Should a supervisor get negatively counseled if their Soldier does not make progress from an ABCP or APFT failure?

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:24:28 -0400

To add onto my original question. Would the circumstances change if the Soldier was an NCO, possibly a mid-career NCO who knows by now their individual responsibilities and the Army standards. Should that NCO's supervisor get negatively counseled? How far up the ranks would it end? Would a Master Sergeant (E8) get a negative counseling for their subordinate? Would an Officer?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 3:42 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:42:35 -0400

This is my opinion, but I would give a qualified yes.
My reasoning: The NCO is responsible for the training and welfare of his/her subordinates. While the Soldier is responsible for how they choose to eat and what they do for PT, the NCO is responsible for developing a remedial plan and enforcing how it is carried out. If I have reason to believe that the NCO is not fulfilling those responsibilities, I will hold him/her accountable for their failure to follow up and enforce the sub-standard Soldier's PT plan.

If however the NCO does the right thing and the Soldier just up and quits, then the counseling afterwards will not be negative, but rather focus on where the NCO can improve in approach and methods in order to achieve better results next time.
You can't win them all, but you do have to try.

Response by 1stSgt Eugene Harless made Apr 20 at 2016 3:43 AM

1stSgt Eugene Harless — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:43:37 -0400

It depends on how the leader is running the training that was failed or if he had properly trained the soldier for the task.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 3:47 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 03:47:53 -0400

Could go either way. All situational based. Need more info. The leader could be counseled for not doing their part. For example: Supervisor fails to counsel; failed to enforce mandatory requirements with enrollment; failed to provide positive mentorship and guidance and support the process; failed to be the leader that helps the situation. As you can see there are several areas that could warrant a professional development counseling for the supervisor. We are the accountable and responsible! This means we can be held accountable for the actions and/or failures of our Soldiers. And this is my opinion as a leader. I hold myself to that standard.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 5:29 AM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:29:25 -0400

The Three Meter zone gives great clarity for focus on why most soldiers fail the apft in the first place and is worth a read.
Personally, I agree with all of the above, the soldier will go where the NCO leads them, but if the leader isn't doing it right, then you're (the blanket you) just as responsible for leading the soldier down the path of failure.

I hope you get them back on track.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 20 at 2016 5:46 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:46:54 -0400

If this supervisor has covered all the bases with the Soldier, counseling, personally working with the Soldier during personal time, providing dietary support etc. then NO! There is a certain amount of personal drive and motivation required and if the Soldier is proven to not be motivated then it falls on the troop.

Response by SPC Kenneth Koerperich made Apr 20 at 2016 5:55 AM

SPC Kenneth Koerperich — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 05:55:35 -0400

NO. If the Superior is there, doing "Remedial" & giving up their personal time to enforce/help the "Soldier" try & progress to correct the deficiency, a resounding no. As I know from first hand, if the soldier, when away from the superior eats like a horse, is lazy, drinks like a fish, & doesn't give a rat's ass, they will FAIL no matter what. There is a mentality, not just the physical, in getting a soldier to pass. If they aren't in it mentally, no matter what is done to help, they are still doomed to fail due to the mindset. The supervisor cannot & should not be required to "BABYSIT" 24/7. They need to sleep/eat & have some time for other duties/R&R also. Some soldiers are just a "LOST CAUSE". No matter what you do, your SOL!

Response by SFC Randy Purham made Apr 20 at 2016 6:03 AM

SFC Randy Purham — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:03:13 -0400

I would say no. We are in the military, not a baby sitting service. The soldier knows the standards and it's their personal responsibility to adhere to it. Just like on APFT and Weapons. If the Soldier needs help or motivation - and the leader didn't provide that, then that's different. But, at the end of the day the soldier has to want better and do better for themselves.

Response by SCPO Jason McLaughlin made Apr 20 at 2016 6:03 AM

SCPO Jason McLaughlin — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:03:48 -0400

Yes!
And the Supervisor should be counseled if the Soldier's uniform is dirty!
And he/she should be counseled if the Soldier doesn't get enough sleep!
And he/she should be counseled if the Soldier isn't doing well academically!
And he/she should be counseled if the Soldier is drinking too much!
And he/she should be counseled if the Soldier's marriage is on the rocks!
And he/she should be counseled if he/she does not put the proper amount of Desitin on the Soldiers hiney!

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 6:31 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:31:07 -0400

My initial reaction is no.

However, depending on observation of the supervisor's actions between tests, it could be a yes. Is the supervisor actively encouraging the subordinate or just telling them they need to pass? Does the supervisor often go out with the subordinate to all you can eat buffets or bringing in donuts every morning?

Overall the performance is the individual's responsibility. The leadership i what should be addressed if there are situations akin to what I described above.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 20 at 2016 7:11 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:11:47 -0400

Depends.

Once a Leader is made aware of an issue, they are responsible for "doing everything within their power" to correct said situation. However, ABCP & APFT failures have very specific "programs" for correction that must be adhered to. The Leader must enforce said programs (duty of an NCO), but personal accountability comes into play for "progress."

If the Leader is enforcing the program as written, what is the cause for negative counseling? If he is not, then absolutely.

When we start adding "punishments" for things that are nominally outside the (regulatory) control of the Leader, we run into a Conflict of Interest. Does the Leader adhere to the Regulation, or do they attempt to protect their career and deviate from said Regulation by doing what "they think will work best" (even though the Service has a defined process)?

That does not mean we cannot used "event based counselling" (neutral) as a learning experience, but we must be cautious not to place our people into ethical dilemmas.

Response by SSG Jerry Pannell made Apr 20 at 2016 7:15 AM

SSG Jerry Pannell — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:15:13 -0400

I don't think they should you can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink it same with abcp or the apft

Response by SSG Dale London made Apr 20 at 2016 7:29 AM

SSG Dale London — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:29:24 -0400

This begs the question: was that soldier's failure at least in part due to the NCO's negligence or incompetence? If not, then the soldier should stand or fall on his own account. There are some soldiers who will not respond to even the most expert of leadership. On the other hand, if the answer is yes, then both the soldier and the NCO deserve reprimand.

Response by CPT Tom Monahan made Apr 20 at 2016 7:36 AM

CPT Tom Monahan — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:36:02 -0400

Only if the leader can not demonstrate that he/she did nothing to help the soldier improve.

Response by LTC Maureen Barthen made Apr 20 at 2016 7:52 AM

LTC Maureen Barthen — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:52:17 -0400

Counseled- yes, negatively counseled- it depends. The supervisor should be formally counseled regularly, and as a supervisor, part of that performance regards their leadership/ mentoring abilities. Counseling should also include suggestions on supporting the subordinates.
Any negative counselling, regarding non-improvement, should be when little or no real effort is made by said supervisor to help, guide, or aid subordinates.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 8:54 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 08:54:59 -0400

Depends on what the supervisors plan of action was and if it was followed, if there was a solid POA and it was followed then the answer is NO.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 10:32 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:32:48 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member No; if the NCO is following the guidelines set by the Army for the rehabilitation of soldiers who fail these test, then no.

Just my opinion here: I also believe that it is a waste of an NCOs time to train up soldiers who do not respect being in this volunteer Army; if they want to be 180 and below, fine; help us keep the good ones, you do great things elsewhere.

R/ Steve

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 20 at 2016 10:32 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:32:55 -0400

The greatest leader in the world can't do a thing for someone who just doesn't want to be led, or just doesn't care...

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 10:38 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:38:25 -0400

It depends. did the first line leader develop a PT improvement plan and then actively supervise and counsel the Soldier on their progress, or lack of progress? If so, then I say that the leader did what they were supposed to do and the Soldier failed on their own.
If this was a Soldier who was left out in the wind to figure out how to improve on their own the leader is at faulty and should be held accountable.

Response by SSG Rafael Rodriguez made Apr 20 at 2016 12:39 PM

SSG Rafael Rodriguez — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:39:04 -0400

Not if you documented all that you did to improve that Soldier, there's no need to hold hands here, if that Soldier does not improve, make sure you reported that course of action and proceed with more training/corrective type. after all he is your Soldier, do not give up on him.

Response by SSG Nick Evans made Apr 20 at 2016 12:51 PM

SSG Nick Evans — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:51:09 -0400

In a perfect world the answer would be no but in the real world that we live in the answer is yes. The primary reason progress wouldn't be made after full knowing a soldier has struggled on an APFT or ABCP is because he/she was neither properly counseled or remediated. Now if this has been completed we go back to the perfect world scenario. We don't live in one and from day one as an NCO you have agreed to take responsibility for said soldier. The fact that the soldier was going to do poorly on the testing should have been able to be seen and noted prior.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 3:53 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:53:06 -0400

what's the whole story here?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2016 4:04 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:04:43 -0400

No, nutrition is a big part when dealing with weight loss and you really can not monitor what a Soldier puts in their mouth. You can work out with the Soldier and go with them to the sauna but if the Soldier goes and eats a 3000 calorie meal when your not around. Soldiers need to learn accountability and be able to police it up themselves and if they can not or not willing to than they should be put out.

Response by SGT David T. made Apr 20 at 2016 5:57 PM

SGT David T. — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:57:29 -0400

It depends. If the senior leader does nothing to address the performance issues then they are not doing their job and should be counseled. However if the senior leader is doing what they need to do and the individual doesn't perform then no they should not be counseled. At the end of the day the NCO is responsible for everything that happens or fails to happen within their area of responsibility.

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Apr 20 at 2016 6:25 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:25:07 -0400

There are a couple of things you have look at. First is the rank and experience of the person who failed. If it is a mid-career NCO, I would tend to put the onus on that Soldier for the failure. If it was a junior enlisted, I would look at the leadership. When there is a problem, I try to see what leadership failures happened and correct those if I find them before I do anything else, especially when I look at the subordinate's experience and knowledge level.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 20 at 2016 7:53 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 19:53:48 -0400

I wouldn't counsel for one Soldier/NCO not maintaining standards, but if the Soldier was not counseled/recommend for a bar to reenlistment, OR this became an issue through the squad/section without intervening, the leader must be held accountable.

Response by Capt Daniel Goodman made Apr 20 at 2016 9:47 PM

Capt Daniel Goodman — Wed, 20 Apr 2016 21:47:12 -0400

I've mentioned this elsewhere on the site however for any svc mbrs having trouble losing weight look at http://www.portioncontroller.com a nonsurgical double belt external lap band that's Medicare approved. I honestly don't know if it's been evald by the svcs however it got me down from 342 lbs to about 255 lbs or so in about 6 mos to a yr, though it needs to be evald and fitted only by trained clinicians not the wearer under any circumstances whatsoever hope the info is of use, be grateful for any thoughts or feedback, it's not a panacea of course, though knowing about it my wife and I thought might just help that's all honest.

Portion Controller - Lose Weight Without Diets And Diet Food

Join the weight loss revolution that is sweeping America with Portion Controller. Portion Controller is scientifically proven to control hunger.

Response by SSG Dennis Grossmann made Apr 21 at 2016 1:45 AM

SSG Dennis Grossmann — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 01:45:34 -0400

It could go either way, If you have a team leader not counseling his troop or developing a plan, checking on the plan, insuring progress, then his whole chain can be counseled. Squad leader for not checking team leaders, PSG for not checking SL's... etc. Personal Responsibility. If the soldier fails to make ht/wt or fails pt tests. Reduction in rank, followed by processing to be released. An initial counseling should cover all expectations.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 6:07 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:07:13 -0400

From what I've learned in my year hell to the yes. But, that is why I provide a plan and the soldier provides a plan because at the end of the day in his or her free time I can not make the Soldier do PT on their own. So when they fail I simply show the plan I provided and the plan they provide slap a counseling for failure to commit or go back to the counseling I gave them initially and state he/she failed to comply with Thier plan. The ball is in their court now they fail themselves rather I fail them.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 6:27 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 06:27:07 -0400

Yes if there is not evidence of mentoring or counseling of the solider.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 4:15 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:15:57 -0400

Why should he? PT is said to be an individual responsibility. If your soldier got a dui should you get punished as long as you have counseling's on him and show where to go for a nutrition class then you have did your part but you should not be counseled.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2016 5:24 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 17:24:19 -0400

You can only motivate a soldier to a certain point but if they don't want to do it for themselves then they aren't going to no matter how much work and time you put in as an NCO. So i dont think counseling the leadership is necessary

Response by SPC Brian Mason made Apr 21 at 2016 9:58 PM

SPC Brian Mason — Thu, 21 Apr 2016 21:58:46 -0400

No. There's a point where the soldier just won't put forth the effort. You can 'order' a soldier to do better on their PT test, but some people don't have it at some point. Is the military going to separate or send someone to military prison for not passing the PT test? Punishing a superior officer/enlisted makes no sense. This isn't WW2 Germany.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 22 at 2016 6:47 AM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 06:47:24 -0400

For me it remains the same. While you are correct regarding the difference of professionalism and understanding of more senior grades it is still the responsibility of the supervisor of the NCO, Officer at any grade to properly counsel and coach. If the leadership is doing so and there is record of this then it falls squarely on the individual.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2016 3:46 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 15:46:26 -0400

people in rp responding, read the thread, how far up should the counselling go

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2016 5:24 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 22 Apr 2016 17:24:26 -0400

again responders look at the original question you as senior leaders, should you be counselled negativelty

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2016 11:49 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:49:42 -0400

Building on MSG Rader's comment. I can see both arguments. If I have a Soldier that has failedin his duties to maintain what I call fighting weight/status (which is a personal responsibility), then it does fall on us to lay out a plan that he signs and agrees to in his counseling. This being said, there is not much difference between that and morning PT which is NOT designed to make us PT studs, only to maintain. Anything above maintain is TOTALLY on us. Height and Weight is TOTALLY on US. going on to your follow on, if they are an NCO, they know this even more. I am personally of the mindset that get a shorter period of time to get into standard or they lose that position of responsibility because they are not fit to lead by example.
ON the the question of the day though. If we have done all of what is expected of us by setting the paperwork in motion, then there is no progress I do not feel that it is on the leadership. The reason is this, we can show the way, we cannot hold the hand. As long as there is a clear and defined path, and there is a follow up on it, then we have done what we can and the Soldier and shown where they are on the situation.
Just my take on the matter,

Response by 1SG Bill Farmerie made Apr 24 at 2016 12:45 PM

1SG Bill Farmerie — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 12:45:26 -0400

Should only get negatively counseled if they didn't do everything in their power to assist the soldier or NCO to pass.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2016 8:03 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:03:05 -0400

It depends on what you, the leader, do for the Soldier, if do nothing and you two or more APFT failure then, YES. You should get a counseling. If they were PT Studs you'd want the to reflect on your NCOER, right?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2016 8:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 02 May 2016 20:49:48 -0400

Supervisor should not get counseled as long that supervisor reacted accordingly to try to fix the problem.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 12 at 2016 1:27 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 12 May 2016 01:27:16 -0400

Hell naaw. That's on the NCO...the subordinate NCO, that is. He/she knows the standard, and should be striving to meet it. The senior NCO is just the facilitator. If you're a career NCO and can't motivate yourself to pass APFT, major injury aside, you've got issues.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2016 7:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 01 Jun 2016 19:43:45 -0400

No the supervisor should not get counseled. When the smoke clear at the end of the day, it's up to the individual regardless of rank to pass APFT. The army standard is 180. I remember in my infantry days back in 98 when I was with 1-68AR BN 3rd BCT 4th ID in Carson, my PSG set a standard where every individual in the platoon had to get a 270 or above on every APFT. I scored a 250 thinking he was joking, but 24 to 48 hours later, I had to retake another APFT to meet the 270 requirement.

Response by SPC John Lebiecki made Jun 24 at 2016 6:42 PM

SPC John Lebiecki — Fri, 24 Jun 2016 18:42:41 -0400

There are only a handful of individual tasks required for soldiers.
- Height/Weight/Bodyfat
- APFT
- Weapons Qual

Yes, that leader is responsible for TRAINING their soldiers to meet/exceed the standard. However once they have been trained, they cannot control what that soldier eats/drinks/whatever.

The answer is no.

Response by CH (CPT)(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2017 12:36 PM

CH (CPT)(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 02 Apr 2017 12:36:43 -0400

Only if it's systemic. If a team leader has 4 guys pass and 1 doesn't, who's fault? But if none in the tear pass, maybe it's a leadership problem. And that can go right up the line. It's one thing to have individual soldiers fail because an APFT still is an individual requirement. But if there is a high percentage of failures, you have to look at leaders and the training being conducted.

Response by SFC Donald Souza made Mar 19 at 2018 7:48 PM

SFC Donald Souza — Mon, 19 Mar 2018 19:48:05 -0400

Yes