Posted on Feb 13, 2015
Should the Army's temporary and permanent PT profile system be changed?
38.7K
23
17
3
3
0
Should the Army National Guard change how easy it is for soldiers to produce temporary profiles two days before the APFT, and should they start to hammer down on those soldiers who do it consistently every year? I know of soldiers who haven't taken a PT test for two or three years and they keep working the system. I also know many soldiers who have been chronic PT failures in the past and many of them are magically able to convince the doctor to give them a permanent profile, and it would seem it is just a way for them to pass the APFT. There never really seems to be anything physically wrong with them they are just too lazy to get out there and do it for themselves. There are those who genuinely need a profile but many in my opinion do not. I am just curious what everyone's thoughts are on this because I see it as a problem that has plagued the Army for many years.
Army National Guard
APFT
Fitness
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 10
2
2
0
SSG (Join to see) - Those that have had issues passing the APFT and receive permanent profiles are still required to perform alternate events. As a result, they are still required to perform the bike, walk, or swim....if they are unable to complete any one of the Soldier Tasks (top part of the profile), then they can STILL be flagged for MEB/PEB.
I would encourage your leadership to appoint a medical readiness NCO or officer to acquaint themselves with AR 40-501, specifically Chapters 3 (retention) and 7 (profiling requirements). As well as Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG) and the various Mods (last I knew was Mod 10 or Mod 11 I think??). This will help them when they are going to deploy so that a bunch of things don't pop on medical readiness.
One thing I will say is to use caution in judging people too. I have a permanent profile as my back is severely screwed up. Some days I'm perfectly functional, others I struggle with basic daily tasks. Even on my bad days, I keep the "normal face" so that only those that really know me can tell that I'm hurting when I'm in public.
The challenges come when you are talking about the balancing act on the personnel rosters from a command level. There is the need to balance medical readiness, but if you try to remove too many people for playing these games, then at times some of your command will look at you adversely because you are either uncaring ("You should try to fix them first") or are unable to retain a minimum percentage of your personnel (percentages are at least 70% before they start considering a roster "in the red", but deployability standards are between 80-95%.). When I mobilized we had a BATTALION that had taken a similar stance to the one you described, and we ended up REFRADDING (sending home) so many Soldiers that they had to combine two units into one. At least one commander/1SG were relieved for cause and various other major adverse actions taken against the chain for failure to maintain mission readiness.
It happens....but it's super important that Soldiers not be allowed to play the system to their advantages, as it affects deployability of the unit as a whole.
v/r,
CPT Butler
I would encourage your leadership to appoint a medical readiness NCO or officer to acquaint themselves with AR 40-501, specifically Chapters 3 (retention) and 7 (profiling requirements). As well as Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG) and the various Mods (last I knew was Mod 10 or Mod 11 I think??). This will help them when they are going to deploy so that a bunch of things don't pop on medical readiness.
One thing I will say is to use caution in judging people too. I have a permanent profile as my back is severely screwed up. Some days I'm perfectly functional, others I struggle with basic daily tasks. Even on my bad days, I keep the "normal face" so that only those that really know me can tell that I'm hurting when I'm in public.
The challenges come when you are talking about the balancing act on the personnel rosters from a command level. There is the need to balance medical readiness, but if you try to remove too many people for playing these games, then at times some of your command will look at you adversely because you are either uncaring ("You should try to fix them first") or are unable to retain a minimum percentage of your personnel (percentages are at least 70% before they start considering a roster "in the red", but deployability standards are between 80-95%.). When I mobilized we had a BATTALION that had taken a similar stance to the one you described, and we ended up REFRADDING (sending home) so many Soldiers that they had to combine two units into one. At least one commander/1SG were relieved for cause and various other major adverse actions taken against the chain for failure to maintain mission readiness.
It happens....but it's super important that Soldiers not be allowed to play the system to their advantages, as it affects deployability of the unit as a whole.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree CPT Jonathan Butler, that it is a balancing act that the unit has to do to weed out certain individuals. To just bring down the hammer on everyone all at once would leave the unit completely unfit for deployment and mission readiness. It would have to be a long, slow, arduous task and every suspected case would have to be looked at very closely. This would be important to ensure no one was being discriminated against. I always do my best not to judge too quickly because there are many soldiers who require a profile. But sometimes a pattern arises and when that happens the questions and suspicions arises as well. I appreciate your honest input.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - I disagree it has to be a slow/drawn process. Ultimately, people are expected to meet standard. This is more of a case that medical profiling officers need to be evaluated, or additional personnel be appointed to NGB/USARC to review profiles. On the AR level, this is being done (to the point of being overdone). Our medical docs are not allowed to write profiles for our own Soldiers. This is handled at the RSC level.
The NGB and your local chain needs to be proactive before it gets to this point. Understanding the impact of mission readiness and the fact that we are doing force drawdown now.
If it is happening on a widespread level, I think a change of command may be necessary if your commander is unwilling to support. If he is, changing the medical providers for the profiling SME is perfectly valid as well. There is NO reason that the problem should get to that, and the time to act is now.
Why now? I don't want some combat vet getting a pink slip with 12 years, while some 3 year malingerer stays in to try to get some unearned benefits. Likewise, we have trained and experienced troops that WANT to stay in, so let's get the people out that can no longer perform the required duties. Otherwise, you end up with 1 vacancy (1 medically retired, 1 separated due to downsizing) that you have to fill instead of 0 vacancies. A trained and experienced Soldier is clearly more cost effective than training a replacement.
v/r,
CPT Butler
The NGB and your local chain needs to be proactive before it gets to this point. Understanding the impact of mission readiness and the fact that we are doing force drawdown now.
If it is happening on a widespread level, I think a change of command may be necessary if your commander is unwilling to support. If he is, changing the medical providers for the profiling SME is perfectly valid as well. There is NO reason that the problem should get to that, and the time to act is now.
Why now? I don't want some combat vet getting a pink slip with 12 years, while some 3 year malingerer stays in to try to get some unearned benefits. Likewise, we have trained and experienced troops that WANT to stay in, so let's get the people out that can no longer perform the required duties. Otherwise, you end up with 1 vacancy (1 medically retired, 1 separated due to downsizing) that you have to fill instead of 0 vacancies. A trained and experienced Soldier is clearly more cost effective than training a replacement.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think the system needs to change. I think NCOs and officers need to follow the appropriate process. Counsel, counsel, counsel, and then apply the appropriate consequences.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
Agreed, this has bern a continual problem in the Army- one that drives real soldiers absolutely insane. While some profiles are legitimate most, in my opinion, are BS. My ultimate pet peeve is the shaving profile. I mean seriously? I hate shaving too, I just get over it 10 seconds after I do it.
(1)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - This is one of the most commonly abused profiles, but DOES have a base in valid, primarily in blacks. In black males, there is a condition called Pseudofolliculitis Barbae, which basically means that the face becomes very bumpy/inflamed while shaving, leading to many cuts/sores that could present a risk for infection. I have seen it applied to many others that get "irritation" from shaving, but that was not the intent of the shaving profile.
Just some insight into the rationale.
v/r,
CPT Butler
Just some insight into the rationale.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google