Posted on Feb 13, 2015
Should the Army's temporary and permanent PT profile system be changed?
37.5K
23
24
3
3
0
Should the Army National Guard change how easy it is for soldiers to produce temporary profiles two days before the APFT, and should they start to hammer down on those soldiers who do it consistently every year? I know of soldiers who haven't taken a PT test for two or three years and they keep working the system. I also know many soldiers who have been chronic PT failures in the past and many of them are magically able to convince the doctor to give them a permanent profile, and it would seem it is just a way for them to pass the APFT. There never really seems to be anything physically wrong with them they are just too lazy to get out there and do it for themselves. There are those who genuinely need a profile but many in my opinion do not. I am just curious what everyone's thoughts are on this because I see it as a problem that has plagued the Army for many years.
Army National Guard
APFT
Fitness
Posted 10 y ago
Responses: 11
3
3
0
yes it needs to change and fast. we have a medic who is obviously over weight and fails the run every time, falls out of every company run, and falls out of the ruck marches. she suddenly received a PP a day prior to her apft, an investigation was done and she didnt even have a sick call slip on record. the problem also is some leadership dont look further into the matter or keep track of profiles. we had a guy use a "no running" TP for almost a year, his leadership just took his word for it. I think if you dont meet the H/W standard and be currently red flagged you should be subject to medical review for separation if you try to get a profile exceeding 30 days or PP. It's only an opinion......
(3)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
i said if you are failing BOTH H/T AND FLAGGED FOR FAILING APFT. In every unit I have been in, you get flagged for apft failure and barred from re enlistment after your second apft failure in a row. If you are willing to bar someone from re enlistment(deeming them as not able to conform to standard) why wouldn't they do a medical review after an injury to see if their condition will keep them from ever doing the standard again??
CPT (Join to see) you are correct about the signing agent being out of line, he signed her profile because she made a big scene about getting demoted if she fails the next apft. I dont know what happened to him, but she was demoted after the investigation was done.
CPT (Join to see) you are correct about the signing agent being out of line, he signed her profile because she made a big scene about getting demoted if she fails the next apft. I dont know what happened to him, but she was demoted after the investigation was done.
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
here is an example. I received a gun shot wound through my elbow that doctors said will cripple my arm and that i will only have "if lucky" 30 percent strength in that elbow. before the incident I was passing my apft everytime averaging 280+ and never failed h/t or tape. I got on a temporary profile and actually healed almost back to full strength.
with my opinion i stated above had I been failing h/t, failed apft and barred from re enlistment I would be subject to medical review for separation after my injury. again...just an opinion
with my opinion i stated above had I been failing h/t, failed apft and barred from re enlistment I would be subject to medical review for separation after my injury. again...just an opinion
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - first, I think it's important to consider overall potential. The Soldier in us says "Get rid of everyone that's failing. Obviously they're a shitbag. You can't function as a Soldier 100%, get out." I'm guilty of this too, and this is why I nearly stepped out and resigned my commission...."A Soldier that can't deploy is useless to the Army" was my standpoint, at least with my own career. I worried that I'd take the slot while someone who could deploy would get canned.
However, the responsibility needs to be on the medical provider to make the determination on whether or not the injured SM has a future in the military. I disagree with bringing the MEB process into this for several reasons.
1.) An MEB triggers the IDES process, which means a disability evaluation. This educates a potentially malingering Soldier on how to get benefits from the Army.
2.) Ht/wt and APFT failures are ADMIN issues, not medical issues. Doing so can bog down an already overwhelmed system. Medical boards can be quick.....but also I know of a SM from firsthand experience that they can take upwards of a year. Medical issues can also muddy up the waters for admin issues,. Chaptering out for APFT/HT/WT failure is NOT a long process.
3.) Adding to the TIME of the disability and bogging down for our wounded warriors is one unacceptable consequence. In addition, the risk for providing what would otherwise NOT be LOD-related conditions to an MEB is that they may somehow get service connected....taking money away from veterans that HAVE service connections or are awaiting benefits.
Ultimately, the biggest issue in my mind comes down to the medical providers (I am a nurse/case manager, so I can understand). First, Medical providers are guided on questions that they are permitted to ask. To make an accusation of malingering is a gamble that many providers are unable to make. The risk for misdiagnosis leading to a congressional makes them nervous. Second, medical providers are by nature/requirement generally very empathetic. This means that until they become seasoned (read "calloused") they are at high risk of having the wool pulled over their eyes. I've seen profiles for SO many things, and can recognize the stupidity of the profiles. However, not all providers are do that.
The other extreme are those that are so jaded by the "games" that they will separate anyone and everyone for ANY reason, assuming that people are malingering and trying to separate for every infraction.
I understand the idea, and could somewhat relate to the concept. However, I think that the execution would equate to benefits potentially paid out that weren't deserved and delays to medical care from those that honestly deserve it.
Just wanted to share some counter-point experiences....since this was my job for the 2 mobilizations.
v/r,
CPT Butler
However, the responsibility needs to be on the medical provider to make the determination on whether or not the injured SM has a future in the military. I disagree with bringing the MEB process into this for several reasons.
1.) An MEB triggers the IDES process, which means a disability evaluation. This educates a potentially malingering Soldier on how to get benefits from the Army.
2.) Ht/wt and APFT failures are ADMIN issues, not medical issues. Doing so can bog down an already overwhelmed system. Medical boards can be quick.....but also I know of a SM from firsthand experience that they can take upwards of a year. Medical issues can also muddy up the waters for admin issues,. Chaptering out for APFT/HT/WT failure is NOT a long process.
3.) Adding to the TIME of the disability and bogging down for our wounded warriors is one unacceptable consequence. In addition, the risk for providing what would otherwise NOT be LOD-related conditions to an MEB is that they may somehow get service connected....taking money away from veterans that HAVE service connections or are awaiting benefits.
Ultimately, the biggest issue in my mind comes down to the medical providers (I am a nurse/case manager, so I can understand). First, Medical providers are guided on questions that they are permitted to ask. To make an accusation of malingering is a gamble that many providers are unable to make. The risk for misdiagnosis leading to a congressional makes them nervous. Second, medical providers are by nature/requirement generally very empathetic. This means that until they become seasoned (read "calloused") they are at high risk of having the wool pulled over their eyes. I've seen profiles for SO many things, and can recognize the stupidity of the profiles. However, not all providers are do that.
The other extreme are those that are so jaded by the "games" that they will separate anyone and everyone for ANY reason, assuming that people are malingering and trying to separate for every infraction.
I understand the idea, and could somewhat relate to the concept. However, I think that the execution would equate to benefits potentially paid out that weren't deserved and delays to medical care from those that honestly deserve it.
Just wanted to share some counter-point experiences....since this was my job for the 2 mobilizations.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
thank you CPT (Join to see) for your experience in the matter. It did help in seeing from a different perspective.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
SSG (Join to see) - Those that have had issues passing the APFT and receive permanent profiles are still required to perform alternate events. As a result, they are still required to perform the bike, walk, or swim....if they are unable to complete any one of the Soldier Tasks (top part of the profile), then they can STILL be flagged for MEB/PEB.
I would encourage your leadership to appoint a medical readiness NCO or officer to acquaint themselves with AR 40-501, specifically Chapters 3 (retention) and 7 (profiling requirements). As well as Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG) and the various Mods (last I knew was Mod 10 or Mod 11 I think??). This will help them when they are going to deploy so that a bunch of things don't pop on medical readiness.
One thing I will say is to use caution in judging people too. I have a permanent profile as my back is severely screwed up. Some days I'm perfectly functional, others I struggle with basic daily tasks. Even on my bad days, I keep the "normal face" so that only those that really know me can tell that I'm hurting when I'm in public.
The challenges come when you are talking about the balancing act on the personnel rosters from a command level. There is the need to balance medical readiness, but if you try to remove too many people for playing these games, then at times some of your command will look at you adversely because you are either uncaring ("You should try to fix them first") or are unable to retain a minimum percentage of your personnel (percentages are at least 70% before they start considering a roster "in the red", but deployability standards are between 80-95%.). When I mobilized we had a BATTALION that had taken a similar stance to the one you described, and we ended up REFRADDING (sending home) so many Soldiers that they had to combine two units into one. At least one commander/1SG were relieved for cause and various other major adverse actions taken against the chain for failure to maintain mission readiness.
It happens....but it's super important that Soldiers not be allowed to play the system to their advantages, as it affects deployability of the unit as a whole.
v/r,
CPT Butler
I would encourage your leadership to appoint a medical readiness NCO or officer to acquaint themselves with AR 40-501, specifically Chapters 3 (retention) and 7 (profiling requirements). As well as Personnel Policy Guidance (PPG) and the various Mods (last I knew was Mod 10 or Mod 11 I think??). This will help them when they are going to deploy so that a bunch of things don't pop on medical readiness.
One thing I will say is to use caution in judging people too. I have a permanent profile as my back is severely screwed up. Some days I'm perfectly functional, others I struggle with basic daily tasks. Even on my bad days, I keep the "normal face" so that only those that really know me can tell that I'm hurting when I'm in public.
The challenges come when you are talking about the balancing act on the personnel rosters from a command level. There is the need to balance medical readiness, but if you try to remove too many people for playing these games, then at times some of your command will look at you adversely because you are either uncaring ("You should try to fix them first") or are unable to retain a minimum percentage of your personnel (percentages are at least 70% before they start considering a roster "in the red", but deployability standards are between 80-95%.). When I mobilized we had a BATTALION that had taken a similar stance to the one you described, and we ended up REFRADDING (sending home) so many Soldiers that they had to combine two units into one. At least one commander/1SG were relieved for cause and various other major adverse actions taken against the chain for failure to maintain mission readiness.
It happens....but it's super important that Soldiers not be allowed to play the system to their advantages, as it affects deployability of the unit as a whole.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I agree CPT Jonathan Butler, that it is a balancing act that the unit has to do to weed out certain individuals. To just bring down the hammer on everyone all at once would leave the unit completely unfit for deployment and mission readiness. It would have to be a long, slow, arduous task and every suspected case would have to be looked at very closely. This would be important to ensure no one was being discriminated against. I always do my best not to judge too quickly because there are many soldiers who require a profile. But sometimes a pattern arises and when that happens the questions and suspicions arises as well. I appreciate your honest input.
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
SSG (Join to see) - I disagree it has to be a slow/drawn process. Ultimately, people are expected to meet standard. This is more of a case that medical profiling officers need to be evaluated, or additional personnel be appointed to NGB/USARC to review profiles. On the AR level, this is being done (to the point of being overdone). Our medical docs are not allowed to write profiles for our own Soldiers. This is handled at the RSC level.
The NGB and your local chain needs to be proactive before it gets to this point. Understanding the impact of mission readiness and the fact that we are doing force drawdown now.
If it is happening on a widespread level, I think a change of command may be necessary if your commander is unwilling to support. If he is, changing the medical providers for the profiling SME is perfectly valid as well. There is NO reason that the problem should get to that, and the time to act is now.
Why now? I don't want some combat vet getting a pink slip with 12 years, while some 3 year malingerer stays in to try to get some unearned benefits. Likewise, we have trained and experienced troops that WANT to stay in, so let's get the people out that can no longer perform the required duties. Otherwise, you end up with 1 vacancy (1 medically retired, 1 separated due to downsizing) that you have to fill instead of 0 vacancies. A trained and experienced Soldier is clearly more cost effective than training a replacement.
v/r,
CPT Butler
The NGB and your local chain needs to be proactive before it gets to this point. Understanding the impact of mission readiness and the fact that we are doing force drawdown now.
If it is happening on a widespread level, I think a change of command may be necessary if your commander is unwilling to support. If he is, changing the medical providers for the profiling SME is perfectly valid as well. There is NO reason that the problem should get to that, and the time to act is now.
Why now? I don't want some combat vet getting a pink slip with 12 years, while some 3 year malingerer stays in to try to get some unearned benefits. Likewise, we have trained and experienced troops that WANT to stay in, so let's get the people out that can no longer perform the required duties. Otherwise, you end up with 1 vacancy (1 medically retired, 1 separated due to downsizing) that you have to fill instead of 0 vacancies. A trained and experienced Soldier is clearly more cost effective than training a replacement.
v/r,
CPT Butler
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
I don't think the system needs to change. I think NCOs and officers need to follow the appropriate process. Counsel, counsel, counsel, and then apply the appropriate consequences.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google