Should NCOs with permanent profiles be allowed to hold leadership positions?

MAJ (Join to see) - Sir; It all depends on how it is looked at. A permanent profile that limits your ability to Move, Shoot, Communicate, or conduct any of the 1, 2 , or 3 level warrior task and battle drills should be closely looked at. No disrespect to anyone on a permanent profile or any Service members wounded in or out of combat, but we always have to remember we are a fighting force. In order to be the most lethal force on the face of the planet we have to be both mentally and physically fit. So I ask you Sir, do you feel we should jeopardize our lethality to ensure promotions?

1SG (Join to see) The current MMRB system does exactly that. A Soldier with a permanent profile has already been vetted by a competent medical authority that they can serve in that MOS with their specific injuries. That system uses risk based intelligent data to decide which MOS's can tolerate certain limitations. If you are infantry you cannot have a profile, if you are a logistician you certainly can. The problems with the lethality comments is when you judge those logisticians primarily based on physical fitness rather than their job performance you promote fit individuals above those with better job skills. Now if you think it is more important for a logistician to be fit rather than know how to get Soldiers ammunition and equipment you're looking at the scenario from a very flawed perspective.

- SGM Erik Marquez My comments are based more on the CSM of the Army's paper about prohibiting NCO's with profiles from leadership positions, which is the original trigger for this thread. My argument is MOS performance is more important than fitness, combat wounds should not disqualify a soldier from key positions simply because of the CSM of the Army's personal position or "blanket rule" on the subject.

BLUF: The following is only an opinion- Competent medical authority? Now there is no question that medical providers have the competent ability to exercise good judgement on granting permanent profiles. And I want to believe that most providers exercise good ethic and moral judgment when granting profiles. The real problem is are the medical professionals granting permanent profiles in accordance with AR 40-501? The problem with medical profiles is that providers often grant profiles to Soldiers without a medical diagnosis or substantiating documentation. In turn, many of the Soldiers currently possessing a permanent ("no run" profile for example) often participate in activities such as marathons, Spartan runs, the dirty dash etc... or they may just not want to run period. This is clearly visible to Soldiers in the ranks and disrupts good order and discipline. Soldiers who truly need the profile and have been given that profile in accordance with 40-501 and have a medical diagnosis are often looked at as being less of a Soldier when truly they deserve the same chance at leadership positions as a Soldier without a permanent Profile. A study was conducted on an Aviation Brigade regarding Medical profiles and the lack of substantiating medical documentation. the results were as I suspected. out of 123 Permanent medical profiles 111 did not have substantiating medical documentation. The Provider granted a permanent profile incorrectly. Now 1 or 2 is a mistake. 111 is a crime. out of the 111 Profiled Soldiers, they were given 60 days to collect medical documentation with a diagnosis or the Permanent profile would be removed . 20 of those Soldiers complied in the time. the remaining 91 Soldiers were required to take an APFT 90 days after the removal of the profile. If our forces only contained Soldiers that truly needed profiles, a permanent profile would not be looked at like it is today. Is this a problem of Malingering? Is this a problem with leadership? or maybe is this a problem with lack of accountability, both personal and leadership? This is a very real problem and spans across the components. The root of the cause is not with the Soldier or their chain of command. It is a problem with the "competent medical authority".

MSG (Join to see) Is this study available to review? If so do you have a link?

Maybe the Army doesn't have LDOs, so we're looking at different perspectives here. There are deployable Navy officers who won't ever go into combat unless the fight comes to their ship. Many of them are fantastic officers and leaders; many of them also have permanent injuries, or are just so broken down from 25+ years of the military that they don't quite function that well anymore. Hell, plenty of Chiefs fit that bill as well. I don't see how a PT profile makes a damn bit of difference in leadership, but I also can't imagine an injured person giving two shits about their injury or PT restrictions during a firefight.

LCDR (Join to see) - guys will walk thru walls for an LT like that. Our Lts were invisible paper pushers, but our Sr NCOs were terrific. Always had great Gunnys they got more respect than any officer I could think of, but that's their job.

Sgt Dale Briggs I was honestly surprised initially to receive praise from my subordinates and department head for doing something as simple as giving a shit about people. Then I realized how detached some of my peers are, and it occurred to me how terrified some JOs are about getting involved, afraid of stepping on NCO toes. I think they forget that they also lead the NCOs; I keep an open dialogue constantly with my LPO, Chief, LCPO, and other Chiefs in the department, and that's enough to keep from insulting them if I want to get involved on a lower level.

I love what I do, leading Sailors. I don't understand the people who don't want to be involved. It's the greatest honor of my life to be able to help these wonderful people succeed on a daily basis. If I had a permanent injury, would it make me a worse leader than a PT stud who doesn't give a shit? My argument is that it wouldn't. That was my point in this thread.

I agree. My son was on profile coming out of Afghanastan , he was sick from some kinda wierd respiratory illness , and a case of PTSD. But he's been promoted twice , he's now a Tech Sgt still doing Army support with 2/2 Stryker at JBLM. He was treated very well IMO. Leadership involves people skills, some have the by the book skills , but I suspect quite a few have an eye on that O3 slot. You can't fake truly giving a shit, you can't fool experienced guys. Kudus to you, I'm sure your men appreciate that even if you don't hear it.

I went through Air Assault at Campbell during the 80's with an E6 in from Germany that was on recycle #3 in my class. Guy was actually pretty sharp, but had real physical fear of heights. Not "I don't like heights", a "I'm scared shitless and can't function" fear of heights. The poor guy spent at least an hour with his arms and legs in a death grip on the skid on the tower. Couldn't be a squad leader without the badge, but at some point, it looks like they would move him to a leg unit rather than lose him.

The 101st is a leg unit

SSG (Join to see) - HOOAH! Unless in the back of my Chinook!