Posted on Mar 22, 2016
27
27
0
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.
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.
Posted in these groups: 
APFT
Weapons
Standards
LeadershipNon-Commissioned Officer Professional Enhancement (NCOPE)
APFT Weapons Standards LeadershipNon-Commissioned Officer Professional Enhancement (NCOPE)
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 58
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
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
(40)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
that's a good point- with plenty of "re-training" etc most soldiers will qualify with their assigned weapon BUT.. kneeling, prone etc at 25 meters doesn't mean that much except familiar with weapon. it's not preparing anyone for combat
(0)
(0)
LTC Terrence Farrier, PhD
I agree. I have never failed at teaching a soldier to qualify with a weapon. Have seen a few that tested MY and my NCOs ability to train them to qualify with a weapon, but once the soldier got it...they usually were better than others...this is true. When I was in basic training...along with Joshua...I failed map reading. I just couldn't seem to get it. I was close to a straight "A" student in high school and I couldn't get it. I was nearly emotionally distraught. So, I took all the books, and all of the notes from the instructors, and got busy teaching myself a new way to explain grids, contour lines, azimuths, etc. In two weeks I was teaching my counterparts a better way to explain the map reading TM...this is a true story. What that can teach ALL of us is this. As leaders, we should only give up when there is nothing left to do...and that doesn't mean when it has reached our individual frustration level. If that happens, turn it over to another leader who has another idea. There are many leaders who developed beyond their peers due to challenges they incurred early in their careers. Who knows, you might have one...right now! My suggestion, look at the problem yourself..differently. Then use all your tools and others to help the military member overcome that shortfall. If that doesn't work...after ALL your attempts...find another field the military member might fit in. Example...if they are not psychologically or mentally challenged...(again, after all your pre-dispositions of them have been removed) find them a job they CAN qualify for...in your example..maybe as a medical corpsman or chaplain assistant. Do NOT let an individual failure prove to be YOUR individual failure even though it is sometimes a trial. You are better...and so might they be.
(0)
(0)
PFC (Join to see)
hey what AR is it under for not being able to qual with your weapon. please email me @ [login to see] thank you!
(0)
(0)
20
20
0
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.
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.
(20)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Active side, they spend enough. Reserves and NG, hell no. The only Reservists I've ever seen be able to put steel on target and qualify are those that own and practice with their own personal firearms. Similar response to PT.
(1)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Roger, I should've clarified that in my post. The Active component may spend enough time on it... but I know for a fact that the NG / Reserves do not spend an appropriate amount of time training on BRM.
(0)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
1LT (Join to see) 1LT (Join to see)
Gentlemen. I'm going to have to disagree with you in saying NG/USAR don't get enough time, and here's my reasoning.
Each year the training calendar is published for the entire year so you know when IWQ is going to happen. At unit level it should be incorporated into the unit training schedule ie: PMI etc. Everyone knows at least 6 months out when IWQ is.
Now with that being said you can not tell me that 2-3 hrs per drill period can not be dedicated to PMI in preparation. I know with all the mandatory briefings, death by PP etc does eat up a lot of time there still isn't a reason why PMI cant be plugged in.
What do you consider a "appropriate" amount of time for BRM? Enough for everyone to qualify? Enough for everyone to qualify 1st time? What is the goal/end state?
Gentlemen. I'm going to have to disagree with you in saying NG/USAR don't get enough time, and here's my reasoning.
Each year the training calendar is published for the entire year so you know when IWQ is going to happen. At unit level it should be incorporated into the unit training schedule ie: PMI etc. Everyone knows at least 6 months out when IWQ is.
Now with that being said you can not tell me that 2-3 hrs per drill period can not be dedicated to PMI in preparation. I know with all the mandatory briefings, death by PP etc does eat up a lot of time there still isn't a reason why PMI cant be plugged in.
What do you consider a "appropriate" amount of time for BRM? Enough for everyone to qualify? Enough for everyone to qualify 1st time? What is the goal/end state?
(0)
(0)
1LT (Join to see)
Actually I can tell you that. I'm not in my RP listed unit anymore but I can speak for the fact that ALL time was eaten by mandatory trainings and the unit's mission (If you've never had the pleasure of working with a reserves support maintenance unit in a CSSB, it's a trip) 2-3 hours at a single drill MIGHT be possible if the planets align on a leap year during a blue moon month, but when client units are waiting on deadlined vehicles to be fixed and such a backlog exists because there isn't enough time 1 weekend a month to fix everything despite full-time staff breaking their backs to get things fixed throughout the month... BRM takes a backseat and Soldiers suffer if they don't practice on their own. Just like PT is an individual responsibility in the Reserve components, so to is BRM unfortunately.
As to what I consider to be an "appropriate" amount of time for BRM, our first duty as Soldiers is to find and destroy the enemy. It doesn't matter if you are cook, a mechanic, a quartermaster or SF, your job when the shit hits the fan is to put rounds on target. The only way to do that is constant training which cannot be accomplished in the Reserves components and frankly it's a huge waste of time to have BRM as infrequently as 1 drill a year. Even every other drill isn't enough. It has to be monthly/biweekly which can only be done on your own in many units. Too many Soldiers in the Reserve components treat BRM like PT and hardly do it.
As to what I consider to be an "appropriate" amount of time for BRM, our first duty as Soldiers is to find and destroy the enemy. It doesn't matter if you are cook, a mechanic, a quartermaster or SF, your job when the shit hits the fan is to put rounds on target. The only way to do that is constant training which cannot be accomplished in the Reserves components and frankly it's a huge waste of time to have BRM as infrequently as 1 drill a year. Even every other drill isn't enough. It has to be monthly/biweekly which can only be done on your own in many units. Too many Soldiers in the Reserve components treat BRM like PT and hardly do it.
(0)
(0)
20
20
0
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...
(20)
(0)
SFC Kim Armstrong
Who says running is means to run from the enemy. It is nature of the beast to run from danger than to it. I take it you are the one that runs toward the enemy. You are the exception
(1)
(0)
12
12
0
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?
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?
(12)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
LTC Terrence Farrier, PhD - I agree that a soldier having trouble in one field may have better luck in another field, however, regardless of the field he/she is in, weapons qualification is required for all and no exceptions should be made. Qualify or get out.
(0)
(0)
LTC Terrence Farrier, PhD
I understand both sides of this equation. I guess it just matters how much effort was given to the recruit whether they stay or not.
(1)
(0)
CPT April Wertz
I like your comparison to medical training. Curious, though, who are you going to have perform your appendectomy if you throw your surgeon out for failure to qualify? The Medical and Nurse Corps, when I was in, literally made no time for range training. The only time we were on range, we were expected to qualify. It wasn't surprising to me that many physicians, providers, nurses, and other healthcare professionals struggled. Personally, with all the stress we were under in the hospitals, I would've loved more time on the range training.
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CPT April Wertz - I believe that, for certain specialties, and that certainly includes doctors and nurses, after initial qualification in officer basic or whatever, they should only be required to.”familiarize” (as opposed to “qualify”) annually/semi-annually with their assigned weapons.
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
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.
(11)
(0)
1SG James Wise
SGM Mikel Dawson , Very good point SGM, I have also tripped over a few Soldiers in my career that were actually trying to shoot with their non-dominate eye...left and right handed but opposite eye dominate. I myself have that issue, but have worked on my rifle skills to allow me to qualify with my rifle and the non-dominate eye - but pistol I shoot with my dominate eye and right hand. Further work on my own time/dime has allowed me to become proficient both right and left handed with pistol and rifle...but I had the desire to do so. The point is, there are those out there that are really shooting from the wrong side, and worse I've seen Soldiers try shooting with a right hand/left eye position (and vice versa)...
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
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.
You get what you incentivize. You achieve results where time and resources are allocated.
(9)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
MRT, one of the greatest things the army has implemented IMO. Though i do agree we need to focus more on being soldiers first. We care too much about the publics views and opinions on us.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
6
6
0
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.
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.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
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.
Very interesting.
(5)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
We run 3 times a week. We shoot 1-2 a year. It's a lot easier to get someone back up to snuff on APFT than it is on the range.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Schedule time on simulators, coordinate with other units going to the range and send him out with them. Where there is a will, there is a way.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree. A standard is a standard. If exceptions are made for one standard then they should be made for all.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
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.
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.
(4)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google