Posted on Mar 18, 2016
Can promotion consideration require a 200 PT score or higher, even though the soldier met the standard?
41.8K
138
108
3
3
0
Some soldiers met all standards set forth to make the EPS list, but didn't because the board would only consider those with a PT score of 200 or higher. Can they do that?
Promotion Board
Promotions
PFT
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 27
14
14
0
The ARMY created a standard. That standard is a 180 PT score to remain in the Army. Promotion criteria can be changed from board to board. There are some jobs out there that require the most physically fit people to be successful. There are some jobs that don't. There are some jobs that need a lot of people promoted quickly due to ETS or other reasons. If the ARMY doesn't like the 180 standard, then change it. If the Army wants to create a new rule that says only those with 200 or 250 can be promoted, then they might as well make that the new standard. The truth is the vast majority of jobs in the Army do not require 300 PT meatheads. The Air Force figured that out a long time ago. The Army also has fostered a culture that forces people to feel like everything needs to suck equally for everyone. Those that experience more suck than the guy next to them will complain constantly about it. They can't just be happy for the those who get to experience less suck. To summarize, the Army should either make 300 the new standard, or leadership should stop whining when someone meets the current standard of 180. What do you call a Soldiers who passes height/weight and/or body fat and makes a 180 PT Score? You call him a Soldier.
(14)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
The Army is within its right to demand that all who wear the uniform meet certain standards. We sign a contract.
I appreciate your focus on what's important, but a PT score is not simply about job performance. The Army has a vested interest in keeping Soldiers fit and healthy. If I was the NCOIC of a section of 15 series, we wouldn't do a whole lot of the hardcore 12-mile rucks or any of that other infantry stuff. I would take those guys and give them a work out to get the blood flowing so they would kick more ass on the job. They would also pass their PT test as a happy byproduct.
I appreciate your focus on what's important, but a PT score is not simply about job performance. The Army has a vested interest in keeping Soldiers fit and healthy. If I was the NCOIC of a section of 15 series, we wouldn't do a whole lot of the hardcore 12-mile rucks or any of that other infantry stuff. I would take those guys and give them a work out to get the blood flowing so they would kick more ass on the job. They would also pass their PT test as a happy byproduct.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - I agree, but I also agree with CW4 (Join to see) . If the Army says 180 is the standard, 180 is the standard.
I've also argued before that the Army should require that evaluations include APFT and height/weight/body fat data. This isn't a requirement on evaluations, other than PASS/FAIL.
I've also argued before that the Army should require that evaluations include APFT and height/weight/body fat data. This isn't a requirement on evaluations, other than PASS/FAIL.
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
So many people use the words "Leader" and "Leadership" but I'm really starting to wonder if people know what those words mean. A REAL leader cannot be defined by PT scores, brains, or ability. I've said this before and I'll say it many times again, true leadership is intangible. It can't be taught. It is either possessed or it is not.
(2)
(0)
MAJ Rene De La Rosa
One must consider how a SGT and above would be perceived by their troops if they could not do PT. It is a personal responsibility of the leader, and if 200 is all that they can come up with, they might have to consider another job (especially in this time period).
(0)
(0)
11
11
0
I would certainly hope that a minimum PT/PRT/PFT score would be an integral part of consideration for promotion boards. "Meeting Standard" does NOT equate to meeting EXPECTATION.
(11)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Mark Strobl - Absolutely agree with you when it comes to a "competitive environment" however, when we are looking at Statistical Analysis (AKA Composite Score) which does that for us, there is no need. It is "pre-sorted" in that PFT & Rifle Score already receive score-weighting. There is no need to set additional "expectations" for Recommendation/Non-Recommendation at the "Board Level."
In theory, the board is there to determine whether the candidate is Qualified or Not-Qualified and THEN compare them "competitively" if there are limited slots available. I'm not saying that a "low" score won't trigger a Not-Qualified.. but "meets standard" should still be classified as "qualified."
In theory, the board is there to determine whether the candidate is Qualified or Not-Qualified and THEN compare them "competitively" if there are limited slots available. I'm not saying that a "low" score won't trigger a Not-Qualified.. but "meets standard" should still be classified as "qualified."
(2)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Capt Mark Strobl - 30 months of company command recommending or not recommending Soldiers for promotion to e-5 and e-6 probably counts as experience with enlisted promotion boards. PT scores were always a small part of the points work sheet.
(0)
(0)
7
7
0
So the Army makes a standard but a bunch of well meaning folks decide that the standard, the ARMY STANDARD is not good enough for them and their purposes and so then makes their own "standard".
Right.
So somebody says 270 ought to be the standard. Another says no, 300 ought to be the standard. But wait! Why don't we make it 300 and since the APFT does not accurately measure fitness, lets make up some new events!
B.S.
NCOs enforce ARMY STANDARDS.
Sure, somebody's gonna say " add to, never take away from."
Right. Enjoy your trip down that rabbit hole.
The only times in my Army career I've ever struggled with PT was immediately before and after my back surgeries.
We have never lost a war because of unfit Soldiers.
We've lost a few because of rigidity.
Right.
So somebody says 270 ought to be the standard. Another says no, 300 ought to be the standard. But wait! Why don't we make it 300 and since the APFT does not accurately measure fitness, lets make up some new events!
B.S.
NCOs enforce ARMY STANDARDS.
Sure, somebody's gonna say " add to, never take away from."
Right. Enjoy your trip down that rabbit hole.
The only times in my Army career I've ever struggled with PT was immediately before and after my back surgeries.
We have never lost a war because of unfit Soldiers.
We've lost a few because of rigidity.
(7)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google