16
16
0
This has been bothering me for a while. Sometimes leaders (officers and NCOs) will say things that we have learned throughout our career and state them as known facts without any regulatory guidance. The old adage, "you can add to a standard but not take away from it," is quoted often throughout the army. Yet, I have never seen any regulatory guidance on this. If you are the approving authority for a specific standard then sure, but let us be hypothetical for a moment. The minimum standard for an APFT is 180pts with 60 in each event, And with the new NCOER system I would give a Soldier who did exactly that score a, "met standard." Someone who scored a 260 or so would get an "exceeded standard," and one who scored 90 in each event or better would get "Far exceeded standard". But if adding to the standard is allowed and a Brigade says "270 is the standard" then the Soldier who scores a 268 would receive a "did not meet standard" on their NCOER.........this would create a deviating standard throughout units, expecially when it comes to senior promotions. BLUF can anyone provide regulatory guidance on being able to add to a standard? Also "adding" to a standard is a matter of perception, one person may say "the minimum passing weapons qualification for my platoon is 30, we are just adding to the standard" another will say "I scored a 28 on my weapons Qual but I failed, the AR says I passed but my PSG says I failed. He took away from the standard." ...........I want to get some honest feedback from all levels of the Army. Specifically, as to how it pertains to the new NCOER, and your general thoughts.
(******Disclaimer***** My personal PT, Weapons qual, and NCOER are great. I am not digging for dirt, I am simply trying to provoke thought out responses from senior leaders, junior leaders, and future leaders. I tagged SGM Quick because he is one of the most senior leaders in my career field and I am genuinely interested In his thoughts on this matter)
(******Disclaimer***** My personal PT, Weapons qual, and NCOER are great. I am not digging for dirt, I am simply trying to provoke thought out responses from senior leaders, junior leaders, and future leaders. I tagged SGM Quick because he is one of the most senior leaders in my career field and I am genuinely interested In his thoughts on this matter)
Leadership
Standards
Army Regulations
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
11
11
0
I personally dislike that quote, because to me, adding to anything is taking away from the intent of it. With that said, I also feel strongly about the "180 PT score is the standard." Here we have a test, a test that you know the answers to and take twice a year. We've told you that 180 equals a D. A passing grade. 300 equals an A. Why wouldn't you want to get an A on your test?
(11)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
To me a 180 is a meets standards. However, there is nothing stopping the rating chain from writing in the narrative scored 180 on APFT meeting minimum standard.
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
CPT Mark Gonzalez - If the Soldier scored either in the low range (sub-200) or excellent range (270+) I always note the score in the bullets. It is unmitigated fact of measured performance using a known standard, and allows the reader to determine where they rate vs their peers. I don't view it as a heavily weighted statistic, but it is an objective one.
(2)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
1SG (Join to see) - While I was in, our PFT score (and class) is on p1 of our FitRep (Sgts and above), so there was really no need to draw attention to it one way or another. I believe the reg (while I was in) was "above 285" (high 1st class PFT out of 300) received a special note, because it was "rare/exceptional."
CPT Mark Gonzalez The only concern I would have about writing up anything that said "met (minimum) standard" is that it falls outside the SPIRIT of the regulation and "invites Subjectivity" into the Objectivity of the Regulation.
If a SM "does not meet standard" there is a directed comment on the evaluation (generally per regulation, aka Objective Standard). Therefore by adding "met (minimum) standard" we are saying "did not meet my standard" which is counter to the point of having a Defined Regulatory Standard.
In theory, if it came down to "competitive assessment" at that level, the board should be able to view the scores as needed.
CC: MAJ (Join to see)
CPT Mark Gonzalez The only concern I would have about writing up anything that said "met (minimum) standard" is that it falls outside the SPIRIT of the regulation and "invites Subjectivity" into the Objectivity of the Regulation.
If a SM "does not meet standard" there is a directed comment on the evaluation (generally per regulation, aka Objective Standard). Therefore by adding "met (minimum) standard" we are saying "did not meet my standard" which is counter to the point of having a Defined Regulatory Standard.
In theory, if it came down to "competitive assessment" at that level, the board should be able to view the scores as needed.
CC: MAJ (Join to see)
(1)
(0)
CPT Mark Gonzalez
SGT Aaron Kennedy and 1SG Jerry Healy great feedback. The APFT score is visible on the ERB for the board to see as well.
(0)
(0)
6
6
0
I think this is a well-grounded question. So often we (I'm probably guilty of this as well) pretend we know what we're talking about when we really have no clue. A great reminder to stay grounded in doctrine, regulation, and policy.
(6)
(0)
5
5
0
THANK YOU! This is one of my Army Pet Peeves. I too have challenged anyone who parroted the "add to but can't take away from" phrase to produce a black & white regulation that states that. Thus far (9 years) no one has been able to produce any OFFICIAL guidance (in the form of a Big Army regulation). Sure, there are unit SOPs, but those cannot violate Big Army regulations and standards.
As for Big Army Standards and unit standards, when talking about APFT scores and BRM qualifications, that's fine as long as those INTERNAL standards are kept INTERNAL. Once you apply internal standards to external processes, like NCOERs, then you are failing the NCO, the Army, and the EES, as you are indeed affecting the entire NCO population across the Army by applying your own arbitrary standards. These same people will then complain when systems (like the EES) fail to fulfill their stated purposes. These leaders must understand that their units do not exist in a vacuum, and what they do (in terms of NCOERs and other external processes) does indeed affect an entire segment of the Army.
So until someone provides regulatory guidance on "add to but cannot take away from" I will continue to call BS on anyone dumb enough to repeat that tired old urban legend.
As for Big Army Standards and unit standards, when talking about APFT scores and BRM qualifications, that's fine as long as those INTERNAL standards are kept INTERNAL. Once you apply internal standards to external processes, like NCOERs, then you are failing the NCO, the Army, and the EES, as you are indeed affecting the entire NCO population across the Army by applying your own arbitrary standards. These same people will then complain when systems (like the EES) fail to fulfill their stated purposes. These leaders must understand that their units do not exist in a vacuum, and what they do (in terms of NCOERs and other external processes) does indeed affect an entire segment of the Army.
So until someone provides regulatory guidance on "add to but cannot take away from" I will continue to call BS on anyone dumb enough to repeat that tired old urban legend.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google