Would you prefer to work with somebody more physically fit, or with more job proficiency?

Had a great CSM tell me once, "If you were down on an operating table, would you care if the OR tech could max his PT test?" Physical Fitness is extremely important however, if I had to pick one, MOS proficiency would be it. Truthfully, I'd rather have a mix of both.

I'd prefer a well-rounded Soldier that cared enough to do both.

Apologies, this is my first response using the voting feature, if we're to assume that the question is limited to these two choices, it would of course depend on what the daily duties consist of and what level of responsibility and/or scope of work... in a perfect scenario, I would like to see both; however, if I had to chose one over the other, in most instances I will personally value smarts, proficiency, and good old fashioned "know-how," as we can find "fit" individuals with relative ease, IMHO it is quite a bit more challenging to find those that are outstanding performers, truly proficient, imminently qualified and knowledgeable performers in their MOS/AFSCs. Again, just one person's opinion.     

As long as the pass they APFT, and stay within Amy regs for weight control, I'd rather them be experts in their MOS.

As the Army already has a standard for physical fitness, I would rather have Soldiers who are proficient in their MOS. The army places alot of weight on physical fitness, but for whatever reason MOS proficiency does not appear to hold much if any weight in a Soldiers career.  Since I first joined the Army, those Soldiers with high APFT scores always got the better opportunities to help in their advancement. Today I see a lot of leaders who are great at taking the APFT, but are entirely clueless when it come to the performance of their job. Perhaps we need to reinstate MOS proficiency testing as part of the promotion board, at least it would offer some weight to the Go/No-Go decision of the board members (Which i have yet to see the board give a Soldier a No-Go at the board). 

(What's your timeline?) Because physical fitness varies, but dumb is forever.

It's difficult to choose if these are the only options. However, I prefer a well rounded and motivated soldier. You can't teach enthusiasm and drive. That want and desire to get up and be a soldier, to serve your country and wear the uniform proudly knowing your one of the few that not only has the courage to do it but to maintain it. It normally stands to reason that a squared away and fit soldier is more likely to be focused on all aspects of being a soldier and not just fitness. <br><br>If I wanted to work with someone who was a lousy soldier, fat and lazy, but really really good at his job then I don't have to join the military to find it. In the military we are warriors first and our job comes second. When "it" hits the fan (so to speak) we drop the wrenches and pick up our weapons. I want to know the guy next to me not only has my back but has the "ability" to have my back. Anything short of a full commitment to everything the Army is or will ever be is failure. discipline is what separates the military from the rest. <br><br><br><br><br>

I know this sound like a generic answer, but I look for the total soldier concept.<div><br></div><div>&nbsp; - Mos Proficiency</div><div>&nbsp; - Physical Fitness</div><div>&nbsp; - Tactical Knowledge</div><div><br></div><div>That can be taught with some training/mentorship. What I look for in a soldier are certain traits and those are: integrity, honor, resiliency, willingness to learn, and the drive to achieve excellence.&nbsp;</div><div>&nbsp;&nbsp;<br><div><br></div><div><br><div><br></div><div><br><br><br><br>&nbsp;</div></div></div>

If it has to be one it would be MOS/Job proficiency. I have seen some pretty physically fit individuals that where a few cards short of a complete deck.