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

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:47:24 -0400

If you were allowed to select individuals that work for you, which quality would lend more weight to your decision.   <div><br></div><div>Would you rather have a Service member that knows all the ins and outs of their specialty but is mediocre at physical fitness or a Service Member that excels in physical fitness but is mediocre at their job.</div>

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 2:53 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:53:52 -0400

SSG Boze, great question, and for me personally it is a very simple answer, the quality is integrity, with a focus on the ability to achieve consistent quality results. Of course the ability to bounce back from and process failure into worthwhile L2, mentoring, and subsequent success is IMHO quite noteworthy as well.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 6 at 2014 2:59 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 14:59:04 -0400

Are you only ask about 'Physical Fitness' or 'MOS/Job proficiency'?

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 3:06 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:06:02 -0400

Work Ethic. That is all.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 3:11 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:11:29 -0400

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

Response by Col Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 3:14 PM

Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 15:14:50 -0400

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

Response by SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 4:04 PM

SGT(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:04:52 -0400

it's way easier to teach tactical knowledge and improve PT score then it is technical side of the house. I guess it would change though depending on the MOS

Response by MAJ Bryan Zeski made Apr 6 at 2014 4:08 PM

MAJ Bryan Zeski — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:08:55 -0400

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

Response by SFC Benjamin Harrison made Apr 6 at 2014 4:26 PM

SFC Benjamin Harrison — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 16:26:19 -0400

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

Response by SGT Jason Doyle made Apr 6 at 2014 5:56 PM

SGT Jason Doyle — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 17:56:16 -0400

It is far more important to be good at your job than to be physically fit and not know what you are doing. In Iraq, I had "Fat Body" troops that were some of the best troops I ever had the pleasure to lead. Whereas, some of the worst troops were the perfect PT scoring studs, but they were terrible at their jobs and needed to be micro-managed constantly to avoid them doing something stupid that would get someone killed. I will take the person best at their job any day over a PT stud.

Response by PO1 William "Chip" Nagel made Apr 6 at 2014 6:19 PM

PO1 William "Chip" Nagel — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:19:35 -0400

Physical Fitness is nice and important but I am a Navy Spook, Tactical Intelligence Communications Man. If I need to get a message to the President or National Seurity Council double time fast I need someone with technical prowess. I need someone that can think of all the communications available and their pros and cons.

Response by SGM Matthew Quick made Apr 6 at 2014 6:32 PM

SGM Matthew Quick — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:32:44 -0400

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

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 6:41 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 18:41:59 -0400

I've seen plenty of troops who could smoke the pt test but seemed like their heads were filled with concrete. My job is in operations so being proficient and having the ability to use common sense, critical thinking skills, staying professional, and being able to implement all this is well more important in that job than a 300 on the pt test. Don't get me wrong I don't want failures but so long as they pass and are proficient I'd take them over the meathead any day.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 7:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:15:12 -0400

Why not both?<div><br></div><div>*cue Mexican music*</div>

Response by WO1(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 7:50 PM

WO1(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 19:50:38 -0400

I believe a good soldier would know that he needs to be able to do both. It is difficult to get a lazy soldier moving, but we see all the time soldiers that haven't learned all they need. It is much easier to catch them up on that IMO.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 8:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:20:42 -0400

I think that PT is important and I am an avid runner; and pusher and sitter of ups. However, I need some idea that the person that I am working with can do his job. When a suicidal person comes in to see him/her, are they going to be able to de-escalate the situation and get this Soldier the help they need. Incompetence is not an option, nor an excuse.

Response by SGT Javier Silva made Apr 6 at 2014 8:32 PM

SGT Javier Silva — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:32:43 -0400

I would put more weight on proficiency. As a 94F, we deal with electronic components throughout our career, which deals with a lot of math and a lot of dexterity (have you tried fixing a JBPDS/BIDS?). The DoD puts way too much emphasis on PT and not enough on proficiency. How many contract workers could we reduce if our Service Members were more proficient in their duties AND the DoD would allow them to do so? A person can be physically fit; however, what jobs other than a personal can you get with that? Being physically fit does not make you a better Service Member than any of the others. Being good at your job doesn't make you a better Service Member, it just means that I can trust you to do your job. I think about both in and out of the service when it comes to this.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2014 8:45 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 20:45:40 -0400

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

Response by 1SG Frank Rocha made Apr 6 at 2014 11:23 PM

1SG Frank Rocha — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:23:25 -0400

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

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Apr 6 at 2014 11:31 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sun, 06 Apr 2014 23:31:16 -0400

As MSQ Quick said, I prefer a well-rounded soldier.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 12:21 AM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 00:21:53 -0400

"Sweat saves blood, blood save lives, but brains saves both" - Erwin Rommel

Physical fitness is important for the overall health and longevity of a soldier, but How good they are at their job is far more important. Look at our own leadership model. Pt score counts, but it pales in comparison to your ability to think, manage, and lead. Leadership comes from being able to strategize, to overcome, to apply critical thinking skills to the situation. Push-ups, sit-ups and running are the last thing that will help you if you need to think your way out of a bad situation. The army's mentality of physical fitness being the universal measuring stick for what makes a good soldier/leader is just plain ridiculous.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 1:50 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 01:50:22 -0400

Job proficiency 100%. A person will figure out how to run for a record high score from a bad situation like a baby learns to breath right after being born. I have never personally been involved in a situation that would mean life or death while in the military but I would assume when being shot at the number of push ups and sit-ups you did that morning don't really matter. In fact I will leave it to the words of Ron White "It isn't *that* the wind is blowin'. It's *what* the wind is blowin'. If you get hit by a *Volvo*, it don't matter how many sit-ups you did that mornin'."

Response by PV2 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 2:26 AM

PV2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:26:34 -0400

I have just recently joined, in fact I've only been at my first duty station for about two weeks now. I'm just putting this out but i'm a lazy individual so I just happened to be browsing facebook and found this. In my opinion I think both should be a priority, but as I have seen most of what has been said, I also lean more towards MOS/Job proficiency. I barely pass my push-ups and sit-ups, and get around a 70% in my run, and I know that I need to work on it and I am. Though since I am Como. I know that our job is way more important than being a "Pt Stud". I also agree that if we are on the battlefield that being both would be a great asset, i'm sure you want them to know how to react during a fire fight as well as not to be just an out of shape, overweight individual that you have to try and drag around. I would like to make this a career , stay in 20+ years and become a CW5 in Networking with a 300+ pt score, but I can't achieve that when I have someone in charge of me that thinks I need to be a "Pt Stud" before my MOS. All in all I believe that we should be more worried about our knowledge in our respective MOS' than being "fitter than fit".

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 2:46 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 02:46:07 -0400

Is both that uncommon?

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 6:06 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 06:06:48 -0400

I am going to have to be one of the odd men out on this. I say physical fitness. I up voted a few people cause they kind of said what I am about to say. We are Soldier Athletes by definition. The first thing on and the last thing off the training schedule is supposed to be PRT in the morning.

Most MOS can not function properly without being fit and healthy. I am signal so I will speak on that. You arrive at your site in the middle of the night and spend the next 24 to 48 hours unloading, hauling and carrying around equipment that weighs thousands of pounds. Then you go those 2 days on little to no sleep because the battle field needs there communications. That type of exertion to the body and mind can only happen if you are a fit, well oiled machine.

I would also like to point out like most leaders on here know your MOS sometimes means nothing. We are know many people who have suddenly became the NCOIC, team chief or SME of something that has nothing to do with there MOS. I personally have held slots in 4 MOS that are not my own. Because somebody had to do it.

Training Room, Operations, Arms room, driver or any other additional duty that has become a primary job. You may go to AIT to become one MOS but that will only last so long before you become a platoon Sergeant, 1SG, or CSM and stop doing your MOS because you have admin work to do now.

But you will always be a Soldier athlete that must keep your body and mind in top physical condition to combat the enemy. You want to be a SME that sucks at PT get out of the Army and become a civilian.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Apr 7 at 2014 9:57 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 09:57:54 -0400

Why not both? Why do some feel that it's one or the other? Can a Soldier not exceed in both areas? If I had three Soldiers to pick from, one was great at PT, one was great at their MOS and one was good at both; like Little Red Riding Hood I would take the one that is just right.

Response by SPC Christopher Smith made Apr 7 at 2014 10:03 AM

SPC Christopher Smith — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 10:03:07 -0400

Never been a fan of PT studs, I'd much rather you spend most of your time doing, and knowing every in and out of your job. If you are weak at your job, be a meat head and do the labor that needs to be done on a day to day basis. JMO

Response by SFC William Swartz Jr made Apr 7 at 2014 11:48 AM

SFC William Swartz Jr — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 11:48:45 -0400

Definitely wanted a young Tanker that knew his job; loader, driver, gunner and was not a "pt stud" rather than someone that can run like the wind but could load a main gun round, drive a straight line or hit a target when necessary.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 4:49 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 16:49:06 -0400

This has been a question on here several times? Someone else
asked this and goodness is it really that hard to find a stud that is smart in
other MOSs’. What happens when you job as a leader is to lead from the front when
you are required to physically be in front of your element on the side of a
mountain or in a tight fitting alley? I have seen leaders that are great
people, studs that had the common sense of a door nail but could learn with the
correct leader. If to choose I would choose a PVT that was a beast, inspiring a
little competition within my PLT and with the correct mentorship that leaders
are supposed to provide will become a great stud and thinking Soldier.

Response by SSG William Patton made Apr 7 at 2014 5:14 PM

SSG William Patton — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 17:14:19 -0400

That is an interesting question that I feel would be dependent upon the situation. If I am performing a task that requires physical endurance, then I would want someone in great shape that can be taught the basics of a a job needed to perform the mission. On the other hand, if job proficiency is critical to mission success, then job knowledge would be needed more than physical endurance. For example, during a firing mission where all 175mm and 8" guns were firing, all hands were called into action, including cooks and clerks. Physical endurance was required to keep the guns firing by humping joes. We also had a situation where FOs and their teams were descimated and RTOs were needed. We had personnal in the battery who possessed different job skils, but still mirrored what an RTO would perform when calling in fire. Though limited, the MOS of those called into action allowed them to function as an RTO and even the FO because map reading and calling fire were also aspects of the men who were called on to help. They had the physical endurance to work in a fluid field environment in the artillery and because working in a Met section required us to be able to read a grid ma and work a radio and theadolite, we could work as RTOs.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 6:28 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 18:28:15 -0400

The answer is both, but since I had to pick one, I picked physical fitness because it will benefit my health and unlike job proficiency that's something you don't play with. Don't get me wrong I hate when you have to explain yourself three times for the same task.

Response by SSG Zachery Mitchell made Apr 7 at 2014 9:04 PM

SSG Zachery Mitchell — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:04:43 -0400

I'll take MOS proficiency any day of the week. As long as they can meet the Army standard on the APFT(preferably exceed the Army standard) I am happy.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 7 at 2014 9:19 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Apr 2014 21:19:48 -0400

I can't help but laugh at all the comments on here. Most of the NCO's that have replied to this thread have said that they would take a soldier that is able to do his job more than a soldier that cannot max or at least do very well on an APFT. Which by the way, shows no ability to physically do the job of today's modern Army, depending on MOS of course. I agree 100% that the Army would benefit more from competent soldiers than masters of the 2 mile run(because we all know, that is the score that matters as long as you don't fail the other two). Even though i agree, my amusement comes from the actions and reactions to a soldier that does poorly on the APFT. You can say that you would rather have that competent soldier but MOST, not all, NCO's will be the first one to recommend punitive punishment or chapter instead of realizing that we as NCO's failed that soldier and must sacrifice our time to fix the issue. Lets reverse this mindset and work hard to instill the pride and discipline required for that soldier to succeed on his own.That's the way we were brought up right? That way, we can say that we truly were successful and the needs of our soldiers came first. Don't get me wrong, i do believe that PT is an individual responsibility to a degree but that mindset also has to be learned and its our job to teach them. Anyone agree?

Response by SSgt Lynda Bloomberg made Apr 12 at 2014 10:27 AM

SSgt Lynda Bloomberg — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:27:37 -0400

"I pick things up and put them down" doesnt mean you know how to do your job. Doing your job and doing it well is much more important than being able to pass a PT. As an aircraft mechanic in the USAF those pilots I'm sure would rather have us knowing our job than being able to run.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 10:37 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 10:37:49 -0400

I believe a great many Service Members understand the meaning of proficiency as it relates our jobs and why it is important. However, I do not believe as many really understand the importance of Physical Fitness within the culture or our Military. We all want that Service Member who does everything well on our team, but it is becoming more difficult to find Service Members that fit the bill on the Physical Fitness side more so than the one that is proficient at their job. For that reason alone, if I had to choose right now, I would choose the more physically fit Service Member.

The simple fact is that Physical Fitness has become less important, in many ways, to a great deal of Service Members for a number reasons. We as soldiers, and leaders (present and future), must all realize this and start to rebalance the scales so that this particular choice does not have to be made if that were the case.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 12 at 2014 7:53 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 12 Apr 2014 19:53:05 -0400

Have see many PT monsters but did not know which end of the torque wrench to use. That being said they are good to have around to unload trucks.

Response by 1SG Jim Wagner made Apr 13 at 2014 1:23 AM

1SG Jim Wagner — Sun, 13 Apr 2014 01:23:21 -0400

You have to know how to do your job. I do not care if you look buff, that does not win on the battlefield.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 16 at 2014 9:43 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 16 Apr 2014 21:43:46 -0400

As long as the minimum standard for Height/Weight/APFT is met and there are no limiting profiles I can fix fat... However, MOS/Job proficiency requires capacity which may not be available in everyone.

Response by SPC Charles Brown made Apr 18 at 2014 2:42 AM

SPC Charles Brown — Fri, 18 Apr 2014 02:42:14 -0400

Being physically fit is great, and to certain degrees all soldiers are physically fit. But as for me I would rather work with someone who is proficient in their duties. I was fortunate to work with soldiers and NCO's who were more proficient and willing to share their knowledge with me which in my opinion made me a better soldier despite the fact that I could not score over 225 on my pt tests. Being both is great, but in my opinion isn't really necessary.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2014 10:38 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 13 May 2014 10:38:59 -0400

We can work on their physical fitness

Response by LTC Paul Labrador made Jun 19 at 2014 6:47 PM

LTC Paul Labrador — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 18:47:26 -0400

Honestly it depends on what your job is. In the Infantry, physical fitness is a HUGE part of your job proficiency. In the hospital, I could care less how high your APFT score is, because if you don't know how to take care of a sick or injured patient, you are no good to me. One thing I can't stand about the Army is the one-size-fits-all mentality.....because in the real world, one size does not fit all.

Response by MSG Martin C. made Jun 19 at 2014 8:30 PM

MSG Martin C. — Thu, 19 Jun 2014 20:30:33 -0400

Well that depends if the job in question requires heavy lifting.....

Response by SFC Douglas Eshenbaugh made Jun 20 at 2014 2:09 AM

SFC Douglas Eshenbaugh — Fri, 20 Jun 2014 02:09:37 -0400

In my field a physically fit Soldier can carry out when you've been electrocuted. A technically proficient Soldier will not make the mistake that gets you electrocuted.

Work smarter not harder.

Response by SFC Sandy Halliday made Jun 26 at 2014 7:13 AM

SFC Sandy Halliday — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 07:13:02 -0400

I think that being physically fit in your role lends to being a more competent leader. Apart from leading by example it shows superiority and adaptability. When I was in service me and an NUC used to spend a few days in the french alps running twice a year. We would run and train ourselves to the ground and come back to recuperate at our chalet (worth a mention http://cruchaletschamonix.com because they would put out ice baths for us and protein shake's which was awesome). In '11 we were both promoted despite only spending 3 years in active service. If it wasn't for the training I think I would of gotten lazy and dispondent, so for me PT over (overall) competency definitely.

Luxury Ski Chalets In Chamonix | Cru Chalets Chamonix

Our luxurious self-catered Chamonix chalets sleep up to 12 people with prices starting from 1,375 per week. Cru Chalets Chamonix are rated 5 stars on TripAdvisor.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2014 10:38 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 10:38:51 -0400

Like others have already stated, it's easier to improve on PT. I'll take the Soldier that is an expert in AG functions. I can work on their PT during lunch hours and/or after work. It's harder to keep your focus to learn material when your hungry for lunch or longing to leave at the end of the day to attend your kid's school function. Don't get me wrong, I missed many meals and sports activities for the sake of the mission and for my Soldiers.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2014 1:02 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:02:05 -0400

Although I chose MOS/Job proficiency I think a lot can be said about a person in regards to how a person takes care of their body and the importance that they place on the standards.

Response by SSG Ed Mikus made Jun 26 at 2014 2:02 PM

SSG Ed Mikus — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:02:11 -0400

Physical Fitness in terms of being capable of doing their job, if their job demands a high level of fitness then yes. all of the active duty jobs require some higher level of fitness but i couldn't care less whether my fellow computer geek can max his PT test, but if he cannot accomplish his share of the work without excess assistance he becomes a drain on the unit and a thorn in my side.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2014 2:59 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:59:57 -0400

My personal opinion: I prefer Job Proficiency. Are you getting pay based on your APFT score?

Response by SFC Wallace Lopez made Jun 26 at 2014 3:45 PM

SFC Wallace Lopez — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 15:45:43 -0400

Both are important elements in the Army but having to pick one; job proficiency is more critical.

Response by 1SG Steven Stankovich made Jun 26 at 2014 4:25 PM

1SG Steven Stankovich — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 16:25:50 -0400

If I had to select between job proficiency or physically fit, I would choose job proficiency every day and twice on Sundays. Job proficiency is critical to mission success on many levels. While being physically fit does play a role in mission success and overall Soldier readiness, I rank job proficiency higher on a list of critical skills.

Besides, it is easier from a time and personnel management perspective to PT an individual to increase their level of fitness than it is to teach job proficiency (in my opinion).

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 26 at 2014 5:38 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 26 Jun 2014 17:38:29 -0400

I agree that it does depend on the job. I think depending on the job, physical fitness is part of the job proficiency. I think everyone needs to be physically fit, so says the Corpsman in me. But if I have two Sailors going up for a job, I will probably go for the one that excels at their rate and knows it inside and out, over someone that can do their job but spends all their time in the gym. I think this is a great question. To go further, I am sure that all of us have had a Sailor, Solider, Marine or possibly Airman that was the picture of physical fitness and is in great shape, but still fails the height/weight/BMI. Common sense needs to come into play, but I am going of on a rant and this should probably be its own discussion........ Cheers, Senior

Response by 1SG Alan Bailey made Jun 27 at 2014 9:02 AM

1SG Alan Bailey — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 09:02:20 -0400

I have worked with both, and I will take the Soldier/NCO/Officer that is job proficiency, now if they are physically fit that is a plus. But, in my experience and it is just lately the ones that are physically fit focus on that more than work,

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 27 at 2014 12:00 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 27 Jun 2014 12:00:32 -0400

I can said both are important qualifications, but one is more important then the other. On my opinion Job efficient is more important, because If soldiers do right thinks in their jobs, that take care others soldiers. Physical only take care of you, not the team. But, in our Army, Appearance is very important...

Response by SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau made Jul 4 at 2014 1:27 PM

SPC(P) Thomas Beliveau — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 13:27:13 -0400

If you can't meet language proficiency in my job, you're just taking up space, no matter how high your PT score is.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 4 at 2014 2:33 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 04 Jul 2014 14:33:45 -0400

Although fitness is important, it is not the only factor that need be considered. As long as the member is in standards job proficiency is more important.

Response by 2LT Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 7 at 2014 5:36 PM

2LT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 07 Jul 2014 17:36:05 -0400

Job proficiency without a doubt. Although PT is important, I feel knowing your job is way more important. If you can run a blazing 2 mile, but can't do your job, then what good are you? Getting in good physical shape is something that can be easier achieved than being proficient at a job. I value intelligence over fitness, but being physically fit is a must to wear this uniform and make the uniform and our country look good.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 2 at 2014 11:38 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 02 Aug 2014 23:38:09 -0400

A meathead is no good unless they know what they're doing. If they're just a packmule... they can get packing.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 1:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 13:56:41 -0400

I would rather have a smart moderately weak guy. It is far easier to impart physical strength on a body than it is to impart intelligence on a mind.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 2:10 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 14:10:08 -0400

I would rather the person I work with know their job. Any ID-10-T can work out hard and max PT.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 3:52 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 15:52:27 -0400

Seeing as I would rather have a Master Mechanic working on my car over a PT Stud Lube Technician, MOS/Job proficiency hands down!

Response by SSG Pete Fleming made Aug 8 at 2014 4:04 PM

SSG Pete Fleming — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 16:04:09 -0400

Everyone should be able to physically perform their job and of course it may depend on the job. If I were infantry I would hope everyone was more fit than say someone who works on a nuclear sub. In the same token the medic had better be very proficient, I don't care how many push-ups he/she can do when performing their job (real world).

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 7:12 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:12:36 -0400

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

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 7:18 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:18:05 -0400

That depends. Is physical fitness part of the job proficiency?

The way that you phrase the question, job proficiency is the obvious right answer. But it's not an either/or. For a lot of jobs, physical fitness is extremely important. Infantrymen have to walk long distances with heavy loads. EOD guys have to be able to move in heavy bomb suits. Everybody needs to be proficient in the basic warrior tasks and drills because everybody is potentially a target.

If it were just an IT professional stateside, then physical fitness isn't important. Dude can sit around and eat all the Fritos his heart desires and slowly fuse with his couch. But every soldier needs to be able to fight, and in that regard physical fitness is an integral part of job proficiency in the military.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 7:29 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 19:29:51 -0400

Job proficiency. I worked with enough motards who could max a PT test, but didn't know difference between their butthole and the hole in the ground

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 8 at 2014 8:57 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 08 Aug 2014 20:57:40 -0400

Not to discount physical fitness, but if it came down to it [drum roll please] send in the Marines ;-)

Response by SSG Toryn Green made Sep 3 at 2014 1:21 PM

SSG Toryn Green — Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:21:21 -0400

This is where the entire promotion system is flawed, especially when it comes to SPCs/CPLs going for their SGT. I'm seeing far too many dirt bag soldiers who happen to be really strong at PT get promoted. I'm sorry, but scoring a 300 on the APFT doesn't qualify one to be a good NCO, or show any type of leadership potential. The Air Force promotion system makes much more sense and the Army needs to incorporate some type of MOS proficiency exam into the promotion system. Simple enough, if you don't know the ins and outs of your job, you shouldn't be in a leadership position.

Response by SGT Richard H. made Sep 7 at 2014 12:31 AM

SGT Richard H. — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 00:31:27 -0400

C: All of the above. I'm an Infantry guy. Both are part of the job.

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Sep 7 at 2014 1:01 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 01:01:33 -0400

I don't generally worry about how fast my dentist can run, or how many pushups my S-1 clerk can do...

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 11:57 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 11:57:13 -0400

In my field you need to have both. An MP who is overweight looks worse once they put on a bullet proof vest. Then they have to possess the mental ability to do the job due to the legal ramifications.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 5:03 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 17:03:25 -0400

It is my firm belief that the more physically fit you are, the more self discipline and motivation you have. As long as the Soldier is not a complete knucklehead and is willing to learn, then the job proficiency will come in a much shorter time, than instilling self discipline.

Response by SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA made Sep 7 at 2014 5:05 PM

SGT Hector Rojas, AIGA, SHA — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 17:05:46 -0400

So as of the time of my response, 90% of respondents privilege job expertise over physical fitness in the context of the question, so what intrigues me is, why then are our leaders still privileging physical fitness over job expertise when it comes to recommending soldiers for promotion or schools?

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 6:49 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 18:49:50 -0400

Job proficiency without a shadow of a doubt. Someone who KNOWS what to do is a better asset than someone who is all "muscle".

Think of it this way. It is much easier to conduct physical fitness training for a job proficient individual but it is more difficult, as well as time consuming, to train a PT "stud" with the knowledge on how to do a job. Much more details go into the job than into physical fitness. Yes, I know physical fitness does have extensive details in it but you can only do so much physical fitness in a day while a person can do their job for many hours throughout the day.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 7:47 PM

SCPO Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 19:47:39 -0400

And why not both exactly?... Fat and smart or fit and dumb, so either they lack discipline or lack intelligence, sounds replaceable to me, I'll take both, the latter can join the other 99%.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 7 at 2014 9:34 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 21:34:58 -0400

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

Response by PO2 Tony Casler made Sep 7 at 2014 9:47 PM

PO2 Tony Casler — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 21:47:51 -0400

Fitness is important both from a health and military bearing point of view, but as long as the SM is within standards I find proficiency to be far more important. Scoring an "Outstanding" vs. a "Good" isn't going to make the least bit of difference if we have to react to an inbound missile.

Response by PO1 Shannon Drosdak made Sep 7 at 2014 10:39 PM

PO1 Shannon Drosdak — Sun, 07 Sep 2014 22:39:59 -0400

I have had some injuries that have caused me to not be able to do the PFA run, I've had waivers, but I am always the first to get the job done, teach and or explain the proper way in how to perform what the job requires. Me being able to run has no impact on how I do my job. I am with in standards just a little broken. Honestly if I had a guy that was a little over weight but performed his job above and beyond required I would take him over the guy that could pump out those push ups at an "excellent" rating but knew jack about his every day job. I hate having to pick up the slack for others on a daily basis. Good for you for passing your PFA that takes an hour once every 6 months that's great, now go learn something, and get to work.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 3:22 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 15:22:39 -0400

Back to the original question, I would prefer to have soldiers that are more technically savvy than physically fit. Now I am not saying that I want a master at their skills and overweight and can’t pass a PT test.
I believe as a soldier physical fitness is part of every MOS, I would prefer to work with someone that can meet the minimum requirements for the military and is technically competent rather someone who cannot grasps the concepts of his profession but can smoke me in PT.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 8 at 2014 5:15 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 08 Sep 2014 17:15:03 -0400

Job proficiency, you can get a 300 all day on your APFT, but if you are unable to perform your job then you are really not contributing to the whole of your unit, but you must maintain the army standard so fitness is important.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2014 2:48 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:48:17 -0400

I am biased. I am very good at my job. I am not a PT stud. However, I understand my weaknesses and I spend my lunch everyday in the gym. I think that MOS proficiency is more important than physical fitness but to be a good soldier/leader, you need to spend time working on that deficiency.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 22 at 2014 2:56 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 14:56:33 -0400

I think the point of this question is, why is there a minimum standard for PT and not for job performance? Fail a PT test twice and you are looking at a chapter, fail at your job twice and you may get a negative counseling.

However, score a 300 on your PT test and you get a badge, a day off, top of the list for schools, possibly a COA/AAM etc. Where is the rating for work performance? Yes, you get your monthly counseling which will say great job but there is no special badge, no reward, other than the P.O.B.

The Army puts more emphasis on Physical Readiness than they do on MOS qualification.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Sep 23 at 2014 3:42 AM

SFC Mark Merino — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 03:42:25 -0400

In aviation, a crewhief's skill translates to lives saved. Bring back the Specialist ranks!

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 4:21 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 04:21:22 -0400

I can teach someone how to do their job very easily, however I can't force an individual to stay in shape. Well I can, but if they want to eat all the ho ho's and ding dongs I'll just be wasting my time running them to death, because they'll stay fat. At the end of the day I still reserve the right to kick them out if they can't get it toghether.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Sep 23 at 2014 12:22 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:22:41 -0400

I think the obvious answer is job proficiency.

As long as the individual meets the physical fitness requirements of the service, it should be sufficient. Of course, the expectation should always be to achieve more than simply "meeting the standard", regardless of the job/task, and that includes physical fitness.

When the rubber meets the road, I would rather have a less physically fit person who can do the job than a super physically fit person who can't do the job. As I have often stated, "this is the US Army, not a beauty contest or a weight lifting contest".

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Sep 23 at 2014 12:32 PM

CPT Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:32:08 -0400

I would prefer a good mix of both, especially in a combat environment.

Response by SPC David Shaffer made Sep 23 at 2014 12:36 PM

SPC David Shaffer — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:36:06 -0400

I would want them to be job proficient but I wouldn't want someone who cut corners. Often the way a person takes care of themselves also shows their motivation and that their not afraid to work hard. So it would be set on a case by case basis with me. The important thing is that they know their job.

Response by SSG Michael Hathaway made Sep 23 at 2014 5:02 PM

SSG Michael Hathaway — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:02:51 -0400

Ideally, both would be great but honestly, I would rather have one who is more proficient at their job. (68W) How about you, would you rather have a medic that can run a 11 minute 2 mile or one who knows what medication you need for your ailment and what therapy plan is best suited?

Response by PO2 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 2:03 PM

PO2 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:03:31 -0400

In aviation maintenance I would much rather have the smoking technical expert that hits SAT-Medium than a gym rat that can't tell a hex bit from a torx bit. That being said, the gym rats are good at hauling the tool box out to the flightline.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 2:07 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 14:07:16 -0400

Job proficiency every time.

Response by SFC Melker Johansson made Oct 22 at 2014 4:19 PM

SFC Melker Johansson — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:19:45 -0400

My MOS is all about job proficiency. I have no use for a PT stud who can't type.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 4:26 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:26:47 -0400

If a job required a superb fitness profile, physical fitness would not be an issue. You rarely see a fat body that cannot PT in Recon/Spec Op units. It was MOS proficiency that always trumped PT score. While most of my active time was serving in a Reconnaissance unit, both were weighed equally. Most of us cross-trained, and we all PT'd like crazy. I still think the military should place emphasis on physical fitness standards first and MOS proficiency will come with experience. If I were talking about a supply guy however, he needs to know his job because there is millions of dollars of equipment at stake. I now work as a chiropractor, and I am looking for an office gal, so honestly I would like her to take her health seriously, so physical fitness will come first and I can train, train, train....it's like asking, would you rather have brains or bronze? I want the best of both worlds myself....because I have seen it; common sense is not that common.

Response by 1LT Nick Kidwell made Oct 22 at 2014 4:31 PM

1LT Nick Kidwell — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:31:10 -0400

I would rather work with someone who knows their job and meets the PT standard than an incompetent PT stud.

Of course, I would prefer working with someone who is MOS-proficient above their pay grade AND rocks PT to boot....

Response by COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM made Oct 22 at 2014 4:54 PM

COL Jason Smallfield, PMP, CFM, CM — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 16:54:49 -0400

I disagree with the either/or choice. My ideal candidate is the GEN Marshall proverbial "PhD who can win a bar fight". The either/or choice implies that one is more important than the other when, in my opinion, both are important for a Soldier. One reason we have military engineers is that civilians generally do not like to get shot at while working. Military engineers are therefore needed to both be competent in their job and to be physically fit enough to not just do their job but also to survive catastrophic injury. Simply stated, a Soldier is more likely to survive getting shot or severely injured if they are physically fit.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 22 at 2014 5:42 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Oct 2014 17:42:52 -0400

If I had to choose, job proficiency would win out just about every time. Very few exceptions.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Oct 24 at 2014 2:09 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:09:59 -0400

Give me both please.

Response by PO2 Rocky Kleeger made Oct 24 at 2014 2:54 PM

PO2 Rocky Kleeger — Fri, 24 Oct 2014 14:54:11 -0400

I don't care if they are physically fit to do the job, if they know the job I can learn from them

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 27 at 2014 2:17 PM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Oct 2014 14:17:40 -0400

As a young Sgt, we had a new Plt Sgt come in fresh off the drill field....he would make us do 100 push-ups at every formation, 3 formations a day, you do the math. He would say to our platoon, you may not be smartest platoon, but you will be the strongest. You can make someone strong, not quite sure you can make someone smart.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 18 at 2014 10:18 PM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 18 Dec 2014 22:18:38 -0500

Everyone can PT in one way, shape or form. Give me a job proficient Soldier over a PT stud/MOS dud any day.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 24 at 2015 11:00 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:00:48 -0500

It goes like this:

Heart Surgeon A: I graduated top of my class and I have been practicing for over 20 years, and I score a 190 on the PT test

Heart Surgeon B: I didn't graduate top of my class, I haven't practiced in a few years but now I am back at it again in the Army but hey, I score a 290 on the PT test.

Which one do you want to operate on your mother>

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Jan 24 at 2015 11:44 PM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Sat, 24 Jan 2015 23:44:30 -0500

Lets see, if we were needing to form a Greek phalanx and fight an enemy where we were out numbered 10 to 1, I'd still choose job proficiency.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Jan 25 at 2015 2:04 AM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 25 Jan 2015 02:04:37 -0500

Depends on the MOS. Since im aviation i will pick job proficiency every time.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2015 5:30 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 05:30:38 -0400

I really don't care about anyone's physical fitness level. A person needs to be able do his/her job well, at all times. If someone is "mediocre" at his/her job, they should not be in the position. Proficiency, attention to detail, knowledge, and attitude trump physical fitness any day.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Mar 9 at 2015 6:28 AM

Cpl Jeff N. — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 06:28:19 -0400

I don't subscribe to the tyranny of "or". A soldier, sailor, airman or Marine should be both phsically fit AND proficient at their MOS. Anyting less is accepting standards that could cost people their lives.

If some MOS's have become so "non military" such as medical/surgical that there is a move to not make the accountable for thier fitness then it might be time to turn those into GS roles and move on. I don't think that is the right solution nor do I think accepting substandard performance is the right solution.

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 9 at 2015 1:48 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 09 Mar 2015 13:48:53 -0400

I picked MOS/Job Proficiency because that is much harder to teach and grasp depending on the MOS. PT is PT, if you suck, do more of it...

But PT studs don't always make the best leaders or teachers or subordinates.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 10 at 2015 11:53 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 10 Mar 2015 11:53:43 -0400

Certainly depends on the job, but knowing how to do your job is far more important that your ability to run.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 18 at 2015 7:05 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 07:05:54 -0400

SFC Private RallyPoint Member said it best.

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Apr 18 at 2015 1:59 PM

SPC David Hannaman — Sat, 18 Apr 2015 13:59:48 -0400

It's easier to train physical fitness if you're willing to take the time. Harder to train out incompetence.

Response by PO1 Rick Serviss made Jul 26 at 2015 3:39 AM

PO1 Rick Serviss — Sun, 26 Jul 2015 03:39:12 -0400

Guess it depends on the situation.

Response by MSG Brad Sand made May 26 at 2017 2:05 PM

MSG Brad Sand — Fri, 26 May 2017 14:05:59 -0400

I think the answer would depend upon where one fell on the spectrum? If a person has a 290 on their PT test and rocks their job but the person can max their PT test but is not able to perform their job...no questions but if we are talking about someone who cannot even pass the PT test or someone who cannot meet the minimum qualifications of job...well both of them have to go.

Response by SSG Robert Perrotto made Jul 20 at 2017 7:02 PM

SSG Robert Perrotto — Thu, 20 Jul 2017 19:02:53 -0400

being physically fit does not always correlate into a squared away soldier - something I think leaders fail to recognize quite frequently. I am not saying someone who is marginally passing the APFT, but someone who regularly has a score of 260 or higher. I will take a troop that is proficient in their skills, is knowledgable in their field, and runs an 8 minute mile over someone who scores 320, but cannot figure out which way a bullet is loaded.