Posted on Jan 23, 2016
Army APFT: Should NCOs have a higher minimum 'standard'?
57K
219
137
13
12
1
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 74
PT is a small part of being a leader to me. If you have an NCO that scores 200 on the APFT, but knows his job and can lead and train Soldiers and an NCO that scores 330, but can't perform his job and instills no values, purpose and discipline in his subordinates, which do you take? I have no problem with senior leadership ensuring that the NCOs in their charge have and set high personal standards but if we are using an APFT score as a measure for continued service, we are missing the boat. The demands of the Army takes a different toll on each Soldier's body so while they may want to continue outperforming the "young bucks", it may not be possible. The senior leadership I had as mentors focused on what you ACCOMPLISHED and your potential to lead and continue to positively contribute to the Army, not your APFT score. That's what my Command Teams looked at for the Soldiers and what I was told senior promotion boards looked at. NCOs have so many other pressing issues to worry about than a PT score. The standard is the standard. As long as they can achieve, leave them alone.
(34)
(1)
SGT James Rosier
While PT is an important part. Last I checked being a great runner doesn't make you a better shot, or better mechanic, or better at knowing how to drive your troops in the best way. I've seen some guys great at pt but, their work ethic wasn't great and they knew nothing of the job.
(5)
(0)
SFC Justin Rooks
SSG Devin Cables, I see your point, but that logic doesn't always work out. I'm a transporter and I know plenty of Soldiers and NCOs that may not score 300, but can tie down Bradley's and M-1s on HETs and get them from Point A to Point B safely. I'm not familiar with the units you're in, but I have seen plenty of NCOs that pass the APFT that are stellar workers and leaders. I'm not saying that scoring a 300 doesn't mean that you can't excel and be a good candidate for continued service, which is evident because I am sure that that numbers of Soldiers that score between 180-250 exceed the numbers that score 300. If the APFT I'd going to be such a big part of consideration for continued service, they need to make it worth more on the NCOER. Again, I'm not saying that leaders should not motivate their subordinates to set and maintain high standards of physical fitness. You can be trained on how to increase your APFT score, work ethic can be taught. All I'm saying is neither of them are linked and just because a person does not exceed the standard on the APFT doesn't mean they aren't a good candidate for continued service. If that was the case, the Army would be smaller than it is now.
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Great great response. It's refreshing to see a senior NCO with that type of response! Give me a warm feeling inside. I've been in too many places where Pt was the be all do all and the individuals work performance took a backseat. I need soldiers who can do their job not just be strong and run fast! Thanks for the optimism!
(0)
(0)
Capt Jeff S.
SGT James Rosier - And the flip side to that is that the more motivated people lead by example and strive to maintain higher than minimum standards, so your higher PFT'ers tend to be self-motivated and end up being better shots and better leaders than say, the slugs on weight control.
(1)
(0)
I see where you're going with it, and part of me likes the idea, but I think the logic actually breaks down. If we make NCO standards higher than lower enlisted, then we should make senior NCO standards even higher than NCOs (can you imagine if they were not?). We should then make senior officer standards even higher than junior officers. If you follow this logic, the Chief of Staff and Sergeant Major of the Army would have the highest PT standards in the force, and I just don't think that makes any sense.
I understand the sentiment though. I don't think the way to do achieve the intent though is to increase minimums, but to promote more on people who reach higher levels of performance in their field (in both PT and other skills). Great topic.
I understand the sentiment though. I don't think the way to do achieve the intent though is to increase minimums, but to promote more on people who reach higher levels of performance in their field (in both PT and other skills). Great topic.
(24)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
Once again, LTC Yinon Weiss says something more elequoent than I could, lol! Thanks for all you do, keep up the great work.
(1)
(0)
SGM (Join to see)
SGT Sean Wike - I thought this way once upon a time. As a Brigade Master Fitness Trainer I've been tasked with administering the APFT to many a higher up, to include 1 and 2 star level. I'm always prepared to stand up for the standard but I've never had to. They've all completed pushups, sit-ups, and run to a high standard, most would have maxed at the 17-21 age group. BG Townsend (now MG Townsend, 18th ABN CORP) scored a 300 on his scale with 92 pushups, 90 situps, and a 12:15 2 mile run. At his age, he's not required to take an APFT. I asked him why he still did and his reply was, "Why wouldn't I?"
(2)
(0)
I understand where you are coming from because NCOs ( Officers and SNCOs included) should be leading from the front, however, I disagree. Typically NCOs have been in longer and multiple deployments have taken a toll on their bodies. The standards should be tied to age not rank.
(19)
(1)
MAJ (Join to see)
Great response.
The Army PFT was designed to measure aerobic fitness and upper body strength, not just as a measure of health.
I could see DoD going to pass/fail standards across the board. I could also see DoD keeping a gradiated scale---we do like to compete.
I don't have an issue using physical fitness as part of scaling for promotion. Fitness is important.
The Army PFT was designed to measure aerobic fitness and upper body strength, not just as a measure of health.
I could see DoD going to pass/fail standards across the board. I could also see DoD keeping a gradiated scale---we do like to compete.
I don't have an issue using physical fitness as part of scaling for promotion. Fitness is important.
(2)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Sir, fitness is synonymous with the word health, you are right though the intent behind the tests are to measure strength or endurance in their specific categories. I do agree that fitness is important but we are all built differently and I don't think a cookie cutter approach is the right way. I think there should be a service wide test that measures a service standard. We should also then develop MOS standards and make them both semiannually.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Jamie Grippin
I do agree that NCOs/SNCOs have been in longer and are more prone to the wear and tare on their bodies, therefore you need to make sure that they actually can keep up with the troops they are leading. The same would hold true for junior and field grade officers. And with the current trend of bringing women fully into the ranks they also need to be held to the same standard.
(0)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
When I was in at least the 3 mile run was age-adjusted. Gained an extra minute at age 27 then again every 5 years after. Only ever failed 1 PFT, only ever scored less than 1st class (the time I failed!) 1 PFT. Turned my ankle 1/4 mile into the run. Finished it though I missed a passing score by 12 seconds. PFT is for the branch's focus of physical fitness readiness. For Marines, that score represents both strength and endurance.
As a side note, at E1-E4 the PFT is used in your cutting score. However, it garners you less than 10% of the overall cutting score. Used to be if you want fast promote you went where the big points were: Recruiting and/or DI. IIRC, on the Fit Reps, there is a tick box for PFT 2 choices: [PASSED]/[FAILED]. I don't rightly recall if the Class was on there or not. A cutting board would have to be down to the wire between 2 candidates to look at PFT as the deciding factor. However, a mark of FAILED means you are rejected automatically.
As a side note, at E1-E4 the PFT is used in your cutting score. However, it garners you less than 10% of the overall cutting score. Used to be if you want fast promote you went where the big points were: Recruiting and/or DI. IIRC, on the Fit Reps, there is a tick box for PFT 2 choices: [PASSED]/[FAILED]. I don't rightly recall if the Class was on there or not. A cutting board would have to be down to the wire between 2 candidates to look at PFT as the deciding factor. However, a mark of FAILED means you are rejected automatically.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next