Permanent Profiles?

I am curious as to why you think a leader is better depending on their PULHES. I've met many people who thought they were leaders because they got a 300 apft, but in fact couldn't lead themselves out of a wet paper bag, while a Soldier may not be able to run, but at the same time appears more like a Soldier than one who does cardio all the time. What is your opinion and correlation between the quality of a leader and their ability to do pt?

<p>Because an individual has a permanent profile does not make them less of a leader, any more than it makes&nbsp;an individual that can score 300+ a better leader. Do not lump an individual with a permanent profile into that category because you may have experienced an individual like that in your personal dealings. I had a permanent profile on my knees for the final 6 years of my career, the only thing I could not do any more was run great distances, this did not mean that I did not perform the other tasks associated with the jobs that I held. That is an individual thing that one does or does not chose to do, I have seen plenty of individuals that did not have permanent profiles do the very things you chose to associate with profile holders, simply put a bag of shit is a bag of shit whether they are on profile or not. I and many like me still had experience and skills that the Army valued in wanting to keep us around. I would worry more about the individuals that do not have the discipline to live the Army Values and continue to disgrace the uniform that they wear than those that honorably serve but may not be able to run anymore or do a pushup or a sit-up because of an injury or illness that they suffered while serving.</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; "TREAT 'EM ROUGH!!!"</p>

<p>SGT Swanson,</p><p>&nbsp;&nbsp; Apparently you have a real misconception in regards to the Permanent profiles.&nbsp;I for one have been on a permanent profile since 2005. As you can see from my picture, I have been serving proudly and have had no issues that have stopped me from&nbsp;performing my job and deploying. I have had cancer, 3 major hip surgeries as well as a couple of minor surgeries. I'm still capable of running with my soldiers, motivating them everyday and leading from the front. The&nbsp;fact that I have a P2 profile is basis enough for you to think I should be removed from the military. Not a single one of my Doctors think I should be removed from the Military and they surpass you in rank and experience for the Army.</p><p>There are numerous other Soldiers that should be removed from Military service, prior to those on permanent profiles. If the profile renders you incapable of doing your job in the Military, that is one thing. But if an individual is still capable of performing their job while on profile, there is no reason to push them out. Lets push the Soldiers that are the trouble makers out. The soldiers that don't want to be in the military and those that are just a drain on the unit, push them out of the Military.</p>

If you're going to judge a leader's worth by his ability to run, than you might as well judge him by his ability to finger paint or roller skate because all three have equal bearing in terms of leadership ability... None whatsoever.

<p>SGT Swanson,</p><p>I think this would need to be a case by case basis. Over the past few decades I have seen many great leaders who have permanent profiles. 90% of these were senior NCOs who can still do their jobs but have broken their bodies during their years of service. I would gladly keep these great men and everyone one of them deployed. Now if you are talking about non-deployables, who were not injured during the war, then yes I think it would be a good place to look reducing our numbers. </p>

If you get to your first duty station with a permanent profile, something must have happened during Basic/AIT that resulted in this. The military has already spent money to train you thus far, and if you meet retention standards you should be fully capable of performing your duties. Sure it may look bad, but I imagine the Army wants to keep semi-broken 18-25 year olds then semi-broken 50-60 year olds (leadership needs aside). Someone with the same permanent profile who is younger can typically withstand more rigors of war then someone older. If they retain you the Army gets their money's worth, if they don't you get disability for essentially doing nothing.

<p>How new Soldiers get permanent profiles prior to reporting to their first duty station is a mystery to me.&nbsp; </p><p><br></p><p>MEPS has the duty to examine potential recruits to see if they have any conditions that may be detrimental to Military service, or conditions that may develop with the rigors of Military training.</p><p><br></p><p>Basic Combat Training is also another method of catching undisclosed conditions and ailments.&nbsp; When I went through BCT, if you were not present (quarters, sick call, etc.) for or missed a certain amount of training, you were recycled.&nbsp; Recycle too many times and you were booted.</p><p><br></p><p>AIT, in general is not as physically rigorous as BCT.&nbsp; If Soldiers are legitimately injured to the point of requiring a permanent profile, and can still perform their MOS, then fine.&nbsp; However, those who ride multiple successive profiles in order to "sham" should be separated.&nbsp; </p><p><br></p><p>Regulations do provide for those who fail to take two record APFTs within a year-- separation.&nbsp; </p><p><br></p><p>If a Soldier arrives at his/her first duty station with a duty-limiting permanent profile, that Soldier should be chaptered.&nbsp; We no longer have the luxury of holding onto broken Soldiers so that we have a designated floor mopper or paper shredder.&nbsp; As unit MTOEs shrink with our budget, every slot is valuable and should be filled with a Soldier who can perform the duty s/he is occupying the slot for.</p>

had a permanent profile for hearing since 2007 conducted a MMRB back in 2008 and received my results in 2009. was able to keep my MOS and deploy and perform my duties with the soldiers that I trained. It depends on the type of profile they have, yes there are people out there on permanent profile not able to do a thing waiting on the MEB process. Have you seen the average wait time to put a soldier out on a MEB. Then you also have soldier who go and get temporary profiles every time a pt test comes around.

Being in a TRADOC environment, I see exactly where you are coming from. I, too wonder why a Soldier that has not completed IET should have a permanent profile. Isn't this part of the weeding out process? Once the INITIAL ENTRY period is over, I get it. The other thing that irks me is when these Soldiers are MEB'd, especially when they are medically retired at 70%+, yet don't even have a MOS. I've seen so many Soldiers that have served their country honorably for years, that are kicked out with 20% and severance, that have done their jobs well, deployed and had to endure actual hardships.

It had always been my understanding that a full APFT (no alternate events) was required to be able to leave AIT. I can see if they had an injury and had a temporary profile after their AIT. However, I remember Soldiers not being able to graduate because they couldn't take an APFT. They either got better or were separated.

To answer your question, my PERSONAL opinion is NO. If something requires a permanent profile before exiting AIT, they should be separated. Military service is not promised to anyone, and they must meet certain standards. Otherwise, why else would MEPS even bother with the physicals?

My opinion it should be completely MOS dependent. If you are on permanent profile, you dont need to be combat arms. Go elsewhere)