Scenario: NCOER based on APFT (60% vs. Profile)

2014-05-30T10:19:47-04:00

Let's say you have two NCOs who are both good leaders. Come APFT time one of them has a permanent profile and does the 2.5 mile walk instead of the run. Both do the max on push-ups and sit-ups and both pass their Aerobic event. The one without a profile passes their run with 60% and the walker passes the walk.

On the physical fitness and military bearing portion, do you rate them the same? What rating do you give them? It is up to you to decide and I am not looking for any specific answer.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 10:23 AM

2014-05-30T10:23:41-04:00

Rate them the same.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made May 30 at 2014 10:47 AM

2014-05-30T10:47:49-04:00

To me, you just described identical performances. So now that the physical fitness is portion is identical, which one has better bearing and how do we quantify that statement?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 10:50 AM

2014-05-30T10:50:00-04:00

You have to rate the Soldier only scoring a 60% as a success, and the one on profile as a success or better, unless you have some evidence that the profile Soldier is somehow shirking. Assuming that the Soldier with the profile has a physical or medical reason (such as a previous injury), that Soldier should be doing everything they can to get off of profile, however, it is possible that they may not be able to do so.

Two years ago, I was in a motorcycle accident that destroyed my calf muscle in my right leg. While I can now run for about a mile, anything more than that, and the muscle starts tearing - causing extreme pain and basically putting me back on profile for the tearing. This is not something I can fix, and it can't be fixed w/ surgery due to the nature of the damage caused by the injury, so if you were my rater, I'd be really pissed and pushing to have that changed if you didn't give me a success.

Also, while we can identify why the one Soldier has a profile, why is the other Soldier only scoring a 60%? That's unacceptable in SOCOM and he would get a needs improvement (some) more than likely or be reassigned out of SOCOM.

Response by SSG Robert Burns made May 30 at 2014 10:50 AM

2014-05-30T10:50:41-04:00

Make them arm wrestle for the higher rating. Arm wrestling solves anything.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 11:15 AM

2014-05-30T11:15:31-04:00

Coming from another service just to mix it up, but with the exact same scenario. For the Air Force to pass the PT test, we have to score a 75% in each area tested. So the NCO who received a 60% would be considered a failure. Making the walking NCO the better score and therefore better rated NCO.

Based off the APFT in your scenario, I would go back into the NCOER and reconsider all the information to re-evaluate my thoughts on who the better rated NCO would be. If I came away again with the same information, I would then consider the cause for the permenant profile and why that NCO has it. After doing that, I would then monitor their performances from then until the close out of their reporting period to see which NCO stands out based on duty performance and accountability.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 11:56 AM

2014-05-30T11:56:58-04:00

I would want to know how the walker did. Did they just "pass" at their time or did they have 10 minutes to spare? Yes, I said minutes. That being said, if they had a lot of time to spare on the walk I would probably give them an excellent rating and quantify it w/ "SM had the fastest walk time in unit or SM always passes w/ over 10 minutes to spare", something of that nature. There are alot of people that cannot run due to injury, but they can walk a lot faster than the alloted time. Those are the ones that are doing "above and beyond" and their NCOER should reflect that. If you are just barely passing the run...you give them a success...but highly recommend that they work on their run time.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made May 30 at 2014 12:20 PM

2014-05-30T12:20:09-04:00

If the walker performed to their max scoring potential, then that should count for an excellence.
The runner met the standard but did not exceed it by a large margin.
Seems clear. Runner is a success and the walker is an excellence.

Response by SFC Stephen P. made May 31 at 2014 2:52 PM

2014-05-31T14:52:44-04:00

Both soldiers exceed the APFT standard, but physical fitness is only part of that section. APFT scores alone are insufficient to determine the rating.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 3:39 PM

2014-05-31T15:39:43-04:00

I can't see using the APFT as the only criteria for determining the rating in that block. Granted it's a factor but maybe the runner also did a tough mudder, maybe the walker coached and trained other soldiers who were mediocre on push-ups and sit-ups increasing their scores by 30 points each. I'd look at everything I can before determining anything.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 31 at 2014 7:50 PM

2014-05-31T19:50:39-04:00

Well regardless of the score they both qualify by regulation as a Success. Can't give needs improvement if said Solider passed the APFT

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 2:59 AM

2014-06-01T02:59:39-04:00

I know it contains military bearing in the section as well but as far as physical fitness goes they are both a success. Excellence is the highest rating there for it should be treated like it! There is nothing wrong with being a success. If you do not do Excellent in a section you should not receive an excellence in that block. In the example given neither one demonstrated an excellent performance. One guy barely passed the run and the other walks, not excellent by any stretch. If your on a walking profile, you cannot run and if you cannot run then you only meet the standard, you cannot exceed it. That's why you get a GO and not a %. Nothing against walkers but the army says we need to run. You can still be a good NCO if you have a walking profile, you just can't be an excellent one in the physical fitness portion of any evaluation.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2014 3:40 AM

2014-06-01T03:40:39-04:00

What was the profile walk time? Although there is no difference in score, there is a difference in effort. I myself have a permanent profile that requires me to do the walk event. I walk at a speed that allows me to pace female runners and still have them pass. I understand that it is pass/fail for me but that doesn't mean that I can't continue to better myself physically.

FYI, the fastest time I ever got on a record PT test walk event was 25:15.
It was not long after that that I have my no run profile lifted to run at own pace and distance. I still have to do the walk event but after 7 years of "no run", it is nice to see that I am getting better. especially when the doctors said I would never be able to walk without a cane much less run. I'm proving them wrong every day.

Response by SFC Timothy Gallagher made Jun 1 at 2014 8:23 AM

2014-06-01T08:23:23-04:00

The NCO without the profile in my eyes should get a success rating. The walk is a pass or fail and does not matter if you make it in a minute or a second better then required time, and should receive a meets standards. In addition rating the NCO with the profile low could lead to IG complaint. I have a permanent profile and can not do the cardiovascular events. My 1SG had to redo my NCOER after I filed an IG complaint when given a very bad rating cause of my profile.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 7:32 AM

2014-06-02T07:32:50-04:00

I'd say both warrant a Success rating.
If I were to remove my personal opinions and experiences from the situation, all I would see is the black and white. That is, both NCOs are competent enough to meet their respective standards set forth by the Army.
To rate them differently would be the equivalent of rating female and male, younger and older, NCOs differently. A 27 year old male runs a 17min 2Mi and scores a 60, whereas an 18 year old female runs the same and would score an 83. Perhaps one individual is putting forth a greater effort (like those that previously mentioned how well they perform during the walk event), but the APFT grades for time and not effort.
The standard may be different but leaders are still expected to at least meet their individual standard (varying by age, gender, alternate event type) to be able to contest for a Success rating. If meeting that standard serves as a means of a Success rating, then both NCOs would ideally receive a Success rating.
As SFC (P) Gilley mentioned in the initial question, both NCOs are good leaders and there are numerous ways to differentiate yourself from your peers aside from APFT to give that portion of the NCOER what it needs to reach an Excellence rating, like the examples given by LTC Cudworth.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 8:46 AM

2014-06-02T08:46:46-04:00

Speaking from personal experience, that block is not just about whether you pass an APFT or not. It is about PHYSICAL FITNESS AND MILITARY BEARING. With that being said, I am on permanent profile and I pass my APFT, but at the same token my profile allows me to run at my own pace and distance. I try and run as much a possible when running is a part of PT. I also run off duty in order to facilitate my rehabilitation on my injuries. Everyone's profile will not read the same depending on their injury(ies).

I disagree with SFC O'Brien who stated he'd rather deploy with someone who failed all 3 events vs a Soldier on permanent profile. Some profiles do make a Soldier non-deployable, in which they go through a process to determine whether they should be allowed to stay in the Army or not. With that being said, I would rather deploy with someone who can run to meet combat mission vs. someone who cannot even lift their own body weight (push-ups). That's just my personal opinion.

But to answer the question I believe both warrant a success block.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 2 at 2014 11:02 AM

2014-06-02T11:02:28-04:00

To me its the same, success. Now what did their Squad score? Squad's average? Now that could seperate a success from an excellence.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 26 at 2014 4:44 PM

2014-11-26T16:44:07-05:00

IMO, I would give the NCO with the profile the higher rating. Passing the 2MR with anything between 60 and 70 is mediocre at best and anyone can do mediocre.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 6 at 2015 4:05 PM

2015-10-06T16:05:52-04:00

If they both passed, are both good leaders as you mentioned, and both hold water in other areas there's no reason to hold them back. They met their requirements for what the Army decided is necessary, and more if they maxxed parts of it. if there are other reasons to notch one or the other down then apply them as appropriate, but from just the info given I see no reason to dock either of them.

Caveat that with me being largely unfamiliar with the Army's APFT in its entirety. But we have similar issues with folks on running profile in the AF, some want to mark them down for it or place a runner who just passes over a strong walker who's pushing it just because they're walking. I'm not on a running profile, but I am on a pushup profile due to a bum shoulder. I substitute other activities during PT (planks, crunches, modified mountain climbers or burpees, etc) but occasionally I get flack about that too even though I don't want the profile. Rating them down when they meet regulatory requirements does nothing but hurt morale and possibly their career.

The standards are there for just this sort of reason, to try and remove as much subjectivity from the process as possible. There are areas for leadership judgement between troops, but things like the PT test typically shouldn't be one of them so long as the reg is pretty much cut & dry.