Sympathy for overweight Soldiers?

2013-11-19T09:11:54-05:00

Now I have next to zero sympathy for anyone that fails the PT test.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 9:28 AM

2013-11-19T09:28:14-05:00

<p>Sir,</p><p> </p><p>If a Soldier is overweight they aren't being discriminated against. They aren't meeting set standards. I do think that the policy needs to get looked at though. I know a few Soldiers that can score 300+ on the APFT, but are considered overweight by Army standards. I think that the height/weight standards and APFT need to work together more effectively. If a Soldier is overweight and can't pass the APFT they need to be processed for separation, but if they can pass the APFT consideration needs to be made. While at Fort Hood I watched a Soldier get chaptered for not passing tape even though he scored a 340 on the extended scale.</p>

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 10:04 AM

2013-11-19T10:04:17-05:00

I agree with SGT Ruehs,

The Height and weight system may need to be updated, but I think generally failure to meet the weight/tape standard is a symptom of a bigger issue (pardon the pun).

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 10:26 AM

2013-11-19T10:26:46-05:00

Army is trying for a one-size-fits-all standard and it doesn't work.  I barely make tape and never make weight (which is why I always get taped), yet I can run a 13:00 2 mile (above my max) and have no problem running 10+ miles at under an 8 minute mile pace (Ranger standard is 5 miles in 40 minutes, I can do that 35 minutes or less).  I run approximately 35 miles a week.<div><br></div><div>I don't max push ups or situps, but don't struggle with them either.</div>

Response by SSG Robert Burns made Nov 19 at 2013 10:31 AM

2013-11-19T10:31:30-05:00

Weight should only be an issue after a failed APFT.  If it effects performance or health.  If the Army doesnt want big soldiers then maybe they should stop making uniforms that big.

Response by CPT Mike M. made Nov 19 at 2013 10:37 AM

2013-11-19T10:37:07-05:00

<p>Overweight Soldiers should absolutely not be allowed to serve.  Period.  However, we need to look at redefining what we call overweight and the means of determining it.  Basically the tape system has got to go.  Or if they want to stick with tape then add more measuring locations and change the equation.  Neck/waist is assinine.  </p><p> </p><p>I for the most part agree that if a person can accomplish their physical requirements then weight shouldn't be an issue.  There's a BIG caveat there though.  What happens when that guy gets hit?  Who's going to pull potentially 250 lbs (maybe more) of lifeless weight out a 4' hole that is the hatch of a tank?  Who's going to buddy carry that big boy 100, 200, maybe more meters out of contact to a casualty collection point?  Bottom line, it's not just about what they can do, it's how that person's size limits his battle buddies.</p>

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 12:05 PM

2013-11-19T12:05:49-05:00

I completely agree with the H/W reg needing an overhaul--a huge one! But I don't consider overweight personnel being discriminated against. Failure to meet your H/W is viewed as a disciplinary problem (and I'm not saying this is the case), ie not enough PT, undisciplined eating problems, etc. The Army wants everyone in compliance with their standard and the female combat MOSs and DADT are well within a standard of the Army. But whoever is pushing for the H/W regulation to change or bei uupdated, please pass me the petition so I can sign.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 12:08 PM

2013-11-19T12:08:51-05:00

It is not discriminating... it is enforcing the regulations. It is more than that. Would you want to go to combat with a soldier who will slow down the unit? What if that overweight soldier tries to exert themselves physically and gets hurt? That will bring down not only the team but themselves. Should we as leaders allow people to have poor health, to hurt themselves, the team and even the health care budget?

Response by CPT Mike M. made Nov 19 at 2013 12:21 PM

2013-11-19T12:21:13-05:00

This is a thread going on right now and I agree with the general consensus that bottom line, they HAVE to be able to do what's asked of them by the MOS without changing the current standards.  Changing standards won't change the fact that if there's a female tank commander, when seconds count, it's her responsibility to evacuate the gunner from his station if he's incapacitated.  It's no easy task for males.  If they can do it, then let them.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 12:34 PM

2013-11-19T12:34:21-05:00

Why not have differing standards for differing MOSes? An 11A/B who barely passes his PT test and HT/WT has incredibly less utility than a 42A/B who does the same.

Response by SFC Michael Boulanger made Nov 19 at 2013 12:40 PM

2013-11-19T12:40:34-05:00

The Army looks to weather they are the healthiest people in order to serve. You don't want to give awsome medical insurance and life insurance to a now or future heart attack risk, and also expect them to conduct all of the physical training and duties the fit Soldiers do. Not the same thing as letting the females branch out into other MOSs that they previously ineligable to serve in.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 6:07 PM

2013-11-19T18:07:17-05:00

I cant Stand all the Soldiers who the week before a P.T test go get a Profile so they dont have to take it & the next week, their out playing sports or Violating the profile. I know some people who hadn't had a P.T Test in 3 years and nothing is being done. I Say get Rid of the Dead Weight.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 6:10 PM

2013-11-19T18:10:00-05:00

I cant Stand the Soldiers who go get a Profile the week before a P.T Test so they don't have to take it and the next week are out playing sports or Violating the profile. I know some Soldiers who hadn't had a P.t Test in 3 years. Get Rid of the Sorry Dead Weight.

Response by SFC Benjamin Parsons made Nov 19 at 2013 6:36 PM

2013-11-19T18:36:02-05:00

Saw a handful of high-speed, low drag soldiers involuntarily separated due to the ht/wt thing twenty+ years ago. Considered that a failed, shooting ourselves in the foot, program.

RIF was the intent. The individual soldier was utterly ignored and irrelevant in the name of expeditiousness.

Not smart.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 6:40 PM

2013-11-19T18:40:55-05:00

see the probelm as this, there are bulky Soldiers and there are fat Soldiers. Some days i myself am both. The reality is we need Soldiers taht can take heavy loads and move them long distances. Not all of these Soldiers can keep a waist line that meets the current standard. They do need some adjustment but not a total, it's ok to be big.

Response by SPC Matthias Parker made Nov 19 at 2013 7:36 PM

2013-11-19T19:36:34-05:00

What?! the US military doesn't discriminate against the overweight personnel, that was sarcasm by the way and also the AR 600-9 for weight control hasn't been changed since the 1950's which you would think that after 60 years of medical data would tell you that every human being is made differently and using a one size fits all policy for weight control isn't just idiotic but eithicly wrong towards those americans that just want to serve their country with honor but are discriminated just because they "look" fat in dress uniform. If a person who is 6'2", 260lbs, looks overweight and can ace a PT Test but fails weight, why can't that person whom is physically in shape enough to fight in combat but isn't allowed to serve bc they don't look in shape in their dress uniform. Honestly is military appearance that much more fucking important or is serving your country and being physically fit to pass a PT test more important? COMPLETE BULLSHIT! I'd would rather have Frank the tank next to me on the battlefield instead of some skinny fucktard who gets a 300 on pt test but is dumber then a box of rocks!

Response by SPC Matthias Parker made Nov 19 at 2013 7:37 PM

2013-11-19T19:37:58-05:00

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 8:19 PM

2013-11-19T20:19:51-05:00

If you don't want to discriminate against fat Soldiers than they should stop discriminating against tattooed Soldiers. Since the Army keeps preaching image and we need to have a "certain look to the American people"...you can hide ink, you can't fat. I was 200+lbs at 66 1/2" before I joined. I now maintain around 140lbs at 66" (lost a 1/2 inch b/c of deployments) and don't score below a 270 and I'm a crusty old senior NCO. When I came in the Army told me there is a standard...I keep the standard b/c it's the right thing to do. I'm a female, I don't use pregnancy and family as my excuse to "let myself go." Excuses are like assholes, everyone has them and they all stink.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 8:23 PM

2013-11-19T20:23:21-05:00

Anyone can fail a pt test for a reason or another, I failed one couple months back during drill because I didn't sleep the night before(health reason) but passed all other (4 since then). As far as weight goes, I think we should look at it this way, if a soldier cant keep up with a rock/foot march/ walk up a hill or cant fit behind a steering wheel in an MRAP or make the two mile run, then that someone needs to loose weight. It is also not fair that we get keep some of those individuals and waste time and money by placing them on a weight control program.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 19 at 2013 9:01 PM

2013-11-19T21:01:01-05:00

I see a lot of post stating that the regs need to be looked at and revised. I would like to remind everyone that they did a revision in 28 June 2013. I will say though not alot has changed I personally am allowed 181 pounds now instead of 180 pounds for my age and height. http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_9.pdf‎ here is the link to the new requlation

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Nov 19 at 2013 10:09 PM

2013-11-19T22:09:18-05:00

Chaptering Soldiers for not meeting a standard (i.e., overweight) is NOT discrimination.<div><br></div><div>Additionally, personal accountability for ones own health is paramount...if YOU don't care about your health, why should you continue to be a burden on the Army's health system?<br><br>Get right or get OUT!</div>

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 12:49 AM

2013-11-20T00:49:24-05:00

Major Jason B. Hi and thanks for that bit of information and sympathy for those designated or obese. I was very fit because I was always in sports but I did have a friend who worked in a Missile Complex and he was in the hospital to lose weight. He may have been overweight (strictly speaking) but he was not fat. He was wide and this is a distinction with a difference.

Response by LTJG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 1:00 AM

2013-11-20T01:00:36-05:00

<div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;">Personally, I could care less about how much a service member weighs. I'm FAR more concerned with their functional strength/endurance and body composition. Numbers (e.g. weight) can be grossly misleading.</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;">For example: I workout with a woman who is about 175 pounds. She looks amazing, and is stronger than many men in the group. Conversely, I have also seen women at 175 pounds who look like a bag of smashed squirrels!</span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;">Same with men. We have 300 pound men who look like NFL superstars, and also 300 pound men who appear as though they might die of a heart attack at any moment! </span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;"><br></span></font></div><div><font face="Tahoma, sans-serif"><span style="line-height: 14px;">If we want to have the fastest, strongest, and fittest serving in our ranks, then we honestly need to re-evaluate how we test the physical fitness and body composition of our men and women in uniform. We need to care more about what is “real” and “valuable” to fighting our nation’s wars, and less about archaic testing procedures that fail to correctly identify what IS “real” and “valuable.” </span></font></div>

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Nov 20 at 2013 1:10 AM

2013-11-20T01:10:43-05:00

My only problem with the "overweight" issue in the military is the outdated system used to determine someones body fat percentage. Taping someones neck and waste does not account accurately body fat. Also, if a person is losing weight the right way their face and neck will shrink first not their waste. Stomach fat takes a good amount of time to get rid of. Secondly, the military needs to get away with the outdated Eurocentric ideal of a body type. Americans eat more, and tend to be a bit bigger now then in the 50's and 60's. In my best shape in high school and college running track I weighed 195 lbs, at 5'11", but had only about 6% body fat, but with a 14" or 15" neck, I would have probably busted tape because I would have been overweight for the military standard of 189 lbs for 5'11" male. We need to update the standards, or just accept that we will be kicking more and more people out that are perfectly healthy and in shape as time continues.

Response by CPL Troy Piper made Nov 20 at 2013 9:39 AM

2013-11-20T09:39:12-05:00

There has to be a standard for combat effectiveness, being a combat veteran there is no way that someone who is overweight is going to be able to effectively and efficiently. Any time there is something that slows down the movement of a unit, especially in small unit operations there is greater risk to the unit and that creates an environment that could not only affect the outcome of the operation but also increase those injured or killed. As far as females in combat goes, if they can't make the cut then they don't belong in combat either. However if they can keep up and operate like the guys then so be it. Everything has to be weighted with unit effectiveness and efficiency in mind.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Nov 20 at 2013 10:16 AM

2013-11-20T10:16:07-05:00

I don't think the real discussion here should be about those service members that are able to pass the APFT but come close to "busting tape". We all know taping, if not done correctly can be inaccurate. I think the real debate is why does the Army still allow service members who are obviously 75, 100, 125lbs or more overweight to carry on in their service. If your weight is to the point where you become a liability to the service members around you then yes you need to be separated. This isn't discrimination, this is upholding the standard. Now using a tag of "Fatties" may be closer to discrimination than having the service member meet the standard.

Response by SGT Ryan Siefert made Nov 20 at 2013 10:20 AM

2013-11-20T10:20:30-05:00

To answer the question: Yes. However [comma]

1. The current weight standards and the way the Army measures body fat needs to be revamped. I'm 6'4" and the Army says I need to weigh 217 or less. I would have to lose all muscle tone in order to achieve that. Currently, I'm at 247 and can damn near see a six-pack thanks to a lot of time in the gym working out on my own.

2. I also think this is indicative of the way PT is being run. I know FM 7-22 is new, but I would recommend it be used to level the pool table in the day room and units spend an hour in the morning doing a high-intensity program like Crossfit, Insanity, or P90x, and have units work towards some physical goal, be it a base olympics or a tough mudder. People tend to work harder when there is a reward at the end. Simply making 60 in each event isn't really shooting for the stars.

3. I can't think of anything that is more excruciatingly boring than "In cadence, exercise." I can't be alone in this.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made Nov 20 at 2013 10:36 AM

2013-11-20T10:36:09-05:00

The word "discriminate" here is being misunderstood by some of the respondents, and I'd like to address that issue. To discriminate can also effectively mean setting institutional limitations/regulations based on various legal, mission-related, etc. considerations. For example, the military discriminates by age -- this isn't malicious. But you can be too young or too old to serve in the military, as we all know. Of course, history has shown us some decisions of discrimination that none of us should be proud of -- but please take note that not all discrimination should be looked at in the same way. Does that make sense?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 11:03 AM

2013-11-20T11:03:21-05:00

There are many reasons the Army has its weight, body fat and APFT standards. Obesity has real effects on overall health which if the Army were to increase its acceptable max allowances would cost more to treat those health problems, replace effected Soldiers and follow on care for those Soldiers. In most cases, not all (there are some health issues that cause weight gain regardless of dieting and physical training, i.e. glandular or hormone changes, etc.), weight/body fat control is an achievable goal through proper dieting and physical training. It also has to be taken into consideration the overall appearance of Soldiers. Having a force noted for or perceived to be "fat" would not help draw new recruits to the pool or instill confidence in the American people of our Profession of Arms.

Serving in the military and Army is not a regular calling. We stand ready to defend our nation and its interests abroad. Being physically fit to perform our Soldierly duties is a must. I for one exceed the Army's weight standard, but I do fall within its body fat and APFT standards. The guideline is to check weight standard first followed by body fat. This is due to muscle mass is heavier than fat and to insure the Soldier's overall circumference is proportionate to height. So, by all rights I make the cut but I am changing my own personal habits to lower my weight and present a more Soldierly appearance. However, I know from personal experience carrying a wounded Soldier who is overweight and sometimes didn't meet body fat standards can be an added burden or delay that could have possibly been avoided. The same could be said for a battle who has more lean muscle than most though.

If anything, I think the way the Army measures body fat needs to be improved to be more accurate. While it can be cumbersome, being an overweight Soldier is not the issue. Soldiers with too much body fat increasing health risks and definitely Soldiers not able to meet the APFT standards and unable to properly perform their duties is the issue. Obesity is an increasing cultural issue at hand for America and its service members. NCOs and Officers are the leaders of Soldiers and should be honored stewards to change this cultural issue from within possibly helping shape the American perspective on the matter through outside community involvement.

That's my rant...

Response by MAJ Glenn Schoonover made Nov 20 at 2013 3:05 PM

2013-11-20T15:05:39-05:00

When I was a company commander I had a female SP4 come to me and complain that "she was being discriminated against by her NCO's." She could not do her job, and had been put on remedial training and she didn't like it. Bottom line - she was not qualified to do her job. When she came to me, I made sure there was a senior female NCO present and I told her that "yes, we have singled her out, but not because she was female; not because she was a single mother; not because she was a member of a minority group; but because she was incapable of doing her job." There has to be a set of minimum standards that the Army, or any organization adheres to and if an employee cannot meet them, there are consequences.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 3:06 PM

2013-11-20T15:06:48-05:00

If they look fat then yes, however we all know those soldiers
that can max the PT test, yet are 3LBS over or 1% over I say those solders are
fine. I am guilty as a young SSG of passing my soldiers on HT/WT who failed. But
they scored 270 or above on the APFT.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 20 at 2013 3:54 PM

2013-11-20T15:54:34-05:00

Overweight may not be a physical
fitness representation but it goes a long way for appearance, uniformity, respect
and admiration for that soldier, not only of peers but civilian population
alike.

Response by SFC Dennis Yancy made Nov 20 at 2013 5:44 PM

2013-11-20T17:44:46-05:00

If you are not in shape you have no place in the Army and I fought my weight all my last 10 years on active duty. You have to be in shape to survive the hours and stress the Army hands out.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2013 9:58 AM

2013-11-21T09:58:51-05:00

All branches of service are under the same height/weight chart mandated by the DoD. At the service branch level, Orders/Pubs/Instructions/etc... dictate how that service wants to meet that standard. For instance, the Marine Corps says to round a members height to the nearest inch (67 3/8 would be 67" and 67 1/2 is 68"); the Navy states to round up to the nearest inch. (67 3/8 would be 68"). Also, USMC subtracts 1 lb for PT uniform and the Navy does not.

So if the DoD dictates what we (servicemen) should be at for ht/wt standards then "yes" we should ALL abide by that in accordance to service regulations. You also have to keep in mind your fellow servicemen/women; if you are overweight, how can you expect them to be able to pick you up and save your life if needed.

Regulations are there and it's time we all start to enforce them. Starting at the lowest level of leadership to the top. We are ALL supposed to be professionals and should look and act like it.

I have seen some good high E8's be force to retire vice being ad sep'ed because they were not within standards and did nothing to get back to standards.

Respcetfully,

Andrew Williams

GySgt USMC

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 21 at 2013 6:37 PM

2013-11-21T18:37:45-05:00

You have to look at it from a different prospective than 'I can or can't pass a PT test.' Look at the military as a business that is looking after it's money. If a soldier is overweight their chances of having health issues increases. If the soldier develops high blood pressure/cholesterol they will not be able to deploy. If a soldier can't deploy what benefit are they to the military? All they are is a pile of money that can't deploy and suck up resources. They are spending time in a hospital for something that could have been prevented by staying in shape. They are also taking time away from doctors/nurses and medical staff away from those people who really need it.

It's not necessarily a matter of can or can't pass the PT test. If a type of person (overweight in this case) is 80% increased chance that they will develop a heart condition or need extensive medical care then why have that person in the military.

It's the same idea as someone who has bad knees. If someone has had knee surgery 9 times out of 10 they are not eligible to enlist/commission. Why? Because they are at a higher risk of needing more extensive surgery later on in their career which would be expensive and costly.

Just my thoughts from a different perspective.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 7 at 2013 3:59 PM

2013-12-07T15:59:33-05:00

I have a friend who recently retired from the Army reserve, who was kicked out of the Active duty component 20 years ago for busting tape... man was and still is a beast. He went to a local university where they did displacement body fat testing and found him to be 9% body fat, but that was not good enough for the Army, he still busted tape because he had a tiny neck and love handles...

I know he is the exception rather than the rule, but still there should (at least) be an appeal process where they'll accept real, scientific numbers to prove your fitness, not this mickey-mouse tape measure BS...

Response by SGT Aja Johnson made Dec 7 at 2013 5:15 PM

2013-12-07T17:15:53-05:00

"Present a trim military appearance at all times."

Although this is hard to define, common sense will tell you that SPILLING out of your uniform is NOT the standard. Being overweight is a hurdle. An overweight Soldier is not at the peak or even near the peak of physical fitness or readiness. Overweight Soldiers cannot complete the same tasks as fit to fight Soldiers. They are NOT combat ready. Its already bad enough most of the get away with it because they have HUGE necks(not all, I know a lot of Soldiers are really bulky but not fat). You can LOOK at a Soldier and see if they are pure hulk muscle or just fat.

I am tired of looking at Soldiers in shrunken uniforms because they are too large. Even if they pass the APFT, they need to get in shape. We as a military need to be "Standing tall and looking good", it is professional, and we are professionals. Why would I follow a leader that looks like a sack of potatoes in their uniform? If they can't maintain their bodies, how can they tell their Soldiers how to?

Now I do believe the weight standards are a little outdated, I have never weighed 147 lbs while in the Army, except during a combatives tournament where I fought down in the 136 range. Even with the weight standards being old, it's the simple fact that they do not present a military appearance. With the way the Army is going now with us pulling out of theater, we are going "back to the basics" of Soldiering. Which is garrison life, and with that comes "LOOKING PROFESSIONAL" and ENFORCING the regs and not being so relaxed. It's not the Army I grew up in, but it's the Army I have to get used to as a young leader.

And I'm tired of seeing us being made fun of like the Army is a joke. Stuff like this:

Response by PFC Stephen Snyder made Dec 7 at 2013 5:59 PM

2013-12-07T17:59:10-05:00

I agree that the Military has the right to decide how much overweight a person can be. They have the right to decide if a person fits the physical, emotional, mental requirements for any MOS. There is a difference between discrimination and liability standards requirements.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2013 9:53 AM

2013-12-08T09:53:09-05:00

The tape test is the worst way to measure body fat. Anybody should be able to see that. For example I can have a 19inch neck and my waist can be 44 inches and I am good so a 44 inch waist line tells me you don't do any form of cardiovascular exercise at all. So is that in shape. NO!!!!!!!. The way we measure body fat in the military needs to be overhaul just like everything else that has being changed. We have changed the Promotion system, NCOER, and even the Physical Fitness test has been looked at for changed. But never the tape test.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2013 9:53 AM

2013-12-08T09:53:15-05:00

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2013 9:55 AM

2013-12-08T09:55:05-05:00

What do DADT and female soldiers being allowed to serve in new MOSes have to do with allowing soldiers who can't meet a standard to continue to fail to meet a standard?

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2013 9:55 AM

2013-12-08T09:55:08-05:00

What do DADT and female soldiers being allowed to serve in new MOSes have to do with allowing soldiers who can't meet a standard to continue to fail to meet a standard?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 8 at 2013 4:22 PM

2013-12-08T16:22:38-05:00

The problem here is obvious... In an Army times article http://www.armytimes.com/article/20130513/OFFDUTY03/305130008/ they did a (rather small sample size) test of the tape measure, and found that 10/10 tests were wrong. 9/10 said the Soldier was fatter than he actually was... the margin of error was anywhere from 12% to 66% (as compared to the hydrostatic displacement test)...

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/expert.q.a/09/30/body.fat.testing.jampolis/ recommends a variety of tests that are FAR more accurate, and some are nearly as easy and/or cheap...

Which test should I trust when measuring my body fat? - CNN.com

I am a 24-year-old female who is a fitness enthusiast. I have been trying to lose some weight. My weight is 113 pounds ( it was 120 and I lost 7). Recently I got my BMI, lipid profile, cholesterol, et...

Response by LTC David Haines made Dec 8 at 2013 7:22 PM

2013-12-08T19:22:53-05:00

Comparing to DADT is not a valid comparison. How overweight should be allowed? A few extra pounds? Obviously obese? Morbidly obese? I am good with some latitude if a Soldiers EXCELS at the PT test, not just minimum standard, but appearance matters. The ability to accomplish a mission and not put others at risk due to poor physical condition matters. Part of the issue is having the discipline to maintain physical condition and a professional appearance. What else should we excuse? What other basic standards "discriminate" against people from serving?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 14 at 2013 1:42 AM

2013-12-14T01:42:34-05:00

The Army does not discriminate against overweight Soldiers. The Army has a standard all Soldier's are very aware of upon initial entry. Failing to meet Army standards denotes a lack of self discipline. It is a semi-annual requirement to conduct an APFT and HT/WT (Tape if necessary). You have at minimum 6 full months to prepare for that next APFT and / or HT/WT. The Army needs Soldiers capable of meeting mission requirements which entail being physically, mentally, and spiritually fit at all times. This keeps you in a ready state for deployment and one that your Comrades to the left and right can count on. Honing all of your skills as a Soldier within your specified skill set is paramount to all missions.

Being that this is an Army standard, we have to support and enforce the Army's standard. There are gross effects on the military when a Soldier is overweight. Soldier's who are overweight have joint problems leading to costly surgery at the Army's, fellow Soldier's, and U.S. Citizens expense. These Soldier's begin having costly medical, emotional, and even psychological issues... again at everyones expense. On the flip side of this, these Soldiers who are overweight and maybe even max an APFT often cannot complete the physical necessities during wartime during ground combat (we pull these Soldier's off the line continuously), and for a Medic to pull a Soldier in full battle rattle out of harms way is already on a low average around 200lbs.

When I was on the 101st Command Parachute Demonstration Team, we jumped in for the opening of the amputee center at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Soldier's who had been severely injured and even missing multiple limbs could still meet Army HT/WT standards. When I hear Soldier's talk about HT/WT I revert to this Soldier (Gunnery Sergeant Angel Barcenas http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_15095135) and I remember that any individual who truly wants to be something, does. If you want to be a Soldier, you do what it takes. If someone with a controlled thyroid issue, a Soldier post spinal tumor removal, and even a Soldier missing limbs can rise to the minimum standards of an APFT and HT/WT, where is the heart and values of the Soldier who isn't?

Competing for new life at Warrior Games

Gavin Sibayan was captain of the swimming team at Westminster High School his junior and senior years, but that was 11 years ago. That was before he enlisted in the Army.

Response by SSG George Baker made Dec 14 at 2013 3:58 PM

2013-12-14T15:58:11-05:00

no i do not think they should when i cam into the Army in 1969 they had a program at Ft. Bragg, N.C to help bring these people to weight limits that was recommended. I wwent to this program NOT FOR BEING FAT. I was underweight. the program never helpped me but i really think it helped the over weight group. I did 15 years + months as a regular soldiers went in weighting 98 pounds came out weighting 121. ok for all the smarts ones who want to say something remember this over weight and under weight people has almost the same health problems. so becareful what you say

VietNam Veteran reitred

Response by SFC George Simons made Dec 14 at 2013 6:03 PM

2013-12-14T18:03:03-05:00

Height weight requirements are in place for a reason.  Being over weight is a risk for you and your squad mates.  If you're over body weight, body fat percentage is fair, if you make percentage you should be able to stay in.

Response by SSG Tim Esplin made Dec 14 at 2013 9:33 PM

2013-12-14T21:33:56-05:00

In Iraq in the first Gulf War when there was hard work to do everyone yelled for the big guys. I failed the height weight the whole time I was in the army. I always passed the PT test. Just after the Gulf War I was in the fat boy program and the average PT test score of the fat boys was higher than our "fit company's" average. The fat boy went on sick call less and everyone wanted them when it was time to break track, upload ammo or any other hard task. I think the army looses a lot of good soldiers to the tape. I think the PT test should be the standard not just looking pretty.

Response by SPC Michael Stewart made Dec 15 at 2013 11:24 AM

2013-12-15T11:24:51-05:00

I was discharged for being overweight. While struggling with my weight during the just short of a full 8 years, I was looked down upon and held back on a lot of opportunities. Despite this myself and plenty other overweight soldiers on my last unit had been recognized as one of the hardest working and more efficient workers of our unit than most of the skinny soldiers combined, and yet we were never recognized for it.

We've been passed over for awards other than those paperweight coins (though not often) and promotions. I have been told countless times by several NCO's, even by those outside of my platoon, that I have strong leadership potential and ended up leaving the army as an E-4. Another overweight soldier I know left as a E-3, but his dedication, knowledge, and reliability made him more suitable as an E-4.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 15 at 2013 3:29 PM

2013-12-15T15:29:44-05:00

I have known guys who were overweight that could bust out a 290 on the APFT but that still doesn't excuse them from meeting the standards. There are rules and regulations in place for a reason and who are we to argue with them. If we wanted to make our own rules we shouldn't have joined this specific organization

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 17 at 2013 10:47 AM

2013-12-17T10:47:30-05:00

I am a fat body, and have been on the ABCP once before. I can pass my APFT, tape, and can Ruck with the best of them, something I feel is the most important Soldier skill (I never ran more than 200 meters in Iraq, but I rucked everywhere). To answer the question, YES, the Army should continue to "discriminate against overweight Soldiers".
The tape test, while not perfect, is not that bad, same with the APFT. The point is, that some are sliding through the cracks. This will continue to happen, it's human nature. But with the constraints in our Military, finacial, time, and wide range of diverse body types, the esstablished method can and does work fairly well.
If every person is so interested in being assessed as an individual, then why did they join the ultimate team adventure that already had these standards for team membership in place?

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Dec 21 at 2013 8:48 AM

2013-12-21T08:48:32-05:00

Let's make a distinction between overweight and over-fat. An overweight Soldier is just that, but makes the tape. Over-fat Soldiers don't make the tape. There's no place in the Army for over-fat Soldiers. They should be shown the door, if they haven't already.

Response by SFC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 9:18 AM

2013-12-21T09:18:53-05:00

I busted tape 1 time and was .5% over. I know that that is unacceptable, and I have worked since then to never let it happen again. That was after a PT test last year which I got a 286 on, there was another guy who got a 189 and didn't have to get weighed, but that was ok, because he was under Army standard. I think that the PT test and the HT/WT need to match up better. If a soldier just barely passes both that's not the right answer, if someone is over by 5% or something like that and do well that's no right either. But if a person is just sliding under the radar and just getting by that is unacceptable no matter what.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 2:06 PM

2013-12-21T14:06:27-05:00

I do believe that the current methods for determining Body Composition(BC) are beyond prehistoric... It is scientifically proven that the discrepancy is about 10-20% between tape test and water displacement for BC. I have personally seen, at CP Cedar II, Iraq, a Pacific Islander knock out a 290 on a APFT and get flagged for body fat. The problem is the "European Model" initially used for BC.
SOLUTION: All Soldiers undergo Nutrition and Wellness screenings 2X Annually with water displacement testing. I'm tired of sending healthy/combat ready Soldiers home when they have what it takes to serve.

Response by 1SG Frank Rocha made Dec 21 at 2013 11:20 PM

2013-12-21T23:20:55-05:00

Well sir, frankly physical fitness comes with the territory. Its part of our job to be physical fit in order to be as much a force multiplier as we can be. Overweight soldiers that are not physically fit do not have a place in an organization that bases its efficiency, at least in part, on the fitness of its Soldiers.

That being said, I do admit that some service members, who have very low body fat but high muscle content, can sometimes get the short end of the stick based on the current methods used to determine body fat percentage. If you have a skinny neck you might have some trouble if you put on too much muscle weight. But then there is also something to be said about the optimal size of a Soldier as it pertains to operational effectiveness.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 11:23 PM

2013-12-21T23:23:45-05:00

Good question....I personally feel Ht/WT should not be addressed as long as the Soldier makes the physical fitness standard...I have known many who are HT/WT successes but cant do 30pushups the problem is until your at the top the rules wont change. So it is my greatest hope you make JCS someday sir and change the regs regarding physical fitness yes they are discriminated I have been fighting tape test whole life and in one day between several NCO's I was 26% thru 21%. Knowing this my career and advancement are being controlled by personnel not properly taping and don't know the standard I generally score between 220(winter) thru 260 and above(summer). Striving for 70% and above in each event helps me motivate myself to exceed the standards. I am by no means a 300baby that time has sailed by but I still received criticism while at a NCOES for ALC last year for HT/WT and by George would you believe it the ALC Cadre definitely knew what they were taping cuz my numbers hit 22%. Oh yeah piddly me I made DG as well. SO yes they are discriminated and No things wont change till the clouded are cleared and the intelligence hits the upper echelons. We will also keep pt failures in and scrutinize for removal of overweight troops.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 21 at 2013 11:33 PM

2013-12-21T23:33:17-05:00

As a recruiter I see a lot of over weight people come into my office and try to join the Army. 90% of them are fully qualified to join the Army but there weight, I thing the military as a whole should have a basic training or boot camp that is three to four weeks longer. At the end of those weeks if you do not meet the standard then you do not get to stay in the military.

But if you are already in the military and do not make tape, and you have want through the steps with the medical professionals to check your thyroid, and you are cleared stating you are 100% healthy and should not be overweight. Yes you should be removed from the military because with all the help and programs the military has to keep you from not being overweight.

So with this question it's not discriminate against overweight Soldiers is the standard and with out them where would the military be.

Response by WO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 22 at 2013 2:16 AM

2013-12-22T02:16:24-05:00

Excellent question; however, comparing the Department of
Defense’ decision to lift the DADT policy with the separation of overweight
service members is very similar as comparing apples and oranges. One is a civil
rights issue while the other isn’t. On that note, I strongly agree that the US
Army’s height/weight program is flawed. Height/weight isn’t an ideal tool for
determining one’s physical fitness. Nevertheless, one must take into consideration
of one’s physical appearance; however, this can also be very subjective. Who
gets to determine if a service member’s physical appearance isn’t in line with
that particular Service’s values?

Response by SGT R J Imhoff made Dec 22 at 2013 8:39 PM

2013-12-22T20:39:09-05:00

As someone in the Industry of Health and Wellness I can tell you, the scale is not a true test of obesity, I have a lot of friends that have 34" waists and weight in at well over the Scaled acceptable body weight for their age and height. The Military should have a Physical Skills test to see if a Recruit or Soldier has the endurance and or strength needed to be in a Branch of Service.

Response by MSgt LeRoy Truenow made Dec 26 at 2013 8:53 PM

2013-12-26T20:53:37-05:00

Not sure anyone has brought this up but to assume the individual has the same body type at 18 years or anywhere in between that and 40 years of age is questionable.

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Dec 26 at 2013 11:23 PM

2013-12-26T23:23:44-05:00

That's a loaded question. Saying "continue to discriminate" implies that the Army is discriminating; that's a matter of perceived injustice, but not a matter of legal fact.

Being overweight is a health hazard, and you can find many, many empirical studies in high-quality, peer-reviewed medical journals that clearly show the link between being overweight and numerous adverse health outcomes. Whether or not soldiers like it, the body fat standards are there for more than simply "how you look in uniform". It's for their own long-term well-being, as well as for military readiness. I've never had a problem with the fact that the Army enforces body fat standards. While my perspective may very well flow from the fact that I'm tall and thin, I also think my perspective is shaped from having worked in the Army Medical Department for 23 years. I understand the deeper purpose that body fat standards serve.

To illustrate my point better, I once had an NCO tell me why things like PT and body fat standards are so important. He said the most important thing any leader can give their soldiers is their own good health. That comes from proper diet and exercise, and that comes from making solders eat right, watch their weight, and do effective PT. Without your health, it really doesn't matter how much technology you're provided with on the battlefield.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2013 5:47 AM

2013-12-29T05:47:58-05:00

The Army does not discriminate against overweight Soldiers. The Army sets standards and policies in place that we all agreed to meet when we raised our hand. The H&W requirements IAW AR 600-9 are part of the terms of our employment. Additionally, overweight Soldiers have a significant number of comorbidities that affect their health...high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, high cholesterol, Type II Diabetes and major joint issues (to name a few) that impact their ability to perform or lead effectively. It is the rare Soldier that "busts tape" that is still a PT stud and does not have related medical issues.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 29 at 2013 11:00 AM

2013-12-29T11:00:11-05:00

Bottom line up front, the body fat standards are in place because the army is trying to maintain an image "the soldier image" and it all boils down to discipline and self drive to keep yourself in shape. Unfortunately sometimes the hardest working soldiers fall into this category. Being a soldier is a 24/7 job because you have to maintain every aspect of being a soldier ie eating healthy and working out during off time

The army is not discriminating against overweight soldiers, everyone is taught the army standard (AR 600-9). You dont just wake up one day and find yourself overweight. If its a medical issue the army will take care of it

Response by SGT Thomas Brown made Dec 29 at 2013 6:33 PM

2013-12-29T18:33:39-05:00

The Army shouldn't discriminate against overweight service members. This is a hard subject for a lot of people being there are rules and regulations that we all must follow and half the time they aren't. The fact that leaders aren't taking the actions needed to help their fellow soldiers lose the weight or if it's been consecutive times they have been taped as over and not following through with the paperwork(Proper Counselings, and DA 5500's). Granted most of the overweight soldiers I have worked with have been the ones that have the most heart and dedication in doing their jobs. In the end, the fact of the matter is that leaders need to ensure that we give these soldiers the proper guidance in order to help them through the weight loss process, such as Exercise and Nutritionist. If they fail to comply with the rules and regulations then start the chapter process.

I also don't believe in the Army's system of tape tests. I'm 6'4" and weigh in at 220 lbs which is over for my height(217 lbs max). I pass tape but just barely. If you would to look at me you would never understand how. I never understand why they continue to use this poor system for seeing who is overweight.

Response by CPL Ron Peigler made Dec 29 at 2013 7:57 PM

2013-12-29T19:57:11-05:00

I totally agree with RJ Imhoff aka My Battle Brother. I was a true example of how it didn't work. I was a short and stocky soldier while I was in and I had a waist line of 30-32". But even though I didn't pass the tape test I consistently passed EVERY PT test with a score of 270 or better until the day I ETS'd. I understand of how the Military wants to keep an "Image" of great looking soldiers they just need to have standards in place for the ones signing up. Just because your a big guy or girl doesn't mean you cant do the job

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 5 at 2014 12:51 PM

2014-01-05T12:51:38-05:00

It is not discrimination. If a Soldier does not meet the STANDARD, then certain actions have to be taken. We are looking for the best of the best QUALITY Soldiers, not ones that follow regulatory guidance.

Response by SSG Laureano Pabon made Jan 6 at 2014 9:05 PM

2014-01-06T21:05:01-05:00

Sir, during my time, in one of my units, we had a ex Special Forces SM whom was over weight, based on weight and height. Interesting part was when he went to get tested the medics couldn't detect any fat in him. He was so build that all that showed was muscles. What appeared to be fat was not fat, it was muscles alone.

I know that this is not what you meant, but I thought I put that here since he was over weight. I don't know what ever happened, but I figured that yes he remain and it was something new to learn for those who focused on his weight issue.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2014 9:26 PM

2014-01-06T21:26:25-05:00

Sir... how exactly is it "discrimination" when all you are doing is upholding the standard? If a Soldier fails to qualify with their weapon are they discriminated against by making them re-qual? If a Soldier fails their APFT repeatedly IAW REG's and eventually chaptered, are they discriminated against? If a Soldier rapes another Soldier and they receive UCMJ, is that discrimination? The question is almost absurd. I myself am 36 y/o and stand at 68", i ALWAYS weigh in around 198-202lbs but yet can score a 300 on the APFT if I try, but I AM ALWAYS around 23/24%.. I CANNOT lose the weight/ inches on my waist no matter HOW HARD I TRY... is it discrimination if i fail to meet that standard... PFFT uh no. I dont cry that the Army should change its standard (although i really wish they would because this shit sucks ALWAYS having to watch what i eat) I just have to stay under 24%... Im confused as to how upholding a standard and punishing those who dont, is discrimination, I think the Army should change its mentality that SM's should LOOK like a good Soldier instead of BEING a GOOD Soldier.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 6 at 2014 9:49 PM

2014-01-06T21:49:12-05:00

In my opinion being overweight should be screened out. The fact is is that if you dont make your body fat percentage set in place then you do not uphold a professional apperance. When you listen to people speak of the profession of professionals it is us that they are speaking of. The standards are put in place for a reason. An example of this is in my job, You cannot fit in to tight spaces to do your job if you are pushing the limits of your belt. If on the battlefield in a firefight would you want your battle buddy out of shape and not able to keep up with you. Remember we have to maintain the fighting force and they need to be fit. Maybe the standard could be loosend a touch but then where does it stop? Now if they are fit but just heavy, I could see doing an exception to policy on a case by case basis

Response by Cpl Ray Fernandez made Jan 7 at 2014 2:02 AM

2014-01-07T02:02:47-05:00

Physical fitness is not the only reason a person may fail a PFT in any branch. I've known some people that you look at them and you think they couldn't be any less fit, yet they perform well physically which may be the exception, but there are also many who are skinny and possibly underweight that lack the upper body strength to pass part of the Marine PFT in pull ups.

With that being said, I do not feel that the military should ever be used as a social experiment to justify anyone's beliefs or to oppress another group. If you can perform physically, and have the mental strength and fitness to do the job then the best person should be allowed to serve in that role. I don't care about what's fair, when fighting a war, the only fair fight should be the one that returns as many of our service members as possible, and defeats our enemies the quickest. I've served with gay Marines, never had a problem with them. I've served with women who actually worked hard and were stronger than some of the men. If we make the mistake of trying to be fair by lowering the standard to create a false sense of fairness instead of using one standard and allowing the best people to serve in each MOS and branch is a recipe for failure long term.

If a person is overweight or underweight and can't meet the standard boot them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 3:00 AM

2014-01-07T03:00:35-05:00

This is a slippery slope. While I agree with the sentiment that anyone who fails a PT test should get not sympathy, but in regrads to overweight, I am a little more lenient. Within reason. I am a big guy. 6'3" and at a good weight around 220#. But if I go below 220, say 210 or 205, people ask me if I am sick. The Army weight scale is not proportionate to todays Soldiers. A Soldier can work out and get buff, but if he has a skinny neck, he is considered overweight. While I know there are other means to determine bodyfat, i.e immersion tank, etc, the Army's way is so outdated and innacurate it is borderline ridiculous. And to kick a Soldier out for having a skinny neck, uncalled for. Now, the number of Soldiers who fall in this category are GREATLY outweighed by the number of blatant lard asses who can't walk by a doughnut shop without paying for the owners car. I am not skinny, nor have I been for a many number of years, but to look at me, most don't say wow, how is he in the Army? There needs to be a better and more scientifically accurate way to determine bodyfat, or at least re-evaluate the Army weight scale. Body fat standards were changed, but the weights have not and are based of of Soldiers from the 1950's. Seems disproportionate with Soldiers today.

Response by 1SG Randall Riecke made Jan 7 at 2014 10:38 AM

2014-01-07T10:38:02-05:00

<p>Fact, the Army has a regulation that covers physical fitness and address weight standards. Meet the standard or not...pretty damn simple if you ask me.</p><p> </p>

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 7 at 2014 10:46 AM

2014-01-07T10:46:06-05:00

Yes some people would say that it is discrimination but you also have to look at it from the point of if you are in combat do you want to be trying to carry a soldier that weighs 300 lbs without their gear. Because someone that weighs that much is going to have over 75 lbs of gear on top of their body weight. Yes the standards should be changed but it should be still kept so that soldiers present a professional appearance. Because who wants to see a formation of overweight people in a parade it just doesn't look good for us if we have a bunch of overweight people.

Response by PFC Thomas Graves made Jan 8 at 2014 6:39 AM

2014-01-08T06:39:55-05:00

They should actually change their diet, but that would be so politically incorrect. I lost 50 lbs when I quit eating wheat based products and processed foods, I also started eating more veggies.. It wasn't exercise, though I walk about 15 minutes every day. It was learning about how the modern diet , toxic additives and foods, and how they poison our bodies that allowed me to lose so much weight with out dieting. (I definitely do not count calories!) I eat when I feel like it and as much as I want. And I lost 1/4 of my body weight and I can now touch my toes and my abs are visible.

Response by LTC David Haines made Jan 8 at 2014 8:51 AM

2014-01-08T08:51:36-05:00

This has been an interesting conversation. Personally as a Soldier and subsequently an officer, I have always been close on screen weight and occasionally taped. It is not a perfect process. As I read this conversation, I come to the conclusion that the standard and the process, while not perfect, are not the primary problem. The biggest problem is the inconsistent enforcement of the standard by commanders which has led to a lot of "gray area" and HT/WT mythology. As a battalion commander I evolved to the position that the best, and fairest, solution was to implement the regulation as written and address the outliers versus letting others determine the standard. I am really not a control freak, but this thread is an illustration of how contentious and subject to individual interpretation this subject is; therefore commanders need to "weigh-in" (pun intended). This is simply an area that is not going to suit everyone's situation, but in the interest of unit readiness HT/WT standards and the AWCP need to be clearly understood and consistently enforced. We all have stories of the big guy who can kick butt on the PFT, but by the same token there are just as many or more anecdotes about overweight Soldiers that cannot pass PFT and are passed along or remain in units due to a failure of the chain of command. It ends up being a morale issue. That is not fair to the Soldiers that do work to maintain the standard. Going forward--if I was king of the world and could determine the process---(1) APFT is a screen, you simply must pass it. (2) Strive to stay 5% or more under screen weight (3) if you don't make screen, make tape, (3) if you don't make tape a scientific BF measure should be taken (4) with a good scientific BF you are either in standard or not. I assume this cover 99% or more of a units Soldiers. For further exceptions--ex. a guy who is big, but kicks ass (260-270+), not just passes (180) APFT, and looks professional in uniform (not obviously obese) can be "boarded" by unit senior NCO's WRT HT/WT, physical performance. duty performance, and professional appearance with approval by a BN commander for exception. I Am a big believer that the NCO's are the standard bearers on this and they need to be enabled by commander. This type last case should be very, very rare. I am prepared for any HEAT rounds coming my way...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 8 at 2014 9:41 AM

2014-01-08T09:41:03-05:00

There's a standard, and we're compelled by our sworn oaths to meet them.

That being said, I'm 70" and 220lbs. I score no less than 280 on my APFT, and I run low 12's for my 2 mile; last year I was 5 minutes from qualifying for the USAREUR 10 Miler team. I'm still a fat body, I pass tape, but I'm a large guy. This is where discrimination comes into play, due to my size I'm always heckled before schools "Are you sure you're going to pass tape?", I'm not the first choice for competitive boards, I'm not looked at to run PT Programs.

We need to find a better way for to determine a qualification for being taped. I think it should directly relate to your APFT Score.

Response by PFC Mike Lombard made Jan 9 at 2014 9:15 AM

2014-01-09T09:15:56-05:00

My military career was ruined by a bitter 1st Sgt who targeted me for my weight on day 1 @ Permanent Party, even though I had lost 80 pounds up to that point, had passed all PT tests, and was within my weight limit set forth by the TMC based on a BMI test. BUT, since the PAPER said I was supposed to be 175 pounds and the TMC said I was perfect @ 185 pounds, he insisted that I had to be 175. I was not allowed to eat lunch the entire time I was in Alaska, I had to do remedial PT, and was constantly ridiculed and made fun of by 1st Sgt George Jolly. He even went so far as to make me strip to my underwear in the common hallway to weigh in. I even losy 9 pounds OVERNIGHT once to avoid being chaptered out. Now, I wasn't just some slacker. I was an AK, squared away soldier. I made 30 out of 30 on my EOCT, qualified expert with rifle AND grenades, was always clean, pressed and polished. I LOVED the Army, and intended to retire after 20. (it was still 20 back then) After a year of Top's abuse, I finally just signed the damn papers and went home. I hated him, I hated the Army, and I hated myself. It took me years, and a horrible battle with drugs and alcohol, before I was able to get past it and get on with my life. I often wonder where I would be today had I been allowed to soldier, instead of being tortured by a cruel, bitter old man.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 12 at 2014 4:26 PM

2014-01-12T16:26:22-05:00

Here is my take on overweight Soldiers...its a problem. Why ? A number of reasons, but here are the main two that I tell my Soldiers. 1) Per AR 670-1, ALL Soldiers must present a TRIM, NEAT appearance. 2) Emphasis on effort and leadership. I will spend most of this post going over number 2, as number 1 speaks for itself.

I recently told one of my Soldiers that he needs to get his PT score up (223) before he goes to the promotion board..completely unrelated to weight, but hear me out. He then asked "Why? One Army standard, right?" To which I replied "Yes." No, I did not stop him from going to the board..but what I did do was explain to him WHY he needed to up his score. By Army definition, a Sergeant's job is to train and lead Soldiers, period. That being said, when I recommend you for the promotion board, in my eyes, you are ready to "train and lead Soldiers". I ask my Soldier, what happens when you get promoted to Sergeant and you have a Soldier who has the same PT score as you do? How are YOU going to help him if you are in the same boat hes in? How ? He didnt know what to say except "I see your point.". I hold this to be true. If WE as NCOs, Officers cannot set the standard, cannot BE the standard, how can we expect our subordinates to do the same ? We cannot. I am inclined to say that a squared away NCO will be within regs as far as APFT score AND Allowable Body Fat Percentage. Its not about whether the "system" is flawed...what "system" isnt ? As NCOs, we OWE our Soldiers effort and leadership. If we are not within tolerance, its our job to get there, no questions asked. THIS IS HOW WE LEAD. When PFC Joe sees how SGT Smith executed, he knows that he must do the same.

Response by MSG Mitch Dowler made Jan 15 at 2014 12:56 AM

2014-01-15T00:56:43-05:00

Yes, the Army should maintain a standard of a healthy proportionate height, weight and body fat content. It would be great if we could eliminate policy based on political correctness but it existed for my twenty years of service and I don't think it is going away anytime soon. The level is now at all time high, even higher than the Clinton administration ever was.

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 22 at 2014 4:11 PM

2014-01-22T16:11:06-05:00

Absolutely! I think we've all seen some pictures of fat army soldiers that got passed around on the web. Its an embarrassment to the ARMY! I think with the ARMY downsizing they can be more selective of who stays. I really don't like the changes in the PT test that people can walk instead of run. The PT test should never be made easier.

Response by 1SG Randall Riecke made Jan 24 at 2014 6:59 AM

2014-01-24T06:59:52-05:00

Army has established standards..period! If you're overweight to begin with and you haven't taken your own corrective action, you're wrong. Every Army organization should have a rock solid PT Program and well established taping and weighing soldiers inaccordance to the regulation. If a soldier is identified as being overweight, then the unit takes corrective action to help the soldier.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 1:05 PM

2014-01-24T13:05:17-05:00

In addition to the points being made on here. The one I would like to point out is it is not all about the Soldiers looks and PT. If that overweight Soldier were to become incapacitated somehow it would become another Soldiers problem trying to move them to safety. You can drop equipment thats heavy if nessesary, but you cant start cutting the fat off of someone.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 2:03 PM

2014-01-24T14:03:28-05:00

We actually had a problem like this arise while I was in korea. We had 2 Soldiers that always passed their pt test with 270+ but when it came to taping they failed. This wasn't because they were fat. They were constantly lifting in gym. They both had to stop lifting in order to pass the tape test. We went down town to an clinic where they did a body fat test and both of the Soldiers were under 15% body fat.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 24 at 2014 6:25 PM

2014-01-24T18:25:06-05:00

Yes the Army should discriminate with weight issues. First impressions matter whether anyone admits it or not and when someone sees a fat leader talk about standards, the rest of us laugh. Nobody will take you serious if you're so overweight. We also are supposed to hold a much higher standard than the civilian populace. We are expected to be athletes. Legitimate issues are understandable. Thyroid problems, permanent profiles that inhibit you from dropping those last 20 lbs, etc is one thing. Being fat and fit is not.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 9:29 AM

2014-01-26T09:29:12-05:00

I wouldn't call this discrimination. There are standards that the military have set in all aspects: conduct, grooming, and weight. Soldiers and Leaders are expected to follow these standards. We as a whole seem to be catering to these overweight Soldiers. Lately, I have been seeing more and more chapters in regards to weight. I feel that this abrupt "firing" of these Soldiers is a useful tool to ensure that those yet affected get their ass in gear. Now, I am currently in WOBC. I have been afforded the opportunity to venture to the local gym here on Lee. I have gained 17 pounds since arriving at Lee in mid-November. According to the Army, 69 inches at 185 pounds is not at the standard. Does this make me "fat"? I think not! Yet, I have the discipline to ensure that upon reporting to my gaining unit on Drum, that I am at what the Army considers the standard.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 9:53 AM

2014-01-26T09:53:15-05:00

There are many facets to the overweight issue.

#1 Military Appearance. In the interest of displaying a military, disciplined appearance a proper body fat percentage must be maintained. It is not good for other military and civilian to see a bunch of fat and therefore assumed lazy Soldiers walking around. It is just bad for the view of our military as a while.

#2 Physical Fitness. It is true that you can be overweight and still be fit, it is true that you can be underweight and still be fit. It is true that your appearance could be fit and healthy while the opposite is the case. However, most of the time, the outward appearance will gauge a persons level of fitness. The biggest problem with the overweight program as it is is that it is horribly innaccurate. The tape method just simply does not work like it should. I have had Soldiers who looked perfectly fine and fit, but becuase of a slightly smaller neck and larger waist they would fail tape and thus be flagged and had their careers held back, while they see obviously overweight Soldiers remain not flagged because their giant necks matched their gut. It needs to be fixed.

#3 Military Bearing. If I am a Soldier and my NCO looks like a fat, lazy undisciplined ass, it affects my level of pride and confidence in him. We must look and act the part.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 10:06 AM

2014-01-26T10:06:12-05:00

I think it's time to re-evaluate the BMI (Body Mass Index) and BF (Body Fat) content the Army uses. As a full time instructor at a National Guard training site, each student during improcessing to one of our schools is required to "weigh in." I don't keep an offical record of results but I would estimate that at least 75% of the soldiers coming through our institution are "over weight" by the current army standards. Most meet the "tape" but if you have a huge neck, well, you are likely good to go. If you can do your job and pass the APFT, in my opinion, your weight should be a non factor.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 1:29 PM

2014-01-26T13:29:41-05:00

I have read most of the responses to this post and I understand the frustration that most of have. The Army Physical Readiness Program is wrought with hypocrisy and inconsistency. The events that are used for the Army Physical Fitness Test were not chosen due to their ability to predict a Soldier's duty performance. The events were chosen because it was cheap and it was easy to do push-ups, sit-ups and a 2-mile run. Also, the APFT is the only Army performance evaluation where a Soldier can receive a "failing" score and pass (60/100 points per event). The Army Weight Control Program is one of the most poorly managed programs in the Army's history, the only exceptions maybe the Bradley IFV or the Comanche. The formulas and procedures for determining a Soldier's body fat percentage are completely inaccurate and the screening table for height and weight is over 25 years old. And lastly, it is the Commander's discretion to separate a Soldier if their appearance is not in keeping with a "professional appearance". Most of these standards were established over 25 years ago and the Army should look at a serious review.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 26 at 2014 1:39 PM

2014-01-26T13:39:36-05:00

I believe if a service member can pass his/her APFT with a 240 or higher and as long as they don't look like a beached whale the the Army shouldn't discriminate against them

Response by SGT(P) Angela G. made Jan 26 at 2014 7:57 PM

2014-01-26T19:57:11-05:00

As a Soldier that has a metabolic condition (Hypothyroidism-look it up), I will always have problems with meeting the standards as my body does not work like everyone else's does. I think that those things should be taken into consideration. On the other side of the coin; if there is not medical condition and the SM just refuses to take care of themselves, corrective action needs to be taken.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 27 at 2014 3:25 AM

2014-01-27T03:25:45-05:00

This political correctness is weakening our countrys defense. I think that it will be executed and proven to be ineffective and not practical once it is fully active and resources are exhausted. but the decision has been made and orders are to be followed. so I agree dont just choke the chicken finish it off throw overweight and substandard soldiers in combat arms as well.

Response by SGT Chris Hill made Jan 28 at 2014 12:13 PM

2014-01-28T12:13:46-05:00

Sir, I firmly believe that if the overweight Soldier can pass an APFT, then s/he should be allowed to serve. I do however think that there should be a certain fine line developed, being overweight and fat are two different things. I think the ABCP should lighten up on the allowed body % provided the Soldier can pass the APFT. I've seen stalky guys get chaptered just because they're naturally muscular, but according to army, they're a no go. If you can pass an APFT and have a good attitude and accomplish the mission, then you're good to go in my eyes!

Response by SGT Timothy Sowers made Jan 28 at 2014 2:07 PM

2014-01-28T14:07:37-05:00

I always looked at it this way. A lot of "overweight" soldiers could not pass the basic PT test. But even the ones that did, did it by the skin of their teeth and were pretty much done doing anything for the day. so here is one for ya. what if you were in combat, and moving through a "hot zone" and you have this guy with you and you have been going for a day or so and you have to depend on him to watch your back. as they say you are only as strong as your weakest man. so now he is out of breath and can barely walk. now you have to stop and help him along putting you and him in even more danger. is that going to be the guy that you want. I have watched some of them almost pass out half way through a basic PT test. So how do you think they would do in a real combat situation. now if they say you are "overweight" but you perform to the standards then their shouldn't be an issue. I have met guys that the military said that they were "overweight" that could outdo me in the test. I think it should come down to weather or not they can perform their duties as needed...

Response by CPT Christopher Hanson made Jan 29 at 2014 8:08 AM

2014-01-29T08:08:02-05:00

When you sign the contract, you accept that there are physical standards. If you dont like it, leave. Stop making excuses. Poor performance is your fault, no one else's.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 29 at 2014 8:28 AM

2014-01-29T08:28:36-05:00

Is it really discrimination???  First off, I believe the whole AWCP is flawed.  Why should SFC A and SSG B make the medical decision that I am overweight?  Isn't that why we have a MTF.  Granted there are more than a few tubbies around that need to slim down or get out.  As someone mentioned, when we signed the dotted line we accepted the regulations that the Army has set forth.  For someone who has struggled with my weight (not extreme, just 10 or so pounds over) I have finally gotten my situation under control the good old fashioned way.  Running, running, portion control, and running.  With the Army downsizing, overweight Soldiers has two choices in opinion.  Either lose the weight or become a civilian. 

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 30 at 2014 9:40 AM

2014-01-30T09:40:23-05:00

Sir

I have seen Soldiers who looked like a block (for a body)
and a block (for a head) no neck and they made the tape every time. The Soldier I am thinking about also
presented himself in uniform, with a very gross appearance. They did everything to get this guy out for
being overweight but no matter who did the math, who pulled the tape or how
many times they dunked this guy at the hospital his body weight index didn’t
cross the line. He also somehow managed to pass his APFT.

I always saw weight control
standards used as an easy way to let those out who had given up on the military.
However this was dependent upon the commander at the time and what the Soldiers
duty position played a pair in that decision. It always seemed that some people
did not making standard but didn’t get kicked out. Of course the flip side is that I have seen a
lot of good people go because they couldn’t make that standard, had an injury
that prevented the heavy workout at the
level they needed to keep weight off or
just stopped caring because it was too much to work 5 to 5 and then go work out.

As for discrimination against the overweight. The standards are what they are. Do they need
to be reworked, I don’t think so. What I
think is that this is a tool that is sometime used to get rid of people who stopped
fitting in. Is that fair, no but what is.
In the end it comes up to the judgment of the commander to push the
paperwork. That is supposed to be the leveling or justice in the system but we
both know that doesn’t happen as often as it should or even could.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 12:43 AM

2014-02-01T00:43:08-05:00

It's about looking professional in uniform.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 8:07 AM

2014-02-01T08:07:52-05:00

For me personally it is pretty simple, a standard is a standard is a standard, I do not choose what the standard is, but I do enforce them. Lifting or implementing other policies, do not have any correlation with a Soldier who is overweight. The reason for the AR 600-9 is Soldiers must maintain a high level of physical readiness in order to meet mission requirements. Body composition is one indicator of physical readiness that is associated with an individual’s fitness, endurance, and overall health. Individuals with desirable body fat percentages generally exhibit increased muscular strength and endurance, are less likely to sustain injury from weight bearing activity, and are more likely to perform at an optimal level. Soldiers will meet Army body composition standards, as prescribed in this regulation, for the individual and collective benefit to

themselves, their unit, and the entire Army.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 1 at 2014 10:07 AM

2014-02-01T10:07:02-05:00

Sir,

Overweight Soldiers and the DADT policy are two completely different problems. Soldiers who are gay have zero impact on mission accomplishment. DADT was rescinded because it was a morals issue. That being said overweight Soldiers are only "Discriminated" against because they are not IAW with regulation and policy. There are several reasons that being overweight have negative implications in the military.

It's regulation. It is that simple, if someone does not wish to abide by guidelines set forth then the Military will allow them to exit service. We are bound by our regulations and policies, with out them the Military would not be able to function as well as intended. We made the choice when we raised our right hand to obey these.

While I agree that there could always be improvement to the current overweight system for several reasons including people are just larger today then they were 20/30 years ago. The current body fat measurement system used (taping) is simply put because of money and ease of use. At the end of the day it is not bad guide line. Most of the Soldiers that are required to be taped because they "fail" Ht/Wt screening usually pass the actual taping.

We are Americas fighting force. It is an expectation that Soldiers are physically fit and mentally tough. Generally speaking most to be un-PC "Fat" Soldiers are none of these. If your Soldier is borderline then put him/her on the program and get them within tolerance. It starts with diet and proper exercise. We owe this to our Soldiers we are the reason they fail Ht/Wt.

Lastly, females in combat MOS's. Sir This has nothing to do with discrimination of overweight Soldiers and bears more points of contention than I care to discuss. At the end of the day we will execute our missions and continue to adapt to whatever we are thrown.

DNW!

SFC Evans

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 9:56 AM

2014-02-02T09:56:16-05:00

Because if an overweight Soldier is unable to perform some of the simplest of combat duties/exercises (pulling themselves up and over a wall), they will only slow down the team and possibly expose the team to enemy fire.

Granted this is a worse case scenario, however when you open the door to one, you have to open it to all. Overweight Soldiers are also more prone to injury and illness that detract from the readiness of team/squad/section/company/etc.... They detract from the "professional image that the Army has always tried to maintain.

I have nothing personal against those overweight, but if it is a medical condition, they won't be able to fix it and need to go (sorry). If it is lack of work ethics and inability to lose the weight, they need to go, because I don't need someone on my team that refuses to pull his own weight (I'm thinking of the team here).

I personally know 2 Soldiers that are overweight (one not by much, the other by quite a bit) and while they are both on the program, one is making progress and the other is not. In another couple months, our unit is scheduled to deploy and it hurts knowing that if we were to go into a hazardous situation, one of them or even both of them may place the rest of the team at risk.

I say as long as the make progress, lose unneeded weight, and meet the Army standards, I have no problem with them being over weight. Some people are going to be overweight no matter what, due to muscle mass, stature, etc., but they continue to meet Army standards of height/weight through use of body fat calculations. I myself have not met Army standards for weight in over 12 years, however not once have i "busted tape" and I've always made sure I can do what the mission requires.

Response by 1SG Michael Blount made Feb 2 at 2014 2:36 PM

2014-02-02T14:36:24-05:00

We do NOT discriminate against overweight Soldiers, just overFAT ones. Weight and PT are one of the few things that Soldiers can individually control. If those lazy lard butts can't get themselves in shape and stay there I will not recommend them for promotion. It's that simple. Soldiers in my unit know they will not be even sent to Drill Sergeant School unless they take a. APFT with me. Their goal is to meet or exceed my score. My last was 297

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 3:01 PM

2014-02-02T15:01:30-05:00

I don't think the Army, or Army leaders should discriminate against overweight Soldiers as in treating them different than other Soldiers or treating them unfair. However, I do believe that if a Soldier is overweight in such a manner that it prohibits his/her performance in completing task i.e. ruck marches, runs, obstacle course, APFT, etc. Then they should be be flagged and put on the AWCP and remedial PT to help them get more physical fit. As AR 600-9 states "All Soldiers must present a fit military appearance" I believe all Soldier regardless of rank should uphold this standard.

Now I do know some Soldiers- CPTs, CPLs, SFCs, LTCs, that are overweight due to lifting and gains or for whatever reason, however they can smoke a APFT on the 18-21 scale, encourage their Soldiers in & out of formation, and lead from the front in physical fitness exercises. Even though that Soldier is overweight, if he/she still has the ability to perform and lead, I believe they are not necessarily in the wrong. My only judgement when it comes to Overweight Soldiers is that as a leader, if I have a Soldier that is overweight, eating unhealthy, always lacking in PT not making an effort, and not currently trying to change his/her situation, then action needs to be taking as in weight & Tape, counseling, and AWCP program with remedial PT if needed.

Discrimination is something that shouldn't be tolerated by any leader or any Soldier. You have to take the AWCP into consideration when the Soldier can not physically perform while also encouraging that Soldier as a leader to do better for themselves. Hard work doesn't guarantee success, however it does increase your chances. So for those Overweight Soldiers that some Army leaders discriminate against, if you are not encouraging them or providing guidance, you are failing that Soldier. Again this is just my opinion, apologies if I offended any one.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 4:02 PM

2014-02-02T16:02:44-05:00

I have no issues with proper action being taken against personnel that fail to maintain Height and weight standards. My issue is that the Army preaches a total soldier concept but handles each category in a different manner. With the huge "CAPE" movement we are taught to be certified professionals. This means that we are to be certified in every facet of our chosen profession. I don't understand the difference between a soldier failing to pass an APFT or failure to pass Ht/Wt requirements. But the area I see missed all the time is their technical/tactical certification. As professionals all areas should be judged the same to include Mos proficiency test. I don't see why a soldier who constantly fails Gunnery Table certifications is any different than a troop (or leader) that fails the APFT, HT/WT or marksmanship. However to get back to the point I have seen solders who are in accordance with standards but still appear overweight in the eyes of their command. These soldiers are treated the same as those that fail (minus the flag) and this is an issue. It boils down to respect. to those that do and do not pass standards. Leaders need to remain professional and ensure their subordinates do as well.

Response by SSG(P) Chris T. made Feb 2 at 2014 5:22 PM

2014-02-02T17:22:05-05:00

I think that the Army should re-look how the taping for body fat is done. I do not think it is as accurate as it could be.

appearance is very important within our ranks. yes, I understand that if they pass the APFT then it shouldn't be an issue, but how would we look as a military is everyone looked obese?
I have seen some stellar Soldiers chaptered out due to their weight. They were awesome on the APFT and knew their MOS inside and out. Now, on the other hand I have seen skinny Soldiers who know absolutely nothing about their MOS, barely meet the standard get to stay.
Where is the importance at? Do we only care about image or do we care of the product of workload and knowledge?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 5:45 PM

2014-02-02T17:45:18-05:00

First and foremost we all know the ARMY has has a inaacurate system of determining body fat percentage. However I do believe that H/W req should be an after thought of the results of the APFT due to the fact the we are all soldiers and if the soldiers can meet the physical requirments of the APFT and can pass why do height and weight. On the other hand it is proven that people that are over weight tend to have more health issues than people of normal body composition. To me it all boils down to an overall well rounded healthy soldier requirment which contributes to the physical health of the force. Also it seems to me this question only arises when there is a disgruntle soldier out there that thinks he or she is being picked on due to the fact that they can not stay within the ARMY standard that in more cases than not was established before he or she joined. It is thier personal responsiblity to take control of your future and your career.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 8:35 PM

2014-02-02T20:35:35-05:00

I'm not a scientist, but can you really imagine an Army with no weight control standards?

Response by SSG Oliver Mathews made Feb 2 at 2014 8:39 PM

2014-02-02T20:39:47-05:00

IMHO, If a soldier is getting 90+s on his PT test the Tape shouldn't matter, If the soldier looks unprofessional in uniform having him get tailored to look correct.

When i joined there was a soldier who averaged a 330 ish (the highest PT score in the company) PT test every time. however he could not pass the tape due to an oddly portioned body. They couldnt promote him and the command didnt want to flag him because he was a hell of a soldier.

Response by 1SG Ron Fuller made Feb 2 at 2014 9:19 PM

2014-02-02T21:19:40-05:00

Why the hell do we have standards written in the AR600-9 then.... WTF!
Ron Fuller
1SG, FA
Retired

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 2 at 2014 9:25 PM

2014-02-02T21:25:33-05:00

I keep seeing this topic pop up. Why did you use the word DISCRIMINATE? It is either a poor attempt to make it something it really isn't, or just a bad choice of words. APFT and HT/WT is a standard. Why do you think it is wrong to punish someone for not upholding a standard, regardless if you agree with it or not? To me the original question answers itself.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 6:12 AM

2014-02-04T06:12:59-05:00

Being overweight is typical American thing...While it may be fine for civilians...it should not be in the military. (Army or otherwise). A soldier is a Soldier; and not a lazy fat ass with psychological food problems. If so he / she needs to seek medical and psychological help ASAP. Nothing says, "FAT and LAZY" like a fat soldier in uniform! If you cannot fit in the uniform,...you cannot fit in the army lifestyle of fitness and health.

Bad enough that the DoD had laxed on the uniforms...(i.e. body and ear piercings, full beards, and Muslim burka, etc.), but this is where we need to draw a line and say enough is enough!

What on earth is going on with the Army I knew...when a man was a man, a woman a woman, discipline and respect was the rule of the day everyday, and there were no whiners..if so, would be weeded out and sent home?!?

Pass the APFT and and watch your diet, eat right, and exercise on your own and you will be much happier. (i.e. NOT FAT).

I am sorry, but your question seems more of a "Boo-hoo, hoo" cry then anything else...get in shape or ship out. Just my opinion. This is meant 100% respectfully, but dam it all... stop whining soldier(s).

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 4 at 2014 8:09 AM

2014-02-04T08:09:43-05:00

"New" Army Standards ??? I knew plenty of these types...did not last long in the real army. Of course I served back when discipline was both personal and physical and meant something...NO "Stress Cards" for me.

Response by MAJ Michael McGonagle made Feb 4 at 2014 9:44 PM

2014-02-04T21:44:12-05:00

The Army is the guardian of the nation. That duty is physical in it's very nature. An established and enforced standard of conditioning, and that includes weight, is necessary to ensure mission success and the ability of our Soldiers to defend our nation and themselves.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 12:18 AM

2014-02-09T00:18:01-05:00

Sir,

Would it be considered discrimination if the Soldiers who were overweight, failed height and weight, failed the APFT, and continued to fail the APFT with no improvement nor cared to improve? I have been in several units where there were Soldiers, prior to my joining the unit, who had not passed an APFT, height and weight, and continued to gain weight and unimprove. Some since returning from AIT.

For an example, in one of my previous units, there was a fresh from AIT PV2. This certain PV2, from the time I was in that unit until the time I left, had taken 5 record APFT's and failed all of them. Not only were they failed, but the scores in all 3 categories dropped every time as well. There was a 30 lbs increase in weight, in addition to the weight gained in BTC and AIT, pushing them over thier max weight.

This Soldier was in the remedial PT program and had the Company Commander run with them for support and motivation. NCO's yelled, talked, supported, cared, punished, took rank, nothing worked. This individual just did not care if they lost weight or improved their fitness.

With all that being said, in a situation where an individual does not improve their height and weight nor do they want to improve, would that still be considered discrimination?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 9 at 2014 5:59 AM

2014-02-09T05:59:07-05:00

Just have some pride in yourself and lose the weight. I've seen people "try" their best to lose the weight get chaptered. Then I've seen someone actually dedicate themselves to lose the weight cut 40lbs and make weight. It's those soldiers decrying weight regulations that I see in the gym lifting weights and getting stronger, but that go straight to the DFAC and eat 3 times as many corndogs as human being should.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2014 10:40 AM

2014-02-10T10:40:07-05:00

The issue is not with the overweight soldiers themselves, but the problem is how the military calculates body fat pct. The AR used and subsequent BMI does not take into consideration that soldiers have different body types. Athletes tend to be heavier than non-athletes, and that plays a role in calculation of their idea what a soldier looks like but it doesn't have any bearing on body fat percentage rather than the ratio of the neck to waist ratio coupled with height. None of those factors have any bearing on fitness.

It has nothing to do with health but has to do with appearance. The military has to be in physical shape in order to accomplish its mission, and unfortunately perception is reality.

The height/weight is a broken system. It is true there is a correlation between weight and fitness, however it shouldn't be used to judge a soldier. There are plenty of soldiers who can pass the APFT but may not pass the hgt/wgt test. It is used in times like these when the military is slimming down to eliminate good soldiers and flagging them when they are overseas to deny end of tour awards and promotion. Its an regulation therefore cannot be changed unless the regulation is changed, which is not going to happen, but commanders have the final say in how it is enforced.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 10 at 2014 10:43 PM

2014-02-10T22:43:16-05:00

I have always said I wish the Army would go more towards a merit based system. If a Soldier can score above a 270, then s/he should be exempted from the hight/weight. Everyone is built differently. Genetics play a huge role in HT/WT. If you are stud, by the Army's definition (270 with 90% in each event), why should your build matter.

The current tape test is completely inaccurate. We have been screaming for a change for years, but cannot get any movement on it based on the fact that we need to have a system in place that is cheap and can measure the bodyfat of a large number of people in a short period of time. The problem with the current test is that if you have a skinny neck and carry your weight low, you are going to fail. The test may be off by as much as 11%. That is a huge number.

That being said the current standard is what we have and we must enforce regulation. Whether we want to or not, agree with it or not. It is our job to obey the orders of the officers appointed over us. Every regulation is signed by the Chief of Staff of the Army. Failure to obey the order is a violation of the UCMJ.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2014 1:07 PM

2014-02-11T13:07:04-05:00

Sir we do not discriminate, we have standards. You meet the standards, or you get separated. I have never falled withing the perscribed wieght standards for my hieght. But I DO alway's meet the BMI requirement. The fact that I score a 300 on my PT test has nothing to do with the hieght/weight standards. We mitigate the possibity of physically fit people failing these standards with the BMI test.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made Feb 12 at 2014 9:30 PM

2014-02-12T21:30:10-05:00

Would ya'll agree that a doctor should be the decide of if you are overweight? Continue H&W and tape as it exists, however if you get identified for AWP, when you get the med exam, give the doctor the ability to shut down the process and say this soldier isn't overweight/fat. This would prevent studs with skinny necks from getting screwed..

Response by SSgt George Brown made Feb 12 at 2014 9:35 PM

2014-02-12T21:35:06-05:00

Why are standards being lowered as we go further down the road? To make people feel good? I don't get it.

Response by SGT Niel Chase made Feb 13 at 2014 7:25 PM

2014-02-13T19:25:02-05:00

Hello Sir, I find it kind of funny reading through some of these comments to your question that everyone feels it is more important to maintain a certain physical appearance than keep the outstanding performers within the ranks. However, when it comes to something simple like ceremonies where things may be taken into the "dog and pony show" to uphold historical appearances then it is ludicrous.
This is definitely an issue throughout every unit that should be addressed. We have changed the way we conduct PT to PRT, so that we can help build a stronger more resilient soldier. I have heard numerous times if it's not broken then don't fix it, and a lot of individuals believe this is not broken. I however do see that there is an issue with every aspect of the overweight program and it deserves, we all deserve that the regulation be readdressed and updated.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 13 at 2014 7:45 PM

2014-02-13T19:45:55-05:00

yes absolutely!! now granted the army is gonna have its bigger soldiers like the 250ibs body builder who can do every push up and sit up known to man but cant run worth a damn, and were gonna have our beer belly guys who are very knowledgeable on just about everything but cant pass a APFT or a jelly doughnut to save his life, and i'm so tired of seeing fat soldiers it just wrong and unnatural for a soldier to be fat. you cant tell me when you see a soldier who's belly is hanging over his belt is in the right? and if he can pass his APFT what is his score 181? i may sound a little bit harsh on it but overall it looks unprofessional.

Response by SFC Jeremy Boyd made Feb 13 at 2014 8:03 PM

2014-02-13T20:03:07-05:00

Sir, overweight Soldiers CAN serve. The question comes down to being overweight vs over fat. That is why we have body fat standard provisions in AR 600-9. Comparing DADT, which at the very least bordered discrimination, and being out of prescribed Army standards does not make much sense. Soldiers are expected to uphold a certain level of professional appearance, in addition to being disciplined enough to monitor their food and PT intake. I myself exceed my maximum allowable weight for my height, but because of that I take care to eat right and maintain my PT. It is still a facet of the "whole Soldier concept," which is why we NCOs are still rated on it under physical fitness and military bearing. Anyone can pass an APFT, but that alone does not make one physically fit.

Response by SFC Jeremy Boyd made Feb 13 at 2014 8:22 PM

2014-02-13T20:22:52-05:00

I have been reading a lot of replies from individuals stating their own specific cases of being over max weight, yet exceeding APFT standards and being physically fit and having large functional strength and endurance levels. Those of you in that boat, rest assured that if you can pass tape standards, you will NEVER be discriminated against, not can you be flagged or chaptered under AR 600-9. Anyone who is truly in shape and healthy should have no trouble passing tape, especially the ones stating that they have six pack abs and the like.

Response by SPC Derreck Mott made Feb 13 at 2014 9:53 PM

2014-02-13T21:53:05-05:00

I was one of those soldiers who squeaked by every APFT and tape test but passed. I was never discriminated against because I showed up right place at the right time in the right uniform and busted my ass day in and day out. Not only doing my job but also trying to improve my PT scores. As long as I was showing an effort and not spending the weekend in the barracks mowing down pizzas and burgers, everybody from my squadleader up to my company commander encouraged me to keep going

Response by Capt Ed Yong made Feb 13 at 2014 11:07 PM

2014-02-13T23:07:05-05:00

Common sense with "overweight" please. People get caught up with the word "weight" and forget that someone who is physically fit can be "overweight" because of muscle.

Response by A1C Sherry Canzano made Feb 14 at 2014 5:36 AM

2014-02-14T05:36:33-05:00

What does allowing females in all combat MOS's have to do with overweight soldiers?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 8:44 AM

2014-02-14T08:44:42-05:00

If the drug test was as wildly inaccurate as the tape test it would never be used. This is the double standard. Very fat Soldiers with very vat necks pass just fine, but a reasonably fit Soldier with a skinny neck fails every time. It also doesn't take into account how broad shouldered a male is.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 8:44 AM

2014-02-14T08:44:42-05:00

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 4:08 PM

2014-02-14T16:08:06-05:00

Personally I can see both sides of the coin. Yes perception is a big point yet I don't necessarily believe it's everything like the military preaches. I also agree that size doesn't necessarily mean you are "unfit". I met a semipro bodybuilder that continuously failed the waiste measurement, dudes stomach stuck out past his chest almost but had a six pack and was rock solid. And I've seen stick figures that score excellent in PT tests with 9 min 1 1/2 mile runs that can't lift more than their own weight off the ground. Personally, I don't think the Tests really test overall fitness. What good does it do the team if you can run any distance really fast but can't drag your fellow soldier to safety in a firefight when he gets shot. And size doesn't have to be an issue if u can do the job.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 14 at 2014 9:10 PM

2014-02-14T21:10:54-05:00

MAJ,

There is a huge difference between an overweight Soldier who is in love with Budweiser and Anthony's pizza and is on a first name basis with the sick call team at the BAS.

My best friend is an "overweight" cross-fit former Hudson High football player who routinely gets 300+ on his APFT, can hump his ruck and that of his "excellent fitness" RTO who threw up on himself twice on a day patrol in Parwan. You'd look at LT Super Stud and you'd see "fat" and I say big boned. PFC RTO can work the gym like a pro, has 9% body fat, and is 80 Lbs away from max weight but he can't ruck 4 clicks w/o yakking?

SPC Snausage can barely pass the APFT and is .025% away from blowing Ht/Wt and looks like an ACU Goodyear blimp. Is he being discriminated against? Hell yes he is - he's fat - but you know what, so is LT Super Stud whom the BN XO has "counseled" daily and now eats 1 meal a day and makes himself throw up before the APFT so he can meet this stupid tape. SPC Snausage could probably hack into China and the Kremlin while tearing up a double whopper w/extra cheese but he's not Army material. I work at Quantico and every day I see super sharp and tight Marines. I also see some Marines who the Army would consider overweight but when I see them running down Russell Rd in body armor and not breaking a sweat I wonder where we are going wrong. LT Super Stud should be allowed to stay in and the AR should be adjusted to allow for the "big boned" super fit folks. As to SPC Snausage - well, take your mad computer skills and go to work for Microsoft or DHS but in uniform - forget it - you are a fattie and the Army is not for you (at least in uniform)...

Response by SSG Jason Greene made Feb 20 at 2014 2:06 AM

2014-02-20T02:06:12-05:00

I always just thought being overweight goes against presenting a soldierly appearance.

I am above my table weight, but ALWAYS pass my tape. Soldiers come in all shapes and sizes but just being sloppy isnt one of them.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 21 at 2014 3:13 PM

2014-02-21T15:13:53-05:00

I don't think weight should be as much of a factor as appearance. I've seen people pushing the limits on their ACU top but because they have a big neck they pass the tape. Then you have someone who has a more professional appearance but may be a little soft in the middle with a skinny neck fail the tape. It should come down to your APFT and how you appear in your uniform.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2014 6:58 PM

2014-02-22T18:58:07-05:00

Yes the regs have been revised, but there needs to be a
study on the height, and table weight (min and maxs). I'm saying that these numbers are from
the 1960's-early 1970's. A lot of things have changed since then, bodies have
changed, the food has changed, adding growth hormones to daily foods (yes
even chicken and fish), and sugars have been added to almost everything that is
available to us for consumption. Unless you eat purely organic foods and drink
only water, the numbers you have to meet, need to be looked at. Just look at the avg body type of men and
women in today’s world, and compare to the average body of men and women form
the era I stated earlier. Not saying it cannot
be done (making the table weight) but it’s not realistic comparing today’s
modern solider body types, to the body type of past era's Soldier. The Army
prides itself on being the best equipped with the newest possible weapon technology,
but we are sitting on a scale that was made in the 1960's to determine if the
American Solider is Overweight?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 22 at 2014 6:59 PM

2014-02-22T18:59:01-05:00

Sure let them be fat, might as well let soldiers grow handle bar mustaches grow super long hair and get tattoos on their face as well... since when did it become acceptable in the world to be fat

Response by SSG Nathan Bryant made Feb 23 at 2014 5:21 AM

2014-02-23T05:21:37-05:00

Everyone has an opinion and this forum definitely warrants expression of each. Then there is Army Regulation. AR 600-9 dictates the standard. Comply - no issue. Do not comply - subject to consequences.

I personally feel that there could be limited leniency towards "overweight" Soldiers who perform exceptionally well (maybe minimum 270 - 90 each event) on the APFT. But, until such an exception is authorized, AR 600-9 remains the standard. Also, "to discriminate" is to treat unfairly. Is it accurate to say that the Army is being "unfair" to those who do not meet outlined standards?

What happened to "....expert and professional . . . . trained and proficient...."? It is an implied task to meet height and weight standards. You can't even get through a MEPS without meeting enlistment requirements. The Duty and the Honor should be no less for someone already in uniform.

Last, but not least, "overweight" Soldiers who do not meet the bodyfat requirements are not meeting the standards identified by Army Regulation. How is that in any way a comparison to females in combat MOS? The same goes for Soldiers who who may identify with the DADT. As long as a Soldier meets identified standards, there should be no issue.

Too many Soldiers fail to realize that our personal attitudes and opinions have no place in the Army. We are entitled to our thoughts, feelings, and emotions. But, when it comes to Leadership and Doctrine, the answers are already provided.

Response by SGT Timothy Coleman made Feb 23 at 2014 5:24 AM

2014-02-23T05:24:01-05:00

I have an issue with overweight people in the military, for a long time I was deemed overweight. After looking around I started to notice that their were people around me that had fat rolls coming out of their uniform and getting away with it, all because they could pass tape. The way I see it AR 670-1 states that if you can not maintain the appearance of being fit, then you could be deemed overweight whether you pass tape or not. the problem there is since 9/11 they got very lax and pretty much allowed anybody in the military, I found that some of the senior NCOs that I knew could not maintain a fit appearance in a uniform. If the military is going to start weeding out the overweight individuals, they need to start at the top and work their way down.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2014 6:07 PM

2014-02-24T18:07:07-05:00

Sir,

The Army doesn't discriminate against overweight Soldiers. There is an Army regulation which all of us have to abide by and standards we are ALL required to meet. The definition of overweight is in my opinion a little ambiguous as there are many Soldiers who exceed the recommended weight guidelines of the military yet still pass their APFT. Then there are those who exceed the weight guidelines and to add to that don't give a damn about running or doing anything to stay in shape and then fail the APFT.

I have sympathy for a Soldier who fails a PT test when they are really doing everything in their power to pass, but for some reason just can't seem to manage doing so. I have zero tolerance and/or sympathy for Soldiers across ALL ranks who shove junk food in their faces all day, don't work out and show no effort during an APFT and fail.

I used to be a runner when I was young, but age has caught up and I don't run as often anymore which caused me to gain weight over the years. I have always passed tape, but blown weight by 10 pounds. The Army has never once discriminated against me as far as I could tell. I've always known the standards and requirements. I got tired of being overweight and have modified my food intake and increased my cardio workouts. I now weigh 200 flat which is well under my max authorized and I don't have to worry about taping ever again if I do it right.

Soldiers need to make the necessary changes in their lives and careers.

Response by SFC Michael Lydon made Feb 24 at 2014 6:41 PM

2014-02-24T18:41:07-05:00

I don't think it's discrimination. If a soldier doesn't want to commit to physical readiness then what are they committed to???

Response by SFC Michael Lydon made Feb 24 at 2014 6:41 PM

2014-02-24T18:41:09-05:00

I don't think it's discrimination. If a soldier doesn't want to commit to physical readiness then what are they committed to???

Response by SFC Michael Lydon made Feb 24 at 2014 6:41 PM

2014-02-24T18:41:10-05:00

I don't think it's discrimination. If a soldier doesn't want to commit to physical readiness then what are they committed to???

Response by Sgt Glenn Rini made Feb 24 at 2014 11:36 PM

2014-02-24T23:36:13-05:00

Over weight Soldiers, that is a term used to classify both male and female. Now if you have Rhonda Rousey and then an over weight male, who would you want next to you and who is going to perform at a level expected of a service member? There are woman out there capable of the task and there are men that are in that are not capable of the task. Certain things are expected of military members and they should always be expected of military members in my opinion. Being over weight in a job that requires you to be in excellent shape, a part of the job description should not be eased to accommodate feelings, also in my opinion. Unless the individual is obviously just "big boned" or a muscular person. That should be judged case by case and we all know an individual who is just large by nature vs a person who is fat.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 25 at 2014 2:42 AM

2014-02-25T02:42:06-05:00

Standards sir-they failed to meet them, and have an issue. So as fellow Battle Buddies, we rise up to assist them in correcting the issue.

If they continue to fail to meet the standard, then per regulation we should be discharging them. I know it does not replaced the skill set or ability of that individual-which lies the biggest issue.

Response by SFC Mike Olson made Feb 25 at 2014 3:40 AM

2014-02-25T03:40:57-05:00

The Army should completely reevaluate how it determines fitness. Neither the APFT nor the current height and weight standards have much to do with a soldier's ability to complete the tasks required by his/her MOS. While a strong argument can be made for the need for soldiers to maintain a professional appearance, it is more difficult to say that an arbitrary body mass composition is required to be mission capable. Hopefully the comprehensive study on physical requirements for various MOSs, which the Army is currently undertaking in the move toward integrating females into combat arms, will shed light on what is actually required physically of soldiers.

As a side note, it seems disingenuous to compare something fully within the soldier's control (injuries notwithstanding) like body mass composition, with something innate like sexual preference. It doesn't take a superhuman effort to maintain the Army's less than stringent height/weight/body fat requirements.

Response by LTC John Czarnecki made Feb 26 at 2014 9:55 PM

2014-02-26T21:55:00-05:00

The current height / weight tables are absurd.

This is all about common sense, but I realize the Army and Sense don't necessarily go hand-in-hand, and the Army often doesn't trust it's subordinate commanders to do the right thing, so discretion isn't given to them in this area.

If you've got a PT monster who easily maxes the PT test, who looks like a Greek Adonis, and who can ruck 12 miles with a huge ruck as if it were a waltz, but who weighs 230 pounds, should you give him the boot?

I've seen it done. Stupidity.

But on the other hand, I've seen some major widebody lardasses who need to go yesterday.

Give commanders the ability to use some real common sense. The problem will be fixed.

Response by SGT Randy Kuhlman made Feb 27 at 2014 10:12 PM

2014-02-27T22:12:39-05:00

Interesting...I believe that if a Soldier passes their APFT, weight only becomes an issue if it is a diagnosed health risk (and I mean by someone other than a senior NCO or officer that did not attend any medical school). Regardless, I believe the Army definitely needs to re-visit AR 600-9 and update the weight charts, as they have not been updated since '86 I believe it is (been a couple years since I left the service and had to deal with this).

Response by SPC Christian Sanchez made Feb 28 at 2014 3:53 AM

2014-02-28T03:53:00-05:00

Overweight Soldiers are not as combat ready as a Physically Disciplined soldier would be. When on a mission outside the wire that calls for quick maneuvering, who would get to the designated point first? Exactly. I can understand a thick soldier being physically able to do what an average built soldier can do. Soldiers are trained to be the best at what they do. To be in peak physical condition. Overweight soldiers do not belong in the military...

Response by Sgt Anthony White made Feb 28 at 2014 1:00 PM

2014-02-28T13:00:13-05:00

Because there is a standard that must be upheld, and should be no wiggle room. I have served in both the Marine Corp, and Army both active and guard. While serving in the Corp I can honestly say I never saw an overweight marine based on being fat. Those that were overweight were well under body fat and far surpassed the tape test. Now while in the Army it seems all I saw were disgusting fat bodies. These soldiers were busting at the seems while in uniform, and despite given many chances to pass a PT test or lose weight they neglected to do what was required and were still allowed to serve. How can I rely on someone who is obese and cant pass the walk portion on a PT test to, and who has no discipline to lost weight to do their job or for that matter watch my back? So from my experience the Army is to forgiving when it comes to overweight soldiers. We all are made well aware of the height and weight standards that must be adhered to before joining and while serving. If one can not maintain the standard, then why should the be allowed to serve. We represent our service and the United States both in and out of uniform. If you want to serve your country that is fine, but you must adhere to the standard and regulation of how to do so. This is like those who are in AIT who fail three tests they are forced to reclass, why not let them continue till the pass the course? Because there is a standard!

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 1 at 2014 8:53 AM

2014-03-01T08:53:29-05:00

Based on the concept of BMI, I think about 70 percent of the military is now overweight. There needs to be a better understanding of the concept here, and not a standard weight/height assessment for this. For example, There is an NCO in my unit that is 6' and weighs in around 225. Per BMI (30.5), he is considered obese - but that is definitely not the case. He is a lifter that easily presses 495, and can nearly max out the fitness assessment in all categories.

Bottom line is: If a soldier lacks the physical ability to perform required duties, they should never be allowed to perform in that role - regardless of size/gender/etc. Allowing those personnel (physically inept) into the field would put a greater burden and risk on his/her fellow warfighters.

Response by SGT Gary Frank made Mar 1 at 2014 5:56 PM

2014-03-01T17:56:06-05:00

Simple Answer MAJ.
They do know of a cure for "Tubbiness ", it's called "Diet".

LOL, sorry

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 3 at 2014 8:23 PM

2014-03-03T20:23:38-05:00

Discriminate is the WRONG word. <div><br></div><div>The Army has standards for height and weight, the SM ether meets them or they don't. That being said, in my "ideal world" I would not flag a SM for failing height/weight as long as they can pass their PT test with ease and carry a ruck. </div><div><br></div><div>I know a couple of seriously fit men who who bust the tape test (which is another FUBAR too IMHO) but could run, ruck, shoot, lift and fight with the best of them. They are not fat-bodies, just big men.</div>

Response by SPC Michael Luna made Mar 5 at 2014 7:44 PM

2014-03-05T19:44:06-05:00

If they can pass the PT test and do their job, I could give a rats ass. However, when I got into what is called "the big Army", I saw tons of fat assed NCO's and officers who were always on profile when it was time to take the PT test.

They were allowed to stay in because they passed that joke thing they called the tape test. I had just left the Rangers due to injury and was in top shape and I had gotten into lifting weights. I was pretty muscular, and I had my new fat ass first sargeant threaten me and another guy that lifted, with getting chaptered out of the Army because our uniform didn't fit properly. Our arms were so muscular that we had trouble rolling up the sleeves. I had next to no body fat and was a rock. He had so many fat rolls on his neck and they were so big, it was able to compensate for his huge, and I mean huge, big fat assed gut.

When I went through basic training, at least half of the drills fell out of each and every PT run. Most of them were fat asses that had no business training Infantry soldiers. It was a joke.

The military is not a happy go lucky place for people to feel comfortable in their body, or however you want phrase it.

The military is slowly turning into a joke and is a huge social experiment to make everyone feel good. Hey, we are all equal and the same. BS.

Response by LCpl Mark Lefler made Mar 5 at 2014 10:44 PM

2014-03-05T22:44:16-05:00

I never failed a PT test in the Marines, even when they made me do it when I was being discharged for medical reasons, but me being 3-5 pnds over weight was the total end of the world. I would eat all low fat food, use laxatives, not eat, run 12 miles everyday, but those few pnds were the end of the world for me.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 7 at 2014 10:14 PM

2014-03-07T22:14:35-05:00

As much as I have to disagree. I can agree on one thing. They do need to look at the standard. That's all.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 15 at 2014 10:31 AM

2014-03-15T10:31:34-04:00

I have to get taped constant because Im a thickie thick. But yet I have always scored high on my PT tests. Hell Ive scored better that my skinny counter parts, but yet I get the sh*t end of the stick. Cant always judge a book by its cover

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 2:04 PM

2014-03-17T14:04:58-04:00

The issue i is so much being "over weight" and being able to pass an APFT. The issue is Soldier's who are over weight and do not meet bodyfat Standards and fail an APFT. Your right, there is no issue with a Soldier who is 5'9" and 210 lbs solid with 10-15% body fat and scores 70- 80% consistently in all 3 APFT events. But when a Soldier is 5'9" 210 lbs and 24% body fat and can not pass an APFT.....I have no use and no respect for you, especially if you are wearing stripes or brass. I am 31, 5'10, 170 w/ 11% BF , married with a kid, I work as a LEO and I find time to PT. I can out perform 95% of the Soldiers that are younger than me in my company. There is NO excuse for not meeting the standard. Also, I do agree the Army needs to rewrite the Ht/wt program, especially tape test, at least make it caliper test...so much more accurate.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 2:14 PM

2014-03-17T14:14:12-04:00

My own opinion, the Army sets a standard, as Leaders we enforce that standard, it is not discrimination. This standard has been around for the longest time, I do not see why it is an issue? If I recall right, I had to meet those standards before I was actually able to join, were they discriminating against me? No

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 17 at 2014 9:43 PM

2014-03-17T21:43:13-04:00

Because at a certain percentage excessive body fat creates health issues... And if we are going to tighten up the standards for haircuts and personal clothing then, I'm sorry, back away from the table and drop the bucket of chicken wings.
Seriously, the health issues are serious: diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, etc... These issues require medical treatment that at a minimum impacts other soldiers, at worst they can't deploy and someone else has to go in their place.
Some are going to argue the "if I pass my PT test" route... but we have to set a point somewhere as a baseline. And I think we already have some pretty generous measurements before you even get screened.

Response by SFC Vernon McNabb made Mar 19 at 2014 3:27 PM

2014-03-19T15:27:18-04:00

Overweight and out of shape? Yes, I would discriminate against that type of Soldier. It's a sign of pure laziness. I have seen underwieght and middleweight Soldiers who could not perform one or all three of the APFT events. I have seen Soldiers who exceeded the height/weight standards regulated by AR 600-9 who could score 300 on the APFT or at least get 60 in each event. Overweight is not the same as fat or obese. As a Senior NCO, if I look at a Soldier and it seems they are pushing the limits of their uniform in the stomach area, I would be neglecting my duties if I did not pull that Soldier aside and tape him/her. It's not discriminating against them, it's ensuring they are abiding by the standards set forth in the regulation. I would NOT; however, immediately kick them out. They would be given an oppurtunity to show improvement by diet and exercise. If after all attempts to help them meet the standards fail, then yes, they must be chaptered out of the Army. They are becoming a liability to themselves and their comrades by not maintaining their physical fitness.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 19 at 2014 3:42 PM

2014-03-19T15:42:01-04:00

I've been taped for 17 years...never had an issue with it. I know what the standard is and make sure I stay within the standard.

It's only discrimination if not everyone is held to the same standard.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 12:26 AM

2014-03-21T00:26:19-04:00

As a Soldier that has been getting taped for over 18 years from the time I was a private I got to say I have always felt that the system could use some tweeks. I feel A) If you can pass a PT test and perform your OK and B) no weight vs height make it 100% body fat.

Response by LT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 1:49 PM

2014-03-21T13:49:16-04:00

It appears to me to be more of an image thing. The Army might assume if an overweight soldier is seen in public in the uniform people will think all soldiers are out of shape, even if that soldier can score 250+ on the APFT. I agree with a lot that I have read here and do not think that "overweight" soldiers should be discriminated against just because their body composition is different than "average".

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 21 at 2014 5:53 PM

2014-03-21T17:53:15-04:00

I had the same problem in the Marines. I am a big guy . With that being said my military appearance was out standing in all of my dress uniforms and Camoflague uniforms so it was not a big deal to any of my CO's., but if you do not have a good military appearance in all of your uniforms, then that is a problem. You can have your belly hanging over your pants. I can not atest to Army Regs I am a Marine.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 23 at 2014 2:07 PM

2014-03-23T14:07:28-04:00

If all soldiers were required to take PT tests this would be a great idea, but we already have enough fat people who CANT PASS A PT TEST hiding on profile. We also have too many leaders pencil whipping PT tests and body composition work sheets.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 27 at 2014 1:39 PM

2014-03-27T13:39:59-04:00

Sir,

I can drag tattooed Soldier behind cover and return fire...
I can drag a homosexual Soldier behind cover and return fire...
I can drag a female Soldier behind cover and return fire...
I can drag a Soldier of any ethnicity or creed behind cover and return fire...
But not a single one of my four previous statements applies to a grossly overweight Soldier. That's not discrimination, it's a function of gravity and simple physics.

I weigh in at 175lbs at 5'-11", and in full rattle weigh in well over 215lbs (conservatively). I stay in shape because I want someone to be able to drag me behind cover and return fire.

Numerous studies have also shown that recovery times are lengthened and complications are increased in persons who are obese, increasing down-time and medical costs. Studies also prove obesity hampers acclimatization to harsh environments. The simple fact is we need to stand ready to engage the enemy in every terrain and climate, and obesity hampers this ability.

Just a note: I'm not referring to Soldiers who need to be taped (that's almost everyone I know who lifts heavy or are of a stockier build), I'm talking about those bowl-of-jelly Soldiers who fail tape and can't knock out 20 push-ups.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 28 at 2014 3:33 PM

2014-03-28T15:33:15-04:00

I do not believe that there is any discrimination against over-weight Soldiers, personally. If there was discrimination then we wouldn't give overweight Soldiers one more test to see if they are still in compliance ie: the tape test. If you are suggesting that remedial PT or nutrition programs are an indication of discrimination I would argue that there are numerous people in these programs that are of average weight and still participate for health reasons. I do not believe that an overweight Soldier should be considered the norm or average. The military sets its standards and it is the duty of the servicemember to comply with them. I understand the argument for various body types and issues with gender differences, however, this does not give an excuse to a person to fall from the standard.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 4:28 PM

2014-04-01T16:28:47-04:00

Sir , with all due respect, this question can't be serious. Fat and Big are two different things. Big Soldiers that are strong, can pass an APFT and can perform to standard while still appearing "professional" in uniform are fine, Fat Soldiers need to go, they don't look professional. Overweight is a condition more often than not developed from laziness and probably isn't the Soldiers only problem.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 1 at 2014 10:59 PM

2014-04-01T22:59:57-04:00

Sir

It's not discrimination, its a reg, and there are ranks that find their way around it as I have seen people that a four man team could not get out of harm if they needed to. It's about the professional look, tattoos, hair, and their own safety and health. If they make tape then they stay. the Tape is notoriously questionable, but individuals can work with medical to address a dunk or more accurate test to fight discharge. I have been fighting my own waist line for the last 4 years, it takes work and discipline.

Response by MAJ Jim Woods made Apr 1 at 2014 11:38 PM

2014-04-01T23:38:28-04:00

I was never more than 18% body fat but feared weigh-ins because of my body type. I was always around 190 but the standards for my height was 182. For years I maxed the PT test but still had to get a BMI to satisfy the Reg Police.

I agree with those that believe if a person passes APFT and can do his/her job to the satisfaction of their Unit leaders, then the waiver system should be revised so that decisions are made at the lowest (Unit) level.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 2 at 2014 4:53 PM

2014-04-02T16:53:24-04:00

The Army does not discriminate against overweight Soldiers, if you are overweight, you are failing to meet a standard. Overweight soldiers show a general disregard for appearance and wear of the uniform. I have met a very small percentage of soldiers that fall into the category of "big boned", and generally those persons pass their tape (I am one of them). Everyone else I have met in the overweight category is simply fat and lazy. I tend to gain weight easily and as such I go to great lengths to watch my dietary intake and exercise regularly. The reason why you may feel discriminated against is because your lack of care of your appearance is probably a reflection of your work ethic and job performance. If you walk around looking like a soup sandwich don't be surprised if you are treated as such. If I see a person dressed as a police officer I will assume he is a police officer. If I see an overweight soldier in uniform I assume he just left McDonald's and is somehow complaining that the weight standards are too hard.

Response by MSgt Keith Hebert made Apr 8 at 2014 11:13 PM

2014-04-08T23:13:45-04:00

After reading a lot of the post on this subject I will offer my opinion.
26 years retired and I was taped for 26 years. Some times I busted tape got out on remedial and passed.
I was not blessed with a 18" or above neck so I always had problems. But I always passed the pft and did my job.
I have had tape measurers(for lack of better word) tell me to scrunch my neck to make it bigger and the I had one medic look at me and say I look good in uniform and I went on my way.
All this goes to say that the ht/wt should used on a case by case basis.
If you have a servicemember who passes the pft, then no problem.
If the servicemember barely passes
Ex. Min score is 180 and the pass with 180-190 then the leadership needs to look at what's going on and possibly apply the ht/wt standard

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 14 at 2014 12:42 AM

2014-04-14T00:42:23-04:00

Just like some of you already said the army had an image. You can't put a round peg in a square hole if you get what I am saying. No pun intended lol. Some of you also where talking about pt tests I don't agree that a pt test is a accurate way to determine if a soldier is really physically fit, just because you can run and do sit ups does not mean you can move your battle buddy dead weight when he/she is wounded. Pt should be re-evaluated. Also I don't agree with the tape test I have know guys that are very muscular guys and don't have a neck and because of that can't pass tape. Just another thing that needs to be changed. It had not been changed since WW1 I belive. Times have changed and so has the growth of people we need to adapt and change also.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2014 8:43 AM

2014-04-15T08:43:14-04:00

There is a standard that needs to be
met. It is not discrimination if there are consequences for not
meeting the set standard. Until the policy changes, people need to meet the
standard or accept the consequences of not being in regulation.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 15 at 2014 4:13 PM

2014-04-15T16:13:20-04:00

I don't see so much discrimination against overweight soldiers. I think if a soldier is able to pass the APFT and perform their assigned duties without restrictions, then there should be no problem.

I have felt for some time the Army height/weight standards are not accurate. I am 5'11" and weigh 204 pounds. By Army standard, I am overweight. But common sense and my physical stature would contradict that.

Response by SGT Robert Hawks made Apr 20 at 2014 12:33 AM

2014-04-20T00:33:56-04:00

They are not discriminating. The Army has a standard you have to meet that standard to join the Army and then you have to maintain that standard while serving. The soldiers that fail to maintain that standard must be put out. It is no different than if you continually fail a APFT test or can not pass a SQT. These are standards and standards need to be maintained.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 20 at 2014 8:12 PM

2014-04-20T20:12:49-04:00

In my opinion, certainly not. I think that its absolutely ridiculous that someone can pass a PT test but still be flagged because they are slightly overweight. The Army hides behind the excuse that a person must look like the ideal soldier. Who is the Army trying to impress with that? I believe that if a person can perform the physical duties that being a soldier entails, and be proficient in their MOS, their weight should not be as big an issue as the Army makes it out to be.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 21 at 2014 8:39 PM

2014-04-21T20:39:29-04:00

I disagree with the Armys overweight system entirely. I lost over 100lbs 3 years before joining the Army and still have issues with tape and weight even though my pt score is 290. If a soldier can pass a pt test and perform their duties it shouldn't matter how much they weigh.

Response by SGT Andrew Chapman made Apr 23 at 2014 9:30 AM

2014-04-23T09:30:16-04:00

As a larger person I fought with the tape for 8 yrs, an while I was being told to watch my weight I never failed a PT test but seen people fail then get all kind of extra training and chances. Then seen a few not beat the tape and it seemed like they were in a huge hurry to push them out. Over my years in the Army and Civilian life I have learned that not always does the persons weight stand for their ability or fitness level. One of my son's is fighting this battle just to join and at 19 he will lose a lot of the weight once in basic and being more active everyday. But the reg is what it is for now.

Response by SGT Brian Watkins made Apr 23 at 2014 6:08 PM

2014-04-23T18:08:49-04:00

You can say there is discrimination, which there is, however there is also a standard. I don't see any outstanding athletic soldiers in the "Regular Army" that are running Iron man competitions, and the standards that are in place are there for a reason. Mobility, agility, and I wouldn't want to have to drag some POS through the fire because he/she was too undisciplined to take their ass to the gym, eat healthy, and change their diet. Same goes for the skinny fat people, but they are ina league of POS of their own. This is for the Fatty fats. Just this week I was taking a helo ( Sikorsky S-76) to a remote site and had an overweight passenger. Honestly, I don't see how he was able to take this trip over water without thinking how the hell he would egress out of the little ass window if we had to ditch. Not only was it a major inconvenience for the dude that was sitting with his ass half off the seat because big boy took up 1.5 seats, but there are safety issues there as well. But who cares about military appearances, we should all be able to wear beards, no haircuts, women can wear all kinds of makeup, and hair colors now as well... right? These days everyone is a winner, and we all get gold stars. This is the weak sauce mentality that will destroy the Army. Fit to fight, unless it doesn't make you feel good and discipline hurts your feelings. Next thing you know we will fall in ranks like the Georgians, god forbid. Can I say God? Don't want to offend anyone, lol.

Response by SPC Chuck Ousley made Apr 26 at 2014 1:10 AM

2014-04-26T01:10:18-04:00

Its a difficult discussion but troops are given many chances to conform to standards. Pass the PT and beat the tape. Its their standard. What pissed me off was in 1993 they began to process the overweight guys out. We had an 8 year specialist in my company who decided he was gonna stay 'big' and when he out processed he was awarded 20,000 bucks to ETS! THAT IS BS!!! He wasnt discriminated. He was rewarded.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 12 at 2014 3:31 PM

2014-05-12T15:31:54-04:00

Discriminate? Interesting phrasing but everything depends on your meaning of ‘discriminate’.
dis•crim•i•nate
/disˈkriməˌnāt/
verb
verb: discriminate; 3rd person present: discriminates; past tense: discriminated; past participle: discriminated; gerund or present participle: discriminating
1. recognize a distinction; differentiate. "babies can discriminate between different facial expressions of emotion"
synonyms: differentiate, distinguish, draw a distinction, tell the difference, tell apart; separate, separate the sheep from the goats, separate the wheat from the chaff "he cannot discriminate between fact and fiction"
• perceive or constitute the difference in or between. "bats can discriminate a difference in echo delay of between 69 and 98 millionths of a second"
2. make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age. "existing employment policies discriminate against women"
synonyms: be biased against, be prejudiced against; treat differently, treat unfairly, put at a disadvantage, single out; victimize "existing employment policies discriminate against women"
If you are saying the military should not differentiate or distinguish fat soldiers from those soldiers who maintain a healthy weight or are you saying we should not make prejudicial assumptions about soldiers just because they lack the will power to push away from the table? I guess the real answer, either way, is that overweight solders are overweight. We do, and should, continue to differentiate people because of a number of health issues.
Why not allow overweight Soldiers to serve? Because they are overweight and are unhealthy, regardless of PT scores, and lack discipline. Two things vitally important to all soldiers and to those they serve with.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2014 1:06 PM

2014-05-14T13:06:13-04:00

I agree with a few of the other posters to this discussion that being overweight really should only be an issue if there is a duty performance impact, especially in regards to the APFT. I have seen more than a few stellar performers with excellent APFT scores (a couple scoring on the extended scale) be unceremoniously discharged simply because they didn't meet the height/weight standard. These guys had a very high muscle mass, even if there was a significant fat layer that prevented them from passing the tape. Stay on top of soldiers that don't meet the standard, but take into consideration the soldier's overall performance. Some people are just built bigger than the rest of us. It's nature, not a choice like other considerations that are being used to downsize the military today. As far as these actions being discriminatory, I don't think that's the right idea. It's a standard. That's why I understand the high performing soldiers in my past being discharged, but I don't have to like it.

Response by SPC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made May 14 at 2014 5:25 PM

2014-05-14T17:25:14-04:00

In my opinion, the Army should find MORE things to discriminate against in this time of reduction. I feel sympathy for people who cannot maintain their weight due to medical problems, but there are plenty of civilian careers for them. Plus, they should be getting a pension from the Military if it is a medical issue. The army looks bad if there are fat people walking around in uniform. As per the regulation, excessive body fat implies a lack of discipline and motivation.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made May 15 at 2014 12:43 PM

2014-05-15T12:43:48-04:00

MAJ B - first we have split some hairs. Overweight but scoring 300+ on the APFT, can ruck the hills of Tora Bora w/o breaking a sweat - no, I really think these guys deserve a pass every time. To add insult to injury they blow tape every time but when you dump them in a bouyancy tank or pinch test them they are always less than 10-12% body fat. Oh wait - bouyancy and pinch are not allowed, you have to use that voodoo in the AR.

SPC Sloth who is 20 pounds over, barely passes his PT test (or fails every other time), looks like a sack of potatoes in uniform, and thinks pizza and beer is a food group - YES, he needs to go.

Response by CPT Jason Torpy made May 16 at 2014 12:48 PM

2014-05-16T12:48:01-04:00

"Discriminate" is an odd word to use. There is a run/push/sit fitness test and a don't-be-fat fitness test. Hooters has one too. The question is whether big fat guy appearance is really a problem if the big fat guy is passing the PT Test. People sometimes bring up carrying the guy off the battlefield, but 300lbs of muscle and 300lbs of fat are still 300lbs. And I'd prefer to carry a 5'4 200lb fatty over a 6'8 250lb LeBron adonis any day. This 'discriminate' term is thrown around implying you're just defensive about your weight. And the sexist/PC rant against female diversity implies you've got some questionable motives with this post. But if you can keep this professional, I think it's really hard to justify the fat standards.

Response by SSG Kevin McCulley made May 16 at 2014 9:23 PM

2014-05-16T21:23:42-04:00

Eliminate height & weight standards... add pullups.. the problem will take care of it self.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 17 at 2014 12:32 PM

2014-05-17T12:32:36-04:00

In conjuction with "failing" the APFT, being "overweight" is likely the most common excuse used to separate soliders from service who still wish to serve. The APFT (if you actually read the FM)was intended for the commander to use as a guide to judge his unit's physical fitness. We (the military) have turned it into a Pass or Fail event. "Fail" one portion, you've "failed" the entire test. If a solider (I use soldier because I am army, other services feel free to insert their standards) scores 100 points in the push up event and 100 points in the sit up even but "fails" to reach 60 points in the 2 mile run, he "fails" his/her APFT. Do this two consecutive times, he/she is subject to be discharged. This is regarless of the fact of how well they can do their job. The same holds true to "overweight" soliders. % of Body Fat is the end all be all in this day and age. Be 5 lbs "overweight," not "pass" the tape test, but stand that solider beside another who "meets" both standards and you may or may not be able to tell any difference in appearace. AND the "overweight" soldier may smoke his/her comrade in the APFT and their ability to accomplish the mission, but guess who gets counseled and might be discharged? We should return both the standards to the commander to help him gage his unit readiness, not just have them a zero tolerance measure of who stays and who goes.

Response by MAJ Scott Wadyko made May 18 at 2014 10:26 AM

2014-05-18T10:26:40-04:00

As a commander, I would have traded my 300 apft scoters two to one for the kids I had to process out for being overwieght. Most of the 300s were shit after pt was over. I needed a soldier that could perform all day long.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made May 19 at 2014 1:51 PM

2014-05-19T13:51:50-04:00

I think that it should be considered only for NCOES and speciality schools. Send them to reclass otherwise they are of no use to the Commanders and they are not DMOSQ. But to join, yes have them graduate meeting the standards. Overweight is bad for their health as well as bad for Soldiers to try to pick up and lift when they fall out or are hit when in combat.

Response by PVT Private RallyPoint Member made May 20 at 2014 12:01 PM

2014-05-20T12:01:54-04:00

There is a thing we know is military circles called "bearing"
It is part of the 14 leadership principles. Look up JJDIDTIEBUCKLE on google.

Bearing implies that you look like a professional when in uniform. That means you have to meet height and weight standards as per your contract you signed when you enlisted or made your oath of office.

Rather simple explanation really.

Response by SGT Calvin Rhea made May 20 at 2014 3:48 PM

2014-05-20T15:48:35-04:00

The Army has certain standards that need to be up held. That being said I always passed the PT exams actually max out. ( Marital Artist) I had a roommate that was into bodybuilding with a very low BMI and our green uniforms were a hard fit for him they weigh him and told him he was overweight this really piss him off so he striped down to his draws and flex his muscles and challenge everyone present to a pushup, situp match and a 2 mile run in full gear. ( no takers bunch of lazy get by NCO's ) The tape and scale should be adjusted. There are skinny soldiers whom can not pass the PT test what do do about them?

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made May 21 at 2014 2:48 PM

2014-05-21T14:48:49-04:00

I have had weight issues all my career, but was always able to pass the PT test. My fault yes, need to meet Army standards, yes. But maybe, just maybe the standards need to be tweaked, just a bit?

1. if I was overweight and barred from attending rank advancement courses and other "favorable" actions, then I should have been ineligible to deploy. Perhaps the Army sees deployment as an unfavorable action, hence you are not barred from it if overweight or can't pass a PT test? Obviously a very simplistic view to a larger problem but a clear double standard is a clear double standard.

If I'm unfit for duty physically because of weight or a failed PT test then why do I have to perform the rest of my job? Doesn't "duty" mean your job in it's entirety? I'm 15 lbs over the line, but can still sit a desk and do my job, can still run a few miles for PT in the afternoon, the uniform looks fine on me so what's the problem - oh yeah - I'm "fat" according to Army standards. Again funny how this is an issue in garrison but not in some remote 3rd world sh!t hole.

If I am on a monitored weight loss program for failing the tape test and make weight why can I not come off the program? why does the reg say that if you got on the "fat boy" list because of the tape you have to pass the tape to get off, even though in my case I had to lose 15 additional lbs after making weight to make the tape

I never remember seeing a scale or tape measure by the entrance to the plane, nor a PT track just off the tarmac when boarding a plane for deployment - funny how things work.

Bottom line, agree or disagree (mainly the latter), I did what I had to get done to get where I am - "Retired with 20"

Response by SFC K. E. Woolfork made May 22 at 2014 8:51 PM

2014-05-22T20:51:20-04:00

IMO the question is skewed. DADT and gender have little if anything to do with combat effectiveness/ ability to do one's job meeting a published, well known and documented standard. Regardless of sexual orientation or gender there is a standard that we have to uphold by regulation.

An overweight Soldier is not meeting the standard and by regulation their opportunities are limited until such point that the DO meet it. You can call Suspension of Favorable actions discrimination if you want and you'd be 100% correct. Soldiers who do not meet the standard are "discriminated against". Soldiers who get DUIs are discriminated against, Soldiers who fraternize within their ranks are discriminated against, Soldiers who commit adultery are discriminated against. I could go on for days.

Overweight homosexuals and females (should) get the same treatment everyone else does . . .

Response by SSgt Stephanie Luck made May 27 at 2014 6:21 PM

2014-05-27T18:21:35-04:00

It's simple and it applies to all branches of the service. An overweight solider is unprepared and not combat ready solider. That what we are there to be... Combat ready. The military is not a 9-5 job. An overweight solider, Marine, sailor or airmen is a risk and liability. It doesn't make sense. If a female is combat ready and meets the standard, then don't hate and let her go. At least she's not overweight!

Response by Sgt Randy Hill made May 31 at 2014 10:08 AM

2014-05-31T10:08:39-04:00

This one hits me personally. I have seen many a time when I would pass the pt with flying colors and still be scrutinized for being of husky build. I believe the correct term for this should be over fat and not over weight. Also muscle weighs more than fat anyway. If your vital signs are good and you tape well and you pass pt then you are probably just as capable as any other serviceman.

Response by SPC Chuck Ousley made Jun 7 at 2014 1:10 AM

2014-06-07T01:10:09-04:00

Its not discrimination but at least the Soldier's NCO should be trying to find out WHY...and corrective action executed. If not...then the NCO is not doing his or her job.

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2014 1:10 AM

2014-06-19T01:10:19-04:00

I think they should, as should all branches. Every military member should be in ideal physical fitness and always ready for the unexpected. Plus, it is a pride thing to be in shape, which every military member should have pride. Also, you never know when you might be needed in combat while deployed forward. I am a supply admin clerk and have been in combat. Now let's say someone is overweight and gets injured in combat...now someone now needs to carry an overweight person with his gear on and become extremely unefficiant. I'm not say they should be extremely strick, but I don't think anyone should be above 28% BMI.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 19 at 2014 4:48 PM

2014-06-19T16:48:56-04:00

There are General Officers who are overweight. Does the Army discriminate them? It's too bad you have zero sympathy for anyone who fails the PT test. There could be a number of reasons why someone may fail and it may simply be just once. If someone fails consistently, then management is not doing their job. There could also be a number of reasons why a soldier is overweight. What if the soldier is a body builder? Even though that person is physically fit, they could still be overweight. Does the Army discriminate a Body Builder?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 22 at 2014 11:34 AM

2014-06-22T11:34:39-04:00

I know plenty of guys who fail height/weight that can actually out PT me. They're not heavy because they're obese/fat. They're heavy because they're ridiculously strong and the muscle density causes them to be "overweight." The army has an outdated process for determining whether or not a soldier is overweight. Just because someone weighs 190lbs and they're only 5'8 it doesn't mean they're unhealthy. I understand that in many cases the soldier is actually overweight due to excess fat, but you can't assume all of them are like that. The day the army focuses more on performance that appearance is the day we start making giant strides in the right direction.

Response by Maj Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 6 at 2014 4:31 AM

2014-07-06T04:31:25-04:00

Pass the test = meets standards. Look fat = service image issue. Looking the part can be just as important as doing the job. If all your bosses looked like slobs but were great managers/leaders, would you still follow them in to battle if you had only just met? First impressions can make all the difference, and sadly for those that have weight issues, they're already at a disadvantage.

Response by SGM Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2014 5:58 PM

2014-07-07T17:58:44-04:00

BLUF: Check the tags. Discrimination, Fitness, Standards, Military discussion. At any point do these things make sense together? No, they do not.

Not to come off as rude or disrespectful... But, DADT and MOS' open to women have not one thing to do with Soldiers being overweight or failing the body composition program. The fact remains that this system is not perfect and that there are better methods of acquiring the body fat %. It also remains that those methods are very expensive and would cost the military a lot of money. However, that being said its not even about the money. It is actually about full-filling our responsibilities to stay within the guidelines set by us through policy and regulation. In my opinion the most important factor is fat people are generally out of shape and usually fail or keep it borderline when taking the APFT. Not to mention we are a Profession of Arms it doesn't look very professional to be bulging out of your uniform. If you want to be fat, that is fine, go work in the civilian sector. The wonderful thing about the military is it does not need a single person who doesn't want to follow the rules it enforces. Lastly, you cannot discriminate against a body of individuals if the basis of that discrimination is found upon failure to meet a standard, it just doesn't make sense to me. That's like saying we should let all the 8th grade failures move on to 9th grade because we don't want to discriminate against them.

Deeds Not Words

Response by LCpl Steve Wininger made Jul 8 at 2014 1:42 PM

2014-07-08T13:42:22-04:00

I am not sure the what the regulations for the army are concerning someone being overweight now or then.

My experience, and we are talking the eighties here, is that most people that were too overweight were not allowed to enlist in the Marines. However, these were usually the most extreme cases where a potential recruit was not able to complete the basic PT requirements.

If a Marine had or developed a weight issue while serving, the Marine Corps gave them every opportunity to lose the weight. People develop different metabolisms and habits that affect weight and performance. I was one of those that had a weight issue while serving, only I couldn't gain weight. I was 102 pounds when I entered and a massive 110 pounds when I left the Marines.

We had a Marine in our platoon that was a football player in high school and was always working out. I remember once they suggested he go on remedial PT because of his size. He performed the PT tests without any major issues, but because he looked overweight, he was unfairly categorized.

Personally, i think a one size fits all standard is discriminatory. It would much fairer if the service member were evaluated individually based on performance.
Just my ancient two cents.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Sep 5 at 2014 8:24 AM

2014-09-05T08:24:04-04:00

I wrestled with this one for many years as a commander.

While I fully supported the Army's Weight Control Program, I empathized with soldiers who were honestly trying to maintain their weight within the regulations, but were having a hard time doing so. More than once I had to battle the "weight Nazis" (higher HQ, IG inspections, etc.) who criticized me for not administratively discharging overweight soldiers. I simply refused to do so, if the soldier was "making acceptable progress", even if he/she periodically fell off the wagon in meeting their goal. I argued that the reg stated that soldiers should be "considered" for discharge for failing to meet weight.

I used to joke that, instead of putting a soldier on a weight program, we should put him/her on a height program; i.e., make him/her taller so they fall within the parameters of the height/weight chart. I know it is not a joking matter and that many good soldiers have lost their jobs/careers due to weight. I just never subscribed to that line of thinking.

I think the key is if the soldier can accomplish his/her duties (to include the PT test). If so, I see no reason to discharge the soldier. I realize that appearance is important in the military, however, we don't discharge people for being ugly, do we?

I have said hundreds of times, and firmly believe it, that I would much prefer to have good overweight soldier than a bad skinny one.

Response by PO1 Michael G. made Sep 6 at 2014 9:52 AM

2014-09-06T09:52:52-04:00

LTC Jason Bartlett Sir, the difference is that there are legitimate health concerns regarding overweight service members, as well as the case that such service members aren't physically fit to serve.

When it comes to women have more roles in the military, or gays for that matter, the question always came down to, "Is this person (not this 'gay person', or this 'female person') fit to serve?" That's not so much an issue of political correctness--a topic that is mainly concerned with making public language bland so as not to offend anyone--as it is with actual discrimination. Those policies that banned gays and lesbians from openly serving in the military and that restrict certain MOSs and ratings from females are policies that are applied to the group without an individual determination being made.

That's not the case for an overweight person. When it comes to overweight service members, medical professionals determine that the individual is unfit for service.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 10 at 2014 12:36 PM

2014-09-10T12:36:56-04:00

The fact is that the tape test is unreliable as any standard measure of a persons health due to the variety of body types. While the APFT surely isnt perfect, I'd rather rely on those results to find out if a soldier is ready for anything physically demanding.
absolutely SHOULD single out those that do not have the discipline or drive to meet the physical standards, especially those in leadership positions. That being said, we need to rethink our approach to how we measure overall health and performance so it doesnt negatively affect high performers that happen to be a bit heavy.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 11 at 2014 2:23 PM

2014-09-11T14:23:40-04:00

As many have commented, the real issue here is the way the military measures body fat (with the tape test) and how the military bases who is "fat" or "overweight" based on the tape test. There is NO science to the tape test, studies have shown that it can be off by up to 15%. We can do better.

The argument against hydrostatic body fat measurements is usually that they are too hard to do or that the equipment costs too much. Some knowledge is required to use these systems, and they do cost a bit more than the tape used for a tape test. But they aren't that difficult to operate and they aren't that expensive, really. Remember, this is the DoD, which has a multi-billion dollar annual budget. I just did a google search; the first hydrostatic setup I found (http://www.vacumed.com/zcom/product/Product.do?compid=27&prodid=296) costs about $25,000. If DoD bought 2,000 of these, that would cost $50 million. Add in a couple million for annual maintenance, upgrade, repair, etc, and we could probably have a DoD-wide set of these for life for about $100 million. Chump change in the DoD budget.

The other argument against using technology to measure body fat is that the tape test can be used in austere environments, such as deployments. I've deployed a few times, and each time, not only were APFT requirements waived during the deployment, but so were height and weight requirements. So, I don't buy this argument, either.

VacuMed | Metabolic Testing equiptment, Cardiopulmonary Testing systems

Hydrostatic measurements are based on the assumption that density and specific gravity of lean tissue is greater than that of fat tissue. Therefore, lean tissue will sink in water and fat tissue will float. By comparing a test subject's weight measured out of the water and submerged underwater, body composition can be calculated.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2014 5:50 PM

2014-10-17T17:50:09-04:00

certainly the primary matter should not be weight but fitness but there needs to be some sort of uniformity to size and weight for simple matters of uniforms, vehicles, etc. there needs to be some limit established. the most important thing is that they physically have the fitness and strength to do the job. our appearance as a force should take a back seat to fitness and function. certainly the tape test does not measure fitness but being overweight is associated with a huge array of long term physical ailments. from the military healthcare financial standpoint, it may be cold but it does make sense to separate these soldiers before the long term consequences of their obesity take hold. that data is fairly well established; overweight IE larger BMI leads to many long term problems from high blood pressure, heart attacks, strokes, diabetes to lower back and knee problems.

and by definition, a standard means to discriminate against those who meet the standard and those who don't.
It isn't a bad thing, it is a practical choice.

the idea that we can not discriminate at all is absurd. then we should make sure we also do not discriminate against: people who are too weak to meet the standard, people who are mentally deficient, people with severe psychological disorders, criminals/felons, jihadists, anarchists, people who hate the US government, people who are critically ill, dead people.... wow this could be a very long list

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 17 at 2014 7:00 PM

2014-10-17T19:00:37-04:00

I suppose it depends on the definition of over weight bs being borderline obese. I do believe there is a rationale for looking at body mass as relates to the potential of future injuries and having to pay for those injuries through the VA system for the rest of that persons life.

we once had an overweight person in our unit who had knee problems and back issues. We were in a job that really does not stress your system, we don't do 10 mile ruck marches with 50 pounds packs on. They were put on profile initially. Then they had to get all kinds of medical stuff done. At some point the person was medically released from duty. That said person came back as a contractor. Because the injuries happened on AD that person was 80% disabled and now receives an 1800 dollar a month disability check for life after only 6 years of service. I can see why they would discriminate a little. How do you factor the injury as service related vs just naturally occurring because of their own body mass?

Response by PFC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 18 at 2014 12:09 AM

2014-10-18T00:09:24-04:00

Hello.
I am a active duty PFC stationed in Alaska as an 11B and I am personally going through this exact situation. I just took a PT test for record and scored a 297. I am currently 179lbs but the Army has flagged me for being overweight because I am "vertically challenged" at 5'7. It is keeping me from putting on my automatic SPC coming in a couple weeks and here I am having to cut weight and sacrifice my current workout regiment and very healthy diet to try and achieve these standards. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand the standard and agree with it being enforced to the max, I just cant help but be infuriated though when I see people I work with that can barely pass the standards or PT and skim by because they are taller. The standard should definitely be revised.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Oct 18 at 2014 12:23 AM

2014-10-18T00:23:36-04:00

I had this problem all my career. What is your definition of overweight? I am 62", and dress out at 177. I make tape every single time, but the Navy standards say that for my height my max weight is 147. I'm overweight, but I'm not out of shape.

I think it should some logic should come into play here, but we are talking about the military so logic won't really come into play

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 4:08 PM

2016-07-31T16:08:33-04:00

Sympathy for fat soldiers? Hell no. My only exception is if you have a legit medical condition that causes you to gain weight. I had shoulder surgery, and you know what didn't happen! I didn't get fat. I just watched what I was eating, and limited beer. If you can't find 1-2 hours out of 24 to go to a FREE GYM on base, you have no business in the Army. If there are people that are missing lims, still hitting the gym, there's no reason why a regular service member can't. People are just lazy.

Response by SPC James Anderson made Jul 31 at 2016 4:14 PM

2016-07-31T16:14:19-04:00

I was 6'3" 225-230lbs. Would score around 230 give or take on my PT test. Failed taped and flagged. I needed to join the fat boys club and do PT twice a day. Put on more muscle, weighed more, still did not pass tape. Always hated the tape test. For the life of me I still can not understand what height/weight standards have to do with anything. Might as well flag people for being left eye dominate and shooting with their right hand.

Response by Sgt Dale Briggs made Jul 31 at 2016 7:44 PM

2016-07-31T19:44:53-04:00

I read thru this and I'm sorry to be ignorant of the use of busting tape. Not a clue what that means, but in the Day you either passed or failed the PT test. The test was it, first class was the goal, I could never max the test either on the run or pull-ups, but I was always first class on the PT. Really not that difficult to run 20minute / 3 miles/ 14-15 pull-ups / max the sit-ups. Max was 18 on the run, 20 pull-ups , 60 sit-ups I think in one minute if I remember right. The minimum scores to pass anyone should be able to do whether your in the military or not. Body size didn't count, if they don't like your body size they should be nixed at the recruiting level. Doesn't make sense a guy gets thru basic, does well on PT tests and gets hassled because he's a big boned guy. Not everyone weights 140 lbs and is 5- 10.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 31 at 2016 8:01 PM

2016-07-31T20:01:10-04:00

The biggest issue with the weight standard is that although overweight soldiers get chaptered, underweight soldiers can prance freely gliding on the wind of being able to weight 108 lbs and do 70 pushups. We need to do away with the skinny weak soldiers who couldn't lift an average man out of burning HMMWV, instead of promoting him because he can max his PT test cause he weighs the same as my 8 year old son.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Jul 31 at 2016 8:23 PM

2016-07-31T20:23:30-04:00

In my last unit an NCO was accused of intentionally failing soldiers on tape tests. To test the NCO 6 soldiers were brought in (myself included) and taped by the accused NCO and then a second and third NCO. all in the same day back to back. What was discovered was that the NCOS performing the tape had not been properly trained. All 3 tests were vastly different for all 6 soldiers. My neck ranged from 14 to 15. My waist was 30-32, hips 41-43. I don't know how they resolved the situation but it did show that a serious problem existed.