Should the Height and Weight standards matter if they pass the physical fitness test??

MSG Shawn Eaton — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:55:17 -0400

H&W and PT test seem to be a controversial discussion nowadays. Some say H&W shouldn't matter if the Soldiers are fit enough to pass the requirements. Some say the standards where set for the older generations before now. Some say PT is the only way to measure leadership and discipline. What are your thoughts?!!

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 4:08 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:08:22 -0400

Yes. We are a profession and should look the part as well as perform. I don't agree that it is the only way to measure leadership and discipline, it is a marker though.

Response by MCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 4:15 PM

MCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:15:07 -0400

This is one of those horrible things...

I've known folks that were well within H/W regs and couldn't do PT to save their lives. I've known folks that were so far out of H/W regs that the AR burned - and they could get 290+ every time.

Unfortunately, I think it comes down to professional appearance - and that SUCKS...

And, as a side note: just remember that Arnold Schwarzenegger had a 49 BMI when he won his last Mr. Olympia. He also had a 3% body fat percentage...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 4:51 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:51:10 -0400

The convention so far is that H&W tend to point towards military appearance, and that is independent of your ability to pass the APFT.

Response by SP5 Mark Kuzinski made Mar 28 at 2016 5:55 PM

SP5 Mark Kuzinski — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:55:41 -0400

Good post MSG Shawn Eaton !

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Mar 28 at 2016 5:59 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:59:53 -0400

Yes. Because the "simple metrics" of the (A)PFT are not necessarily indicative of overall fitness either. You can be fat and strong as an ox. You can smoke and still be able to run. Neither of those are indicators of "Physically Fit."

If you are outside Height & Weight Standards, we go to Body Composition as an alternate (a second chance). If you are outside both.. chances are something is wrong.

If you can show me someone who can MAX (passing is a lot different than maxing) their PFT, is outside H/W and still busts tape, they are a statistical anomaly. An extreme outlier.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 6:11 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:11:47 -0400

let me say this usmc 87 passed marine corps pt with flying colors, but weight to high for standards, 5' 8", 210, body fat 10% well with in the standard for bodyfat, if you are gonna be a big boy than you need to roll with the punches, as long as you pass the pt and bf standards, then no problem, from this pic, i can olny surmise bf nogo, so where do we go now, you not only need to perform to standards, but should also give the appearence of being within the standards

Response by SSgt Dan Montague made Mar 28 at 2016 6:12 PM

SSgt Dan Montague — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:12:58 -0400

The Marines have a CFT and PFT annually. I say if you get a 1st class on both and can perform your mos without physical issues, screw the H/W.

You're not going to find an obese Service member who can pass with a 1st class.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 6:13 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:13:47 -0400

as far as the only way to measure leadership and discipline wrong answer

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 6:17 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:17:51 -0400

Until the Army tells me different... yes, both PT and Ht/Wt matter.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 7:11 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:11:55 -0400

Both are required, and I do not think either is really asking much. In a way, the Army is simply requiring something that is probably in your best interest, even as a civilian.

Response by Capt Mark Strobl made Mar 28 at 2016 7:28 PM

Capt Mark Strobl — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:28:45 -0400

MSG Shawn Eaton - Height/Weight v. PT. It's one (1) barometer of leadership. I was into body-building for the second half of my time. And spent WAY too much time either securing or renewing my waiver. 20 pull-ups, 80 sit-ups, 17:35 3-mile run. I finally was released from this inconvenience when I finished a PFT, then returned to the running masses to find my S-3 Officer, and encouraged (well, more like "taunted') him to finish as I ran alongside him. The BnCO called me into his office after the PFT. He told me: 1.) I had the highest maintenance and personnel readiness; 2.) My section had the lowest incident (law enforcement) reports; 3.) to limit my "encouragement" to those that needed it; and 4.) I was immediately released from Weight Control. That last message was personally relayed to the S-3. Yes, PT is only one barometer of leadership.

Response by SGT Eric Vazquez made Mar 28 at 2016 7:53 PM

SGT Eric Vazquez — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:53:58 -0400

There is definitely something there that is a bit off although it points towards an appearance thing, but it needs to be looked over so it can be relevant to this century.

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2016 8:42 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 20:42:48 -0400

Yes it should matter, but I think that instead of taping, there should be a sliding scale height weight chart. The higher your PT score, the higher your allowed weight. I think it would simplify the weigh in, and it would allow for those guys (who I've heard a lot about, but have never seen) who can't pass tape, but are PT studs.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Mar 28 at 2016 11:41 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:41:00 -0400

My personal opinion is that we spend way too much time worrying about PT and H&W. A person obviously needs to be in good enough shape to do their job but is a high PT score really that important for people in clerical or administrative jobs? Do cooks and supply people need to be in the same shape as infantry people? Is how sharp someone looks in their uniform really more important than how well that they can do their job? Do H&W standards that would disqualify many professional athletes really make any sense?

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 2:29 AM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 02:29:47 -0400

So, the guy in the photo, who looks like he can take out an MRAP, gets axed for failing some arbitrary H & W standards, and a 100-pound female passes, but collapses under the weight of her full combat pack. Yep, smart, sound policy.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 3:12 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:12:02 -0400

I think it shows a portion of a persons disapline because it means they can look at themselves and know if they need to change, if they don't but need to and don't make an effort how can you assign them a task just as simple. And how is someone subordinate supposed to look up to that and say oh it's ok. Yes, it should be about military appearance, I don't want to see a ball with legs walking around in dress blues. I do believe the tape should be traded in for the pinch test but other than that it should stay the way it is.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 6:05 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:05:14 -0400

I don't think passing would be enough to waive the H/W or Body Comp requirements. However, if you can get a 300 then it should be a no-brainer.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Mar 29 at 2016 6:53 AM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 06:53:03 -0400

Since it does affect how you appear in Uniform, I would say yes but there needs to be a new system because all current Body Fat Measurements are incredibly flawed as noted by the Medical Community.

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 29 at 2016 7:06 AM

Maj John Bell — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 07:06:51 -0400

Let us assume that the issue here is "field fitness" and not a military beauty pageant.

I do not know if the USMC PFT Is still Pull-ups, Sit-ups, and a 3-mile run. While PFT score was a good indicator of "field fitness". It was not accurate in all cases. Nor were the Height Weight charts or percent body fat waivers.

During extended foot mobile operations, (2-3 weeks), with daily tactical or administrative foot marches of 10-25 miles, preparation of fighting positions, night patrols etc. etc. etc. I do believe that the aforementioned standards had a strong correlation to performance. However, I saw cases where Marines who were outside of the aforementioned standards performed well. I also saw cases where Marines that were solidly within standards failed miserably.

Unfortunately, I do not have a clear, concise, and reasonable alternate to propose.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 8:15 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:15:25 -0400

I really hate flagging Soldiers for H&W after they nailed the APFT. But regs are there for a reason.

Response by SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS made Mar 29 at 2016 8:18 AM

SFC Dr. Joseph Finck, BS, MA, DSS — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:18:42 -0400

MSG Shawn Eaton This is a question which I have discussed with other SNCOs often. If a service member passes PT with a 60 in each event, and passes the "tape test" (dreaded fourth event) then they are OK according to standard. Your question, to me, addresses the service member who scores 90 in each event and has a military (muscular) appearance in uniform, but exceeds the tape. AR 600-9 is clear, exceeds tape = fail. As far as the second portion of your question pertaining to leadership and discipline. This is a slippery slope in my opinion. Leading by example is a great tenant of good leaders. If you cannot pass a PT test or fail tape, how are you leading by example? Is this the ONLY way to evaluate a leader, certainly not. I was taped throughout most of my career and am able to proudly say I never failed the test. I also never failed an APFT.

What about service members who are on a permanent profile? Are they not effective leaders because they do alternate PT events? I think not. Leadership is the art and science of influencing people to accomplish a goal or objective. Leadership through example is but one of many important tenants and there are more than one way to lead by example. Here is an illustrative point, I had an Operations Officer who asked that I used him for an example when I conducted "hip pocket training" on taping Soldiers for my NCOs. He failed. He then demanded that I submit the flag paperwork to the Commander. He demonstrated he was a good leader by acting ethically in the face of his failure and leading by example by accepting responsibility for his actions.

Truly, MSG Shawn Eaton this is a complicated question with complicated and challenging answers.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 8:33 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:33:37 -0400

NO this height and weight program we have really sucks , it needs to be retweaked.

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 29 at 2016 8:37 AM

1LT A. Uribe — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:37:01 -0400

I don't think so, it's ridiculous especially when you've demonstrated you passed the APFT. When I was a young SGT, I had a PSG (E-7) that would smoke the whole platoon in the APFT, yet couldn't pass the height and weight. This is obviously another exception to the rule that was not accounted for.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 8:53 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:53:14 -0400

I agree and disagree with all of those statements! Honestly, I'd rather have a Soldier that could PT for days and had a bit of a gut than one who fit some magic number but couldn't do 10 good pushups. My reasoning is that I'll give the Soldier the benefit of the doubt IF he's doing good at PT...maybe he's big boned...maybe he's built a certain way that makes his core bigger than others...but if you're an able bodied adult and can't grit out 2 minutes of discomfort and meet the VERY reasonable PT standards...now I question your work ethic. As far as PT being the only way to measure leadership and discipline...BS...it's an indicator, but it doesn't mean you are a good leader. Forest Gump wasn't a great leader.

I'd love to see the Army update their PT standards to INCLUDE core exercises like sprints, pull-ups, a rope climb or the o-course. It's really hard to pick just 3 exercises and say "this makes a good soldier". Situps are arguably a terrible exercise for your back and core...yet we do them dogmatically. The other thing to keep in mind is the standard for grading. I've seen PT cards so pencil whipped they look like Seabiscuit's ass...but I've seen selection courses fail every Soldier in PT. We have a LOT of room for improvement for sure.

Response by CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 8:58 AM

CPT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 08:58:22 -0400

One more thing...if your answer is "must not question regulation and search for better way...must do as we have always done..." then that's the wrong answer too. If we all had that mentality, we would still be wearing blue coats and firing muskets in-line.

Response by SFC Marcus Belt made Mar 29 at 2016 9:06 AM

SFC Marcus Belt — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:06:50 -0400

No. If any professions should be a pragmatic one, it should be the profession of arms. Basic neatness and proper wear of uniforms is important, but the height/weight (assuming the Soldier meets fitness performance standards) make less sense the question and answer portion of a beauty contest.

They are relics from a time when conventional armies lined up against conventional armies and slugged it out.

You know what would make more sense in the modern environment? A beard-growing contest, because the opponents we face now are more likely to be impressed by a majestic beard than they are by how someone looks in their dress uniform.

That said, I currently get paid to enforce the current standards, no matter how antiquated.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 9:37 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:37:03 -0400

The answer is simple: NO!

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 9:57 AM

CSM Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:57:42 -0400

H/W and body fat are a waste of valuable time. Let me explain a few of my thoughts.
#1 If you can pass the APFT to standard which is 60% then you are good to go.
#2 In my experience MOST of the H/W failures are ALSO APFT failures. so see #1
#3 I have seen bellies so big that the person could not do a proper pushup or situp, see #1

#4 If we are trying to look good, why do they keep giving us uniforms that are sloppy looking, the new manufacture should replace every uniform they have supplied the military, because they do NOT fit the sizes stated on the label. Not to sideline to much, but I went in to get some and the clothing sales was full. every soldier in there was complaining to me about how poorly they fit. They look good on a handful of soldiers. Well guess what, we can not be effective with a handful of soldiers. So it is obvious that our intent is not "looks" any longer, so see # 1.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 10:00 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:00:47 -0400

Yes, they absolutely should matter. The wear of the uniform is just as important. It irks me to see a pregnant looking man in uniform as he emphasized that he can pass the APFT.

Response by CW3 Pete Z. made Mar 29 at 2016 10:04 AM

CW3 Pete Z. — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:04:36 -0400

I do believe the HT/WT requirements should be done away with. I an remember back in my younger days my weight was around 200lbs, not an once of fat but because of a so-called scale of "what I should be" in terms of my height I was classified as overweight. It should all come down to a "professional appearance" You should be able to carry a professional appearance while in any uniform. If you can look down and see three or more "eye-holes on your foot wear than you should be good-to-go. This will peg those individuals whose stomachs are so big that they can't look down and see 2' in front of their shoes to be placed on a program or drummed out.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 10:07 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:07:17 -0400

I think HT/WT should be separate and the program revamped. Today's Army encompass different ethnicity, it is no longer those of WW Era. The program doesn't account for this

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 10:07 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:07:31 -0400

Well I can say that when some of us get older it is more difficult to be in standards and some of our jobs require common sense and years of skill. I agree that if a person passes then let them be. I have seen people who believe a 300 on a PT test equals life experience and knowledge.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Mar 29 at 2016 10:13 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:13:01 -0400

Height and weight boils down to a matter of image. Yes, they may be able to do the job, but do you want that individual representing the US military?

This is where the discussion lies. Personally, I would want to say no. And this goes for the same reason clothing companies like A&F, American Eagle, and Hollister only hire people of a specific demographic. To add to this. I work at a company where you can wear more or less whatever you want (Although if you have to question it, don't wear it). The ones who don't dress business casual are generally looked down upon.

It sucks, but image is important as well.

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 10:16 AM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:16:57 -0400

Medically speaking, the fitness standards are an excellent screening tool for overall health. Pushups and situps are ideal to measure your core strength. This is an indicator of injury susceptibility. Maximum abdominal circumference is an indicator of visceral fat. Visceral fat is the fat you do not see since it is surrounding your organs (including your heart). Statistically, persons with a round protruding abdomen have a higher risk of heart attack. The body must supply blood to the fatty tissues which reduces your available blood supply to vital organs in a time of high activity. Significant muscle mass (as in weight-lifters) does not decrease the risk. The run / walk is an indicator of heart and lung health. Again, it is about getting oxygenated blood to your vital organs. Besides, you need to look good in your uniform. Additionally, personal discipline is a key factor in leadership.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 10:37 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:37:11 -0400

According to the fm and ar, fitness starts with the body composition program. The stress of extra body weight that isn't lean muscle can hold a soldier back. Let's face it, a 180 pt score is the minimum, and that's not much of anything when it comes to the battlefield. A fit soldier is the key, and anyone toting around 18 to 24% body fat isn't going to be that fit.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 10:41 AM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:41:00 -0400

The main thing I am looking at with soldiers is can they do their job and do it well. While being in shape is part of that, I worked with by all accounts SF guys who were not within standards, but were the best at what they did. Guess what...they got to stay around and for a long time. The tape test is grossly flawed and has been studied albeit not to the level it should be. If a soldier is exceptional at what they do and passes the PT test, I think we need to do all we can to keep that person. I'm far more concerned with competence than how they look.

Response by Col Carlos Messer made Mar 29 at 2016 11:29 AM

Col Carlos Messer — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:29:51 -0400

Great discussion on this topic. Here are some thoughts:
H&W standards absolutely matter even if you pass your physical fitness test. The military is an organization built to service the masses versus the individual. We will always have individuals who pass the test yet do not meet appearance (H&W) standards. You can argue that many of these folks are victims of genetics but I would ask you to dig a little deeper and see exactly why said individual is overweight. Typically, H&W issues occur after someone enters the force. Otherwise, we typically would not have let them in to begin with or they met standards through Basic Training. The picture that stated this discussion is likely a good example. That guy would not have met entry requirements. So, ask yourself or your troops, "What has changed since the last time they met H&W plus PT standards?"
Another issue directly related to H&W is public appearance. While you may not think that Joe Civilian pays attention to you outside the wire, you'd be wrong. We all work for the taxpayers (of which you are one) and there are expectations to how that money is being spent. When I see A1C Pick-A-Name rolling down the sidewalk looking like ass (crappy uniform, crappy haircut, unfit, and generally frumpy), I'm rightfully pissed off and you should be, too. We, the military, have spent several decades convincing the world (especially our U.S. citizens) that we are the most professional, well-disciplined, and combat-ready force on earth. With that burden comes not only our actual ability, but also our role as a representative portion of the population. Public perception drives public support and instills confidence in our citizens. Looking the part, in today's media-driven environment, is critical.
Finally, I think that personal appearance and pride in the uniform goes beyond "how" you look and reflects an underlying work ethic and desire for perfection. If you don't care about standards or Dress and Appearance regulations because then what else are you indifferent about? Is that extra screw really necessary on the tank turret? One less rivet won't matter. Weapons cleaning....overrated. H&W, physical fitness, job performance, personal appearance, and being a visual representation of this nation are bedrocks of the profession of arms. Btw, we can all move on to a different profession if we no longer fit this one.
P.S. As a leader, any lapse in standards by me only served to deteriorate unit cohesion. A leader who does not meet ALL the standards is a hypocrite when he is forced to discipline others who fail to meet standards. I challenged my Airmen point these thing out and I held them accountable for their failure to do so.

Response by SFC Antonio Nieto made Mar 29 at 2016 11:33 AM

SFC Antonio Nieto — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:33:10 -0400

Of course it matters, both need to sync in if you do know pass hight and weight you do not get an

Response by Cpl Matthew Wall made Mar 29 at 2016 11:54 AM

Cpl Matthew Wall — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:54:37 -0400

H/W is not a good measurement and should become OBE in the military. Taping is the only way to know for sure. I'm 6'1 and weigh 200 lbs. by USMC standards I can max at 208 lbs. If do gain 8lbs I don't believe that I'm going to be obese.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 12:06 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:06:42 -0400

Of course we don't want overly obese Soldiers. However, ht/wt was more significant during World War I & II when Soldiers were jumping into combat. During those times Soldiers were looked at as cargo. Now when we deploy everyone takes a commercial flight, then bus, and from there walk to your living area. Until it's time for you to mount up in you Fox, MRAP, or Bradley.

Response by Cpl James Waycasie made Mar 29 at 2016 1:32 PM

Cpl James Waycasie — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 13:32:49 -0400

I think a professional Military appearance in Uniform has to come into play. If you look like a slob in uniform then they will "fix" you. I knew Marines that were way over weight due to bulking up with protein and weights. They still gave a good image in uniform so nothing was said to them. I know others that could pass the PFT but looked hoggish in uniform. They were told to shape up their appearance. Looks can be deceiving. I think anyone who wears a uniform in roles such as the Military, Police, Fire fighters, etc should be aware of their appearance in the uniform they represent. Nobody wants a "Ned Beatty squealing like a pig" look alike for their poster child, lol.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 2:57 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:57:51 -0400

Personally, I have know many that think the PT is the way to measure leadership and it's not. There are many people that suck at PT, but kick ass at their jobs. There are many that can kick ass at PT but suck at their jobs. BLUF, Height and weight matter because appearance matters. Sad, but true. PT scores, well, I think as long as they can pass and they are good at their job, I don't care if they got a 300 or not, boards care, but I as a supervisor do not. I care more about the mission and getting the job done. Not everyone can be a PT stud, but you damn well better not make that uniform look bad. At least try to stay in shape. Even if someone is injured, there are other types of exercises they can do to keep their cardio health up.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 3:03 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 15:03:58 -0400

My personal opinion aside; neither program has one to do with the other. The ABCP can also be applied to Soldiers who make screening weight. Over fat is over fat. Commanders are authorized to direct a body fat assessment on any Soldier that they determine does not present a Soldierly appearance.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 29 at 2016 4:19 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 16:19:15 -0400

As an Army Officer it's expected that we get good APFT scores. That was just a gate amongst many gates we had to go through, but in the end, how the organizations and individual are faring mattered most.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 5:36 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 17:36:18 -0400

Yes. The physical fitness test is very easy to pass. The two combined are necessary to keep medical costs down and readiness up. Physical appearance is also necessary to keep the confidence of our civilian populace. It should be obvious to everyone that when a civilian sees an obese person in uniform that it plants doubt in the efficacy of their tax dollars toward the military. It also elicits ridicule which is something that is detrimental to our mission. That being said, we need better tools for measuring body fat content, the tape test only creates cynicism in the system which is itself bad for discipline.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 29 at 2016 6:15 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 29 Mar 2016 18:15:07 -0400

i feel that H/W should be subjective. there are plenty of people that exercise regularly and lift weights. as a result they gain muscle mass and their weight increases. technically they may be considered "overweight" for their height even though they are in top shape. should they really be penalized for something such as this??

Response by COL Charles Williams made Mar 30 at 2016 12:19 AM

COL Charles Williams — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:19:25 -0400

Yes, it should matter... I don't think passing is a goal... Maxing should be the goal. The goal should also be to look good in uniform and well represent your service and your country. I understand the standards are never perfect, but we need standards just the same. MSG Shawn Eaton ... I a can remember seeing more than one fat Soldier working on their necks vs. their waste line. I am almost 55 and still wear class Bs to work... It is not easy, but I still wear the same size I did in 1995...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 6:13 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 06:13:44 -0400

I don't think someone should be flagged for being over weight just because they are over weight. I think they should knock out the shoe tape system. I've never been taped but I think if they want to do something about someone's weight give them an actual higher pt standard.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 7:03 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:03:16 -0400

I say yes as weight has a bearing on things such as joint and heart health, lowered cancer rates etc. It is more than a short term, "can we fight" but a long term question of are we encouraging a lifetime of wellness? On the flip side, if standards are so strict, one the member leaves service, many will lounge and gorge, winding up drastically overweight and defeating the purpose. What's the balance between the two? I'm not sure as I'm just a commo guy.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 7:55 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:55:28 -0400

As a soldier who struggled with height and weight while i was in the military i think that the standards should be reevalutated and redone just like the pt program.... because i was a weight lifter in highschool i had already a solid build but in the military for pt they focused more on cardio and definition which actuallly hurt me in the long run. going from a bigger guy i passed my pt tests but had t be taped every thime and sometimes because i was dropping inches off my neck faster then the belly area i would have to go on remedial pt. it wasnt until i started lifting weights again and built my neck back up that i started to pass my h an w by tape test. even that needs to be reevaluated because sometimes those are inaccurate as well.. the only true way to measure bmi and body fat is with a doctor who has the proper tools to do so.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 9:02 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:02:29 -0400

How could you possibly measure leadership and discipline through pt? That's insane. H&W makes sense regardless of passing the APFT or not because perception of our great institution is as important as actually being prepared for anything our enemies might throw out way. Being steadfast in our core beliefs means we want to "look" like Soldiers. SMH, what has this Army come to for even wondering something like this. PT is there to mimic movements during wartime. We are evolving and things will change, but I pray H&W stay.

Response by CPL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 9:08 AM

CPL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:08:05 -0400

I don't think height and weight matters as long as the soldier can pass the pt test. But we need a pt test that actually goes with the job. Being combat arms I believe we should have a pt test that has to do with heavy lifting and lots of sprints. Something we would actually be doing on the battlefield.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 11:02 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:02:10 -0400

I don't think the PT test has anything to do with leadership.
Leadership can be measured with one question:
Would I follow this leader into combat ?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 12:25 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:25:20 -0400

H&W should not matter if the Soldier passes the APFT. Like many here, I have been deployed, when the unit was informed stop loss was put into place. It didn't matter if you had failed a PT test, failed H&W, didn't qualify, etc...you were still being deployed. The PT test and H&W are a "Commander's tool to assess the physical readiness" clearly not a deciding factor for deployment or career ender. Ultimately it is up to the Commander to decide if the Soldier is fit enough to complete the mission. This is also why a few years back there was discussion of different PT tests and standards for each MOS.

Response by CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) made Mar 30 at 2016 12:29 PM

CW4 Russ Hamilton (Ret) — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:29:47 -0400

All I can say is I'm a big guy, 54, with 37 yrs in. I'm 6'3", 235, I have a 52 inch chest, 40 inch waist and a 19 1/2 inch neck. Granted, I only do the walk since being injured in Iraq in 2004 but I've NEVER failed an APFT, however, for the last 15 or so yrs, I've been taped or calipered and always passed. At least taping isn't as painful as the calipers... (anybody remember the pinch test?) To answer your question, we do have some fat bodies that look like shit in a uniform. On the other hand, expecting me to weigh 220 or whatever it is is laughable. There needs to be some sort of standard - I think if they can make tape that's good to go. Yes, there are offensive linemen in the NFL who could probably pass our APFT but would you want to see them in class A's?

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 1:12 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:12:56 -0400

It should matter, but it's weighed far too heavily for what it is. All soldiers must be able to shoot, move, and communicate. It seems ridiculous that you can get a 250+ on your APFT but fail height and weight it's the end of the world, but failing IWQ is no big deal. Hopefully the enemy respects our professional appearance enough to not engage us beyond 50 meters.

Tape test is inherently flawed. You see guys with huge guts get by because their necks are huge. I always get taped, but I run at a minimum 15 miles per week. Current ABCP seems to really only effects the marginal cases. I've yet to see someone who busts tape pass the APFT by more than the skin of their teeth.

Response by LTC John Wilson made Mar 30 at 2016 2:10 PM

LTC John Wilson — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:10:39 -0400

The "physical appearance" mantra is a lame excuse that maintains an irrelevant stereotype and props up an inaccurate measurement of Soldier performance. We look at "fat" Soldiers as "substandard" simply because we're always been told "fat" equates to "substandard" without regard to whether is really true or not.

At the end of the day, I want Soldiers who can tote their own weight and get the job done. If they can meet or exceed APFT standards, I could care less how round they are. Indeed, the latest edition of AR 600-9 deliberately divorces the APFT from the Army Body Composition Program. It encourages Commanders and Supervisors to allow a minimum of 7 days between APFT and weigh-in, if feasible (for RC units...do the weigh in on the drill one month before or after the APFT) for the sake of safety (Para 3-4b). Likewise, it no longer REQUIRES height, weight and body composition data to be recorded on the DA 705 - APFT Scorecard (Para 3-4d).

While it MAY have an impact of physical performance, a Soldier's body composition is NOT a physical fitness issue, it is a MEDICAL issue. In my opinion, UNITS should no longer be responsible for monitoring the Body Composition Program. First, the Screen Tables are probably well out of date -- reflecting height/weight standards that are several decades old and unsuitable for healthy Soldiers of the current generation. Second, the Tape Test has been proven, time and again, to be grossly inaccurate and inconsistently executed; yet, is can make or break a Soldier's career. It is well past time the change the paradigm.

The Army should acquire the Bod Pod (http://www.bodpod.com) for each Army Medical Facility and conduct ACCURATE Body Composition testing in the same way it does hearing or eye exams. If a Soldier is out of tolerance, then trained Army Physicians and Dieticians should assist the Soldiers in achieving healthy standards. If they cannot achieve a healthy composition, then medically chapter them.

Sadly, in an era of severe cuts in troop strength, the Army Body Composition Program is an all too easy method for decimating the ranks without having to do any qualitative thinking.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 4:13 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:13:24 -0400

I think that if a service member can pass their pt test height and weight should not matter.

Response by GySgt Moses Lozano made Mar 30 at 2016 4:15 PM

GySgt Moses Lozano — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:15:31 -0400

During my tenure in the Marines, I saw a lot of good Marines get out because of the crappy way the height and weight standards system was run. It's one thing to just be a fat turd who doesn't PT because your lazy and another to be in shape, look good in uniform and still be flagged as over weight!

They should revamp this system and go back to the weight waiver system. This allowed each unit CO the ability to allow a weight waiver for individuals who could pass the PT test, had no medical issues and could pass a uniform inspection.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 5:25 PM

SGM Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 17:25:01 -0400

Yes.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 6:43 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:43:49 -0400

Height and weight screening tables only identify people who may be overweight. The actual standard, as I understand it, is based on specific amounts of body fat based on someones age and sex. The problem is that measuring body fat with a tape test can sometimes be subjective. Some people have a tendency to pull the tape tight, others try to leave it as lose as possible without it sliding down. If it were up to me, I'd schedule everyone who was over the screen table weight for a water displacement test every 6 months. It's fair, it's accurate, and no one can game the system by focusing only on reducing their waist and building up their neck.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2016 11:28 AM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 11:28:50 -0400

MSG I fully agree with you on this, I always have struggled with the ht/wt because of my size. I have always been more muscular/stocky and always close on tape because of this. Yet I do very well on the APFT, so I agree that it should be thrown out the window and upgraded to a better way to measure bodyfat.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 31 at 2016 8:10 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 20:10:06 -0400

It is regrettable that appearance matters even if someone can reach high physical standards. Perception is a tool in battle strategy. Enemies look for softer targets and the appearance of your forces may determine the conflict's outcome or if there is a conflict at all. An enemy commander's perception of your troop strength, fitness, discipline, training and resolve can lead them to determine that the potential cost is too great and seek other avenues or even surrender. Physical fitness and appearance are equally valuable in warfare and one should not be preferred.

Response by MAJ Bill Darling made Apr 1 at 2016 10:35 AM

MAJ Bill Darling — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 10:35:56 -0400

Like the official photo, I think ht/wt standards generally carry too much weight, no pun intended, and both are classic cases of form over substance. If fitness is the overall concern, than personally I don't care too much what the person looks like. After all, one of the major tenets of allowing women into combat units is "if they can do the job" right? (of course, another argument)

If appearance is the concern, then it is very arbitrary. Granted commanders and their senior NCOs should have some leeway in how their soldiers look, but all too frequently LT Chubby can pass everything and doesn't appear "soldierly" and SGT Football doesn't, yet the latter is more fit and looks like a soldier.

I think PT is not directly relational to leadership, but just a measure of an individual's ability to perform the most basic infantry tasks (raising oneself from the ground, front and back, and cardiovascular endurance). And it doesn't necessarily require discipline either since some much work at it and others not so much.

Response by SSgt Paul Esquibel made Apr 3 at 2016 2:14 PM

SSgt Paul Esquibel — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 14:14:52 -0400

Well I'm not familiar with the Army regulations, however in the AF we still do H/W but only for detail purposes it plays no part in determining your score, what hurts those in the AF is the waste measurement, which plays at odds with Larger/Taller people or those women of Black or Hispanic decent as some have naturally wider hip bones, we are measured on the top of our hip bone. Women cannot exceed a 35inch waist and men cannot exceed a 39inch waist regardless of the genetic make-up or structure. I don't believe H/W should matter because genetically we are all different you simply can't generalize everyone and we all are built to have a percentage of body fat to muscle due to your natural size. I think simply test the physical ability of the person anything outside of that should not matter, if you can pass the standard for what can physically be done then your good.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 3 at 2016 5:30 PM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 03 Apr 2016 17:30:03 -0400

If a soldier can pass a full standard APFT (not profile), then H/W shouldn't matter. Clearly, if they are overweight, it's more muscle than fat. However, I've seen plenty of obese soldiers who can pass a nonstandard (walk, bike) APFT, so I'd say H/W is still an important consideration.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2016 7:34 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 07:34:57 -0400

It matters because it is an Army Standard and needs to be enforced by the Chain of Command. Letting the Soldier slide because their performance in PT would set that Soldier up for failure in the future. Do I personally agree with it? No, I think if the Soldier displays a Military Appearance they should be good to go.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2016 6:20 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:20:25 -0400

After reviewing a host of comments, it is apparent the Army needs to address the APFT and height/weight issue at the highest levels. I have also known a few soldiers who are able to pass the APFT but struggle with height/weight and the current ineffective body fat measuring tests. Therefore, they are not heralded as good soldiers because they "fail to meet the standard" despite being able to destroy the APFT which is supposed to be an indicator of a soldier's "overall" fitness.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2016 7:31 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 14 Apr 2016 19:31:45 -0400

If they can pass the PT test and do their job well, damn the Height/Weight.

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 16 at 2016 1:00 PM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 16 May 2016 13:00:52 -0400

they should still have to look good in uniform.

Response by SSgt Donnavon Smith made May 17 at 2017 3:26 PM

SSgt Donnavon Smith — Wed, 17 May 2017 15:26:15 -0400

I say no. I am a fat body now, but I have always had a strange neck that got me in trouble. I cannot tell you how many times I was arbitrarily weighed/taped just because I "looked" over weight even though I wasn't. funny thing is that the same big neck that "looked bad" gave me stupid low body fat numbers when I got taped LOL. the system is broken.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2017 4:51 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 17 May 2017 16:51:22 -0400

it's more then your ability to pass the APFT. H&W standards are also in place to address military appearance.

Response by SGT Morrison (Mike) Hogwood made May 17 at 2017 6:47 PM

SGT Morrison (Mike) Hogwood — Wed, 17 May 2017 18:47:01 -0400

I feel the body fat compositions test should be done by the Medical folks like it did back in the late 70's and 80's,they did the caliper test to determine body fat,left at the unit level you can still have that good ole boy group that slide and the ones that the command does not like and their gone,the current test can be manipulated for the good and the bad, and what was stated by another poster it's a commander tool to use at their disposal,but where does the military stop at when trying to find ways to eliminate good soldier's from the service,when the wars stop the military get's smaller

Response by PFC Jason Jackson made May 19 at 2017 12:37 PM

PFC Jason Jackson — Fri, 19 May 2017 12:37:22 -0400

My wife is in and she can pass a PT test without question. But, because she gains muscle along with burning fat her weight stays exactly the same. That's 1% over the standard. But if a guy has 45 inch waist (Pot belly) but a 21 inch neck well then by golly he passes. The standards need to be revised. Do the PT test like this 1 standard across the 2 genders. no less or more for either one and, on top of that, a ruck march 4 miles 30 minutes 40 lbs ruck. If you can do that then why the hell would anyone give a shit how much you weigh?

Response by SPC(P) Carlos Santini made Jul 7 at 2017 1:14 AM

SPC(P) Carlos Santini — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 01:14:38 -0400

I say hell no. If they pass the PT Tests than leave the troop alone.

Response by SGT Anna Kleinschmidt made Jul 7 at 2017 4:04 AM

SGT Anna Kleinschmidt — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 04:04:43 -0400

I could not pass my tape, and I was fat shamed. I don't have many pics of me but this is what the ARMY wanted to call fat even though I always taped with a very low body fat.

Response by SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth made Jul 7 at 2017 7:42 AM

SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 07:42:17 -0400

Most definitely.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2017 8:04 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 08:04:11 -0400

I think the best way to look at this question is simple. For those of us that have had to depend on soldiers in combat would you rather have: service member 1 who scores in the top 10% of your services physical fitness test but is over the allowed body fat by 2% or service member 2 who scores in the bottom 10% of the fitness test but is 2% under allowed body fat. Given that they are both equally capable of doing their assigned job.

Response by PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM made Jul 7 at 2017 8:52 AM

PO2 Rev. Frederick C. Mullis, AFI, CFM — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 08:52:09 -0400

Like most of the standards coming out of the Pentagon since the end of Vietnam these too are pure BS! The people who thought them up have no more idea what it is like on the ground with an enemy trying to kill you or in my case on a flight deck for 12 hours loading out Aircraft with weapons most of the time by hand and pulling bomb skids with over 3000# of HEI all over a pitching deck. After Vietnam, I finally rotated to shore duty and I came face to face with the height and weight standards. They did not give a damn as long as I was humping the bombs on the aircraft, but now the Navy considered me fat. 5'9" 200# of solid muscle. I ended up being sent to Homestead AFB to the Hospital there where I went through a battery of tests, medical and Physical. They weighed me in a tub of water and dry to determine my BMI, I went out to a track and kept up with two Air Force medics as we did a series of running and exercises then I told them to take me to the base Gym where I proceeded to make them look pitiful in free weights, the Universal Gym. At the end of two weeks a 2 star General walked into the room I was in and asked me Why the Navy was trying to put me out? I said very simple I did not look good in Bell Bottpms, and the pentagon is full of Idiots. He told me that if the Navy succeeded, to come join the Air Force, After the Air Force fiasco, I was sent to D.D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort Gordon and the Army had their chance to prove me unfit. More tests, a strict diet, more PT and the same results. Physically fit for duty. Plus I did meet a dynamite Nurse who made it her personal responsibility to take care of me. she even switched duty with a few other nurses so she would be on duty while I was there. She said I reminded her of her Father, who had also served in the Navy in WWII and Korea as had mine. "Ya gotta love Nurses!!! But I digress...
The pencil necked geeks who write these standards would not last a day in the trenches, on a flight deck, or in the engine rooms. THAT is where the real military does their jobs. Not on a set of scales and that piece of tape is not going to protect our coasts or defend our Republic.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made Jul 7 at 2017 9:25 AM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:25:06 -0400

I can understand both sides of the Height and Weight vs PT score debate, I just wish someone had set these standards before people enlisted, so they could know what was expected of them? Oh wait, was that sarcasm?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2017 9:37 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 09:37:22 -0400

Yes it should but I realize that there are some exceptions. I served with a SSG who was into body building, he could never pass the Ht/wt scale so had to be taped every time, used to piss him off.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2017 12:06 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 12:06:50 -0400

Well my issue is if you look at pictures of soldiers, especially in the gyms, back in like the Vietnam era their body composition was no where near most of us today. You can see them doing curls with small weights and are real skinny. But nowadays more soldiers are into heavy weight lifting or cross fit and muscle wise we have more muscle mass than those before us. With that said the H/W standards need to change. For example for my height I'm suppose to weight no more than 168. I started lifting in junior high school and have not weighed that since freshman year. But because of this I'm always taped even with a pt score of over 290 each time. I have seen soldiers score on the extended scale and still be taped. I have seen soldiers with six packs get flagged for H/W because they had a small neck which is ridiculous. But then I have seen soldiers that are clearly over weight pass due to having no neck syndrome or just a really thick neck. The Army needs to have a standard but they need to seriously revamp this one. I think that if they pass with a 270 or above (90 in each event they should not have to be taped regardless of weight) however at the same time if they are obviously popping out of their uniform but still pass the APFT then they should be flagged on having an unprofessional appearance and not on being overweight since they can still perform the physical duties. It may need to get tweaked a little but that's what I think they need to think about and fix.

Response by CW4 Angel C. made Jul 7 at 2017 3:33 PM

CW4 Angel C. — Fri, 07 Jul 2017 15:33:40 -0400

It's a matter of appearance with the H&W. While I agree that if you pass the PT test you're in some kind of shape it doesn't necessarily mean you're in good shape and/or present a professional appearance. It doesn't take much or a lot of preparation to pass it every 6 months. Maybe if you had to take it every month and there weren't any PT event exemptions or alternate events across the board. But that's not the case so it should stay independent of each other.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Jul 8 at 2017 2:33 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sat, 08 Jul 2017 14:33:17 -0400

Should an APFT matter if Soldiers pass the height/weight?

The Physical Fitness Test ONLY evaluates general fitness...Soldiers can (and do in many cases) train a few weeks to minimally pass the current fitness test.

The Army Body Composition Program needs to be updated, but handcuffing one to the other will not happen.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2018 10:27 AM

1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 02 May 2018 10:27:46 -0400

Why isn’t weight a good physical standard? what is the answer

Response by MSG Danny Mathers made Jul 21 at 2018 1:03 PM

MSG Danny Mathers — Sat, 21 Jul 2018 13:03:46 -0400

There is a point where too big is too big. It would take two or more men to drag a 300 pound wounded body builder. Also, conducting Close Quarters Battle is hampered and in some cases impossible. I have seen a body building trend simce the 90's where guys just got plain huge which medical personnel would have to consult commander for a standard. There is a point where strength affects stamina and performance. I believe the PT Test should include at least 7 events, pushups, situp, run dodge & jump, low crawl, crap walk, 15 meter smim in combat uniform and 5 mile run, instead of 2 mile run. Every soldier need to be able to swim far enough to save themself. I seriously doubt the dude picture could pass the recommended test. It is almost the same test given decades ago. Opinions will vary.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 8 at 2019 3:30 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Apr 2019 15:30:57 -0400

The answer is this: Only enlist people that look like blue tick hounds. No bulldogs, St Bernard's, and such.

Response by CPO Arthur Weinberger made Jun 6 at 2019 10:03 PM

CPO Arthur Weinberger — Thu, 06 Jun 2019 22:03:35 -0400

Height and weight standards should be enforced. Pt also. During my tenure in the service, I was allowed to carry an extra ten pounds. This, due to bone structure and muscularity.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Jul 15 at 2019 6:36 PM

CSM Darieus ZaGara — Mon, 15 Jul 2019 18:36:05 -0400

Excess weight is not good on anyone. I have seen many big and powerful Soldiers throughout the Years, they are. Ore prone to injury, health related issues etc. these are medically proven facts. Why not simply meet the standard. Thank you for your service.

Response by SSG Paul Newman made Feb 14 at 2020 4:41 PM

SSG Paul Newman — Fri, 14 Feb 2020 16:41:48 -0500

I was a borderline h/w guy who passed the PT standard in my day. As a medic and later a nurse, I served in a rifle platoon, a CSH, and a Medical Center. When in an infantry unit they kept me lean, the CSH kept me fit enough to pass and made sure I could pass the % boy fat test. Working 12 HR nights in the ICU and going to school in the days definitely put a spread on me when I was in a Medical Center with little to no PT program. I started swimming and found butterfly strokes tightened my trapezius and lats which was 2 0f the areas they pinch tested and got me under my required percentage. I was never Rambo, but not quite Sad-Sack, either. Maybe a Beetle Bailey but by the time I made E-6 and worked in a hospital I began to look like Sgt. Snorkel.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 13 at 2020 10:47 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 13 Mar 2020 22:47:16 -0400

It’s time to let H/W go! With the difficulty the military as a whole has had getting people to not only join, but then the struggles we have retaining them have our numbers in this all volunteer force beginning to dwindle enough. Add to that the number of good, smart Soldiers I have seen get the boot due to H/W regardless of their ability to score 270 or higher on the APFT. We have an entry and retention problem that need to be addressed and even with these struggles to “keep em’ in boots” we still continue to kick out quality Soldiers due to H/W. I have taken the new ACFT and will feel that if a Soldier can pass this new full body workout ACFT then they should be able to stay in boots. Pt harder and smarter to keep your Soldiers in shape and you don’t have to worry about H/W. (Stepping off soap box)

Response by SFC Melvin Brandenburg made Mar 14 at 2021 8:43 AM

SFC Melvin Brandenburg — Sun, 14 Mar 2021 08:43:08 -0400

I have been flagged about a third of my career for height weight. I have accomplished a great many things above my pay grades. I have never failed an APFT. On deployment I got into a fight with another E4 who consistently scored in the extended scale. I strength train and coupled with my weight he didn't have a chance. HT Wt is more about appearance than anything until weight becomes excessive to the point it affects performance. I think if a soldier can score 90 percent in all 3 events Ht Wt should be waived.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Aug 1 at 2022 2:21 PM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 01 Aug 2022 14:21:57 -0400

Personally, I'm more worried about competence than I am run times or waist lines.
After 22 years and seven deployments, I've never seen a mission fail due to PT scores or waist lines, but I've seen quite a few fail due to incompetence.

PT is easy to quantify, so it's easy to focus on, but the things that actually matter, such as competence, intelligence, experience, compassion, creativity, earnestness, devotion and countless other intangibles are much harder to quantify...
PT is the go to for lazy leaders... actual mentorship requires far more effort..