level ground I think. Though I was a Navy Corpsman, my FMF (Fleet Marine Force)quals required me to pass Marine Corps PFT, instead of the much easier Navy standards. At 35 (MANY YEARS AGO) Navy standards required me to run 1 1/2 miles in 15 1/2 MIN. I ran it in the same time required of a 20 year old. 13:45. which would be too slow for the Marine Corps 3 mile run, for my age group. guess I got lazy, though always hated running. was boring

I am not sure what you did in the army but myself being a 13B my whole battery could run 12.30 min 2 mile easy. That is several minutes ahead of the max time allowed. I personally ran under 10 for a few years.

Everyone is not a stud runner. I knew lots of guys that could break 11 minutes but could only do 45 pushups and 55 situps.

SGT David Fikes - Then add a foot march with 50lb's of equipment. The bottom line is, no one worth a #### should be complaining that Army physical fitness standards are to high in ANY area of the APFT. In my opinion, they're ridiculously low and need to be raised across the board and have pull ups and the aforementioned foot march w/E added. But as always, everyone will complain and the standards will be lowered....yet again.

Oh I was all for a ruck being added. I would have rucked with 90lbs of kit and gear over running lol. Yes the standards are low. Complaints will always be there. My point was that scoring a 300 of the pt test doesn't make a good soldier. I have seen some of the worst soldiers be pt studs but shit bags any place it actually counted

1SG (Join to see) - If I were his NCO, I would back him up upon confirmation of his claims and challenge the validity of the APFT. I'd fight to get his flag removed and the APFT course changed. This is not about the PFC's run time, it is about leadership's failure.

Every Soldier that runs that 2.13 mile course is getting screwed; not just the PFC. 0.13 mile is over two football fields (229 yards). For a 20 y/o male Soldier, the minimum passing score would be artificially raised to the equivalent of 74, instead of the minimum passing score of 60 required by regulation.

When that 20 y/o male CPL that was improperly given a 60 for the run, instead of a 74, goes before the promotion board he will be missing 24 promotion points from his final cut off score. That is like presenting all his competitors at the Jr Enlisted Promotion Board with a Meritorious Service Medal (25 promo points) because they only had to run 2 miles while he had to run 2.13 miles.

If I were his NCO, I'd realize the command is screwing ALL of my Soldiers and I would fight for them to get the APFT course corrected, the APFT test invalidated, all flags removed, promotion eligibility restored, promotion points added to their score, and recommend the PFC for a COA for bringing this error to my attention. If signed by a COL, that would give him an extra 5 promo points for doing the right thing, knowing the regulations, and upholding established standards - - everything I want my NCOs to do!

Cpl Earl Armstrong - apparently, that's the way the Army does it now; you have to get 50 points in each event to pass basic, and the full 60 to pass AIT.

What are the APFT standards?

We had the shorter trail happen, even had more then a 3% down hill slope, next monday all the scores were invalid and we were all taking the pt test again.

If the course is not the correct length... you can not just do the math. At that point the APFT tests... ALL of them are invalid and everyone has to retake their APFT. This is why it is important as NCOs to ensure that we are doing out jobs.

That NCO of yours may have thought he was doing the right thing, but he should have retested all of you.

I do understand that there are chain of commands out there that think they can do what ever they like. That is when the Soldier or Soldiers have to report them for failure to have a proper APFT track.

0.13 mile is over two football fields (229 yards) and a 20 y/o male PT stud would have to run 51 seconds faster in order to maintain their 300 APFT score. Soldiers with slower run times would need to increase their speed by over a minute. The minimum passing score would be artificially raised to the equivalent of 74, instead of the minimum passing score of 60 required by regulation. This is a much more significant difference than people seem to realize!

When that 20 y/o male CPL that was improperly given a 60 for the run, instead of a 74, goes before the promotion board he will be missing 24 promotion points from his final cut off score. That is like presenting all his competitors at the Jr Enlisted Promotion Board with a Meritorious Service Medal (25 promo points) because they only had to run 2 miles while he had to run 2.13 miles.

24 points is a huge difference during a promotion board or other board selection process. This command is screwing all of its Soldiers, not just that "one PFC" that should work on his fitness level.

We usually had a pre-measured course, 1.5 miles each way, with a turnaround point. The administrators would usually give you your time at the turnaround so you could step it out if needed. We came due while afloat once and ran it in port. The S-3 measured the course wrong and there were some unhappy campers. Seems the course was a tad long but that was 25 years ago, so since nobody failed they just adjusted the scores. The Navy taped bars off aboard ship for pull-ups. We used our foam rubber sleeping mat for the sit-ups. That non-skid is hard on flesh otherwise. Sailors know what I mean. A wood rasp would do about the same amount of damage.

Sergeant Franke, now that you're retired, do you really remember or stress about that anymore? Like me, you have other things going on. Just a comment.

I think that the 1SG would understand. LOL

I think so. Now, how can you possibly go wrong if two warrant officers agree on a plan of action?

Humorous, but not helpful to the junior Soldier. Keep in mind how many Soldiers are losing promotion points because they all have to run more than two football fields extra (229 yards) for their test.

So the 20 y/o male Soldier who always max's out his run (100) will need to run over 51 seconds faster to max out the extended course. (To achieve 13:00min on a 2.13 miles course that means they need to be done with 2 miles in less than 12:09min) Slower runners have to make up even more time. A 20 y/o male Soldier who always passes with a 60 (15:54) will need to shave over a minute off their time. (To achieve 15:54min on a 2.13 miles course that means they need to be done with 2 miles in less than 14:52min) So instead of requiring 60 as the minimum passing score, the extended course makes 74 the new minimum and all Soldiers scoring below 74 will be improperly flagged as APFT failures, denied promotion, denied awards, marked down on OER/NCOER, and discharged on second <74 failure, etc.

That drops the PT studs' 300 APFT score (180 promo points) down to a max of 288 (168 promo points). The extended course screws your PT stud Soldiers out of 12 promo points. Meanwhile a slower runner's 274 APFT score (154 promo points) drops to 260 (130 promo points), losing 24 promo points in the process. The impact on promotion is like handing a Meritorious Service Medal (25 promo points) to each of their competitors from units that didn't screw over their with a 2.13 mile APFT course. If they get selected they are 24 points lower on the list. Not to mention all the Soldiers improperly flagged and made ineligible for promotion.

The command's failures need to be addressed so they stop screwing all of their Soldiers. Leadership's failure is costing Soldiers promotions, costing Soldiers money, and ruining Soldiers' careers. But I suppose a humorous joke is the appropriate response to the problem.

Relax Chief. Bottom line up front, if this Soldier fails a PT test because of .13 miles, he has bigger problems. Blaming the command for his lack of physical fitness does not solve the problem. Who gets the blame when the course is fixed and he fails?

SSG Marc W. - Exactly, the FM states the distance as 2 miles-no variance listed, just that good judgment should be used. Some people may scoff at the extra distance, but we are talking about something that could potentially turn a pass into a fail-which can impact a career. If the entire tested population gained over a minute on the run as PFC Herrera stated, I would be a little suspicious of the veracity of the test if I were in that unit.

Was that the best course available? I was 1 of the guys that just tried to pass when I was a cub. After I decided that was my career path, I changed my target goal from "just passed" to "set the standard". If you're trying to just coast through then you're not who I want defending my country while I sleep. SET THE STANDARDS, don't just meet the old ones!

PFC (Join to see) - The 3% Grade is for the elevation.

PFC (Join to see) - "grade " in this case , is short for "gradient" , which is a measure of if the course is "sloped" (has uphill or downhill) , not any % accuracy of the test scorss.

PFC Cedric Powell - If the APFT course is incorrect the test is invalid and no Soldiers can be disciplined for it. This isn't about the speed one Soldier runs, this is about the command administering an invalid AFPT.

If doesn't matter if this single Soldier ran faster or not, the course is still invalid and should not have been used for that test. And should not be used for future tests. The course needs to be changed and that won't happen when you simple tell Soldiers to suck it up and run faster.

Even if you pass, if you have to run an extra 0.13 miles then your promotion score will be lower. How would you, personally, like to lose out on your promotion because you missed the cut off score because of the APFT promotion points you lost running on a course that was too long. Every Soldier that runs that course gets screwed; not just the one Soldier that runs slower than he should.

1SG (Join to see) - SFC, I am disappointed. Here you say that a "standard is a standard" but fail to acknowledge that leadership failed to meet established standards but running a bad course, thus administering an invalid test. The course does not meet standards and a standard is a standard. End of debate.

If the APFT course is incorrect the test is invalid and no Soldiers can be disciplined for it. This isn't about the speed one Soldier runs, this is about the command administering an invalid AFPT. Since this is the command's normal course, the how many hundreds of Soldiers have been running an invalid course for how many years? Address the real problem and fix the real problem and stop trying to cast blame on junior Soldiers for the failures of leadership. The APFT OIC/NCOIC failed to meet standards. The commander failed to meet standards by not ensuring "that testing is consistent with regard to events, scoring, clothing, equipment, and facilities" (FM 7-22, para A-8).

The Soldier's running speed is tertiary at best.

That’s not what I said so read the words. No proof showed the course was too long. I don’t baby Soldiers. Just stop!!!

. General Lewis B. “Chesty” Puller.

“Our Country won’t go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won’t be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!”

1SG (Join to see) - CPO DC is picking and choosing words out of the comments, did the same to me without taking EVERYTHING into context.