Can a Commander retroactively flag an SM with an unsigned PT card and never having been counseled?

MSG (Join to see) - I'd still like to know why they failed. I've seen several cases where people were struggling with PT and it turned out they had some underlying undiagnosed medical issue that once treated cleared up their problem with PT. My nephew got chaptered out for PT failure and turned out he had an undiagnosed heart condition that the Army missed which was why he couldn't pass the run. Kid is 27 and had a heart attack about 6 months after his discharge. He's now working to get his discharge upgraded and working with VA on the possibility of getting his discharge changed to medical retirement since all indications are that military service made his condition worse.

LTC (Join to see) - Oh wow, hopefully he is doing better Sir, and can get what he deserves from the VA.

I think the main problem is the question isn't, "should the soldier have passed the PT test?" its "Can the command put a flag on a soldier retroactively six months after the fact based on a improperly filled out PT card when they discover the soldier is pregnant." If you look at it and say "no regulation prevents them from putting a flag on a soldier 6 months after the fact" you're not really addressing the situation in the proper context. The command should always act in a way that avoids the appearance of impropriety. They have failed to do so in this situation.

This makes me wonder....not excusing the CO, but does he still have a company clerk that maintains the field 201 file, health records and financial records? I have heard some of these are maintained by Bn, just as the mess section is now. So if this is so, could it be the CO was just made aware of the problem?

where's the proof they failed? where's the PT card? Where's the counseling statement? Without proper documentation it becomes a he said/she said and that's not barracks lawyering, it's just the facts. I've seen it a zillion times over the course of my career. CoC tries to flag, discharge, reprimand, whatever some dirtbag soldier but because they failed to document there is nothing they can do and PVT Snuffy skates.

LTC (Join to see) all they have to do is enter the APFT data into DTMS now. DTMS is the source reference for APFT data now. If a counseling statement is needed for the flag, which it is required, the counseling is conducted when the SM gets flagged

still doesn't get passed the fact that they failed to adhere to FM 7-22. If the SM wanted to make an issue of it, they could find themselves in much deeper trouble than this SM. SM failed APFT and is facing a flag. They violated AR 350-1 and could face UCMJ action under articles 92 and 98. Do they really want to go there?

You can't conduct a record PT test with unsigned cards. If no record PT test was conducted, then nobody could have failed it. Plus, trying to get out of the obligation to counsel soldiers is shady.

1SG Mark Flowers - bottom line: CoC screwed the pooch. AR 350-1 F-5 clearly states that the commander MUST follow all phases of PRT as outlined in FM 7-22. By regulation, following APFT failure a SM must be given another record APFT within 90 days. They just need to let this one go otherwise they are opening a massive can of worms that will bite everyone in the CoC in the ass. the SM wasn't counselled. the soldier wasn't put in remedial PT. the soldier wasn't given diagnostic every 30 days to measure improvement. the soldier wasn't retested within 90 days. If they push this and the SM pushes back, the consequences for them are going to be much worse than for the SM.

1SG Mark Flowers - exactly. This SM may have failed an APFT but her CoC failed her. She should have been put in remedial PT and given a diagnostic every 30 days to measure her improvement or lack thereof.