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

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,

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

what's the whole story here?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.