Should a Soldier be chaptered for failure to qualify with their weapon?

SFC Ken Heise — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:35:44 -0400

Tell my why we should keep Soldiers in who take FOREVER with multiple attempts to qualify with their assigned weapon but chapter Soldiers out who fail TWO record APFTs in a row.

I say if you can't hit the broad side of a barn with one hand touching the barn you need to look at other avenues of employment.

Response by SGM Erik Marquez made Mar 22 at 2016 9:41 AM

SGM Erik Marquez — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:41:57 -0400

Need more info to make a qualified response.
BUT seeing as in 28 years not a single Soldier, officer, NCO, lower enlisted was ever presented to me or my NCOS that could not be taught techniques that worked for them to qualify. Id say if you have a SM that can not qualify, its either a mental/physical limitation that can not be overcome, or a leadership issue...and I lean to the leadership side

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 9:51 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 09:51:50 -0400

What was their qual score in Basic? How long have they been in and how many times have they failed to qual since Basic? Is PMI being conducted prior to range?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Mar 22 at 2016 10:03 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:03:24 -0400

It's always bit a point of contention for me that the Army seems far more interested in our ability to run from the enemy than our ability to destroy him...

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 10:05 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:05:09 -0400

In the defense of those soldiers who can't qualify, I don't feel that the Army spends enough time training on BRM to use their inability to qualify as a reason to be chaptered out. Can you honestly say that the Army spends enough funding and training on beating home BRM? In the NG I'm lucky if I'm even able to get to the range to qualify once a year....in my opinion spending once a year, at most 3 days during AT to qualify is not sufficient enough for the average soldier to maintain proficiency with their weapon.

In fact the TRADOC has acknowledged that there is a serious problem with BRM training all across the Army:
http://www.armytimes.com/story/military/careers/army/2016/03/15/army-tackles-marksmanship-shortfalls-new-training-course/81545606/

The soldiers clearly qualified at one point or another...its a requirement to graduate Basic Training. Therefore its a failure on us as leaders and the Army that they can't qualify in my opinion.

Army tackles marksmanship shortfalls with new training course

The Army is launching a new training course to fix a deficit in one of the most basic, fundamental skills of soldiering: shooting straight.

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 22 at 2016 10:10 AM

1LT A. Uribe — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:10:39 -0400

If you can't shoot, what good are you. In law enforcement if you fail to qualify your weapon is pulled and aren't allowed to perform your job. Eventually this can lead to your dismissal.

Response by SGT Dave Tracy made Mar 22 at 2016 10:19 AM

SGT Dave Tracy — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:19:26 -0400

This soldier's team leader or squad leader needs to take this person off the range and--I hate to say it--restart with the fundamentals; break it down Barney style if need be.

At Benning we had a guy in our OSUT platoon who took all damn day long to qualify. He had struggled from the beginning of basic rifle marksmanship, and qualification day was no different. While everyone else qualled and got off the range, this guy worked the problem over and over until he finally qualified. He overcame his shooting issues, graduated, deployed, became some kind of Army Combatives champ, progressed to team leader then squad leader, promoted to Staff Sergeant in under 5 years and became the kind of soldier the Army wanted him to be. All kinds of Super-Hooah he is.

Just because he struggled in one area--and it was just the one area--didn't mean he should have been kicked out. Had the Army given up on him, the Army would have lost one hell of a soldier.

Response by SFC Ken Heise made Mar 22 at 2016 10:32 AM

SFC Ken Heise — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:32:43 -0400

So it looks like I am seeing a double standard here when it comes to weapons qualification versus the APFT. We are willing to keep and retrain Soldiers who can't shoot and the safest place on the range is in front of them but we are quick to chapter those same Soldiers who can't pass the APFT.

Very interesting.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Mar 22 at 2016 10:39 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:39:39 -0400

Can you graduate from basic training if you don't qualify with your weapon?

Response by SFC Craig Dalen made Mar 22 at 2016 10:47 AM

SFC Craig Dalen — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:47:21 -0400

Yes they should. Being a Soldier comes first regardless of MOS. Every Soldier has qualified at least once in their career to graduate basic training. That means they were trained and certified to be a Soldier. If for some reason that changes then they should face the same consequences as someone who fails to meet any other standard. The Army has standards for a reason and that is to have an Army full of people that can do what others cannot.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 22 at 2016 10:55 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:55:58 -0400

SFC Ken Heise Any soldier who cannot meet the basic qualifications for his/her MOS should not be retained. That does not mean that the chain of command does not need to do what is necessary to assist them in meeting the standards, but, if that fails, they should be eliminated.

When I was an ROTC instructor, I had the ability to grant a waiver at summer camp for cadets who could not pass weapons quals, map reading, PT, etc. Although some instructors granted waivers to allow graduation from camp, I refused. My rationale was that those skills were basic skills required of everyone and, therefore, were not waiverable. I asked my cadets, would you like to have an appendectomy from a surgeon who got a waiver in medical school on his appendectomy training?

Response by SSG James Elmore made Mar 22 at 2016 11:17 AM

SSG James Elmore — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:17:41 -0400

Yes

Plain and simple. That's basic soldiering, just like taking a PT test!

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 22 at 2016 11:20 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:20:42 -0400

In a purely hypothetical environment, maybe they shouldn't be retained. However, the new Army spends more effort and resources per year on SHARP, EO, Cyber-awareness and...hate to say it because I believe in the program...MRT, than it does on marksmanship.

You get what you incentivize. You achieve results where time and resources are allocated.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 12:10 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:10:29 -0400

Air Force Qualifications are tracked electronically. As a Former NCOIC of a Marksmanship Instructor Section, I had to document failures and how many times each person failed. I think it is still three failures and you are re classed. Some are already at the lower end of the minimum score nec. For them they are dropped from the AF. The failures have to be in a roll. If they meet the minimum standard their clock is reset.

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 22 at 2016 12:19 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:19:43 -0400

I've qualified a few soldiers in my time who at the beginning couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. Just remember, because a person is right handed doesn't mean they shoot with their right eye. With proper training and patience anyone can hit the minimum.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 12:51 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:51:47 -0400

Depends on the soldier and how valuable they are.

Does my Neurologist take a couple extra rounds and paperwork to qual his weapon? We're gonna want to look the other way.
Does that Nuclear engineer some how curve bullets around targets to hit only dirt? Again keep him.

That said any of these regular non fancy people... Especially within the enlisted ranks. They can't hit 23 targets what use are they? Conventional war or not... I've seen enlisted of every type be placed in positions that COULD find them having to shoot on that 2 way firing range.
Qualifications have become a check the block now that the army is cutting back. My current unit doesn't even actually have "ammo" in the budget and if you have a passing weapons card.... you're not going to a range. It's a dam shame and a failure for many young soldiers who will PCS from here having never touched something more modern than a Vietnam aged m16

Personally.... A soldier tells me they're bad at shooting. I take that as a sign that they don't care. I never fired a weapon before military service. I qualified in basic at 24 hits which disgusted me. I haven't shot below a 36 since because I'd badger good shooting soldiers on ranges on how the hell im supposed to shoot.

That said.... The entirety is a bit obsolete. Rifle quals should come with a stress test. I'd rather be able to tell if I can put this soldier under stress and still have him/her preform as needed that someone tell me they shoot a slick 40/40

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 1:04 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:04:48 -0400

It depends. I have helped both junior enlisted and Officers qualify on the M-16/M-4. Many were unable to hit the paper, and I got them to not only qualify, but achieve Sharpshooter or in a couple of cases, Expert.

So it all depends on how much effort leadership has put into training Soldiers. Back in 2006, I think the cost to get a civilian recruit to Basic Training was around $80,000.00. Add in whatever skill training at AIT, transportation to the first duty station, pay and entitlements, and you come up with a huge amount. Do we, as leaders want to WASTE that investment simply because Soldiers may not have had the best or caring leadership when it comes to individual skill training? Now if the Soldier has been trained, coached, and mentored, and is simply "untrainable" (I have seen this before) then yes, chapter out for "Failure to Adapt" or some similar reason.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 1:10 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:10:29 -0400

It depends. How much practice/training has this soldier had with his/her assigned weapon prior to IWQ? National Guard and Reserves only get to touch a weapon once a year, if they are lucky. Unless you are just a natural, it is hard to remain proficient.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Mar 22 at 2016 1:10 PM

CSM Richard StCyr — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:10:38 -0400

I was in since methuselah was a shield bearer and I never encountered a Soldier who couldn't be trained to hit enough targets to qualify. Granted we had to resort to some ancient technologies like dime/ washer drills, target boxes to retrain sight pictures and taping a patch over the troops non sighting eye. Prior to deployment for 05-07 we had a Soldier purposely trying to fail due to the urban legend that if they couldn't qualify they couldn't deploy. Answer... counseling, I pointed out that the BC could waive portions of the checklist and the troop would deploy anyway and we always needed SST escorts on deployment on the FOBs so qualify or ride shotgun on the S**t truck for the next year. Troop qualified, Oh the power of persuasion.

Response by SPC(P) Carlos Santini made Mar 22 at 2016 2:04 PM

SPC(P) Carlos Santini — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:04:13 -0400

I see your point but the only thing I can say is though soldiers need more training on the class room and out in the field to teach them how to correctly use their weapon. It really is not that hard to pass the rifle range. When I was at the range a few years ago after transferring to a new unit I did not get a weapon issued to me so CSM handed me his rifle and told me to go qualify without zeroing in my weapon. I passed with a 28 out of 40 first time go. I also feel that if you are having issues with passing your PT test because you gained allot of weight then maybe you need to think hard about what you put in your mouth along with getting out there and working out more. I do not agree with kicking any soldier out of the military because of these two issues because the military has spent so much money on your training in the first place and some soldiers want to get kicked out so this is what they do. Give them what they do not want keep them around and give them the shitty jobs. GO ARMY.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 22 at 2016 2:05 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 14:05:22 -0400

Curiosity questions (all serious).

How big of an issue is this? As in how many times have you encountered this? When you encountered this, what diagnostic steps did you perform to determine the problem? Had they previously qualified? (what score) What was the condition of their current weapon? Right/Left handed? Right/Left Eye dominant? Additional Range or Coach time?

If we only send a troop to the range once a year and they struggle, we dedicate more time (in theory) just like if someone who struggles on a PFT gets more PT time.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 4:29 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:29:35 -0400

I haven't met a single Soldier yet that I could not train to at least the point of qualification.
Not one. In 23 years of doing this. And I've had a lot of Soldiers.

Based upon the way the question is framed, I'd have to surmise that the NCOs have given up on trying to train the Soldier, and are just fine with having them repeatedly BOLO.
When I was a young troop, this kind of problem was solved by giving them an M-60. If they can't hit a point target, here is an area weapon.

Response by SFC Ken Heise made Mar 22 at 2016 5:41 PM

SFC Ken Heise — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:41:03 -0400

I appreciate the dialogue we have going on here. There is a lot of interesting perspectives on this. Keep it up.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 6:05 PM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:05:24 -0400

Sometimes leadership fails, for some reason, I haven't shot an m4 since I left basic training in 2014, and I'm told the next time I'm firing it's for qualifying.

Response by SSG Doug Cooper made Mar 22 at 2016 6:11 PM

SSG Doug Cooper — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:11:22 -0400

i see a major devide here, the squad leaders and/or team leaders who actually fight next to these guys and who know what they're truly capable of doing say get rid of them and give me someone who's capable, the highrt ranks throw the blame at the SSG's and SGT's...interesting. To the SGM's who say it's our fault, we're not training them etc...have you never had a soldier that just didn't or refused to get it? how much time do we spend on under performers while leaving the committed soldiers largely to their own devices?

Response by SP6 James Rose made Mar 22 at 2016 6:46 PM

SP6 James Rose — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:46:56 -0400

There isn't one. After a nerve injury to my left arm I wasn't able to qualify anymore. Which sucked because I love to shoot. I requested and received a medical chapter on the grounds that I was no longer able to perform the basic task of firing and sustaining that fire as needed. There were about a half a dozen other medical issues that I could have put me out years before I finally quit playing tough guy and ate my pride and stepped away from the pay cage. 13 years 3 months and 3 days.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 7:07 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:07:45 -0400

BLUF. If a Soldier can not or does not qualify IWQ it is a Leadership FAIL.

No. And here's why. ** This is just my humble opinion**
A. Apples and oranges between APFT and IWQ. You can do PT twice a day with APFT failures and even weekends. That won't do a bit of good if said Soldier runs back to their room and hits the snack shack/BK, and a box of twinkles while playing CoD half the night.
B. If PMI is done(key point here), and ALL training resources are utilized i.e.:EST, Beam Hit, and quality NCO mentorship ANYONE can qualify.

Any SRNCO that's been in at least 10+ yrs has run into "that guy" that couldn't hit his a@@ 2 times with 3 hands and 4 attempts. But (again my humble opinion) IWQ is probably one of the simplest tasks to accomplish. Now proficiency and lethality is another conversation. So we'll just stick with the basics.

Response by SFC William Farrell made Mar 22 at 2016 7:20 PM

SFC William Farrell — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:20:18 -0400

Makes sense to me SFC Ken Heise !

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 7:44 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:44:34 -0400

Yes. No differently than APFT, weight, or any other standard. Unfortunately only TWO standards in the Army seem to get the attention when it comes to chaptering. Why? Because they have become easy to process as most chains of commands are well versed in it.

Response by SPC Darren Koele made Mar 22 at 2016 7:52 PM

SPC Darren Koele — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:52:52 -0400

I see lots of posts on this thread comparing it to failing common tasks such as Land Nav, Radio communication, etc. I don't agree with this. Rifle/Pistol qualification is as basic as it gets in the military, particularly Army and Marines. If it has been deemed the soldier received proper instruction and range time. And still can't pass, then YES, get rid of them. Simply put, as simple of task that shooting seems, some people just can't do it, for whatever reason. I went through basic in '86 when the thought of unconventional warfare seemed so extreme, it wasn't even discussed. These days, experience shows us that ANYONE is a viable target, whether a grunt on the street, or a supply clerk in a supposed secure zone. Quite frankly, if you can't shoot, you are a danger to yourself and your fellow soldier.
With all that said, I do believe there is not enough emphasis on weapons training. Most units qualify once a year and that may be the only time hey fire their weapons until next qualification. Due to drawing weapons for alerts and field exercises, I think we spent 20 times more time cleaning our weapons than shooting them. I don't know who ultimately makes that decision, or if it's budgetary reasons (I know each unit has a budget), But one would think that in order for a military unit to be considered "combat ready", they should at least know how to shoot. But nope; in our unit, a combat engineer unit, there was more emphasis placed on drip pans in the motor pool and having your boots spit shined ad uniform starched and creased than there was in marksmanship.

Response by MAJ Brad D'Angelo made Mar 22 at 2016 8:40 PM

MAJ Brad D'Angelo — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:40:46 -0400

Well this is something that will never happen. I've trained some of the biggest Gomer Piles to at least QUALIFY. Might take a few tries, but we're not chaptering someone on not qualifying any time soon.

Response by Sgt Able Snider made Mar 22 at 2016 8:42 PM

Sgt Able Snider — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:42:31 -0400

I just assumed it was a given...

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made Mar 22 at 2016 8:56 PM

SGT Philip Roncari — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:56:19 -0400

I originally qualified in basic training 1965 using the M14 rifle open iron sights from the required positions,prone,kneeling supported,ect before this time I had never fired a weapon .I think this qualification came about because of the firing range instructors and the absolute attention to detail shown by all the cadre on the range this probably does not answer this post but it is just my observation of training methods

Response by SFC Kim Armstrong made Mar 22 at 2016 9:39 PM

SFC Kim Armstrong — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 21:39:42 -0400

Ok let us really look at this question and evaluate the sense behind it.
First of all Physical training is the ability to have endurance and strength for the needed time (such as in time of conflict) Weapons is the ability to fire as needed. Just because a Soldier is unable to put a bullet on a piece of paper or at far away targets that are stil does not mean he or she will not be able to take out the enemy, yet a Soldier that can not pass a PT test is detrimental to the unit by having no strength, endurance and could cause their own. death or capture. When push comes to shove That Soldier Will Hit The Side Of The Barn.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 10:00 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:00:39 -0400

I would agree with you if the Army was consistent in the training and testing of this valuable skill.
I put REAL lead down range once in the the last 6 years. I was my first time in 4 years. I still managed expert because I am comfortable with my technique.

Virtual training and qualification (ETS 2000) has its benefits, especially with leadership training during the scenarios, but we all know that the simulation only come so close to real conditions.

Paper vs Pop-ups. Both have a standard, and there is a reason why one can't use paper for every IWQ. Yet, range availability and other issues often put folks that do have a chance to fire, on paper ranges more often then they should.

Pop up ranges need to be better maintained to allow a fair assessment of a soldier's shooting ability. In the range that I recently qualified at, I put my weapon on burst and lit up my 50 meter target to prove to the safety that it was defective. (Would not drop). He closed that lane and I fired in a different lane with next group.

Not as much of an excuse (or should not be), but many Reserve Soldiers often share weapons with other units.

I understand where you are coming from, but there are already consequences for bad weapon skills. This some in play through loss of promotion points, and in some cases, improvement bullets on NCOERs. I would imagine that those who tend to rely on marksmanship skills, would be justiifed in pushing a repeated failure to another MOS, but that is about as far as it should go.

Response by SFC Don Ward made Mar 22 at 2016 10:02 PM

SFC Don Ward — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:02:15 -0400

Is this really that big of a problem today?? I don't believe I ever served with someone that didn't at least qualify marksman.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 22 at 2016 10:08 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 22 Mar 2016 22:08:14 -0400

On this point I must agree wholeheartedly; there is no excuse whatsoever to keep a Servicemember in the military if they cannot qualify on their assigned weapon.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 7:53 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 07:53:41 -0400

The Soldier could be opposite eye dominate. Meaning, their normal firing eye is not their dominate eye. This makes firing a weapon very hard unless you correct for it. Example, I am a right handed firer however I am left eye dominate. I correct for this by wearing an eye patch over my left eye.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2016 7:40 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:40:24 -0400

Good question, and standards should be upheld and consistent with the policies written.

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 23 at 2016 11:17 PM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:17:19 -0400

Yes!!!! SFC Ken Heise if that is allowed by AR, just like APFT and HT/WT...

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Mar 24 at 2016 10:30 AM

SSG Richard Reilly — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:30:41 -0400

Simple answer Yes. It's failing to be a Soldier. Complicated answer the soldier can be trained but that takes leaders that care. I could get any Soldier wanting to qualify to qualify...may take more bullets but I could.

Response by SPC James Dollins made Mar 24 at 2016 12:03 PM

SPC James Dollins — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:03:31 -0400

Yes, they are not meeting the standard in a VERY important aspect of Army life, & their job.

Response by SSG Shawn Mcfadden made Mar 25 at 2016 12:13 AM

SSG Shawn Mcfadden — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 00:13:38 -0400

When I was in boot camp, I had problems shooting, but the Drill Sergeants recognized the problem, and I was able to qualify. As for the APFT, A soldier has to work that out for themselves.If they are weak in PT, they need to work out on their own to improve.

Response by SSG Wally Lawver made Mar 25 at 2016 11:03 AM

SSG Wally Lawver — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:03:08 -0400

YES

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 12:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:47:47 -0400

I believe if a soldier fails either weapons qualifications or APFT they need to be sent packing. Everyone is trained for both during their basic training; then it is up to that soldier to keep their skills up.

I was RA and then AR so I understand what the AR soldiers are saying about BRM training being lacking in their schedules, but like I said we all were already trained up once during basic. As in all things: we have to make the best with what we have.

In my case I found it easier over time. When I first joined I could only shoot marksman. As the years went by, I would have to purposely try to shoot less than expert. Some tasks get easier with time, marksmanship is one of them. Physical fitness is another, our bodies deteriorate over time; we still need to be able to make the standard.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 25 at 2016 4:04 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 16:04:29 -0400

No, we are not going to get rid of soldiers because they can't qualify with their assigned weapon. Instead, we should look at the "whole or complete soldier concept" and evaluate retain-ability based on ALL soldier and MOS skills & attributes. Not just one thing. I agree with your way only under certain circumstances.. like if they were infantry or in a combat environment. I just don't see the value in retaining expert marksmen or pt studs in a garrison environment. We should look at everything, especially if they are proficient in their MOS. Or.. if they enjoy pulling duty, they are a keeper (joking)

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2016 10:53 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 10:53:30 -0400

I can speak for the US Army, but as a Marine if you cannot shoot, you are separated. This is the one task you must be able to accomplish. Marines are gunfights first and foremost. No task is more important that the ability for you to protect yourself and your fellow Marines. Just my opinion.

Response by SSG Jeremy Kohlwes made Apr 14 at 2016 1:40 PM

SSG Jeremy Kohlwes — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 13:40:47 -0400

In a combat MOS maybe, especially Infantry. However, most support jobs have so little need for that knowledge I wouldn't be suprised if many of them fail multiple times until they just get lucky. You can argue that anyone can end up in combat. However, as an Infantryman myself, when I had a non-combat soldier along, I usually told them to keep their head down and save their ammo for us if we get into trouble.

Response by SFC Pete Kain made Apr 14 at 2016 3:33 PM

SFC Pete Kain — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 15:33:41 -0400

Tell them it's their mouse. Point and Click. Not that damn hard. SMH

Actually the biggest problem in my view is ..... So many young people are afraid of things that go BANG.
We as a Nation need to bring back H.S. shooting clubs.

Response by SPC David Willis made Nov 30 at 2017 5:43 PM

SPC David Willis — Thu, 30 Nov 2017 17:43:19 -0500

In my opinion both rifle training and physical training are pointless as they are set up currently. Im sorry but running two miles in tennis shoes, shorts and a T-shirt is in no way indicative of whether or not I can put a buddy over my shoulders and carry what equates to a 200 lb sack of potatoes half a click to a CCP. Doing 80 pushups doesn't mean I can magically slap 50 pounds on my back and walk 8 miles up a mountain side. Laying down and taking my time to shoot 38 out of 40 in no way makes me an expert with my rifle or even a better infantryman than the guy next to me who can shoot 30 out of 40.

Response by SPC David Willis made Feb 22 at 2018 9:22 AM

SPC David Willis — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:22:08 -0500

We don't train enough and some leaders don't know how to teach.

Response by CW3 Kevin Storm made Feb 22 at 2018 9:54 AM

CW3 Kevin Storm — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:54:50 -0500

Okay what is causing this, have you done the simple dime washer test, Told him to get some civilian practice out at a range. Use the steady hold factors, As a leader we have to eliminate everything else before we decide that he should be chaptered. I am from the school of what other qualities does this person bring tot the table. Are they proficient in their given MOS, are they good to go in PT. has he been sent for a eye exam, is he near sighted/far sighted? Does he need sun glasses when he shoots, can he shoot with one eye open (some people can't) has the unit marksman worked with the individual. There are a lot of variables in this one.

Response by SGM Bill Frazer made Feb 22 at 2018 12:31 PM

SGM Bill Frazer — Thu, 22 Feb 2018 12:31:39 -0500

Technically there is a way to chapter them for failing to be qualified in their MOS- you would have to hunt for it.

Response by SFC Donald Souza made Mar 19 at 2018 7:47 PM

SFC Donald Souza — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:47:16 -0400

Yes

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2018 8:10 PM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 20:10:31 -0400

Well what’s the MOS? Why are they not qualifing? MOS, are they ever going to fire that weapon? Is it for self defense or assaulting an objective. Not qualified on weapon, how much time have you spent training this Soldier? What have you tried?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2018 9:21 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 21:21:32 -0400

The student isn't the reason, it's the teacher who failed.

Response by SFC Harry H. made Sep 24 at 2018 1:55 PM

SFC Harry H. — Mon, 24 Sep 2018 13:55:59 -0400

Soldiers can still do amazing things without ever hitting the broad side of a barn and some without firing a weapon at all. Muhammad Ali was a conscientious objectors and we all know how great he was. Desmond Doss, Hacksaw Ridge is one that comes to mind. I feel that shooting and PT are slightly different. If I am to slow or weak to arrive at the cutting edge of battle then I am 100% no good to anyone. Shooting targets at 500M - 300M is a tough task. Give that physically fit Soldier a Saw or 240, problem solved.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 26 at 2018 12:19 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 00:19:50 -0400

Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance Chapter 13, AR 635-200

Response by MSgt Michael Smith made Sep 26 at 2018 8:08 AM

MSgt Michael Smith — Wed, 26 Sep 2018 08:08:49 -0400

Is it really in the public's interest to throw out a soldier (with an Honorable Discharge mind you) because you don't want to take the time to conduct training? Do you have any idea how much it costs taxpayers to fully train/clothe/pay/take care of soldiers? I'll tell you...for a brand new, untrained recruit it's about $15,000 straight out of the box. Then once they are fully trained, equipped, and deployed, it is about a half million per year per soldier. Still want to throw all that money away when a couple of intensive training sessions will fix the problem?

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 13 at 2019 9:51 AM

PVT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 13 Apr 2019 09:51:58 -0400

One of the greatest soldiers in history refused to even carry a weapon(Desmond Doss). There’s more to the army than just killing and destroying the enemy. A soldier can be an asset for their skills in mechanics/maintenance, medical, logistics, transportation, etc. There’s plenty of people that want to break things but not enough people that want to fix or repair. That’s why we have to rely too much on civilian contractors.