Should an NCO's APFT score be annotated on the NCOER?

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:04:40 -0500

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 8:08 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:08:37 -0500

Yes I feel it should be on there

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 14 at 2014 8:15 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 14 Jan 2014 20:15:05 -0500

Yes, especially IAW the FY 13 SFC DA Board AAR comments.  Only the "270 with 90 in each event" comment is required for excellence and the "needs improvement" requires a numerical score for APFT failure IAW AR 623-3. However, the board pointed out that the absence of a numerical APFT score implies a low APFT score even when a Soldier has a 269 or a permanent profile with 100 in the tested events. Be advised:  The ERB seen at your promotion board has the APFT score XXXed out.

Response by 1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 15 at 2014 11:32 PM

1SG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 15 Jan 2014 23:32:15 -0500

Hell yes

Response by GySgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 20 at 2014 12:46 AM

GySgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 20 Jan 2014 00:46:22 -0500

We have PFT and CFT scores on our FitReps. Everything is all about shooting, running, and your evaluation in the Corps.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 3:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 15:19:49 -0400

Yes. It is a measure of your physical aptness as a Soldier.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Mar 28 at 2014 11:10 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Fri, 28 Mar 2014 23:10:22 -0400

Yes...if not, seems something's being hidden and as SSG Beutler pointed out, it'll look unfavorably by centralized promotion board members.

Response by CSM Michael Poll made Mar 29 at 2014 9:03 AM

CSM Michael Poll — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:03:33 -0400

Absolutly, the NCOER is supposed to be a reflection of the total Soldier.  APFT Bodt Fat and I also believe weapon qual should be reflected on the NCOER. 

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Mar 29 at 2014 9:59 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 09:59:45 -0400

I know this is an older discussion, but I just ran across it, also as am retired I guess you can take my response with a grain of salt lol but here it is anyways.....I do not feel that it should be on the NCOER unless it is justifying an Excellence or Needs Improvement Bullet. My reasoning is thus, if they wanted to see every NCOs APFT score it wouldn't be xxx'd out on the ERB that the boards review, to me it is simple as that. By all means if an NCO scores 270+ or fails to achieve a passing score then it needs to be there as justification for the rating, otherwise no I don't feel it should be on there.

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Mar 29 at 2014 2:35 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:35:29 -0400

I think rather than merely placing the score on the NCOER, the DA 705 and 5500/5501 (if applicable) should be placed in the OMPF.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 3:23 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 15:23:20 -0400

Yes high ranking NCOs lets base our leadership skill on the AFPT (SARCASM). What are you old school, or on crack? I just found out after all these years that medication I was prescribe by army DRS enlarged my liver, and has destroyed my kidneys (I haven't drank since 2008, so its not alcohol). I used to do PT 2XS a day. I was ridiculed, and picked on and always felt the pressure to look more like a Soldier. The DRS ability to realize that it was possible years ago that it was something internal and medicine induced, not my diet or lifestyle, fell by the wayside, because Soldiers are always PCSing and so do DRS so there isnt continuity, and the relationship starts over and what one DR had possibly scene is now forgotten and goes undiagnosed, but the army and its infinite NCOs that were selected by their buddies for promotion who are now in leadership position, who aren't DRS or even have a clue about medicine have no idea what kind of leaders they are passing up on. Just keep promoting you buddies, the so called "FIT," Soldiers high up the ranks and keep the toxic leadership at the top. The SFC boards and above are dependent on NCOERS, and guess what, when a leader just doesn't like their Soldier, not the job performance, that leader will mark 2 and 2, and convince the senior rater to rate poorly. When this NCOER is at the board, a poorly written NCOER and personal feelings prevent great leaders from rising through the ranks,(even if the rated Soldier has informed their senior that the NCOER is horribly written and is not quantified or qualified, because the ranking NCO has no clue and are offended that their junior knows more and is actually a better leader,) So AFPT and personal feelings truly aren't making the army better....

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 4:53 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 16:53:16 -0400

Yes and here is why (in my words). The promotion board looking at your records it is better to have a score rather than not having any score at all.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2014 10:14 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 29 Mar 2014 22:14:13 -0400

The APFT or non-APFT is not a definitive decisive factor for a select or non-select for promotion through a centralized promotion board, YET! Watch what happens in the next couple years we'll be going back to the old Cold War mentality," you can't run you can't lead!"

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Mar 30 at 2014 2:56 AM

SFC Steven Harvey — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 02:56:20 -0400

I believe it should be on there for Excellence or Needs Improvement the way it works at the moment. The problem I have is that if it is sincerely something that the Centralized Promotion Boards want to see (actually giving an entire portion of the AAR comments on) then it shouldn't be XXX'ed out on the ERB.

If by regulation someone meets the standard with a 181-269, then why would they be judged on that and that alone when there are many more areas that should matter more (bullet comments, senior rater comments, military education, college, etc.). Mind you, I am specifically talking about everyone who falls into the 181-269 range and not Exceeds the Standard or Needs Improvement. Obviously they would be either above or below their peers. If two NCOs are extremely close needing a tie breaker and a PT score of 221 being listed on one NCOER and another NCO has a 279 with a 86% run time and no mention of it, then that does not make much sense in my opinion.

In the AAR comments they went so far as to say it seemed like they were trying to hide something. Again, what would they be trying to hide? The Senior Rater and Rater are there for a reason. If they failed the PT test or tape they would be getting a Needs Improvement. If their DA Photo was poor due to a uniform that was not fitted properly that shouldn't be a basis for assuming someone is hiding something. They should be judged on their Professionalism in that case not their PT score (which board members do not know).

Centralized Promotion Boards should base their votes on the Regulation, and iirc there is no regulation saying you have to have the PT score in that block. You just have to justify an Excellence or Needs Improvement and in those cases PT scores are likely going to be the justification.

Even though my averages range from 260-280 I have never had it listed in that block in over 10 years unless I got 90 in each event in which case it was the justification for the Excellence bullet.

I hope in the future they start showing weapons qualification and PT scores across the board. If it is a level playing field I am perfectly fine with that, but last years AAR comments honestly made me aggravated.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 4:12 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 04:12:03 -0400

The Pt test is constantly used as the universal measuring stick for what is considered to be "high speed", or a generally a good leader. This is an outdated mentality. Leadership ability is not measured by the number of push-ups you can do. When faced with a leadership challenge, should you drop down and do push-ups until the solution comes to you in a bolt of lightning?
I would rather have an outstanding leader with a mediocre pt score over a pt stud that can't think or apply common sense.
2 minutes of push-ups, sit-ups and running for 2 miles is a horrible indicator of physical fitness. The pt test is a relic of past times and should be discontinued.
That being said, it's mandatory and if you fail it, you should deal with the consequences. The score is blocked out on the ERB because the score is a biased discriminator for selection. Putting the score on the NCOER is circumventing the system in order to showcase what would otherwise be an irrelevant piece of information that could introduce bias.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2014 12:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 30 Mar 2014 12:10:16 -0400

Here's my take on this subject...I feel that if you reach by regulation a 270 or above, with 90 on each event then it should be on your NCOER to justify your "Excellence" rating (which I do not totally agree with).  In addition, your APFT score should be on there for a "Needs Improvement" rating when an individual failed to meet the standard.  However, what bothers me is that, anything short of a 90 on each event is an automatic "Success" rating, and this I do not agree with.  The Physical Fitness and Military Bearing portion of the NCOER is not just for APFT scores but yet we continue to use as such.  We continue to state that a soldier achieved a 300 APFT score with one or two other weak bullets in this portion.   What happens if this individual does not have the endurance and physical stamina to go the distance in other aspects of military life?  What happens when this individual doesn't display confidence and enthusiasm? How about he/she doesn't look like a soldier?  What is his/her rating then? I have given excellence ratings to some of my NCOs who score above a 270 who may have not reached a 90 on each event, but who have continouosly displayed confidence and enthusiasm with their soldier in competing in Half Maratons, Mud Runs, and Fitness Competitions on post.  They also go the distance when ramping up for a deployment or CTC rotation when all others have just cut the day short.  Is this wrong?   I believe I am rambling on now.....enjoy!

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Apr 1 at 2014 12:18 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 00:18:13 -0400

Absolutely not, it is forbidden by regulation. DA PAM 623-3  states "APFT numerical scores will not be entered". Additionally, APFT scores are X'ed out of your record when they go before the board. This is in compliance with the regulation.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 8:41 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 01 Apr 2014 08:41:57 -0400

YES!! What are we trying to hide?

Response by SFC Steven Harvey made Apr 5 at 2014 2:38 AM

SFC Steven Harvey — Sat, 05 Apr 2014 02:38:21 -0400

I have to add a note to my earlier post. My comment was directed at the board AAR discussion on numerical APFT scores for an NCO on their NCOERs. However after rereading it multiple times it is apparent they are specifically talking about those NCOs whose height increased significantly along with weight over the course of several rating periods. Without that numerical score that is what gives them that impression, in which case I can understand the reasoning.

It still shouldn't be there in my opinion, the increases in height and weight should be everything one needs to know.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 2:42 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:42:44 -0400

Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of dynamic and creative intellectual activity.
Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/j/johnfkenn131489.html#2V5rqjQdjjhkzqpJ.99

I guess a better question would be, why shouldn't it be annotated... "I'm an awesome Soldier but I'm not good at PT" Laugh Out Loud.

John F. Kennedy Quotes at BrainyQuote.com

"Physical fitness is not only one of the most important keys to a healthy body, it is the basis of dynamic and creative intellectual activity." - John F. Kennedy quotes from BrainyQuote.com

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 2:51 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:51:15 -0400

I think so. I mean, I am not the 300 plus kind of leader, but I have seen those who are satisfied with getting by with 180. Come on now, we are suppose to set the example. Plus, if promotion is a competitive thing, then why not put the APFT score on the report card

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 7:29 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:29:01 -0400

Seriously, is the perfect soldier in peak physical condition? Is you job to produce the best Soldiers in the world? How can you expect to do this if you don't set the example? Again, if awards, education, performance, potential, physical appearance, etc is considered at the board, why in the world wouldn't physical fitness?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 12:38 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 12:38:51 -0500

The new NCOER will address this. The picture is the new NCOER for SGTs. There will have one for various levels. I like how it addresses when a soldier fails. The rater has to explain why. If you check out the link you can see all of the different drafts that are out there.

http://www.hrc.army.mil/TAGD/Evaluation%20Systems%20Homepage

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 10 at 2015 1:10 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 10 Jan 2015 13:10:14 -0500

Yes your score should be on there. As an NCO, your APFT should be important. I have seen many NCO's do the minimum on their APFT and what example does this set for the Soldiers. It is a record of what you have done, and I feel the board members should see it.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Jan 11 at 2015 11:52 AM

SSG Kevin McCulley — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 11:52:16 -0500

Though the Soldiering side of me screams yes, the administrative side screams no. The Army standard is a 180. If you pass the PT test, you are meeting standards. Some people place far to much emphasis in the PT score and it can become an unnecessary discriminator where it should not always be. If you have a problem with the 180, get that changed. Both the Admin and Soldiering me would nod with sage agreement to that course of action.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 11 at 2015 12:15 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 11 Jan 2015 12:15:49 -0500

It should absolutely be on there, as it should for SPC, PVT, and all officers. We are the armed forces not a donut shop. Our troops need to be rated on individual fighting ability, their MOS, and ability to lead at their respective level.

That which you don't measure is sure to fail.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2015 6:42 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 06:42:11 -0500

No. It should be annotated Pass/Fail. The scores are different for people, for males/females. While the "standard" is the same, people are not.
A 140# male will always! run faster a mile than a 220# body builder. A female will always look great on her APFT just because she gets a "Ladies discount."
More important is body fat... but even then, if you pass the PT test and you are in great shape... what does any of it have to do with your leadership and your ability to perform as a professional Soldier/

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2015 4:50 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 16:50:24 -0400

Yes! Too many, especially in the RC are getting promoted to E-6 & E-7 with the minimum scores.