Posted on Aug 11, 2017
Should Soldiers be punished for failing the EIB PT test on purpose?
28.8K
185
185
12
12
0
Expert Infantryman Badge (EIB)
11B: Infantryman
APFT
UCMJ
Punishment
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 58
3
3
0
How are you going to punish someone for something that could really be considered extra curricular? Now, if this was something from a NCO school or something of that nature that is required for development, then of course, but WIN is not a requirement of the MOS and if someone is just so lazy that they don't want to try for the badge, then yo hell with them. Let their career suffer.
(3)
(0)
SGT Joseph Gunderson
LTC Kevin B. - Exactly what kind of corrective training would even be appropriate for an otherwise fully capable and performing soldier? There is nothing to correct really. In addition, how are you going to prove that the PT failure was "on purpose"? The soldier can just claim any number of reasons why they were unable or I'll prepared to perform at that given moment. And it really is extra curricular. The EIB testing is a similar activity to the cavalry tradition of a spur ride... If a scout ducks out of a ride at the beginning because they aren't in the mood for it, how are you going to rationalize punishment or training to remedy the fact that they just don't want to go above and beyond? Just don't recommend for boards or promotions and such. Leave it at that.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SGT Joseph Gunderson - I've provided an example of "corrective training" in my response above. The example provided by the OP is when soldiers just simply stop trying on their PT test before their time is up. If I have a soldier who I know can score 90 on their push-ups, and they purposely stop at 70 before their time is up (not a "failed PT event", but not reaching the 80 threshold), that's a clear signal that they're playing games, which is unprofessional. In my opinion, unprofessional behavior should be corrected.
Also, your response actually contradicts itself. "Just don't recommend for boards or promotions and such" is indeed a form of punishment. It's just not "corrective training". I prefer corrective training because it gives someone a chance to correct their behavior. Not recommending them means that I've completely given up on them.
Also, your response actually contradicts itself. "Just don't recommend for boards or promotions and such" is indeed a form of punishment. It's just not "corrective training". I prefer corrective training because it gives someone a chance to correct their behavior. Not recommending them means that I've completely given up on them.
(1)
(0)
MSG Loren Tomblin
I enjoyed my time in the Infantry and studied hard for it. I had great Sergeants and Platoon Leader that encouraged each of us to excel at what we do as Infantrymen. I eventually went to Viet Nam and some of the things I learned were applied. If any Infantryman does not take the opportunity to learn all about his craft he should not reenlist and go home.
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SGT Joseph Gunderson "How are you going to punish someone for something that could really be considered extra curricular? "
Because the APFT is a prerequisite to being eligible for the EIB, the APFT is a mandatory requirement IAW AR350-1
Fail the APFT being used for EIB qualifications and win the same prize as if you were a 92G and taking an APFT for record.
Because the APFT is a prerequisite to being eligible for the EIB, the APFT is a mandatory requirement IAW AR350-1
Fail the APFT being used for EIB qualifications and win the same prize as if you were a 92G and taking an APFT for record.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
It used to be that you could just say no, you didn't want to test for it. Then get stuck doing all the stupid details that needed to be done while the rest of the company was training and testing. All of the grass that needed mowing, all of the sweeping, mopping, cleaning, painting, etc.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Okay, I'll have to be the one to go there.
Prove it. PROVE they failed on purpose. Get the witness statements that say the SM planned to fail. Get the witness statements that say he bragged about it afterward. THEN you have your ammo.
Right off the bat, it's a PT test for record, and they failed - which means they get flagged.
Then get in the UCMJ and read the entry under "Malingering," and come back here and explain to us how and why an E-7 - a Sergeant FIRST CLASS - had to ask this question in the first place. Then you might want to read up on administrative reductions for inability or unwillingness to perform the duties of the assigned rank.
Prove it. PROVE they failed on purpose. Get the witness statements that say the SM planned to fail. Get the witness statements that say he bragged about it afterward. THEN you have your ammo.
Right off the bat, it's a PT test for record, and they failed - which means they get flagged.
Then get in the UCMJ and read the entry under "Malingering," and come back here and explain to us how and why an E-7 - a Sergeant FIRST CLASS - had to ask this question in the first place. Then you might want to read up on administrative reductions for inability or unwillingness to perform the duties of the assigned rank.
(2)
(0)
SSG Robert Perrotto
malingering is a very very hard sell to Bn lvl legal. Almost impossible to actually prove. There are other ways to correct the SM other than attempting UCMJ. Most of them more impactful.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
Points of clarification here.
First, the OP didn't say they failed a record APFT (where you could flag them). He said they failed the APFT portion of the EIB, which is an entirely different matter. For the EIB, they have a higher floor for failure (80 points per event) compared to a normal APFT (60 points per event). So, someone can score high enough to pass a record APFT but fail to meet the EIB standards (ie. a score between 60-79 on each event). In this case, a Commander couldn't flag them for APFT failure. He/she would need other grounds.
Second, the OP never mentioned using UCMJ. He mentioned being "punished", which could include a whole range of things other than non-judicial punishment.
First, the OP didn't say they failed a record APFT (where you could flag them). He said they failed the APFT portion of the EIB, which is an entirely different matter. For the EIB, they have a higher floor for failure (80 points per event) compared to a normal APFT (60 points per event). So, someone can score high enough to pass a record APFT but fail to meet the EIB standards (ie. a score between 60-79 on each event). In this case, a Commander couldn't flag them for APFT failure. He/she would need other grounds.
Second, the OP never mentioned using UCMJ. He mentioned being "punished", which could include a whole range of things other than non-judicial punishment.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
No. My last unit forced everyone to take the EIB test. And I was 3 months away from ETS. It served no purpose to make everyone in the unit take the test when almost half of us were getting out. Nobody got the EIB in that unit because so many people failed or intentionally failed, even those that passed weren't awarded the EIB.
(2)
(0)
MSG Loren Tomblin
This is too funny. After was reclassified I had a young troop in my Data Processing Section. He was a 74D. I stopped to see his dad in TN and there was photo of him on his dad's desk where he was sporting an EIB. He had never been in the Infantry. I kept my cool but dressed his young behind when I returned.
(2)
(0)
SPC Casey Ashfield
SGM Erik Marquez - I meant what I said in my post. A few did pass. The CoC covered themselves by saying it was an "EIB practice test" or "Infantry test to EIB standard." For weeks leading up to the event we were told anyone who passed WOULD get an EIB. Somewhere along the line it changed.
This particular unit made a habit of using their green weenie privilege. And they are a large reason why I have a "V" next to my name instead of "SM."
This particular unit made a habit of using their green weenie privilege. And they are a large reason why I have a "V" next to my name instead of "SM."
(1)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SPC Casey Ashfield -
"SGM Erik Marquez - I meant what I said in my post. "
OK, and what you said was....
"Nobody got the EIB in that unit because so many people failed or intentionally failed, even those that passed weren't awarded the EIB."
-Nobody got the EIB in that unit
-even those that passed weren't awarded the EIB.
So yes I understand what you said...and that was the part I take issue with.... Then LATER you said the unit AFTER testing announced it was not an EIB testing but a practice test..what ever that means, never heard of such a thing.
In any case, your clarification takes it from something huge to something weird..and in any case, not right.....Sucks you had that kind of unit.... but it certainly feeds the common perception that NG units are substandard in compared to AD units ... And that is also crappy as I know NG units that are awesome, and AD units that should be disbanded.
"SGM Erik Marquez - I meant what I said in my post. "
OK, and what you said was....
"Nobody got the EIB in that unit because so many people failed or intentionally failed, even those that passed weren't awarded the EIB."
-Nobody got the EIB in that unit
-even those that passed weren't awarded the EIB.
So yes I understand what you said...and that was the part I take issue with.... Then LATER you said the unit AFTER testing announced it was not an EIB testing but a practice test..what ever that means, never heard of such a thing.
In any case, your clarification takes it from something huge to something weird..and in any case, not right.....Sucks you had that kind of unit.... but it certainly feeds the common perception that NG units are substandard in compared to AD units ... And that is also crappy as I know NG units that are awesome, and AD units that should be disbanded.
(0)
(0)
SPC Casey Ashfield
SGM Erik Marquez - I never subscribe to the common thought that NG units are inherently worse than AD. I have been with great NG units that are very proficient at their jobs, sometimes significantly better than their AD counterparts. The same is also true with poor unit management in NG units and good AD leadership.
As far as my limited EIB testing goes, it was a royally messed up situation. I could not care less for not getting an EIB being so close to ETS. I do and still feel bad for the soldiers that applied themselves, passed, and still didn't get it. If you (as a unit) say for weeks that anyone who passes the test gets the award and then change your mind, it is a huge morale killer. The sad irony is this unit's Retention NCO couldn't figure out why reenlistments were very low.
As far as my limited EIB testing goes, it was a royally messed up situation. I could not care less for not getting an EIB being so close to ETS. I do and still feel bad for the soldiers that applied themselves, passed, and still didn't get it. If you (as a unit) say for weeks that anyone who passes the test gets the award and then change your mind, it is a huge morale killer. The sad irony is this unit's Retention NCO couldn't figure out why reenlistments were very low.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Not punished but if it was a record they should be flagged which may adversely effect them.
(2)
(0)
SPC Erich Guenther
I don't know the regs but I thought the unit could state that all PT Tests were for the record...............is that not possible to do?
(2)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
SPC Erich Guenther - Mostly correct... there are some limits by individual, say someone who has just failed an APFT, if the unit is doing a 2nd and 3rd each following Friday to capture the units 100% ....the SM that failed last Friday can not be compelled to take an record APFT the next Friday. The CMD can order them to take it as a diagnostic though.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
No. They don't get the badge, simple as that. On the times I have done EIB, the units always stated that the training was mandatory but the testing was not. Maybe your unit shouldn't force them to test. That way only those who want the badge will compete and you wont have to deal with this again. Just a thought.
(2)
(0)
SGM Erik Marquez
"On the times I have done EIB, the units always stated that the training was mandatory but the testing was not"
Yup, thats the way it was every time over my 28 years.
Yup, thats the way it was every time over my 28 years.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
SPC Erich Guenther
SSG (Join to see) - Here is the best part and I am not trying to humiliate other Vietnam Veterans. However we asked him how he lost his teeth and he said he went off without telling his buddy to go use the latrine off in the woods, VC found him and engaged in Rifle and Bayonette his buddy heard the commotion and shot the VC right after he got butt stroked in the mouth and before he got bayonetted. 15 years later the guy is on a NATO exercise, leaves the track without telling anyone to go take a dump, the British capture him with his pants down and the radio freq and cipher book. He never learned the lesson from Vietnam and repeated the same exact mistake.........can you believe it? The whole track was captured because he led the British right back to our fighting position instead of trying to obstruct........we were all PO'd because he was the Squad Leader.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
So I've gathered from Para 1-10, USAIS 350-6 that testing for the EIB is supposed to be a voluntary event, except for any mandatory Pre-training at the unit level. I've also seen that the IEB APFT test standard is 80% in all event. Taking that into account, here is my straight POG opinion:
If the EIB APFT is a Record APFT, and the Soldier was forced to compete for the EIB, but still achieved the Army standard 60% in all events before self-terminating, then they should NOT receive UCMJ punishment. At most, they should be counseled on why they chose to self-terminate, to determine the root of the issue. In many cases, Soldiers are being forced to be there, and end up inadvertently (although it's their leader's fault) wasting the governments time and money, because units want maximum participation, versus maximum VOLUNTARY participation. This might actually help to reduce the amount of future self-terminations, by addressing the problem at its root, rather than punishing the Soldiers every chance possible; as there will be plenty of time for that over the next year or two before they ETS on their first term, resenting the Army.
It makes me think of all of my time in the 82nd Airborne; the many Officers and NCOs who were forced to go to White Slip testing, even though they had ZERO intention or desire to pursue Jumpmaster School (its not for everybody, and I respect those who pursue it). I saw MANY Paratroopers intentionally miss answers on the Nomenclature Test (even though they practically gave you the answers) or intentionally go slow to time-out on the Ruck Rigging.
Anytime Soldiers are forced to participate in an activity regulation clearly states is supposed to be voluntary (such as donating to XYZ charity, foundation, association, or anything OTHER than CFC), they will find ways to be defiant. Is it the Soldiers fault, or is it the fault of their leaders for putting those Soldiers in that situation in the first place? So how fair is it to force Soldiers into those activities, and then threaten them with punishment if they don't meet the Leaders' expectations (aka coercion)? Afterall, if the school(s) were REALLY that good/beneficial, they wouldn't be FORCING Soldiers to attend in the first place, as they would be making Soldiers jump through hoops to even get a slot...
Just my POG opinions though. You know us MI folk are soft.
If the EIB APFT is a Record APFT, and the Soldier was forced to compete for the EIB, but still achieved the Army standard 60% in all events before self-terminating, then they should NOT receive UCMJ punishment. At most, they should be counseled on why they chose to self-terminate, to determine the root of the issue. In many cases, Soldiers are being forced to be there, and end up inadvertently (although it's their leader's fault) wasting the governments time and money, because units want maximum participation, versus maximum VOLUNTARY participation. This might actually help to reduce the amount of future self-terminations, by addressing the problem at its root, rather than punishing the Soldiers every chance possible; as there will be plenty of time for that over the next year or two before they ETS on their first term, resenting the Army.
It makes me think of all of my time in the 82nd Airborne; the many Officers and NCOs who were forced to go to White Slip testing, even though they had ZERO intention or desire to pursue Jumpmaster School (its not for everybody, and I respect those who pursue it). I saw MANY Paratroopers intentionally miss answers on the Nomenclature Test (even though they practically gave you the answers) or intentionally go slow to time-out on the Ruck Rigging.
Anytime Soldiers are forced to participate in an activity regulation clearly states is supposed to be voluntary (such as donating to XYZ charity, foundation, association, or anything OTHER than CFC), they will find ways to be defiant. Is it the Soldiers fault, or is it the fault of their leaders for putting those Soldiers in that situation in the first place? So how fair is it to force Soldiers into those activities, and then threaten them with punishment if they don't meet the Leaders' expectations (aka coercion)? Afterall, if the school(s) were REALLY that good/beneficial, they wouldn't be FORCING Soldiers to attend in the first place, as they would be making Soldiers jump through hoops to even get a slot...
Just my POG opinions though. You know us MI folk are soft.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
So you're not proficient in your job without your EIB? See I disagree I seem to be pretty proficient in my job when I received my CIB down range, now I am not knocking the EIB by any means it's absolutely tough to get, I just think it shows that you can complete certain task in a timely manner. I've known many great leaders without an EIB. Just my opinion
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
SFC Griffis, you posed a very interesting question. We are in an all "volunteer Army" meaning that everyone freely enlisted knowing well in advance that they were giving up their "individualism" in order to embrace the Army Team concept. With that said, When I was a young 2LT, our BN held the EIB testing for everyone within the BN, those who choose not to participate, provided support to the event. Everything went well. However, most soldiers now days, have a sense of entitlement, and believe they can question everything, and if order to something, they purposely fail, or injured themselves to get out it. It is unfortunate that current policies in place do not allow for harsher punishment for soldiers who do this or try and take advantage of the system. So, to answer you question, if a soldier purposely fail the EIB PT test, the soldier should certainly receive be punish. Perhaps remedial PT training... or other additional duties. Soldiers in the rank of E4 and below should view this event as a great opportunity to showcase their individual knowledge and military expertise, earning the EIB badge, is a matter of pride and tells everyone that you know your s***t. NCO's without the EIB badge, should strive to earn it...I also believe that those who do participate and earn their EIB should be rewarded with a 4 day pass.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google