Avatar feed
Responses: 20
SFC Michael Hasbun
19
19
0
I think if we're really serious about readiness and combat lethality, we need to worry a lot less about run times and a lot more on schools, training and education.
In 20+ years and seven deployments, I have seen many missions fail because leaders or soldiers were incompetent.
I've never seen a mission fail because of a Soldiers run time or waist line.
We focus on low hanging fruit because it's easy, but it doesn't affect meaningful change.
(19)
Comment
(0)
WO1 Bde Ew Tech
WO1 (Join to see)
>1 y
This^^^^
We barely even train people to do their basic jobs, or even understand what their job is, let alone be an expert in it.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MSG Congressional Fellow
8
8
0
To be honest, I knew this was going to happen. The old 623-3 stated specifically that an APFT score of 90% in each event (270 or better) was a justified Excellence bullet on the NCOER. The new ACFT has made that standard nearly impossible for 95% of females. Every centralized board AAR memorandum specifically says “Soldiers who consistently scored higher than 270 on the APFT were viewed higher than their peers.” This will result in lower overall board scores for females, reducing their promotion rates.

The same can be said about removing DA photos and blocking names from boards. This will mean that promotion selections are solely based upon merit, which will likely reflect in disparities between rank and overall Army demographics.

ACFT was a dumb idea. Too much equipment is required and PT test day is now a week long affair.

The answer to the Army’s fitness evaluation problem is actually written within the APFT instructions: “gives your commander an INDICATION of your state of fitness.” The APFT was never meant to be the single metric for determining combat readiness. That’s why we have collective and individual training, why we conduct FTX/STX/CPX, and why we send units to the training centers.
(8)
Comment
(0)
MAJ Javier Rivera
MAJ Javier Rivera
>1 y
GySgt Dawson Webb, the major issue with the test - from my point of view - is its complexity and cost. As a commander, I could execute a fitness test for about 200 Soldiers in about an hour; jokes included. The whole event required minimum equipment: few stop watches and other miscellaneous items. Nothing that could not be purchased at a local store if needed. With the new ACFT? I new Quadrennial budged needs to get going to allocate proper funding for equipment!

Regarding the events. Training time is precious to say the least. Therefore, given the option of an entire day trying to become a wold level hexathlonist! I would rather have my troops go out shoot and blow something, and train whatever their MOS is! Do Soldiers need to be fit? Of course!

Guess what? That’s how Soldiers get promoted. Becoming the best at their job, leading their subordinates, and training them! Teach, Coach, Mentor!
(5)
Reply
(0)
MSG Congressional Fellow
MSG (Join to see)
>1 y
There are physiological differences between men and women’s, and there is nothing sexist about pointing out those facts. We had a gender-specific test before, and it was realistic for most healthy men and women to get max scores with the proper training strategy and effort. This test places the burden more heavily on the female population for to achieve high scores. I’m all for equality and set standards, but these should not ignore the physical differences between the sexes.

In civil service exams, it is generally considered a discriminatory test when certain demographic groups consistently score less than 80% of the average majority group scores. It’s like when you have a test for police officers, and the only ones who make the Academy list are from a single demographic. The validity of such a litmus test can be argued in many different ways, for and against. Regardless, the 80% rule (referred to as Adverse Impact) has become a legal precedent that is considered a modern standard. One could argue that this ACFT could be an adverse impact that could be subject to future litigation.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SSG Steven Borders
SSG Steven Borders
>1 y
MSG (Join to see) - Not to mention the Age Differences too. Being a 40 year old I don't quite have the body of a young 18 year old.
(5)
Reply
(0)
MAJ Javier Rivera
MAJ Javier Rivera
>1 y
GySgt Dawson Webb I would not go as far as having to separate events for separate groups. Perhaps, improve the current APFT (sit-ups for crunches) and and some other tactical set of events on an alternate basis; e.g. road march, drag a 200 lbs weight for 100 ft (simulated casualty), etc... Therefore, every quarter Soldiers have some sort of for record event.
(0)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
MAJ Javier Rivera
5
5
0
No one should be surprised! If the Army wanted to replaced the APFT - nothing wrong with that - then they ought to keep it simple as well!
(5)
Comment
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close