Should we accept reduced expectations in the Reserve Components?

2018-11-21T00:55:30-05:00

I have recently answered a question about addressing a Soldier for failing an APFT. I found it troubling to find that many Soldiers, and Leaders, felt a Soldier in the Guard or Reserve should be held to a reduced expectation when it comes to PT as long as they can perform their job. So if a Soldier scores a 145 on the APFT they would chose to overlook the failure as long as their were to perform well. I understand the challenges of maintaining unit readiness while in a reserve component but should the APFT regulation be overlooked? Wouldn't fitness directly correlate into unit readiness?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2018 1:07 AM

2018-11-21T01:07:16-05:00

My first impression of the Reserve Component:
I show up for a PT test. In active duty, you get down and the grader tells you what you need to max. This grader tell me, "You need 42 to pass". I was completely caught off guard.
"How many do I need to max?"
Now it's his turn to look baffled. "Oh... Um, I don't know".
Its the culture of the Reserve component.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2018 1:11 AM

2018-11-21T01:11:08-05:00

I was 31 in basic training in 1994. I did not max the APFT though I maxed the run with a 12 min 2 mile. I passed height and weight. By 34 years old getting my Commission I maxed the APFT and in OBC/BOLC I went extended scale (317 Points) While in the CA ARNG. I made time to be in shape, not smoke, rarely drink. High School and community college cross-country country helped me way before the army but the then twice a year APFT kept me motivated to prepare for the tests.

Response by SGT Donald Croswhite made Nov 21 at 2018 1:20 AM

2018-11-21T01:20:49-05:00

The standard should be the standard. If you deploy out off a reservist component (I don't totally know how that works) and you can't pull one of my guys out of a fight, I will beat your @$$ when we get back. Active duty infantry are at work from 6 to 18 most days.The reserves should be as fit if not better. Reservists have allot more time to stay in shape. They may not have to will power, but they have the time.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2018 1:25 AM

2018-11-21T01:25:37-05:00

To answer, no. The Reserve Components shouldn’t accept reduced PT standards.

Interestingly, this could be reposted as a question for active duty. I found it troubling to find that many Soldiers, and Leaders, felt a Soldier on Active duty should be held to a reduced expectation when it comes performing their job as long as they can max their PT test.

If a soldier gets in trouble, leadership almost always asks up front, “well what’s his Pt score?” If a soldier starts f*cking off on the job, not meeting standards xyz, leadership almost always asks up front, “well what’s his PT score?” Etc.

Right or wrong, being a PT monster on active duty often helps leadership look past a soldiers’ deficiencies in job performance.

Response by CSM Chuck Stafford made Nov 21 at 2018 6:05 AM

2018-11-21T06:05:24-05:00

If your expectation is low, then the results will be low. People in general will do as little as they can in any situation. It's a great way for leaders to set themselves and their organizations up for failure

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2018 8:17 AM

2018-11-21T08:17:05-05:00

No, there should not be a different standard for the Reserve Components... although I have no idea how they are going to field this new PT test around the reserve and guard force.
A Soldier is a Soldier, and I don't care how busy life is, PT is something you make time for or you don't. Likewise a healthy diet. Not doing so indicates a lack of discipline that is not limited to performance on APFT test day.
I submit that the out of shape Soldier is not "good at his job". He is a poor example. If coddled by leadership, he is a contagion.
And for you leaders who tolerate out of shape Soldiers, I challenge you to get out there yourself and train with them until they are squared away. Where was the CSM on PT on Tuesday morning? How about the S-3, or God be good, the Warrant Officers?
There is more to this issue than accepting a failure as OK, CPT Private RallyPoint Member

Response by CPT Lawrence Cable made Nov 21 at 2018 8:59 AM

2018-11-21T08:59:42-05:00

No. It really isn't that big of a chore to maintain enough of a fitness level to at least pass a PT test and that requirement is part of the Contract that the soldier agreed on when he/she enlisted. I worked a full time job and had a family when I was in the Guard and I know making time to workout and run is a hassle, but I wasn't drafted and that was part of the deal.
I always tried to lead by example and I was scoring at least 270 on the 19 year old scale when I turned 40. I wasn't a gifted athlete in HS and College, I just trained up to it and tried to maintain that level all the time I was in the Guard.

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Nov 21 at 2018 10:40 AM

2018-11-21T10:40:21-05:00

Back in my time, the standards were the same and presume they are now as well. Since then, I've seen the bell curve shift more to the pudge side. So you ask, what caused that? I'm not a Guard expert but had Reserve time. The shift was predictable. We won't pay for your travel so you get to eat the 400 mile drive, lodging, and meals if you want a pay billet. We stretched out promotion zones so you have to wait. We don't care about what your employer thinks. Just back? You're getting tossed out there again. Bottom line, how do you feel about making the effort to stay in shape for the so called reward you get? The average "feel factor" has shifted. Some of it has to do with the lifestyles now vs. the past. If you want to know how far we shifted, take a look at the early 1900s historical photos/flicks of city street scenes. Maybe 5% tops were pudgy. I was in NYC last week and would put that figure at 50%. A lot more effort was required to make sure you had some food.

You have policy and you have reality. Even when I was skippering, my skilled manning level was vastly more important on my Fitrep than percentage of command that scored Excellent. So did things get overlooked? Sure, until the next PFT cycle and we had to pay attention to the results. Most that didn't want to tone up went IRR where they could hide. But most of that group weren't your highest performers. I'd expect the fat wedge will be around until we hit the times when the leadership says "May the odds be ever in your favor."

Response by MAJ(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2018 10:57 AM

2018-11-21T10:57:22-05:00

Standards are established among COMPO 1-3 for a reason. If a Soldier fails to meet the physical standard, they have not found the time to take care of themselves. As a ARNG Soldier of 15 years - with a Family (Wife, 3 Kids, Work) I still made the time for exercise to meet a standard that is directed. There is only 1% of the US population that choose to meet the demands of this profession - there is a reason for that percentage.

Response by SPC David S. made Nov 21 at 2018 11:28 AM

2018-11-21T11:28:47-05:00

No - I used to run in my boots and BDU trousers - still maxed my PT. As well what's next - haircut, uniform and so on. Bad idea.

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made Nov 21 at 2018 12:57 PM

2018-11-21T12:57:12-05:00

No. an excellent source for this mistake can be found in T.R. Fehrenbach’s book “This Kind of War” when poorly trained,out of shape Army units were slaughtered by the North Koreans early in the war,Marines being Marines didn’t have this problem since their methods of training and discipline never slackened after WWII.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Nov 21 at 2018 5:53 PM

2018-11-21T17:53:52-05:00

So LT Rosa, I think the problem is really how some people view the National Guard. A lot of old timers and former Active Duty view it as something owed to them after years of service on Active Duty versus a rapidly deployable reserve force. Lets also be honest that the Pentagon up until GWOT time was complicit in that interpretation. I think that is what is driving a lot of this. Change that unit culture and you have covered a lot of ground in fixing this issue.

One suggestion, do a deployment drill and time how long it takes the unit to get ready to roll out. Regular Army used to do those all the time for front line units during the Cold War. It makes a difference.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2018 7:17 PM

2018-11-21T19:17:01-05:00

Overlooking a Soldier's APFT or HT/WT fail because they are good at their job is just as lazy as overlooking a Soldier's inability to do his job just because he got a 300 APFT.
Both are wrong and both are examples of poor leadership.
The minimum requirements are passing the APFT, HT/WT, and competency in the job, one is not an excuse for the other.

Response by CSM Thomas McGarry made Nov 21 at 2018 7:21 PM

2018-11-21T19:21:12-05:00

I suppose if we want history to repeat itself than yes. As I recall at the beginning of the Korean War Guard and Reserve Units were thrown into the war, the fact that they were unprepared in both training and physical readiness resulted in many unnecessary casualties and poor leadership.

Response by 1SG Dennis Hicks made Nov 22 at 2018 6:37 PM

2018-11-22T18:37:32-05:00

While I was on AD we held the guard and Reserve to the term "WEEKEND WARRIOR" and treated them in that manner since they rarely where called up to support AT for long duration's. Then I left AD and went into the Reserves after a short break. In the units I served in we kept to the standards for the most part as you can not always get your way with all Chains of command. Then after 9/11, I saw how the Reserves and Guard where treated as office temps and fillers. In many cases they were prevented from performing their duties within their MOS and detailed to fill office jobs, headcounts and other nobody wants to do work. Many lost jobs, businesses and relationships due to multiple deployments regardless of USERRA and the DWELL times clock.
Keeping in mind we are all to do what Big Army needs and wants but this was well beyond that. AD didn't have a clue how to absorb Reserves and Guard fully as to take care of them administratively. Many on the AD side have no concept of how Reservists and Guardsmen support themselves or their families. It sure isn't on a handful of duty days each month or an annual training rush to train fest or assorted school mission weeks. Guardsmen and Reservist stay in uniform to serve this nation with a handful of dip shits that only do it for school or some other selfish reason. The Guard and Reserve are and were intended to provide Soldiers a means to keep their skills and fitness up to standards should our military need to call upon them to serve in times of great need.
You can not expect a part time force to be 100% like an AD force since you can not serve two masters perfectly all the time. Before 9/11 its a fair observation to say that the RC and Guard were not highly respected, fairly treated of even treated as on par with AD by a majority of big Army. That has changed greatly but still has a long way to go and retention will show if it working or failing greatly. Everyone should be held to the same standard if it is feasible to do given the structure, funding and priorities set by our leadership.
On my two paid vacations to the Sand box I would say that my unit and I where treated correctly and permitted to do what we were trained to do 65% of the time. The remaining 35% of the time I was met with varying levels of "we don't give a shit what you want to do", Yeah that's nice but we need you to do this" or go sit in the corner after you get your shine box,
Keep in mind this is from a Senior NCO with 15 years AD and 20 in the Reserve, Combat Arms and Service and Support MOS's, then again it could be that I am just a bitter old asshole running my mouth as usaul.

Response by Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 27 at 2018 5:17 PM

2018-11-27T17:17:56-05:00

100%. PERIOD. The Unit’s fitness readiness correlates directly to their overall readiness. Before I commissioned into the AD, my Reserve unit was full of SMs of all pay grades who were combat ineffective due to their individual levels of fitness. You can know your job inside and out and have all the competence in the world, but if you can’t maintain your fitness to the bare minimum standards (which are low) then you need to seek employment elsewhere. We have to be able to operate in harsh, austere environments that might require us to count on our individual and battle’s readiness. You are only as strong as the weakest link. I would also be troubled by their responses.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2018 1:25 PM

2018-12-18T13:25:30-05:00

I honestly don't think it's just a Guard/Reserve issue. I also don't believe its dependent on unit. Like a couple others in this thread have mentioned I've seen the overlooking of issues with job vs PT score and vice versa played out in numerous unit types. I know my current command continuously hits on this issue every month even though its pointed (more) at a select few.
Everyone on Active duty already knows that unit PT isn't to improve you, but to maintain your level. If your level is sh*t, maintaining that isn't going to amount to much. On the Guard side of the house, with such limited time in the training schedule, and so many requirements to place in, its even more apparent that you need to do a lot of training on your own. Throughout my time spent MDAY I worked out more than any of my Active time (AGR and traditional) outside of deployment, and it was more beneficial for me because I could design my program to what I needed to improve on, not just go off a half-assed calendar a PSG put down in DTMS.
Personally though, I am by far a believer of personal responsibility, no mater what your component or status. If I cannot count on you to be a member of my team to complete the barest basic needs to pass in one area, I have serious considerations rely on you to uphold your other areas. Yes, you could very well be outstanding at one large portion of the job, but you might suck in other supporting areas. You could be the best gunner in the Battalion on the 240, but if you can't move that 240 the required distance, and then be able to set it and everything with it in place, can you really classify that as being able to perform your job? Just my thought though.

Response by 1stSgt Ken Zgak made Dec 18 at 2018 3:45 PM

2018-12-18T15:45:18-05:00

It has been that way for a long time. When I was stationed at Survival we had a Guard that was like 50% body fat, so overweight he required two parachute harnesses to lift him off the ground. The Commander saw this and ordered me to throw him off the base. After researching the AFIs we found they can show up looking like a duffel bag as long as they pass the cold mirror test. They basically faced no punishment for not being able pass fitness tests, or even be held to the same standards as active duty. It was almost impossible to discharge them. That was back in the 90s and I doubt much has changed.